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.


>
> 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. 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. *Clearly*, that means
those people, at least, are not advancing an environmental argument.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

On May 15, 8:23*am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
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? You're entitled to say "I don't wish to address this
argument today", but you can't really say that no-one ever makes it.

>
>
> > 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?

> 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.

But, yes, it sounds as though these people whom you want to criticise
want to make some kind of argument about a "fair" distribution of
resources. Your OP doesn't really do all that much to address that.
Probably most people when they consider the quantity of resources that
go into producing a typical Western diet when a lot of people don't
get enough to eat would think to themselves "Oh, that's not fair." It
may well be that it's not clear what to do about the problem, but you
haven't really done anything to cast doubt on the basic moral
intuition. You weren't addressing that issue in your OP.

> *Clearly*, that means
> those people, at least, are not advancing an environmental argument.
>

It doesn't really mean that, no, because you could provide food for
the entire world's population at considerably lower environmental cost
than that of the food production that currently goes on; however,
based on what you have now told me I would be happy to consider the
possibility that these people are not making an environmental
argument, yes. Obviously it helps if you tell me who your opponents
are.

So, they are making some kind of argument about a "fair distribution
of resources". There's a lot to be said about that, but you didn't
really say anything about it in your OP.

> --
> Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
> know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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.


>>> 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.

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.



>> *Clearly*, that means
>> those people, at least, are not advancing an environmental argument.
>>
>
> It doesn't really mean that,

It does mean that.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

On May 15, 11:59*am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
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, are they? So you can't
really have a conversation with them.

> 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 to the nonsensical statement you make below.

> >> *Clearly*, that means
> >> those people, at least, are not advancing an environmental argument.
>
> > It doesn't really mean that,
>
> It does mean that.
>

You're a fool.

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, are they? So you can't
> really have a conversation with them.
>
>> 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.


>>>> *Clearly*, that means
>>>> those people, at least, are not advancing an environmental argument.
>>
>>> It doesn't really mean that,
>>
>> It does mean that.
>>
>
> You're

Right. Yes, I'm right.

On May 16, 3:40*am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
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, are they? So you can't
> > really have a conversation with them.
>
> >> 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 involves reducing the environmental cost.

It's not really rocket science.

> >>>> *Clearly*, that means
> >>>> those people, at least, are not advancing an environmental argument.
>
> >>> It doesn't really mean that,
>
> >> It does mean that.
>
> > You're
>
> Right. *Yes, I'm right.

On May 15, 7:21*pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On May 16, 3:40*am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
> 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, are they? So you can't
> > > really have a conversation with them.
>
> > >> 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 involves reducing the environmental cost.
>
> It's not really rocket science.
>
>

It is as far as Goobs is concerned.

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. They think *more* land than is needed
to feed the people in the country should be farmed, and the food given
away to people.



--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs