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
  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-06-2007, 07:16 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, 8:11 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

oups.com...





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


roups.com...


On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message


roups.com...


On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
pearl wrote:
On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp


[snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]


reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
*consumption*.


The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
livestock.


"Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?


The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05


Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
consumer demand.


No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
not enough internalization of externalities.


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


You've totally missed the point.


No, you have.


Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
he gives.


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


No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
constitutes efficiency.


This is
clearly demonstrated by the errors of omission he illustrated which
are
committed by vegans. A true efficiency equation would be far more
complex
than "veganism", for one thing it would use animals and plants in
symbiosis,
and it would utilize animals where plants were not as efficient to
produce.
An obvious example is the consumer choice between South American grown
asparagus and locally obtained fish or game.- Hide quoted text -


All this is as may be, but it's completely different to Jon's
argument.


No it isn't, I dealt with the same issues, what constitutes efficiency,
and
the fact that veganism only pretends to be about efficiency. Efficiency
is a
cover story for veganism, just like animal suffering.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


You did not deal with the issue of what constitutes efficiency. You
accepted (for the sake of argument only, perhaps) the basic premises
of the argument about what constitutes efficiency and tried to turn
them against the advocate of the argument, arguing that on this
account certain non-vegan foods would be more "efficient" than vegan
foods. It's a completely different approach to Jon's.


What you have succeeded in showing is the following. Let us ignore all
arguments for veganism except the efficiency argument. Let us grant
for the sake of argument the conception of efficiency advocated by the
efficiency argument. Let us assume that the typical vegan diet is
adequately "efficient". Then this argument will not suffice to rule
out some non-vegan diets. This is correct. Well done.


What I am saying is that when advocates of veganism point out that consuming
plants is more efficient from a strict calorie-conversion point of view than
consuming animals, then extrapolate that to conclude that we should never
consume animals, they are perpetrating a hoax. Nobody lives their lives
according to strict caloric efficiencies, if they did then they would have a
much more complex and difficult job than simply avoiding animal products.


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

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



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


It's not a completely different approach, his was simply more thorough. The
essence of his argument is that efficiency in the sense of choosing the food
that causes the least environmental damage is not followed by vegans,


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

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


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

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -




  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-06-2007, 07:40 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, 9:34 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On May 31, 11:43 pm, Rupert wrote:





On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" wrote:


"Rupert" wrote in message


oups.com...


On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
pearl wrote:
On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp


[snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]


reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
*consumption*.


The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
livestock.


"Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?


The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05


Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
consumer demand.


No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
not enough internalization of externalities.


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


You've totally missed the point.


No, you have.


Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
he gives.


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


No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
constitutes efficiency.


That's my criticism of it, and the criticism is correct.


In my view, you've misread the argument.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-06-2007, 08:13 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, 9:02 pm, "Dutch" wrote:

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.


When you say it wasn't serving your family's health, I'm not sure what
situation you're describing, exactly. Is it that some of your other
family members were financially dependent on you, and you were only
buying them vegan food because of your ethical beliefs, and they were
experiencing diet-related health problems? Yes, certainly, those are
important concerns. If I were in that situation I would probably have
consulted a dietitian. The ADA agrees that well-planned vegan diets
(supplemented by Vitamin B12) are nutritionally adequate at all stages
of life and have many significant health benefits. Was the only
solution to your family members' health problems for them to start
eating meat again? Well, that's as may be. I would want to hear what a
qualified dietitian had to say about the matter. Anyway, you made your
own decision about that situation (assuming that I have the situation
right). Perhaps you decided that seeing a dietitian was too expensive
and that you would just start eating meat again and see how that went.
Or perhaps you decided to see a dietitian and she advised you to start
eating meat again. I don't know. In my last post I was not really
trying to make a comment about your individual situation, about which
I obviously know very little. What I did was ask you for your view
about a particular argument. I guess I confused the issue somewhat by
making references to your "pitiful whingeing". If you want to say that
vegan diets are likely to undermine health and that undermines the
argument, fine, let's hear the evidence.

Anyway, I'm sorry you feel you have to swear at me. I really don't
think it's called for. There was an occasion a while back where I was
arguing that going vegan indicates a significant level of commitment
to reducing suffering, and you replied that in your experience going
vegan was no sacrifice at all and that I was a spoiled little punk.
Now you seem to want to say that it caused significant personal
problems for you. If I seemed to you to be suggesting that you stopped
being vegan for trivial reasons and that offended you, then I
apologize. I wasn't really trying to make that suggestion, I just
thought that your concerns about not having a tasty enough diet could
have been overcome with a little imagination. As I say, I know quite a
few vegans and I don't know anyone who finds the diet unsatisfying.
Obviously, you may have had concerns other than taste and I didn't
wish to suggest that any concerns you had were necessarily trivial.

I would have thought it should be possible for us to get on, at least
to the extent of discussing these issues in a reasonably civil way. I
mean, I don't have any personal grudge against you and I'm not trying
to offend you. If you really feel that the way I behave is so
offensive that you can't refrain from calling me a little shit, then
maybe we'd better just leave it. But if you think it might be possible
for us to have a polite conversation, then say so and I'll address the
rest of your post.

  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-06-2007, 08:25 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 2, 12:15 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
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.


The scientific consensus is that most people are perfectly capable of
thriving on a vegan diet. I'm perfectly justified in being skeptical
that it was impossible for him to be vegan and healthy.

that seems very unlikely to me


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


I mean what I say. It is unlikely, given what is known about the
nutritional adequacy of vegan diets, that he would have had to stop
being vegan in order to resolve whatever problems he was having.

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.


No, I'm afraid you're mistaken, Ball. For one thing, I haven't made
any arguments for veganism at all. What I've done is correctly point
out that you're misconstruing the argument that meat production is a
wasteful use of resources. It's nothing to do with economic
efficiency.

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


You're lying.


No, I'm not. I sincerely believe what I'm saying.

People *do* make this phony "inefficiency" argument.


Show me where.

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.


Very interesting. Well, I've never seen anyone make it. There are
closely related arguments about environmental impact and food
distribution. I'd never encountered anyone who totally divorces the
argument from those concerns. Why would anyone care about how much
resources are used, apart from these other concerns?

You think people really do make this argument, well you might be
right, frankly I think there's a pretty good chance you might just be
misreading them. I'm not all that fussed either way, anyway. Yes,
you're correct that the argument is flawed, but it's a bit like
shooting fish in a barrel, isn't it?

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".


Says you. I really find it very implausible. But I'm not too fussed.
If it was your goal to demolish this argument, well, congratulations,
you've succeeded.

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.


Ball, you're a fool. Your hobby is treating people you meet on usenet
like dirt. *That* is arrogance. I express myself in a reasonable and
polite way. You calling me arrogant is utterly absurd.

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-06-2007, 08:32 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, 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.




  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-06-2007, 08:42 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 2, 4:16 pm, Rupert wrote:
On Jun 1, 8:11 pm, "Dutch" wrote:





"Rupert" wrote in message


roups.com...


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


roups.com...


On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message


roups.com...


On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
pearl wrote:
On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp


[snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]


reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
*consumption*.


The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
livestock.


"Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?


The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05


Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
consumer demand.


No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
not enough internalization of externalities.


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


You've totally missed the point.


No, you have.


Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
he gives.


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


No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
constitutes efficiency.


This is
clearly demonstrated by the errors of omission he illustrated which
are
committed by vegans. A true efficiency equation would be far more
complex
than "veganism", for one thing it would use animals and plants in
symbiosis,
and it would utilize animals where plants were not as efficient to
produce.
An obvious example is the consumer choice between South American grown
asparagus and locally obtained fish or game.- Hide quoted text -


All this is as may be, but it's completely different to Jon's
argument.


No it isn't, I dealt with the same issues, what constitutes efficiency,
and
the fact that veganism only pretends to be about efficiency. Efficiency
is a
cover story for veganism, just like animal suffering.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


You did not deal with the issue of what constitutes efficiency. You
accepted (for the sake of argument only, perhaps) the basic premises
of the argument about what constitutes efficiency and tried to turn
them against the advocate of the argument, arguing that on this
account certain non-vegan foods would be more "efficient" than vegan
foods. It's a completely different approach to Jon's.


What you have succeeded in showing is the following. Let us ignore all
arguments for veganism except the efficiency argument. Let us grant
for the sake of argument the conception of efficiency advocated by the
efficiency argument. Let us assume that the typical vegan diet is
adequately "efficient". Then this argument will not suffice to rule
out some non-vegan diets. This is correct. Well done.


What I am saying is that when advocates of veganism point out that consuming
plants is more efficient from a strict calorie-conversion point of view than
consuming animals, then extrapolate that to conclude that we should never
consume animals, they are perpetrating a hoax. Nobody lives their lives
according to strict caloric efficiencies, if they did then they would have a
much more complex and difficult job than simply avoiding animal products.


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

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



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


It's not a completely different approach, his was simply more thorough. The
essence of his argument is that efficiency in the sense of choosing the food
that causes the least environmental damage is not followed by vegans,


No, he never made that argument.


Sorry, he did make this point in his first post. But it's not his main
point, it's just an aside. It's certainly not the "essence of his
argument". There were no grounds for saying I'd missed the point just
because I didn't comment on this observation he'd made.

But yes, he did make the point, and of course the observation is
correct, eating a diet which is optimal in terms of resources-per-
calories requires more than just veganism.


He argued that the notion of
efficiency in question wasn't relevant.

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


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



- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-06-2007, 02:58 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Rupert wrote:
On Jun 1, 9:34 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On May 31, 11:43 pm, Rupert wrote:





On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message
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.

That's my criticism of it, and the criticism is correct.


In my view, you've misread the argument.


Your myopically limited view, and of course, you're
wrong. You haven't been here as long as I have.

"vegans" do it all the time, rupie: they claim it is
an "inefficient" use of resources to produce meat - and
they are wrong, for the well elaborated reason I gave.


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


The ethical arguments for veganism (or some diet which is comparable
in terms of its impact on animals) are good ones.


They are sophomoric and wrong; they're just shit. The
fact that YOU participate in animal killing proves it.



You've never offered
any good criticisms of these arguments in their strongest form, [snip 1500 words of chaff]


I've offered very good criticisms of them in all their
forms, and their strongest form is quite weak indeed.
  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-06-2007, 03:18 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Rupert wrote:
On Jun 2, 12:15 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jun 1, 1:54 am, Rupert wrote:





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,

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


The scientific consensus is that most people are perfectly capable of
thriving on a vegan diet. I'm perfectly justified in being skeptical
that it was impossible for him to be vegan and healthy.


No. Without evidence, and with no legitimate reason to
consider him a liar, you have no valid reason to
disbelieve him.



that seems very unlikely to me

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


I mean what I say.


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.


No, I'm afraid you're mistaken


No. I'm not. 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.


No, I'm not. I sincerely believe what I'm saying.


No, you know you're lying.



People *do* make this phony "inefficiency" argument.


Show me where.


lesley, aka the slut "pearl". Do your own search for
her laughable bullshit about "feed conversion ratio".

Also:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...fb0c24458944ce


But farming animals is an inefficient, unsustainable and
problematic way of producing food. Apart from those who
feed on
pasture where it is difficult to grow crops, farmed
animals use more
food calories than they produce in the form of meat.
They also compete
directly with people for other precious resources,
notably water.
http://groups.google.com/group/demon...ee116aa6b75f46

[meat production] is an inefficient use of fresh water
and land for the production of food,
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...9bd38a04228c74

Clearly meat production is a very inefficient use of water
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.c...411178db014ccf


rupie, do your own research from now on.

The point is, rupie, you fat ****, that "vegans" make
this "inefficiency" argument all the time. It is a
*separate* argument from the environmental degradation
argument, although the "vegans" often state them
together. The "inefficiency" argument is made all the
time, it is based on a laughable misconception of
efficiency, and it is fatuous of you to dispute that.



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.


Very interesting. Well, I've never seen anyone make it.


You're willfully blind.


You think people really do make this argument, well you might be
right, frankly I think there's a pretty good chance you might just be
misreading them.


There is zero chance of that.


I'm not all that fussed either way, anyway. Yes,
you're correct that the argument is flawed, but it's a bit like
shooting fish in a barrel, isn't it?

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".


Says you. I really find it very implausible. But I'm not too fussed.
If it was your goal to demolish this argument, well, congratulations,
you've succeeded.

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.


Ball, you're a fool. Your hobby is treating people you meet on usenet
like dirt. *That* is arrogance. I express myself in a reasonable and
polite way. You calling me arrogant is utterly absurd.

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-06-2007, 06:04 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:35:40 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

"Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass" wrote

A "Goo" is a person who rejects as nonsense ****wit Harrison's campaign
to
convince the world that anyone who opposes the consumption of animal
products is being selfish for wanting to deny life to livestock animals.
By
that definition aren't you a Goo too? Isn't everyone?- Hide quoted text -



YOU are worse than Goo!

I have NEVER opposed animal consumption because it would preclude life
for "livestock".


It may not be the reason, but it would be the inevitable result.

I oppose it because it is an unhealthy choice for humans and the
planet as a whole and a terrible, horrible, life and death for the
animals.


Yup, yer a Goo. Welcome to the club, Goos come in all ages and sizes, from
ARAs to staunch anti-ARAs, all have one thing in common, we


You are a goo because you like to lick the Goober's ass, and
everybody is aware of that. Calling anyone a goo who does not
lick the Goober's ass is the lowest form of insult. Try to get that
straight! You and your brother Derek are gooboys and that
makes you proud, because you are amusingly proud of and
admire the Goober. Since most people are more sickened by
him than anything else, you are insulting them terribly to lump
them into the same toilet as you gooboys are happy to be in.

realize that
there is no moral significance in the idea that livestock would not get to
be born and experience the wonder of life if we stopped using animal
products.


That has nothing at all to do with it, and I don't believe
even you are too stupid to understand that fact.

  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-06-2007, 06:06 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:04:00 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote
On Thu, 31 May 2007 07:18:27 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

[..]

You don't know the difference between elegant and eloquent.

I do, but you don't, dummy. You had never heard the adjective elegant used
to describe an argument before, now you're befuddled. Here's a clue, it is
commonly used when referring to mathematical arguments that are very
succinct and pure in their application of logic, clear and irrefutable.


Then Dean used the wrong term, that's all.


Nonsense, Dean used the word, we have to assume it was what he meant to say
unless he says otherwise.


No we don't, especially since it doesn't even apply to the Goobal situation.

.. . .
what makes us all Goos.


What makes a VERY FEW of you goos, is your lipstick all over the Goober's
ass. People who don't kiss up to Goo are NOT gooboys like you. DUH! It's
another one of those things that even you--as challenged as you are--should
be able to comprehend.



  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-06-2007, 06:07 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:42:15 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote
On Wed, 30 May 2007 20:33:16 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote
On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Goo wrote:

The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product

And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
the animals themselves should also always be given
much consideration.



No, the welfare of the animals should be given consideration, not "the
lives".


In order to consider whether or not it is cruel to *the animals*
for them the be raised for food, their lives plus the quality of their
lives necessarily MUST be given consideration.


Why? If they are not made to suffer then it's not cruel to them. "Their
lives", apart from the quality of those lives, is of no moral consequence.


So you selfishly continue to insist, without being able to explain
why. Why do you think it's ethically superior not to consider what
the animals gain?
  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-06-2007, 06:07 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On 31 May 2007 13:04:52 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:

On May 31, 11:50 am, "Dutch" wrote:
[email protected] wrote in messagenews:[email protected] .com...
On 30 May 2007 12:41:47 -0700, Goo wrote:


They have no intrinsic moral meaning until and unless
the livestock exist.


If you think you have any clue about any of this Goo,
then attempt to explain any sort of meaning you're able
to comprehend and appreciate regarding livestock who
do exist. Don't even refer to your imaginary nonexistent
"entities" Goobs, just try to tell us about the real ones.


Livestock who exist only need us to pay attention to their welfare. What
benefit do you imagine your "appreciation" gives them? I'll tell you, Zero.


Exactly right. That was a great comment you made about the welfare in
their lives, rather than "their lives", that merits any consideration.

****wit is still trying to get people to think the livestock "ought"
to exist, for moral reasons


That's a fantasy of yours, and it's something else you can't
explain Goober. I challenge you to try to explain exactly
WHICH particular potential future livestock you are stupidly
attempting to insist I think "ought" to exist. You can't do it
Goob, because the concept itself is so stupid that even you
can't clarify it enough to attempt to support your own
stupid, dishonest accusation. You have proven yourself
a liar once again by your own ineptitued, Goo.
  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-06-2007, 06:09 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Thu, 31 May 2007 20:26:05 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

Goo wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 31, 11:50 am, "Dutch" wrote:
[email protected] wrote in messagenews:[email protected] .com...
On 30 May 2007 12:41:47 -0700, Goo wrote:

They have no intrinsic moral meaning until and unless
the livestock exist.

If you think you have any clue about any of this Goo,
then attempt to explain any sort of meaning you're able
to comprehend and appreciate regarding livestock who
do exist. Don't even refer to your imaginary nonexistent
"entities" Goobs, just try to tell us about the real ones.

Livestock who exist only need us to pay attention to their welfare. What
benefit do you imagine your "appreciation" gives them? I'll tell you,
Zero.


Exactly right. That was a great comment you made about the welfare in
their lives, rather than "their lives", that merits any consideration.

****wit is still trying to get people to think the livestock "ought"
to exist, for moral reasons, and he just can't do it. He has wasted
eight years of his life - but no big loss, because his time is
worthless - trying to get people on board with him, and so far no one
has. No one ever will.


It's your misguided, blundering way to deal with the accusations of ARAs
who
say that it's cruel to raise livestock.


Yep. ****wit is too stupid to realize it, but he is essentially
acknowledging that "aras" are right. He is so ****ing stupid...


He arrogantly believes that he has discovered a clever way to turn their own
argument back on them.


I recognise a significant aspect of human influence on animals that
you don't want people to consider, ONLY because it suggests that
there are alternatives that could be considered ethically equivalent
or superior to the elimination objective.

He thinks that it's inconsistent to wish for the
liberation of animals when that liberation would result in the elimination
of the very species of animals you are liberating.


You are trying to defend ELIMINATION as always, this time
by contemptibly referring to ELIMINATION as liberation. LOL...
it's just another lie that you "aras" want people to believe.

He can't understand that
it simply doesn't matter if livestock species exist or not, apart from their
utility, nobody cares.


That's another lie.

You're right, by imparting this false importance to
their existence he is unwittingly supporting the AR position.


That's another lie, and that's more evidence that you're an
"ara". No one in favor of decent AW would have reason to lie
about what I point out, but someone in favor of "ar" would have,
and you do it constantly. In fact, here's one of the biggest lies
you have told:

"I will NOT quote a position as yours once you reject it" - Dutch

and it follows your familiar pattern of trying to grab credit
for something you don't deserve. Trying to gab browny
points by lying about yourself like that is undoubtedly on the
bottom...but it explains why you like being a gooboy too...
  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-06-2007, 07:56 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 in message
oups.com...
On Jun 1, 9:02 pm, "Dutch" wrote:

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.


When you say it wasn't serving your family's health, I'm not sure what
situation you're describing, exactly.


Of course you don't, but when I stated clearly that I encountered health
*and* satisfaction problems with my vegetarian diet in my original message
and you chose to dismiss those concerns as "pitiful whinging". That was
rude and uncalled for.

Is it that some of your other
family members were financially dependent on you, and you were only
buying them vegan food because of your ethical beliefs, and they were
experiencing diet-related health problems? Yes, certainly, those are
important concerns. If I were in that situation I would probably have
consulted a dietitian. The ADA agrees that well-planned vegan diets
(supplemented by Vitamin B12) are nutritionally adequate at all stages
of life and have many significant health benefits. Was the only
solution to your family members' health problems for them to start
eating meat again? Well, that's as may be. I would want to hear what a
qualified dietitian had to say about the matter. Anyway, you made your
own decision about that situation (assuming that I have the situation
right). Perhaps you decided that seeing a dietitian was too expensive
and that you would just start eating meat again and see how that went.
Or perhaps you decided to see a dietitian and she advised you to start
eating meat again. I don't know. In my last post I was not really
trying to make a comment about your individual situation, about which
I obviously know very little. What I did was ask you for your view
about a particular argument. I guess I confused the issue somewhat by
making references to your "pitiful whingeing". If you want to say that
vegan diets are likely to undermine health and that undermines the
argument, fine, let's hear the evidence.


I was a vegetarian for 18 years, as was my wife. We worked hard to keep our
diet balanced and well-rounded, and we took supplements. Despite our best
efforts we increasingly experienced health issues, hers were even more
pronounced than mine. We consulted a dietician and doctors. The final
recommendation was to add some meat to our diets. Following this advice in
our experience was clearly the right choice. I am not saying that vegan
diets are " likely to undermine health", I am reporting that we had a very
good experience with vegetarian diets for a long time, but eventually
experienced failure to thrive. I attribute the change to our aging cells.

Anyway, I'm sorry you feel you have to swear at me. I really don't
think it's called for.


It was called for. You had no call to dismiss my experience as pitiful
whinging.

There was an occasion a while back where I was
arguing that going vegan indicates a significant level of commitment
to reducing suffering,


You're trying to have it both ways. In one argument you say we should go
vegan because according to you it's an easy step that we can all take to
reduce suffering and now you refer to it as a significant level of
commitment. Which is it, an easy step or a significant commitment?

and you replied that in your experience going
vegan was no sacrifice at all and that I was a spoiled little punk.
Now you seem to want to say that it caused significant personal
problems for you.


Both are true, it was easy and pleasant as long as it served us well, but
our circumstance changed as years passed and ultimately it became a problem.

If I seemed to you to be suggesting that you stopped
being vegan for trivial reasons and that offended you, then I
apologize. I wasn't really trying to make that suggestion, I just
thought that your concerns about not having a tasty enough diet could
have been overcome with a little imagination.


You overlooked the part about it effecting my health, but even if I had made
the change only for taste reasons, so what? As you have admitted, none of us
operates on a strict efficiency model, and certainly there is no clear
imperative to live by the vegan model..

As I say, I know quite a
few vegans and I don't know anyone who finds the diet unsatisfying.


There is an issue of denial to deal with. If a person has himself convinced
that morally he cannot justify consuming animal products, then by what means
can he rationalize complaining about his vegan diet? He is trapped by his
choice to see morality through this particular lens.

Obviously, you may have had concerns other than taste and I didn't
wish to suggest that any concerns you had were necessarily trivial.


I accept your apology.


I would have thought it should be possible for us to get on, at least
to the extent of discussing these issues in a reasonably civil way. I
mean, I don't have any personal grudge against you and I'm not trying
to offend you. If you really feel that the way I behave is so
offensive that you can't refrain from calling me a little shit, then
maybe we'd better just leave it. But if you think it might be possible
for us to have a polite conversation, then say so and I'll address the
rest of your post.


Maybe you could think twice before using phrases like "pitiful whingeing" if
you are trying to have a polite conversation. Or better yet, stop worrying
about it. This is usenet, insults are used like punctuation, just ignore
them. You are not going to change the culture of usenet.



  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-06-2007, 08:03 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 2, 12:15 am, Rudy Canoza 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.


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.


The scientific consensus is that most people are perfectly capable of
thriving on a vegan diet. I'm perfectly justified in being skeptical
that it was impossible for him to be vegan and healthy.


"Most people" leaves some of the population who can't. I am one of them.

that seems very unlikely to me


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


I mean what I say. It is unlikely, given what is known about the
nutritional adequacy of vegan diets, that he would have had to stop
being vegan in order to resolve whatever problems he was having.


You're not in a position to say what was possible for me and my family in
our particular medical circumstances. You are neither qualified nor aware of
the specifics of our cases. He is correct, your reaction is motivated by
ideology.




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 09:21 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