On May 31, 7:14 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> > with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
> > 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.
>
> > 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.)
>
> > 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. 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.
>
> > 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. 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
> food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.

That's the wrong argument. But it figures that's the one a stupid,
over-reaching **** like you would try to make.