Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-06-2007, 06:01 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 1, 2:47 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On May 31, 7:24 pm, Rupert wrote:





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.


Yes, stupid "vegans" are. They're bitching that the demand itself is
for "inefficient" things. They're stupid, and they're wrong. Things
cannot be inefficient; the method of production of particular things
can be.


They're saying that consumer preferences are having a pernicious
impact on the environment and on the global distribution of food. The
onus is on you to argue that this is false or that we shouldn't be
concerned about these things.

Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
could use bicycles.


You've totally missed the point.


No. I absolutely get the point. Stupid "vegans" - you, for example -
think people want "food". That's false.


Sane people do not dispute the fact that people want food. What you
are really trying to say is that I think that food is homgeneous. This
is not what I think, and I don't think anyone else thinks it either.
The argument is that meat production has effects which are
undesirable. The onus is on you to argue that these effects don't
really happen, or that they're not really undesirable. You haven't
made the slightest attempt to do that, so you haven't really engaged
with the argument.

People want meat. As long as the
meat is produced using the lowest price resource
combination, it is efficient in the only meaning that
matters.


Ipse dixit.


False.


It's clearly true. You offered no argument.

That is *the* definition of efficiency, rupie-the-boy.


The onus is on you to show that the considerations raised by the
argument you are attacking "don't matter". You haven't made the
slightest attempt to do this.



  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-06-2007, 06:05 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

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. You claim the argument
is flawed? Fine, then offer reasons why we should agree with you. You
haven't done this yet, I was simply pointing out this fact.

But it figures that's the one a stupid,
over-reaching **** like you would try to make.


I have not endorsed any particular argument for veganism in this
thread, I have merely pointed out that you have totally failed to
engage with any argument that is actually endorsed by a significant
number of people.

The irony of your calling me "stupid" and "over-reaching" is very
amusing. However, I won't bother to reply to your next post unless you
adhere to reasonable rules of civility.

  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-06-2007, 07:09 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

"Rupert" wrote
On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:


[..]
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. Also, we
could feed more people from a given amount of land. That's the sense
of "efficiency" being used. It shouldn't be too obscure. You may argue
that we shouldn't bother to take into account environmental
externalities or the fact that a lot of people are going hungry, but
that's precisely the point at issue. There's no "unbelievably stupid
mistake" involved. I hope this helps.


Why am I not surprised that the whole thing went right over your head?

  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-06-2007, 07:19 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

"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. He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen. 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.


  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-06-2007, 07:43 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

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.

- Show quoted text -





  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-06-2007, 08:03 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

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


Tasty and nutritious for whom? What if I hate it and do not thrive on it?

Vegans argue categorically that meat causes more environmental destruction
than plants, this is the insidious lie of veganism which hides the real
truth about agriculture, the truth that vegans can't abide in their
simplistic worldview, that in many cases plants are worse than meat. The
truth is much more complex, and it does not offer an easily defined soapbox
for groups like vegans to announce their moral superiority.

That's the wrong argument.


Sorry, I'm not clear here what you're claiming. You claim the argument
is flawed? Fine, then offer reasons why we should agree with you. You
haven't done this yet, I was simply pointing out this fact.


He's claiming that it's the wrong argument. He's made a considerable effort
to delineate his argument, you've done nothing in this thread, zero. And now
you're demanding HE offer reasons?? You have nerve, if nothing else.

But it figures that's the one a stupid,
over-reaching **** like you would try to make.


I have not endorsed any particular argument for veganism in this
thread,


Right, NOTHING. You say nothing, you refer indirectly and vaguely to implied
arguments allegedly made by other people. Then you have the gall to demand
that others support their arguments.

I have merely pointed out that you have totally failed to
engage with any argument that is actually endorsed by a significant
number of people.


Another one of your impertinent little references to the opinions held by
some cohort of "significant" people who shall remain silent.

The irony of your calling me "stupid" and "over-reaching" is very
amusing.


I'd call you a dilettante. Does that amuse you too? You project this
attitude that we ought to be grateful that a deep thinker like you deigns to
grace us with his presence. Well you ought to get over yourself rupe, you
ain't half as smart as you think you are.

However, I won't bother to reply to your next post unless you
adhere to reasonable rules of civility.


Nice little back door you painted for yourself there rupe, but unecessary,
you won't reply to any of his points anyway, you never do. You just posture
and bluff until we lose patience with you then you play the victim.


  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-06-2007, 08:10 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

"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.



  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-06-2007, 09:34 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 1, 5:10 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

ups.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.

It's a completely different approach to Jon's. Jon is rejecting the
conception of "efficiency" on which the argument is based.

  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-06-2007, 09:54 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 1, 5:03 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

ups.com...





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.


Tasty and nutritious for whom? What if I hate it and do not thrive on it?


Poor you.

I don't believe you that you don't thrive on it, that seems very
unlikely to me if you took reasonable efforts to plan your diet in a
sensible way.

If you really couldn't find any vegan food that you found tasty, well,
doesn't life suck. I've never met any other vegans with that problem.
Does that fact justify you in eating factory-farmed meat? Well, you
can have a go at justifying that if you like, that goes beyond what I
was discussing in my post.

Vegans argue categorically that meat causes more environmental destruction
than plants,


No. They argue that this is almost always true, which is undeniable.

this is the insidious lie of veganism which hides the real
truth about agriculture, the truth that vegans can't abide in their
simplistic worldview, that in many cases plants are worse than meat.


Give some examples.


The
truth is much more complex, and it does not offer an easily defined soapbox
for groups like vegans to announce their moral superiority.


The environmental argument for veganism is basically correct. A
typical vegan diet causes much less environmental damage than a
typical meat-eater's diet. Yes, there are some complexities. You know
perfectly well that I acknowledge those complexities, yet for some
reason you choose to ignore that fact. There are many different
arguments for veganism, perhaps they do not suffice to exclude every
conceivable non-vegan diet. If you want to berate people for not
acknowledging that fact, you should be talking to people other than
me.


That's the wrong argument.


Sorry, I'm not clear here what you're claiming. You claim the argument
is flawed? Fine, then offer reasons why we should agree with you. You
haven't done this yet, I was simply pointing out this fact.


He's claiming that it's the wrong argument. He's made a considerable effort
to delineate his argument, you've done nothing in this thread, zero.


Er, actually, no. I've explained why the argument which he's
addressing is an argument which no-one actually makes. When you say
"he's claiming that it's the wrong argument" you're just repeating
what he said, you're not doing much to clarify his point. Is he
claiming that that's not the argument he was talking about? Well,
fine, but then the onus is on him to show why anyone should be
interested in his refutation of the argument he was talking about,
i.e. that it isn't just a straw man he made up. Or if he's claiming
that the argument is flawed, then again the onus is on him to show
that. However that may be, he's done absolutely nothing to cast any
doubt on this argument.


And now
you're demanding HE offer reasons??


Yes. Because he hasn't offered the slightest reason to doubt this
argument.

You have nerve, if nothing else.


Well, that's a very interesting perspective you have, Dutch. Do you
think there are any reasons to doubt the argument, apart from your
pitiful whingeing that you haven't managed to find any vegan food that
you like? The issue is whether the benefits to the environment
achieved by going vegan are such as to provide rational motivation for
a concerned individual to go vegan. That's what the argument is about.
You want to try and argue against this, go ahead.

But it figures that's the one a stupid,
over-reaching **** like you would try to make.


I have not endorsed any particular argument for veganism in this
thread,


Right, NOTHING. You say nothing, you refer indirectly and vaguely to implied
arguments allegedly made by other people.


What I'm saying is that Jon's babbling does not bear on any "pro-
vegan" argument anyone has actually made. Since he obviously believes
he has undermined a popular argument for veganism that is a relevant
point.

Then you have the gall to demand
that others support their arguments.


Get a life.

I have merely pointed out that you have totally failed to
engage with any argument that is actually endorsed by a significant
number of people.


Another one of your impertinent little references to the opinions held by
some cohort of "significant" people who shall remain silent.


God help me, Dutch, you are so ****ing stupid. Jon thinks he's made an
objection to a widely promoted argument for veganism. He hasn't, and I
was pointing out this fact. Very simple. No impertinence involved.

The irony of your calling me "stupid" and "over-reaching" is very
amusing.


I'd call you a dilettante. Does that amuse you too?


Yes, I find it absolutely hysterical.

You project this
attitude that we ought to be grateful that a deep thinker like you deigns to
grace us with his presence. Well you ought to get over yourself rupe, you
ain't half as smart as you think you are.


Well, not that this has anything to do with finding it ironic that
Ball calls me "stupid" and "over-reaching", but actually, I'm afraid I
am. I've spent a lot more time studying moral philosophy and thinking
about these issues than any of you antis have. I've got a much better
insight into the arguments than you do. I know you don't recognize
that, well, that's fine by me. I don't need any validation from you.
I'm still happy to engage with you as long as you remain reasonably
civil.

However, I won't bother to reply to your next post unless you
adhere to reasonable rules of civility.


Nice little back door you painted for yourself there rupe,


Get a life, you stupid twit.



  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-06-2007, 10:28 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 1, 5:03 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

ups.com...





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.


Tasty and nutritious for whom? What if I hate it and do not thrive on it?

Vegans argue categorically that meat causes more environmental destruction
than plants, this is the insidious lie of veganism which hides the real
truth about agriculture, the truth that vegans can't abide in their
simplistic worldview, that in many cases plants are worse than meat. The
truth is much more complex, and it does not offer an easily defined soapbox
for groups like vegans to announce their moral superiority.

That's the wrong argument.


Sorry, I'm not clear here what you're claiming. You claim the argument
is flawed? Fine, then offer reasons why we should agree with you. You
haven't done this yet, I was simply pointing out this fact.


He's claiming that it's the wrong argument. He's made a considerable effort
to delineate his argument, you've done nothing in this thread, zero. And now
you're demanding HE offer reasons?? You have nerve, if nothing else.

But it figures that's the one a stupid,
over-reaching **** like you would try to make.


I have not endorsed any particular argument for veganism in this
thread,


Right, NOTHING. You say nothing, you refer indirectly and vaguely to implied
arguments allegedly made by other people. Then you have the gall to demand
that others support their arguments.

I have merely pointed out that you have totally failed to
engage with any argument that is actually endorsed by a significant
number of people.


Another one of your impertinent little references to the opinions held by
some cohort of "significant" people who shall remain silent.

The irony of your calling me "stupid" and "over-reaching" is very
amusing.


I'd call you a dilettante. Does that amuse you too? You project this
attitude that we ought to be grateful that a deep thinker like you deigns to
grace us with his presence. Well you ought to get over yourself rupe, you
ain't half as smart as you think you are.


Okay, let's just say for the sake of argument that I've got an over-
inflated idea about my level of insight into moral philosophy. Well,
there it is. We know what I think about it and we know what you think
about it. What of it? I'm here to discuss issues in animal ethics, not
to discuss my failings as a person. You want to set up a forum about
what a contemptible individual Rupert McCallum is, go ahead. This
forum is about animal ethics.

However, I won't bother to reply to your next post unless you
adhere to reasonable rules of civility.


Nice little back door you painted for yourself there rupe, but unecessary,
you won't reply to any of his points anyway, you never do. You just posture
and bluff until we lose patience with you then you play the victim.-


I made some perfectly reasonable comments about Jon's arguments, and
predictably, he immediately resorted to personal abuse. Which
basically means he's lost the argument. As always. It's not about
playing the victim. It's just that I've decided that I don't choose to
engage with people who want to argue about their opponents rather than
about the issues. Which goes for you too. Stick to addressing the
points I've made about Jon's arguments, not to commenting on my merits
as a person. Otherwise I won't bother responding.



  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-06-2007, 11:11 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 227
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

"Rupert" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 1, 5:10 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

ups.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.


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,
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.

  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-06-2007, 12:02 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 227
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

"Rupert" wrote
On Jun 1, 5:03 pm, "Dutch" wrote:



[..]

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


Tasty and nutritious for whom? What if I hate it and do not thrive on it?


Poor you.


Why poor me? I eat a delicious and varied diet. I am extremely fortunate to
have the resources and opportunity to have access to the very best food
available

I don't believe you that you don't thrive on it, that seems very
unlikely to me if you took reasonable efforts to plan your diet in a
sensible way.


You don't know everything, despite what you think. I followed a vegetarian
diet for many years, eventually it stopped serving my needs, and I did plan
it well. Humans have relied on meat as a source of nutrition since our
species evolved, why is it so difficult to believe that some people cannot
thrive without it at all times of their life?

If you really couldn't find any vegan food that you found tasty, well,
doesn't life suck.


Not at all, fortunately I am not hogtied by some irrational eating disorder
that controls my eating habits.

I've never met any other vegans with that problem.


None that would admit it you mean.
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...b-scen1b.shtml

Does that fact justify you in eating factory-farmed meat?


Oooo the big boogie-man "factory-farmed meat"! You forget that not everyone
cringes in horror when you utter that phrase.

Well, you
can have a go at justifying that if you like, that goes beyond what I
was discussing in my post.


How do you know I eat factory farmed meat? I have said to you that I can
justify it, just as you can justify eating conventional commercially grown
produce. That doesn't mean I do.


Vegans argue categorically that meat causes more environmental
destruction
than plants,


No. They argue that this is almost always true, which is undeniable.


No they don't argue almost, they're not the paragons of reason you portray.
Most vegans here say that it is cruel and horrible to kill animals to eat
their flesh. It is like a religious belief.

this is the insidious lie of veganism which hides the real
truth about agriculture, the truth that vegans can't abide in their
simplistic worldview, that in many cases plants are worse than meat.


Give some examples.


Surely I don't need to. The basic hard truths about conventional agriculture
are synthetic nitrogen, herbicides and pesticides, which strip the life out
of the food and the soil and pollute the water. Not to mention the
collateral killing of animals and exploitation of cheap immigrant labour.
Contrast this horror show with the raising of organic free-range livestock
in conjunction with plant foods in a symbiosis, as is done in some places.

The
truth is much more complex, and it does not offer an easily defined
soapbox
for groups like vegans to announce their moral superiority.


The environmental argument for veganism is basically correct.


No it's not, it's simplistic and basically misleading and dishonest.

A
typical vegan diet causes much less environmental damage than a
typical meat-eater's diet.


That's what I mean by dishonest. A person's morals are not based on
averaging, they are based on how well they adhere to principles which they
claim to believe in. The claim you just made nobody would disagree with, but
that is NOT the claim vegans make, they claim that is WRONG to kill animals
to eat their flesh. It is a visceral aversion to that act which they express
like a religious belief.

Yes, there are some complexities. You know
perfectly well that I acknowledge those complexities, yet for some
reason you choose to ignore that fact.


You don't talk like you acknowledge them, you wave your hand at them and pay
them lip service.

There are many different
arguments for veganism, perhaps they do not suffice to exclude every
conceivable non-vegan diet. If you want to berate people for not
acknowledging that fact, you should be talking to people other than
me.


There are no valid arguments for veganism, it's corrupt and should be
rejected by any thinking person. If people want to follow strict vegetarian
diets that is a different thing.

That's the wrong argument.


Sorry, I'm not clear here what you're claiming. You claim the argument
is flawed? Fine, then offer reasons why we should agree with you. You
haven't done this yet, I was simply pointing out this fact.


He's claiming that it's the wrong argument. He's made a considerable
effort
to delineate his argument, you've done nothing in this thread, zero.


Er, actually, no. I've explained why the argument which he's
addressing is an argument which no-one actually makes.


You didn't explain anything, you asserted it.

When you say
"he's claiming that it's the wrong argument" you're just repeating
what he said, you're not doing much to clarify his point. Is he
claiming that that's not the argument he was talking about? Well,
fine, but then the onus is on him to show why anyone should be
interested in his refutation of the argument he was talking about,
i.e. that it isn't just a straw man he made up. Or if he's claiming
that the argument is flawed, then again the onus is on him to show
that. However that may be, he's done absolutely nothing to cast any
doubt on this argument.


Did you even read what he wrote?


And now
you're demanding HE offer reasons??


Yes. Because he hasn't offered the slightest reason to doubt this
argument.

You have nerve, if nothing else.


Well, that's a very interesting perspective you have, Dutch. Do you
think there are any reasons to doubt the argument, apart from your
pitiful whingeing that you haven't managed to find any vegan food that
you like?


I not only found it unsatisfying after 18 years, as I said, it was not
serving my family's health either. Those are important concerns you little
shit, not pitiful whinging.

The issue is whether the benefits to the environment
achieved by going vegan are such as to provide rational motivation for
a concerned individual to go vegan. That's what the argument is about.
You want to try and argue against this, go ahead.


I could argue that you should only eat broccoli and tomatoes and nothing
else or something like that because that would arguably cause less
enviromental damage than the diet you advocate. I could argue that any
concerned indivdual should do that. What is your argument against that and
how is different than my argument against veganism?

But it figures that's the one a stupid,
over-reaching **** like you would try to make.


I have not endorsed any particular argument for veganism in this
thread,


Right, NOTHING. You say nothing, you refer indirectly and vaguely to
implied
arguments allegedly made by other people.


What I'm saying is that Jon's babbling does not bear on any "pro-
vegan" argument anyone has actually made. Since he obviously believes
he has undermined a popular argument for veganism that is a relevant
point.


Well you're mistaken, the bogus efficiency argument comes up all the time.


Then you have the gall to demand
that others support their arguments.


Get a life.


Get more orginal lines.

I have merely pointed out that you have totally failed to
engage with any argument that is actually endorsed by a significant
number of people.


Another one of your impertinent little references to the opinions held by
some cohort of "significant" people who shall remain silent.


God help me, Dutch, you are so ****ing stupid. Jon thinks he's made an
objection to a widely promoted argument for veganism. He hasn't, and I
was pointing out this fact. Very simple. No impertinence involved.


Yes he has, we hear it here constantly in one form or another, at least once
a week.

I Googled "Arguments for vegetarianism" and the first hit was this
http://puffin.creighton.edu/phil/Ste...etarianism.htm

And here is the text that follows right after the introduction

----------------------------------------------
The Arguments for Vegetarianism

A. The Argument from Distributive Justice

This first argument was advanced as early as 1971 by Frances
Moore Lappé,[v] and has been repeated by such philosophers as Peter
Singer,[vi] James Rachels,[vii] Stephen R. L. Clark,[viii] and Mary
Midgley,[ix] and mentioned in passing by still others.[x] The argument can
be reconstructed as follows:


1. 16 to 21 lbs. of grain and soy are needed to produce 1 lb. of beef. 6
to 8 lbs. of grain and soy are needed to produce 1 lb. of pork. 4 lbs. of
grain and soy are needed to produce 1 lb. of turkey meat. 3 lbs. of grain
and soy are needed to produce 1 lb. of chicken meat.[xi]

2. Therefore, converting grain and soy to meat is a very wasteful means of
producing food. [From 1]

3. Every day millions of human beings in the world suffer and die from
lack of sufficient grains and legumes for a minimally decent diet.

4. By choosing to eat meat when sufficient grains and vegetables are
available for a healthy diet for oneself, one participates in and
perpetuates a very wasteful means of producing food.

5. If one eats meat knowing 3 and 4, then one endorses a very wasteful
means of producing food, and shows an insensitivity to malnourished and
starving human beings.

6. By knowingly participating in and perpetuating a very wasteful means of
producing food, the meat-eater shows a selfish refusal to share with
starving human beings food that could have been made available to them, and
thereby shows disregard for the principle of distributive justice.

7. Developing nations mimic the dietary habits of Americans, and
Americans are setting a harmful, irresponsible example by wasting grain to
produce and consume meat.

8. Therefore, members of affluent nations ought to adopt vegetarian diets
and boycott meat so as not to be implicated in the wasteful and unjust
system of meat production, and to show concern for the welfare of
unfortunate human beings.

Basically, the idea here is that eating meat perpetuates a system which
indirectly harms other human beings. Therefore, to choose to be a part of
this system indicates a disregard for those people, and this in effect
contaminates one's moral character.
---------------------------------------------

Essentially the efficiency argument he dismantled.



The irony of your calling me "stupid" and "over-reaching" is very
amusing.


I'd call you a dilettante. Does that amuse you too?


Yes, I find it absolutely hysterical.


Good, its true.

You project this
attitude that we ought to be grateful that a deep thinker like you deigns
to
grace us with his presence. Well you ought to get over yourself rupe, you
ain't half as smart as you think you are.


Well, not that this has anything to do with finding it ironic that
Ball calls me "stupid" and "over-reaching", but actually, I'm afraid I
am. I've spent a lot more time studying moral philosophy and thinking
about these issues than any of you antis have. I've got a much better
insight into the arguments than you do. I know you don't recognize
that, well, that's fine by me. I don't need any validation from you.
I'm still happy to engage with you as long as you remain reasonably
civil.


I find you a complete waste of time. You're an arrogant toad who doesn't
answer questions and assumes he's right by royal appointment. And reading
and thinking a lot doesn't make you intelligent or smart. You can't aquire
wisdom by reading.


However, I won't bother to reply to your next post unless you
adhere to reasonable rules of civility.


Nice little back door you painted for yourself there rupe,


Get a life, you stupid twit.


I have a fine life thanks, and a healthy diet, in large part thanks to my
ability to break out of the chains of "ethical vegetarianism". And in case
you're concerned, I eat a restricted calorie diet, locally raised organic
chicken and locally caught salmon most nights, along with all organically
grown produce, and I would bet the impact on the earth and of animal
suffering caused by my diet beats the hell out of most vegan diets.

  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-06-2007, 12:34 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 113
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

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 -



  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-06-2007, 12:38 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 113
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

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.

You claim the argument
is flawed?


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


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


Already done.


You haven't done this yet,


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


I was simply pointing out this fact.


No, because it's not a fact.

But it figures that's the one a stupid,
over-reaching **** like you would try to make.


I have not endorsed any particular argument for veganism in this
thread, I have merely pointed out that you have totally failed to
engage with any argument that is actually endorsed by a significant
number of people.

The irony of your calling me "stupid" and "over-reaching" is very
amusing. However, I won't bother to reply to your next post unless you
adhere to reasonable rules of civility.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-06-2007, 03:15 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 113
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 1, 1:54 am, Rupert wrote:
On Jun 1, 5:03 pm, "Dutch" wrote:





"Rupert" wrote in message


oups.com...


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.


Tasty and nutritious for whom? What if I hate it and do not thrive on it?


Poor you.

I don't believe you that you don't thrive on it,


You disbelieve him because of your dogmatic approach, not because you
have any legitimate reason to doubt him.


that seems very unlikely to me


No, you mean it conflicts with your ideology, rupie.

That's the wrong argument.


Sorry, I'm not clear here what you're claiming. You claim the argument
is flawed? Fine, then offer reasons why we should agree with you. You
haven't done this yet, I was simply pointing out this fact.


He's claiming that it's the wrong argument. He's made a considerable effort
to delineate his argument, you've done nothing in this thread, zero.


Er, actually, no.


ERRRRRRRRR, yes, rupie - you've done zero apart from spouting classic
"vegan" dogma.


I've explained why the argument which he's
addressing is an argument which no-one actually makes.


You're lying. People *do* make this phony "inefficiency" argument.
The environmental argument is something different.

"vegans" say that the resources going to meat production are "wasted",
because it isn't "necessary" to eat meat in order to eat healthfully.
That is a misconceived efficiency argument, and people do indeed make
it. That stupid **** lesley has made it dozens of times.


And now
you're demanding HE offer reasons??


Yes. Because he hasn't offered the slightest reason to doubt this
argument.


You're mixing it up with another argument.

Understand, rupie, that even if the environmental effects of livestock
production were fully mitigated, it still would take more resources to
produce livestock, and "vegans" would be claiming, wrongly, that the
resources are "wasted".


You have nerve, if nothing else.


Well, that's a very interesting perspective you have,


No, you really do show an appalling amount of arrogance, rupie.



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Fried food heart risk 'a myth' (as long as you use olive oil or sunflower oil)" Christopher M.[_3_] General Cooking 34 07-02-2012 05:31 PM
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Fred C. Dobbs[_2_] Vegan 47 24-05-2010 03:22 PM
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Rudy Canoza[_4_] Vegan 448 23-03-2008 07:06 AM
+ Asian Food Experts: Source for "Silver Needle" or "Rat Tail" Noodles? + Chris General Cooking 1 29-12-2006 07:13 PM
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Jonathan Ball Vegan 76 28-02-2004 10:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017