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