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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

"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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.