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.

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


>> 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.)
>
> 'Livestock a major threat to environment
> [snip bullshit that isn't about efficiency]
>
>> 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.
>
> 'Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-risk Population
>
>[snip study lesley never read, and that isn't about efficiency]
>
>> 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.
>
> 'Cornell Ph.D. student works the land by hand at Bison Ridge
> Farming in harmony with nature
>
> [snip self-congratulatory bullshit that has nothing to do with efficiency]
>
>> 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.
>
> Is horticultural produce subsidized like feed-grain, flesh, etc.?
>
>> 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.
>
> 'Analyses of data from the China
>
>[snip bullshit that has nothing to do with efficiency]
>
>> 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.
>
> "Isn't man an amazing animal?

Yes.

clueless Goo the retarded woman abusing dwarf squealed:

On May 29, 8:58 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.
>
> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
> could use bicycles. 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.
>



You are truly an idiot Goo.

Meat is inefficient as a food source when compared to plants.

End of argument.

Now shut up.







>
>
>
>
> >> 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.)
>
> > 'Livestock a major threat to environment
> > [snip bullshit that isn't about efficiency]
>
> >> 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.
>
> > 'Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-risk Population
>
> >[snip study lesley never read, and that isn't about efficiency]
>
> >> 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.
>
> > 'Cornell Ph.D. student works the land by hand at Bison Ridge
> > Farming in harmony with nature
>
> > [snip self-congratulatory bullshit that has nothing to do with efficiency]
>
> >> 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.
>
> > Is horticultural produce subsidized like feed-grain, flesh, etc.?
>
> >> 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.
>
> > 'Analyses of data from the China
>
> >[snip bullshit that has nothing to do with efficiency]
>
> >> 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.
>
> > "Isn't man an amazing animal?
>
> Yes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On May 30, 2:02 am, "Whining, Crying, Bawl" <bunghole-
> wrote:

> clueless Goo the retarded woman abusing dwarf squealed:
>
> On May 29, 8:58 am, Rudy Canoza > whiffed:
>
> > 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]

'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours
etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy
and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be
painful), and to distract and divert attention away from
themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved
through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their
target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.'

The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

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

Only to you and your ilk, ball. People want [!need!] *food*.

'FEEDING THE WORLD

"The world must create five billions vegans in the next several
decades, or triple its total farm output without using more land."
Dennis Avery, Director of the Centre for Global Food Issues . [1]

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates that
around 840 million people are undernourished. That's roughly 14%
of the human population. On average, around 25,000 people die
every day from hunger-related causes. Each year 6 million children
under the age of 5 die as a result of hunger and malnutrition - this
is
roughly equivalent to all the under-5s in France and Italy combined.
[2] With the world's population expected to increase from 6 billion
to 9 billion by 2050, one of the most urgent questions we now face
is how we, as a species, will feed ourselves in the 21st century.

Land availability is one of the main constraints on food production.
The earth has only a limited area of viable agricultural land, so how
this land is used is central to our ability to feed the world. At the
moment, the problem is not lack of food - it is widely agreed that
enough food is produced worldwide to feed a global population of
8-10 billion people - but lack of availability. Poverty,
powerlessness,
war, corruption and greed all conspire to prevent equal access to
food, and there are no simple solutions to the problem. However,
Western lifestyles - and diet in particular - can play a large part in
depriving the world's poor of much needed food.

"In this era of global abundance, why does the word continue to
tolerate the daily hunger and deprivation of more than 800 million
people?" Jacques Diouf, Director-General, UN Food and
Agriculture Organisation. [3]

THE LIVESTOCK CONNECTION

World livestock production exceeds 21 billion animals each year.
The earth's livestock population is more then three and a half times
its human population. [4]

In all, the raising of livestock takes up more than two-thirds of
agricultural land, and one third of the total land area. [5] This is
apparently justifiable because by eating the foods that humans can't
digest and by processing these into meat, milk and eggs, farmed
animals provide us with an extra, much-needed food source. Or so
the livestock industry would like you to believe. In fact, livestock
are
increasingly being fed with grains and cereals that could have been
directly consumed by humans or were grown on land that could have
been used to grow food rather than feed. The developing world's
undernourished millions are now in direct competition with the
developed world's livestock - and they are losing.

In 1900 just over 10% of the total grain grown worldwide was fed to
animals; by 1950 this figure had risen to over 20%; by the late 1990s
it stood at around 45%. Over 60% of US grain is fed to livestock. [6]

This use of the world's grain harvest would be acceptable in terms of
world food production if it were not for the fact that meat and dairy
production is a notoriously inefficient use of energy. All animals use
the energy they get from food to move around, keep warm and
perform their day to day bodily functions. This means that only a
percentage of the energy that farmed animals obtain from plant foods
is converted into meat or dairy products. Estimates of efficiency
levels
vary, but in a recent study [7], Professor Vaclav Smil of the
University
of Manitoba, Canada, calculated that beef cattle raised on feedlots
may convert as little as 2.5% of their gross feed energy into food for
human consumption. Estimated conversion of protein was only a little
more efficient, with less than 5% of the protein in feed being
converted
to edible animal protein. These figures are especially damning since
the
diet of cattle at the feedlot consists largely of human-edible
grains.

Feedlot-raised beef is an extreme example, being the least feed-
efficient
animal product, but even the most efficient - milk - represents a
waste
of precious agricultural land. Prof Smil calculates that the most
efficient
dairy cows convert between 55 and 67% of their gross feed energy into
milk food energy.

Efficiency can also be measured in terms of the land required per
calorie of food obtained. When Gerbens-Leenes et al. [8] examined
land use for all food eaten in the Netherlands, they found that beef
required the most land per kilogram and vegetables required the least.
The figures they obtained can be easily converted to land required for
one person's energy needs for a year by multiplying 3000 kcal (a day's
energy) by 365 days to obtain annual calorie needs (1,095,000 kcal)
and dividing this by the calories per kilogram. The figures obtained
are summarised in table 1:

Food Land per kg (m2) Calories per kilogram Land per person per

year (m2)
Beef 20.9
2800 8173
Pork 8.9
3760 2592
Eggs 3.5
1600 2395
Milk 1.2
640 2053
Fruit 0.5
400 1369
Vegetables 0.3
250 1314
Potatoes 0.2
800 274

On the basis of these figures, a vegan diet can meet calorie and
protein needs from just 300 square metres using mainly potatoes.
A more varied diet with plenty of fruit and vegetables, grains and
legumes would take about 700 square metres. Replacing a third
of the calories in this diet with calories from milk and eggs would
double the land requirements and a typical European omnivorous
diet would require five times the amount of land required for a
varied vegan diet.

In looking at land use for animal products this research makes
the very favourable assumption that by-products of plant food
production used in animal agriculture do not require any land.
For example, soybean land is assigned 100% to human soy oil
consumption with no land use attributed to the oil cakes used
for meat and dairy production. This stacks the odds in favour
of animal foods, so the figures in this paper are all the more
compelling as to the higher land demands of animal farming.

GHOST ACRES

Most of the land wasted on growing feed for livestock is in
developing countries, where food is most scarce. Europe, for
example, imports 70% of its protein for animal feed, causing a
European Parliament report to state that 'Europe can feed its
people but not its [farm] animals.'

[9] Friends of the Earth have calculated that the UK imported
4.1 million hectares of other people's land in 1996 [10].

"In Brazil alone, the equivalent of 5.6 million acres of land is used
to grow soya beans for animals in Europe. These 'ghost acres'
belie the so-called efficiency of hi-tech agriculture..." Tim Lang of
the Centre for Food Policy. [11]

This land contributes to developing world malnutrition by driving
impoverished populations to grow cash crops for animal feed, rather
than food for themselves. Intensive monoculture crop production
causes soils to suffer nutrient depletion and thus pushes economically
vulnerable populations further away from sustainable agricultural
systems. All so that the world's wealthy can indulge their unhealthy
taste for animal flesh.

PUT OUT TO PASTURE

Although grain-dependent industrial agriculture is the fastest growing
type of animal production, not all farmed animals are raised in this
way. Much of the world's livestock is still raised on pasture.
Worldwide, livestock use roughly 3.4 billion hectares of grazing land.

Proponents of animal agriculture point out that most pastureland is
wholly unsuitable for growing grain to feed for humans. They argue
that by converting grass, and other plants that are indigestible to
humans, into energy and protein for human consumption, livestock
provide a valuable addition to our food resources. The reality is that
land currently used to graze cattle and other ruminants is almost
invariably suitable for growing trees - such a use would not only
provide a good source of land-efficient, health-giving fruit and nuts,
but would also have many environmental benefits.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quite simply, we do not have enough land to feed everyone on an
animal-based diet. So while 840 million people do not have enough
food to live normal lives, we continue to waste two-thirds of
agricultural land by obtaining only a small fraction of its potential
calorific value.

Obviously access to food is an extremely complex issue and there
are no easy answers. However, the fact remains that the world's
population is increasing and viable agricultural land is diminishing.
If we are to avoid future global food scarcity we must find
sustainable ways of using our natural resource base. Industrial
livestock production is unsustainable and unjustifiable.

Related Items
.. Biodiversity
.. Deforestation
.. Impact of Soya
.. The Wasteland

http://www.vegansociety.com/html/environment/land/

> You are truly an idiot Goo.

"Ignorance is the curse of God; knowledge the wing whereby
we fly to Heaven." - Shakespeare, Henry VI., iv. 7.

He's Mammon's minion.

'12. No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate
the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one and
despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. And
the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things,
and they derided him.
13. And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves
before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is
highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
....'
http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_3.htm

>
Meat is inefficient as a food source when compared to plants.
>
>
End of argument.
>
>
Now shut up.
>

On 29 May 2007 18:02:43 -0700, "Whining, Crying, Bawl" > wrote:

>clueless Goo the retarded woman abusing dwarf squealed:
>
>> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
>> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
>> could use bicycles.

That was a good point, which is really remarkable for
the Goober.

>>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.
>>
>
>
>
>You are truly an idiot Goo.

Well, there's no evidence to conflict with that.

>Meat is inefficient as a food source when compared to plants.

· From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

Here we see plowing:
http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe

and here harrowing:
http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v

both of which kill animals by crushing, mutilation, suffocation,
and exposing them to predators. We can see that planting
kills in similar ways:
http://tinyurl.com/k6sku

and death from herbicides and pesticides needs to be
kept in mind:
http://tinyurl.com/ew2j5

Harvesting kills of course by crushing and mutilation, and
it also removes the surviving animals' food, and it exposes
them to predators:
http://tinyurl.com/otp5l

In the case of rice there's additional killing as well caused
by flooding:
http://tinyurl.com/qhqx3

and later by draining and destroying the environment which
developed as the result of the flooding:
http://tinyurl.com/rc9m3

Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near
as much suffering and death. ·
http://tinyurl.com/q7whm

__________________________________________________ _______
Grass (Forage) Fed Claim Comments and Responses

By the close of the comment period for the December 30, 2002
notice, AMS received 369 comments concerning the grass (forage) fed
claim from consumers, academia, trade and professional associations,
national organic associations, consumer advocacy associations, meat
product industries, and livestock producers. Only three comments
received were in general support of the standard as originally
proposed. Summaries of issues raised by commenters and AMS's responses
follow.

Grass (Forage) Definition and Percentage

Comment: AMS received numerous comments suggesting the percentage
of grass and forage in the standard be greater than the 80 percent
originally proposed. Most comments suggested the standard be 100
percent grass or forage. Other comments recommended various levels of
90, 95, 98 and 99 percent grass and forage as the primary energy
source.
.. . .

AMS determined the most appropriate way to integrate the
grass (forage) fed claim into practical management systems and still
maximize or keep the purest intent of grass and/or forage based diets
was by changing the standard requirements to read that grass and/or
forage shall be 99 percent or higher of the energy source for the
lifetime of the animal.
.. . .

http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0509.txt
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Back to Pasture. Since 2000, several thousand ranchers and farmers
across the United States and Canada have stopped sending their animals
to the feedlots.

http://www.eatwild.com/basics.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On May 30, 8:04 pm, dh@. wrote:

>
> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> steer

http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html

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.

> 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. It should be clear to any reasonably intelligent person
what the intended sense of efficiency is. If you want to argue that
considerations of efficiency in that sense don't matter, then, um,
you've got to do just that, argue the point. Offer the slightest
reason to think that efficiency in that sense doesn't matter. In other
words, actually engage with the argument instead of talking about an
irrelevant sense of "efficiency".


>
>
>
>
> >> 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.)
>
> > 'Livestock a major threat to environment
> > [snip bullshit that isn't about efficiency]
>
> >> 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.
>
> > 'Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-risk Population
>
> >[snip study lesley never read, and that isn't about efficiency]
>
> >> 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.
>
> > 'Cornell Ph.D. student works the land by hand at Bison Ridge
> > Farming in harmony with nature
>
> > [snip self-congratulatory bullshit that has nothing to do with efficiency]
>
> >> 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.
>
> > Is horticultural produce subsidized like feed-grain, flesh, etc.?
>
> >> 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.
>
> > 'Analyses of data from the China
>
> >[snip bullshit that has nothing to do with efficiency]
>
> >> 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.
>
> > "Isn't man an amazing animal?
>
> Yes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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.


> > 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.


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

> > >> 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.)
>
> > > 'Livestock a major threat to environment
> > > [snip bullshit that isn't about efficiency]
>
> > >> 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.
>
> > > 'Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-risk Population
>
> > >[snip study lesley never read, and that isn't about efficiency]
>
> > >> 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.
>
> > > 'Cornell Ph.D. student works the land by hand at Bison Ridge
> > > Farming in harmony with nature
>
> > > [snip self-congratulatory bullshit that has nothing to do with efficiency]
>
> > >> 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.
>
> > > Is horticultural produce subsidized like feed-grain, flesh, etc.?
>
> > >> 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.
>
> > > 'Analyses of data from the China
>
> > >[snip bullshit that has nothing to do with efficiency]
>
> > >> 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.
>
> > > "Isn't man an amazing animal?
>
> > Yes.

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.

"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.

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 -

"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.

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.

"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.

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 -

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.

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.