On May 31, 7:24 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > pearl wrote:
> > > On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> > >> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>
> > > [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>
> > >> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> > >> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> > >> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> > >> *consumption*.
>
> > >> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> > >> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> > >> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> > >> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> > >> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> > >> livestock.
>
> > > "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
> > > and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
> > > raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
> > > feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
> > > hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
> > > livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>
> > > The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
> > > going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
> > > going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
> > > longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
> > > deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
> > > be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
> > > fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
> > > livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
> > > back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
> > > them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>
> > Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
> > another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
> > inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
> > consumer demand.
>
> No-one's disputing that.

Yes, stupid "vegans" are. They're bitching that the demand itself is
for "inefficient" things. They're stupid, and they're wrong. Things
cannot be inefficient; the method of production of particular things
can be.


> > Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
> > as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
> > could use bicycles.
>
> You've totally missed the point.

No. I absolutely get the point. Stupid "vegans" - you, for example -
think people want "food". That's false.


> > People want meat. As long as the
> > meat is produced using the lowest price resource
> > combination, it is efficient in the only meaning that
> > matters.
>
> Ipse dixit.

False. That is *the* definition of efficiency, rupie-the-boy.

> > >> In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
> > >> there must be agreement on what the end product is
> > >> whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
> > >> you're looking at the production of consumer
> > >> electronics, for example, then the output is
> > >> televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
> > >> Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
> > >> sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
> > >> discontinue the production of television sets, because
> > >> they require more resources to produce (which they do),
> > >> and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
> > >> cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
> > >> be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
> > >> television set is going to cost several hundred
> > >> dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
> > >> not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
> > >> can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
> > >> monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>
> > > 'Livestock a major threat to environment
> > > [snip bullshit that isn't about efficiency]
>
> > >> What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> > >> "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
> > >> product whose efficiency of production we want to
> > >> consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
> > >> calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
> > >> don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
> > >> substitutable.
>
> > > 'Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-risk Population
>
> > >[snip study lesley never read, and that isn't about efficiency]
>
> > >> As in debunking so much of "veganism",
> > >> we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
> > >> restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
> > >> without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
> > >> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
> > >> efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
> > >> only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
> > >> obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
> > >> use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
> > >> than others.
>
> > > 'Cornell Ph.D. student works the land by hand at Bison Ridge
> > > Farming in harmony with nature
>
> > > [snip self-congratulatory bullshit that has nothing to do with efficiency]
>
> > >> But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
> > >> some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
> > >> and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
> > >> relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
> > >> looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
> > >> higher priced because they use more resources to
> > >> produce.
>
> > > Is horticultural produce subsidized like feed-grain, flesh, etc.?
>
> > >> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
> > >> production efficiency, they would only be buying the
> > >> absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
> > >> nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
> > >> there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
> > >> one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>
> > > 'Analyses of data from the China
>
> > >[snip bullshit that has nothing to do with efficiency]
>
> > >> If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
> > >> into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
> > >> would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
> > >> one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
> > >> garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
> > >> to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
> > >> so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
> > >> going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
> > >> You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
> > >> don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
> > >> and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
> > >> (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
> > >> advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
> > >> produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>
> > >> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> > >> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
> > >> then see if that product can be produced using fewer
> > >> resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
> > >> view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
> > >> radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
> > >> of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
> > >> view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
> > >> devices.
>
> > >> The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
> > >> that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
> > >> making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
> > >> of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
> > >> one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
> > >> "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
> > >> "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
> > >> meat production falls to the ground.
>
> > >> I hope this helps.
>
> > > "Isn't man an amazing animal?
>
> > Yes.