"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> 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.

No it isn't, I dealt with the same issues, what constitutes efficiency, and
the fact that veganism only pretends to be about efficiency. Efficiency is a
cover story for veganism, just like animal suffering.