On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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. The argument is being made that consumers
> > should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
> > not enough internalization of externalities.
>
> >> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
> >> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
> >> could use bicycles.
>
> > You've totally missed the point.
>
> No, you have.

Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
he gives.

> He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
> presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen.

No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
constitutes efficiency.

> This is
> clearly demonstrated by the errors of omission he illustrated which are
> committed by vegans. A true efficiency equation would be far more complex
> than "veganism", for one thing it would use animals and plants in symbiosis,
> and it would utilize animals where plants were not as efficient to produce.
> An obvious example is the consumer choice between South American grown
> asparagus and locally obtained fish or game.- Hide quoted text -
>

All this is as may be, but it's completely different to Jon's
argument.

> - Show quoted text -