The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
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.
|