View Single Post
  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

rick wrote:

> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>rick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Rupert" > wrote in message
groups.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.


For all practical purposes, though, it will be.

I think the numbers actually get worse for the meat
side if you're going to talk about hunted game. It
takes more land set aside for wildlife to produce a
given amount of animal protein by hunting than it takes
to achieve the same amount by animal husbandry.

Again, it's not really the point.

> 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....
>
>
>