View Single Post
  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
Rupert Rupert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 1, 2:47 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> 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.
>


They're saying that consumer preferences are having a pernicious
impact on the environment and on the global distribution of food. The
onus is on you to argue that this is false or that we shouldn't be
concerned about these things.

> > > 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.
>


Sane people do not dispute the fact that people want food. What you
are really trying to say is that I think that food is homgeneous. This
is not what I think, and I don't think anyone else thinks it either.
The argument is that meat production has effects which are
undesirable. The onus is on you to argue that these effects don't
really happen, or that they're not really undesirable. You haven't
made the slightest attempt to do that, so you haven't really engaged
with the argument.

> > > 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.


It's clearly true. You offered no argument.

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


The onus is on you to show that the considerations raised by the
argument you are attacking "don't matter". You haven't made the
slightest attempt to do this.