On Jun 1, 9:34 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> 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.

In my view, you've misread the argument.

> 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.
>

The ethical arguments for veganism (or some diet which is comparable
in terms of its impact on animals) are good ones. You've never offered
any good criticisms of these arguments in their strongest form, which
is simply: production of animal food products *usually* causes a lot
more suffering than plant food production, it is ethically obligatory
(or at least preferable) not to financially support gratuitous
unnecessary suffering when you can avoid doing so with no real
sacrifice, therefore it is ethically obligatory (or at least
preferable) to follow a vegan diet or at least a diet with only some
specially-selected animal products. That's basically the argument
which motivates most people to go vegan. You haven't shown that
there's anything wrong with it. You've shown that some of the strict
animal rights positions which are advanced in the literature might be
hard to sustain in a non-hypocritical way once we confront certain
facts about what it takes to sustain our lifestyles. Fine, so maybe we
should abandon these strict animal rights positions, or alternatively,
maybe we should make radical changes to our lifestyles such as growing
all our own food. But, if we decide to abandon the strict animal
rights positions, it doesn't at all follow that the status quo is
perfectly all right. You seem to think it does, but you've never
really produced any good arguments for this.

You've raised interesting questions about how far the ethical
arguments for veganism might be taken, and posed the challenge of
fitting them into a coherent and comprehensive ethical framework,
which is an important challenge. But you haven't shown that your own
ethical views are superior.

The argument you're addressing in this thread is really an
environmental argument, and I don't think you've done much to
undermine it. You haven't shown that the generally accepted definition
of economic efficiency has any bearing on the issue.

There are basically two arguments. One argument is that an individual
concerned about the impact of his lifestyle on the environment might
be rationally motivated to cut down on animal products. Interestingly,
I saw a news item recently indicating that the Environmental
Department of the UK Government appears to agree with this position,
although they fall short of recommending a vegan lifestyle, believing
that making such recommendations is not very likely to be productive.

Now, one way to read your argument is as a sort of free-market
environmentalism. You might be saying that the environmental costs of
meat production are fully reflected in the price, because as land,
high-quality soil, and so forth become more scarce, the price will
increase, and farmers who own land will have an incentive to farm it
in a sustainable way, and so forth. We might need some government
regulation to deal with the possible problem of anthropogenic climate
change, but never mind that. This is basically an economic debate, and
I acknowledge that your knowledge of economics is superior to mine,
but I also believe there are some qualified people who would take a
different position. Hence I suspend judgement on this matter. However,
I'm not sure this really affects the main point that an individual
concerned to reduce his environmental impact might rationally be
motivated to cut down on animal products. That's what the so-called
"efficiency argument" is really about. If you've got a good criticism
of this argument, then I don't think we've seen it yet.

Another argument, which Mylan Engel Jr. made in his essay "Taking
Hunger Seriously", is that if large numbers of people go vegan that
will have a desirable effect on global food distribution. He wasn't
very clear about the mechanism by which this would happen, but I think
the idea is that the demand for the crops which we produce to feed to
farm animals would decrease, hence the market price would decrease,
hence the parts of the crops suitable for human consumption would
become more affordable to starving people in the Third World, so that
fewer people would starve.

Now, perhaps you want to claim that this is shoddy economics and that
the effect in question wouldn't really happen. That's as may be.
Again, I acknowledge your superior knowledge in this department.

Alternatively, you might want to make an argument in moral philosophy,
saying that people shouldn't be coerced into making such choices,
because the entitlement theory of justice is correct, and that means
that, just as a suitor who is rejected because the object of his love
finds a more desirable partner has not had his rights violated, so the
starving people in the Third World who find it more difficult to buy
food because people in the developed world with more buying power want
to eat meat have not had their rights violated.

Well, that's all very well, but the suggestion that people should be
coerced into making those choices was never really on the table. The
claim was that if you were concerned about starvation in the Third
World you might rationally be motivated to go vegan. If it is conceded
that the effect in question would happen, then this argument from the
entitlement theory of justice doesn't really undermine that claim.

I'm not all that crazy about Mylan Engel Jr's argument. But the
environmental argument seems like a pretty reasonable one to me. If
you're concerned about climate change, or soil degradation, or
deforestation, then you might rationally be motivated to cut down on
your consumption of animal products in an effort to do something about
these problems. That's what all the talk about "efficiency" really is
about. Your notion of efficiency which is used by economists is not
really germane to the argument, as far as I can tell.