On 5/22/2010 7:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On May 23, 2:52 am, "Fred C. >
> wrote:
>> On 5/22/2010 3:22 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On May 19, 12:40 am, "Fred C. >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 5/18/2010 2:17 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On May 18, 2:53 pm, "Fred C. >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/17/2010 1:51 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On May 17, 6:50 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2010 6:21 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On May 16, 3:40 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2010 1:26 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 11:59 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 3:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 8:23 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 3:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 6:26 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 6:15 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 1:06 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 5:40 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 $3000 or more for a 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.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What the efficiency argument actually says, on any reasonably
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intelligent reading, is that by going vegan you can have a diet which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just as tasty and nutritious with a much smaller environmental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> footprint.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what it's saying at all, as we already know.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I already explained it to you several times over the last couple of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years. The issue is *not* about environmental footprint, and you know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. It's about a misconceived and ignorant belief regarding resource
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocation.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue is not about environmental footprint *for whom*?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue is not about environmental footprint at all.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> An argument can be made for going vegan based on environmental
>>>>>>>>>>>>> footprint, right?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, because you don't make the same commitment to minimize your
>>>>>>>>>>>> footprint in all other aspects of your life, *and* because that's not
>>>>>>>>>>>> why you're "going vegan", *and* because you'd "go vegan" *EVEN IF* it
>>>>>>>>>>>> had a higher environmental footprint than omnivory.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This isn't really about me personally. There are various
>>>>>>>>>>> considerations that might motivate someone to go vegan. The fact that
>>>>>>>>>>> it significantly reduces your environmental footprint is one of them.
>>>>>>>>>>> Someone might be rationally motivated to go vegan on those grounds.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The environmental considerations are not the main consideration for
>>>>>>>>>>> me, no, but they are a significant consideration, and I do make some
>>>>>>>>>>> effort to reduce my environmental footprint in other aspects of my
>>>>>>>>>>> life as well. But that is irrelevant.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you claim that *no-one* who talks about the "inefficiency" of meat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production has this environmental argument in mind? That seems like a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty extraordinary claim to me.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I mean that everyone who has blabbered about it here is not talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the environment.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you. It is helpful when you clarify for me whom you wish to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> address, obviously.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who has talked about it here?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your good pal, Lesley R. Simon, the foot-rubbing whore of Aughalustia,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon, Ireland. Many others whose names
>>>>>>>>>>>> escape me. One was a ****wit named 'sam', 03 Mar 2008. Another ****wit
>>>>>>>>>>>> named 'pinboard' on the same date.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, those people aren't here at the moment,
>>
>>>>>>>> They are typical.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the standard position in aaev.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're *all* talking about some kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsensical absolute inefficiency. The overwhelming majority have also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repeatedly maintained that the land currently in use for livestock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fodder continue to be used for agriculture, but that it be used to grow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> food for "starving people" around the world.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You wouldn't be able to use all the land for that purpose.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is highly relevant
>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is irrelevant. The people advancing the bogus "efficiency" argument
>>>>>>>>>> are doing so not because they think the land shouldn't be used for
>>>>>>>>>> agriculture, but because they think it should be used for /different/
>>>>>>>>>> output than it is currently used to produce.
>>
>>>>>>>>> They think that a smaller amount of land should be used, obviously.
>>
>>>>>>>> That's not obvious at all, liar.
>>
>>>>>>> It takes a smaller amount of land to feed the human population on a
>>>>>>> plant-based diet than on an animal-based diet.
>>
>>>>>> They're not calling for a reduction in land use.
>>
>>>>> Of course they are
>>
>>>> They're not, fool. They're calling for different food to be grown, and
>>>> given away to humans.
>>
>>> Different food to be grown which requires less land use in order to
>>> produce.
>>
>> Different food to be grown and given away to unproductive people, period.
>
> Actually,

Actually, the "inefficiency" argument is shit.

On May 23, 12:36*pm, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
wrote:
> On 5/22/2010 7:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On May 23, 2:52 am, "Fred C. >
> > wrote:
> >> On 5/22/2010 3:22 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On May 19, 12:40 am, "Fred C. >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 5/18/2010 2:17 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On May 18, 2:53 pm, "Fred C. >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/17/2010 1:51 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On May 17, 6:50 am, "Fred C. >
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/15/2010 6:21 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On May 16, 3:40 am, "Fred C. >
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2010 1:26 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 11:59 am, "Fred C. >
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 3:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 8:23 am, "Fred C. >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 3:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 6:26 am, "Fred C. >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 6:15 am, "Fred C. >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 1:06 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 5:40 am, "Fred C. >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 $3000 or more for a 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.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What the efficiency argument actually says, on any reasonably
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intelligent reading, is that by going vegan you can have a diet which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just as tasty and nutritious with a much smaller environmental
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> footprint.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what it's saying at all, as we already know..
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I already explained it to you several times over the last couple of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years. *The issue is *not* about environmental footprint, and you know
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. *It's about a misconceived and ignorant belief regarding resource
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocation.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue is not about environmental footprint *for whom*?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue is not about environmental footprint at all.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> An argument can be made for going vegan based on environmental
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> footprint, right?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, because you don't make the same commitment to minimize your
> >>>>>>>>>>>> footprint in all other aspects of your life, *and* because that's not
> >>>>>>>>>>>> why you're "going vegan", *and* because you'd "go vegan" *EVEN IF* it
> >>>>>>>>>>>> had a higher environmental footprint than omnivory.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> This isn't really about me personally. There are various
> >>>>>>>>>>> considerations that might motivate someone to go vegan. The fact that
> >>>>>>>>>>> it significantly reduces your environmental footprint is one of them.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Someone might be rationally motivated to go vegan on those grounds.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The environmental considerations are not the main consideration for
> >>>>>>>>>>> me, no, but they are a significant consideration, and I do make some
> >>>>>>>>>>> effort to reduce my environmental footprint in other aspects of my
> >>>>>>>>>>> life as well. But that is irrelevant.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you claim that *no-one* who talks about the "inefficiency" of meat
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production has this environmental argument in mind? That seems like a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty extraordinary claim to me.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I mean that everyone who has blabbered about it here is not talking
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the environment.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you. It is helpful when you clarify for me whom you wish to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> address, obviously.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Who has talked about it here?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Your good pal, Lesley R. Simon, the foot-rubbing whore of Aughalustia,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon, Ireland. *Many others whose names
> >>>>>>>>>>>> escape me. *One was a ****wit named 'sam', 03 Mar 2008. *Another ****wit
> >>>>>>>>>>>> named 'pinboard' on the same date.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Well, those people aren't here at the moment,
>
> >>>>>>>> They are typical.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is the standard position in aaev.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're *all* talking about some kind of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsensical absolute inefficiency. *The overwhelming majority have also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> repeatedly maintained that the land currently in use for livestock
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fodder continue to be used for agriculture, but that it be used to grow
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> food for "starving people" around the world.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You wouldn't be able to use all the land for that purpose.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It is highly relevant
>
> >>>>>>>>>> It is irrelevant. *The people advancing the bogus "efficiency" argument
> >>>>>>>>>> are doing so not because they think the land shouldn't be used for
> >>>>>>>>>> agriculture, but because they think it should be used for /different/
> >>>>>>>>>> output than it is currently used to produce.
>
> >>>>>>>>> They think that a smaller amount of land should be used, obviously.
>
> >>>>>>>> That's not obvious at all, liar.
>
> >>>>>>> It takes a smaller amount of land to feed the human population on a
> >>>>>>> plant-based diet than on an animal-based diet.
>
> >>>>>> They're not calling for a reduction in land use.
>
> >>>>> Of course they are
>
> >>>> They're not, fool. *They're calling for different food to be grown, and
> >>>> given away to humans.
>
> >>> Different food to be grown which requires less land use in order to
> >>> produce.
>
> >> Different food to be grown and given away to unproductive people, period.
>
> > Actually,
>
> Actually, the "inefficiency" argument is shit.

What exactly *is* the "inefficiency" argument, in your view?

On May 19, 6:25*am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
wrote:
> On 5/17/2010 1:51 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On May 17, 6:50 am, "Fred C. >
> > wrote:
> >> On 5/15/2010 6:21 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On May 16, 3:40 am, "Fred C. >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 5/15/2010 1:26 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On May 15, 11:59 am, "Fred C. >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/14/2010 3:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On May 15, 8:23 am, "Fred C. >
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 3:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On May 15, 6:26 am, "Fred C. >
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 6:15 am, "Fred C. >
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 1:06 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 5:40 am, "Fred C. >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 $3000 or more for a 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.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What the efficiency argument actually says, on any reasonably
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> intelligent reading, is that by going vegan you can have a diet which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> is just as tasty and nutritious with a much smaller environmental
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> footprint.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what it's saying at all, as we already know.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> How do you know?
>
> >>>>>>>>>> I already explained it to you several times over the last couple of
> >>>>>>>>>> years. *The issue is *not* about environmental footprint, and you know
> >>>>>>>>>> it. *It's about a misconceived and ignorant belief regarding resource
> >>>>>>>>>> allocation.
>
> >>>>>>>>> The issue is not about environmental footprint *for whom*?
>
> >>>>>>>> The issue is not about environmental footprint at all.
>
> >>>>>>> An argument can be made for going vegan based on environmental
> >>>>>>> footprint, right?
>
> >>>>>> No, because you don't make the same commitment to minimize your
> >>>>>> footprint in all other aspects of your life, *and* because that's not
> >>>>>> why you're "going vegan", *and* because you'd "go vegan" *EVEN IF* it
> >>>>>> had a higher environmental footprint than omnivory.
>
> >>>>> This isn't really about me personally. There are various
> >>>>> considerations that might motivate someone to go vegan. The fact that
> >>>>> it significantly reduces your environmental footprint is one of them.
> >>>>> Someone might be rationally motivated to go vegan on those grounds.
>
> >>>>> The environmental considerations are not the main consideration for
> >>>>> me, no, but they are a significant consideration, and I do make some
> >>>>> effort to reduce my environmental footprint in other aspects of my
> >>>>> life as well. But that is irrelevant.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Do you claim that *no-one* who talks about the "inefficiency" of meat
> >>>>>>>>> production has this environmental argument in mind? That seems like a
> >>>>>>>>> pretty extraordinary claim to me.
>
> >>>>>>>> I mean that everyone who has blabbered about it here is not talking
> >>>>>>>> about the environment.
>
> >>>>>>> Thank you. It is helpful when you clarify for me whom you wish to
> >>>>>>> address, obviously.
>
> >>>>>>> Who has talked about it here?
>
> >>>>>> Your good pal, Lesley R. Simon, the foot-rubbing whore of Aughalustia,
> >>>>>> Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon, Ireland. *Many others whose names
> >>>>>> escape me. *One was a ****wit named 'sam', 03 Mar 2008. *Another ****wit
> >>>>>> named 'pinboard' on the same date.
>
> >>>>> Well, those people aren't here at the moment,
>
> >> They are typical.
>
> >>>>>> It is the standard position in aaev.
>
> >>>>>>>> They're *all* talking about some kind of
> >>>>>>>> nonsensical absolute inefficiency. *The overwhelming majority have also
> >>>>>>>> repeatedly maintained that the land currently in use for livestock
> >>>>>>>> fodder continue to be used for agriculture, but that it be used to grow
> >>>>>>>> food for "starving people" around the world.
>
> >>>>>>> You wouldn't be able to use all the land for that purpose.
>
> >>>>>> Irrelevant.
>
> >>>>> It is highly relevant
>
> >>>> It is irrelevant. *The people advancing the bogus "efficiency" argument
> >>>> are doing so not because they think the land shouldn't be used for
> >>>> agriculture, but because they think it should be used for /different/
> >>>> output than it is currently used to produce.
>
> >>> They think that a smaller amount of land should be used, obviously.
>
> >> That's not obvious at all, liar.
>
> > It takes a smaller amount of land to feed the human population on a
> > plant-based diet than on an animal-based diet.
>
> As Dutch said: *So what? *The issue is not "minimizing" environmental
> degradation - it's optimizing it, i.e., ensuring that the benefit from
> using some resource in a manner that causes environmental degradation is
> of greater value than the cost of the degradation. *Because the crops
> grown as animal feed are heavily subsidized, that optimization almost
> certainly doesn't happen - that is, the total cost of the goods
> produced, including environmental degradation, is higher than the price
> paid by people who consume the meat. *But that may well be true for
> certain human-consumed vegetable crops, too, yet you don't hear stupid
> "vegans" shrieking about it.
>

They are correctly pointing out that changing to a vegan diet from a
typical Western diet reduces the associated environmental cost. There
is no particular reason why they have to turn their attention to every
environmental issue in the world.

> You will not succeed in persuading anyone that this "efficiency"
> argument is about the environment. *

It is obvious to any person of good sense that that is what it is
about.

> What it is, is a desperate grasping
> about for something else to try to buttress the sagging, nonsensical
> anti-meat position.

On May 19, 6:07*am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
wrote:
> On 5/18/2010 12:46 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 19, 12:40 am, "Fred C. >
> > wrote:
> >> On 5/18/2010 2:18 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On May 18, 8:13 am, > * *wrote:
> >>>> On May 17, 9:51 pm, > * *wrote:
>
> >>>>> It takes a smaller amount of land to feed the human population on a
> >>>>> plant-based diet than on an animal-based diet. What I said was
> >>>>> obvious, thank you.
>
> >>>> While your claim might be theoretically correct, it ignores the fact
> >>>> that all land is not arable and some non-arable land can be used for
> >>>> grazing.
>
> >>> I doubt that that would affect the final outcome.
>
> >> It certainly does.
>
> > Do you have some data to back that up?
>
> Shove it, rupie - you know there is non-arable land used for grazing.

We're talking about the proposition "It takes a smaller amount of land
to feed the human population on a plant-based diet than on an animal-
based diet", nincompoop. You have done nothing to cast doubt on that,
because you can't.

"Rupert" > wrote
We're talking about the proposition "It takes a smaller amount of land
to feed the human population on a plant-based diet than on an animal-
based diet", nincompoop. You have done nothing to cast doubt on that,
because you can't.
---------->

The proposition is misleading, all forms of land use are not equal. Grazing
can be done with no harm to the environment at all, in fact it is a benefit,
while the cultivation of grain, for example, is very hard on the
environment, so the amount of land is not the only issue.

On 5/23/2010 11:50 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On May 23, 12:36 pm, "Fred C. >
> wrote:
>> On 5/22/2010 7:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On May 23, 2:52 am, "Fred C. >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 5/22/2010 3:22 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On May 19, 12:40 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/18/2010 2:17 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On May 18, 2:53 pm, "Fred C. >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/17/2010 1:51 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On May 17, 6:50 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2010 6:21 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On May 16, 3:40 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2010 1:26 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 11:59 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 3:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 8:23 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 3:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 6:26 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 6:15 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 1:06 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 5:40 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 $3000 or more for a 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.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What the efficiency argument actually says, on any reasonably
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intelligent reading, is that by going vegan you can have a diet which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just as tasty and nutritious with a much smaller environmental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> footprint.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what it's saying at all, as we already know.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I already explained it to you several times over the last couple of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years. The issue is *not* about environmental footprint, and you know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. It's about a misconceived and ignorant belief regarding resource
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocation.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue is not about environmental footprint *for whom*?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue is not about environmental footprint at all.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An argument can be made for going vegan based on environmental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> footprint, right?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, because you don't make the same commitment to minimize your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> footprint in all other aspects of your life, *and* because that's not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why you're "going vegan", *and* because you'd "go vegan" *EVEN IF* it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had a higher environmental footprint than omnivory.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This isn't really about me personally. There are various
>>>>>>>>>>>>> considerations that might motivate someone to go vegan. The fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it significantly reduces your environmental footprint is one of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone might be rationally motivated to go vegan on those grounds.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The environmental considerations are not the main consideration for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> me, no, but they are a significant consideration, and I do make some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort to reduce my environmental footprint in other aspects of my
>>>>>>>>>>>>> life as well. But that is irrelevant.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you claim that *no-one* who talks about the "inefficiency" of meat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production has this environmental argument in mind? That seems like a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty extraordinary claim to me.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I mean that everyone who has blabbered about it here is not talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the environment.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you. It is helpful when you clarify for me whom you wish to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> address, obviously.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who has talked about it here?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your good pal, Lesley R. Simon, the foot-rubbing whore of Aughalustia,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon, Ireland. Many others whose names
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> escape me. One was a ****wit named 'sam', 03 Mar 2008. Another ****wit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> named 'pinboard' on the same date.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, those people aren't here at the moment,
>>
>>>>>>>>>> They are typical.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the standard position in aaev.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're *all* talking about some kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsensical absolute inefficiency. The overwhelming majority have also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repeatedly maintained that the land currently in use for livestock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fodder continue to be used for agriculture, but that it be used to grow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> food for "starving people" around the world.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You wouldn't be able to use all the land for that purpose.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is highly relevant
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is irrelevant. The people advancing the bogus "efficiency" argument
>>>>>>>>>>>> are doing so not because they think the land shouldn't be used for
>>>>>>>>>>>> agriculture, but because they think it should be used for /different/
>>>>>>>>>>>> output than it is currently used to produce.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> They think that a smaller amount of land should be used, obviously.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's not obvious at all, liar.
>>
>>>>>>>>> It takes a smaller amount of land to feed the human population on a
>>>>>>>>> plant-based diet than on an animal-based diet.
>>
>>>>>>>> They're not calling for a reduction in land use.
>>
>>>>>>> Of course they are
>>
>>>>>> They're not, fool. They're calling for different food to be grown, and
>>>>>> given away to humans.
>>
>>>>> Different food to be grown which requires less land use in order to
>>>>> produce.
>>
>>>> Different food to be grown and given away to unproductive people, period.
>>
>>> Actually,
>>
>> Actually, the "inefficiency" argument is shit.
>
> What exactly *is* the "inefficiency" argument

The one made by virtually every "vegan" ****-for-brain who discusses it:
that calories are "lost" by growing grain and feeding it to livestock
rather than growing the same grain to feed to humans. That is the one
they all make.

On 5/23/2010 11:53 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On May 19, 6:25 am, "Fred C. >
> wrote:
>> On 5/17/2010 1:51 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On May 17, 6:50 am, "Fred C. >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 5/15/2010 6:21 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On May 16, 3:40 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/15/2010 1:26 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On May 15, 11:59 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 3:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 8:23 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 3:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 6:26 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 6:15 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 1:06 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 5:40 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 $3000 or more for a 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.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What the efficiency argument actually says, on any reasonably
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intelligent reading, is that by going vegan you can have a diet which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just as tasty and nutritious with a much smaller environmental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> footprint.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what it's saying at all, as we already know.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I already explained it to you several times over the last couple of
>>>>>>>>>>>> years. The issue is *not* about environmental footprint, and you know
>>>>>>>>>>>> it. It's about a misconceived and ignorant belief regarding resource
>>>>>>>>>>>> allocation.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The issue is not about environmental footprint *for whom*?
>>
>>>>>>>>>> The issue is not about environmental footprint at all.
>>
>>>>>>>>> An argument can be made for going vegan based on environmental
>>>>>>>>> footprint, right?
>>
>>>>>>>> No, because you don't make the same commitment to minimize your
>>>>>>>> footprint in all other aspects of your life, *and* because that's not
>>>>>>>> why you're "going vegan", *and* because you'd "go vegan" *EVEN IF* it
>>>>>>>> had a higher environmental footprint than omnivory.
>>
>>>>>>> This isn't really about me personally. There are various
>>>>>>> considerations that might motivate someone to go vegan. The fact that
>>>>>>> it significantly reduces your environmental footprint is one of them.
>>>>>>> Someone might be rationally motivated to go vegan on those grounds.
>>
>>>>>>> The environmental considerations are not the main consideration for
>>>>>>> me, no, but they are a significant consideration, and I do make some
>>>>>>> effort to reduce my environmental footprint in other aspects of my
>>>>>>> life as well. But that is irrelevant.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you claim that *no-one* who talks about the "inefficiency" of meat
>>>>>>>>>>> production has this environmental argument in mind? That seems like a
>>>>>>>>>>> pretty extraordinary claim to me.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> I mean that everyone who has blabbered about it here is not talking
>>>>>>>>>> about the environment.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you. It is helpful when you clarify for me whom you wish to
>>>>>>>>> address, obviously.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Who has talked about it here?
>>
>>>>>>>> Your good pal, Lesley R. Simon, the foot-rubbing whore of Aughalustia,
>>>>>>>> Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon, Ireland. Many others whose names
>>>>>>>> escape me. One was a ****wit named 'sam', 03 Mar 2008. Another ****wit
>>>>>>>> named 'pinboard' on the same date.
>>
>>>>>>> Well, those people aren't here at the moment,
>>
>>>> They are typical.
>>
>>>>>>>> It is the standard position in aaev.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> They're *all* talking about some kind of
>>>>>>>>>> nonsensical absolute inefficiency. The overwhelming majority have also
>>>>>>>>>> repeatedly maintained that the land currently in use for livestock
>>>>>>>>>> fodder continue to be used for agriculture, but that it be used to grow
>>>>>>>>>> food for "starving people" around the world.
>>
>>>>>>>>> You wouldn't be able to use all the land for that purpose.
>>
>>>>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>
>>>>>>> It is highly relevant
>>
>>>>>> It is irrelevant. The people advancing the bogus "efficiency" argument
>>>>>> are doing so not because they think the land shouldn't be used for
>>>>>> agriculture, but because they think it should be used for /different/
>>>>>> output than it is currently used to produce.
>>
>>>>> They think that a smaller amount of land should be used, obviously.
>>
>>>> That's not obvious at all, liar.
>>
>>> It takes a smaller amount of land to feed the human population on a
>>> plant-based diet than on an animal-based diet.
>>
>> As Dutch said: So what? The issue is not "minimizing" environmental
>> degradation - it's optimizing it, i.e., ensuring that the benefit from
>> using some resource in a manner that causes environmental degradation is
>> of greater value than the cost of the degradation. Because the crops
>> grown as animal feed are heavily subsidized, that optimization almost
>> certainly doesn't happen - that is, the total cost of the goods
>> produced, including environmental degradation, is higher than the price
>> paid by people who consume the meat. But that may well be true for
>> certain human-consumed vegetable crops, too, yet you don't hear stupid
>> "vegans" shrieking about it.
>>
>
> They are correctly pointing out that changing to a vegan diet from a
> typical Western diet reduces the associated environmental cost.

That's not what they're "pointing out". What they think they're
"pointing out" is that calories are lost when feeding grain to
livestock; they think the grain - the *same* grain, in their ****witted
ignorance - should be consumed by humans.

On 5/23/2010 11:54 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On May 19, 6:07 am, "Fred C. >
> wrote:
>> On 5/18/2010 12:46 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 19, 12:40 am, "Fred C. >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 5/18/2010 2:18 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On May 18, 8:13 am, > wrote:
>>>>>> On May 17, 9:51 pm, > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> It takes a smaller amount of land to feed the human population on a
>>>>>>> plant-based diet than on an animal-based diet. What I said was
>>>>>>> obvious, thank you.
>>
>>>>>> While your claim might be theoretically correct, it ignores the fact
>>>>>> that all land is not arable and some non-arable land can be used for
>>>>>> grazing.
>>
>>>>> I doubt that that would affect the final outcome.
>>
>>>> It certainly does.
>>
>>> Do you have some data to back that up?
>>
>> Shove it, rupie - you know there is non-arable land used for grazing.
>
> We're talking about the proposition "It takes a smaller amount of land
> to feed the human population on a plant-based diet than on an animal-
> based diet"

We're not, ****wit.