On Jun 1, 8:11 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 5:10 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> roups.com...
>
> >> > On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> >> roups.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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > You did not deal with the issue of what constitutes efficiency. You
> > accepted (for the sake of argument only, perhaps) the basic premises
> > of the argument about what constitutes efficiency and tried to turn
> > them against the advocate of the argument, arguing that on this
> > account certain non-vegan foods would be more "efficient" than vegan
> > foods. It's a completely different approach to Jon's.
>
> > What you have succeeded in showing is the following. Let us ignore all
> > arguments for veganism except the efficiency argument. Let us grant
> > for the sake of argument the conception of efficiency advocated by the
> > efficiency argument. Let us assume that the typical vegan diet is
> > adequately "efficient". Then this argument will not suffice to rule
> > out some non-vegan diets. This is correct. Well done.
>
> What I am saying is that when advocates of veganism point out that consuming
> plants is more efficient from a strict calorie-conversion point of view than
> consuming animals, then extrapolate that to conclude that we should never
> consume animals, they are perpetrating a hoax. Nobody lives their lives
> according to strict caloric efficiencies, if they did then they would have a
> much more complex and difficult job than simply avoiding animal products.
>

Yes, the last point is certainly correct. I don't think anyone's
really advocating that we live our lives according to strict caloric
efficiencies. If they were, then of course you're right, they're being
hypocritical. It may, however, still be that people who are concerned
about the impact their lifestyle has on the environment might have a
rational motivation to go vegan. The typical vegan diet is not the
only possible equilibrium point between the desire to reduce one's
environmental impact and other, more self-interested desires, but it
is one possible equilibrium point. Someone might learn about the
environmental impact of modern farming and thereby become rationally
motivated to reduce their consumption of animal products, possibly to
the point of going vegan, possibly not that far, possibly even
further. Other strategies might be possible as well.

But this is a completely different point to the one Jon is making.
What Jon is doing is questioning the relevance of the notion of
calorie-conversion efficiency. That's a completely different strategy.
And I happen to believe he hasn't really addressed the most common
arguments that might be made for the relevance of this notion. So you
were wrong to say I missed the point. I was addressing Jon's argument,
then you introduced a completely new argument of your own, with which,
as it happens, I essentially agree.

>
>
> > It's a completely different approach to Jon's. Jon is rejecting the
> > conception of "efficiency" on which the argument is based.
>
> It's not a completely different approach, his was simply more thorough. The
> essence of his argument is that efficiency in the sense of choosing the food
> that causes the least environmental damage is not followed by vegans,

No, he never made that argument. He argued that the notion of
efficiency in question wasn't relevant.

> because avoiding meat and other animal products in and of itself does not do
> that, and that is essentially all vegans do. That is also the point I made.

You're seeing things that aren't there. Jon never made that point.
It's your point, not his.

> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -