"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> rick wrote:
>
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>
>>>
>>>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming,
>>>>>which causes
>>>>>animals to lead miserable lives.
>>>>>
>>>>>The animals who live on factory farms have to be fed with
>>>>>plant
>>>>>products, the production of which will cause the death of
>>>>>wildlife.
>>>>>Animal products are an inefficient use of land,
>>>>
>>>>False. You have no useful definition of efficiency to
>>>>support that claim. It's purely a value judgment, not
>>>>a reasoned finding.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well, more land is required to produce a given quantity of
>>>animal
>>>protein than same quantity of plant protein.
>>>======================
>>
>> What research do you have that can prove this? And, which is
>> the definition of environmental destruction? That would be
>> crops, for the sarcasm impaired.... Animals can and do, live
>> and grow quite well on land that cannot be used for crops
>> without massive inputs from the petro-chemical industry.
>
> I don't have a problem with accepting that raising livestock
> uses more land than raising a nutritionally equivalent amount
> of vegetable produce.
======================
The difference is that he said "animal protein". That does not
by necessity require it to be a farmed animal. How does he
calculate the 'required' amount of land that supports any number
of different types of animals that can be used for food? Now,
maybe he can weasel word his way around and say 'produce' means
only farmed animals, but nature 'produced' this animal protein
just as well. so, I wasn't limiting myself to livestock, since
his statement did not.



It's beside
> the point. The point is, minimizing physical resource use is
> not the definition of efficiency. I'm waiting to see if Rupert
> can begin to figure out why it isn't. I'm not very hopeful he
> will.
===============
Don't hold your breath....