View Single Post
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
George Plimpton George Plimpton is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/3/2012 3:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 3, 7:32 am, George > wrote:
>> On 3/2/2012 9:49 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 3, 6:31 am, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/2/2012 8:18 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Mar 2, 8:00 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 10:13 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again to share here.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo...

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. I really like the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." By that, he means the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either one.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about
>>>>>>>>>>>> the number of animals harmed by what you do consume.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why not?

>>
>>>>>>>>>> How would it?

>>
>>>>>>>>> Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot
>>>>>>>>> of suffering.

>>
>>>>>>>> Irrelevant. That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal
>>>>>>>> products you *do* eat.

>>
>>>>>>> I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature
>>>>>>> death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in
>>>>>>> order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal
>>>>>>> products.

>>
>>>>>> We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you ****wit. The
>>>>>> "vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. You must contrast it
>>>>>> with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you.

>>
>>>>> I will gladly do so when you specify which atypical diet you want to
>>>>> talk about.

>>
>>>> I have done, numerous times.

>>
>>> Really?

>>
>> Yes, and you know it already, too.
>>

>
> How interesting.


No, it's actually quite basic.


>>>>>>>> You know nothing about it.

>>
>>>>>>> That's not true.

>>
>>>>>> It is true. You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize
>>>>>> causes more animal harm. You don't know anything about the amount of
>>>>>> harm caused by *any* non-animal produce.

>>
>>>>> I know something.

>>
>>>> You don't know anything.

>>
>>> Wrong.

>>
>> No, right.
>>
>>>> You've already admitted to ****wit you have no
>>>> idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for
>>>> example.

>>
>>> Yes, that is true.

>>
>> So, you have no valid comparison for anything, because you don't know
>> any numbers for anything, and the plausibility case works completely
>> against you. You have no empirical case at all, and the theoretical
>> case crushes you.
>>

>
> You have not made any "plausibility case".


I have.


>>>>> Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are
>>>>> required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products.

>>
>>>> No, you don't know that, because you have no ****ing idea how many CDs
>>>> are incurred by either one.

>>
>>> Yes, I do know that.

>>
>> No, you don't.
>>
>>> Because almost all animal products require *more*
>>> plant food to be grown

>>
>> No. Monbiot wrote that hogs, for example, require virtually *no* plant
>> food to be grown.
>>

>
> This is false.


It's not false.


> It takes 8 pounds of protein in hog feed to produce one
> pound of pork.


Obviously you didn't read Monbiot's essay.

But these idiocies, Fairlie shows, are not arguments against all
meat eating, but arguments against the current farming model. He
demonstrates that we've been using the wrong comparison to judge
the efficiency of meat production. Instead of citing a simple
conversion rate of feed into meat, we should be comparing the
amount of land required to grow meat with the land needed to grow
plant products of the same nutritional value to humans. The
results are radically different.

If pigs are fed on residues and waste, and cattle on straw,
stovers and grass from fallows and rangelands – food for which
humans don't compete – meat becomes a very efficient means of food
production. Even though it is tilted by the profligate use of
grain in rich countries, the global average conversion ratio of
useful plant food to useful meat is not the 5:1 or 10:1 cited by
almost everyone, but less than 2:1. If we stopped feeding edible
grain to animals, we could still produce around half the current
global meat supply with no loss to human nutrition: in fact it's a
significant net gain.

Hogs do not require eight pounds of *protein* to produce a pound of
pork, liar. They don't require *any* amount of human-edible food.


>
>>>>>>>> Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially
>>>>>>>> farmed orange? Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze,
>>>>>>>> just state it, right now.

>>
>>>>>>> Obviously I wouldn't have any idea.

>>
>>>>>> Yes, obviously - my whole point. You don't know, and more to the point,
>>>>>> you don't care to know - you can't be bothered.

>>
>>>>> I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out.

>>
>>>> You don't care. That's all we needed to know. Concession noted.

>>
>>> I didn't concede anything.

>>
>> You sure did. You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to know.

>
> No, I didn't.


You did, of course.