View Single Post
  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
Rupert Rupert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 1, 9:38 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On May 31, 10:05 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 2:48 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>
> > > On May 31, 7:14 pm, Rupert > wrote:

>
> > > > On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>
> > > > > Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> > > > > with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
> > > > > 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.

>
> > > > > In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
> > > > > there must be agreement on what the end product is
> > > > > whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
> > > > > you're looking at the production of consumer
> > > > > electronics, for example, then the output is
> > > > > televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
> > > > > Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
> > > > > sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
> > > > > discontinue the production of television sets, because
> > > > > they require more resources to produce (which they do),
> > > > > and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
> > > > > cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
> > > > > be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
> > > > > television set is going to cost several hundred
> > > > > dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
> > > > > not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
> > > > > can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
> > > > > monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)

>
> > > > > What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> > > > > "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
> > > > > product whose efficiency of production we want to
> > > > > consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
> > > > > calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
> > > > > don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
> > > > > substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
> > > > > we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
> > > > > restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
> > > > > without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
> > > > > If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
> > > > > efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
> > > > > only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
> > > > > obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
> > > > > use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
> > > > > than others.

>
> > > > > But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
> > > > > some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
> > > > > and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
> > > > > relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
> > > > > looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
> > > > > higher priced because they use more resources to
> > > > > produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
> > > > > production efficiency, they would only be buying the
> > > > > absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
> > > > > nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
> > > > > there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
> > > > > one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.

>
> > > > > If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
> > > > > into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
> > > > > would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
> > > > > one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
> > > > > garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
> > > > > to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
> > > > > so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
> > > > > going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
> > > > > You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
> > > > > don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
> > > > > and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
> > > > > (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
> > > > > advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
> > > > > produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.

>
> > > > > The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> > > > > to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
> > > > > then see if that product can be produced using fewer
> > > > > resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
> > > > > view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
> > > > > radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
> > > > > of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
> > > > > view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
> > > > > devices.

>
> > > > > The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
> > > > > that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
> > > > > making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
> > > > > of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
> > > > > one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
> > > > > "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
> > > > > "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
> > > > > meat production falls to the ground.

>
> > > > > I hope this helps.

>
> > > > The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
> > > > food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.

>
> > > That's the wrong argument.

>
> > Sorry, I'm not clear here what you're claiming.

>
> Of course you're not.
>


Well, if you could have foreseen that without my telling you, then
perhaps you should have made an effort to clarify what you were
saying.

> > You claim the argument
> > is flawed?

>
> Yes, because it's based on a misconception of efficiency.
>


Elaborate. How is the argument that meat production has undesirable
environmental consequences based on a misconception of efficiency?
Elsewhere you were saying this was a different argument to the one you
wanted to attack.

> > Fine, then offer reasons why we should agree with you.

>
> Already done.
>


Elsewhere you said this argument wasn't your target. Make up your
mind. How does anything you've said bear on the environmental
argument?

> > You haven't done this yet,

>
> Yes, I have. I have thoroughly explained the misconception.
>


Make up your mind what we're talking about, the environmental
argument, or your "efficiency argument" (which I am not convinced
anyone actually makes). Yes, you have demolished this "efficiency
argument". Do you claim that your points have a bearing on the
environmental argument? If so, you'll have to explain further I'm
afraid, I'm still in the dark as to what the relevance is.

> > I was simply pointing out this fact.

>
> No, because it's not a fact.
>


I believe it is a fact that you haven't addressed the environmental
argument, and I believe elsewhere you agree with me. But if you think
you have... well, by all means try to convince me.