On May 31, 11:43 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.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.

That's my criticism of it, and the criticism is correct. But it *is*
offered as a smokescreen. The stupid "vegans" can't win the battle of
ethics, so they try to venture into economics with their stupid
"inefficiency" smokescreen, and they lose there, too.


> > 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 Rudy's
> argument.
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -