On May 19, 12:40*am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
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.

Sheesh. It really isn't all that difficult, you know.

On May 22, 4:22*am, Rupert > wrote:
> On May 19, 12:40*am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
> 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:
>

>
> > >>> 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.
>
> Sheesh. It really isn't all that difficult, you know.


But it *is* that difficult if your name is "Goober Dobbs"

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.

On May 23, 2:52*am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
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, my statement was correct.

On 5/22/2010 7:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On May 23, 2:52 am, "Fred C. >
> wrote:
>> On 5/22/2010 3:22 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On May 19, 12:40 am, "Fred C. >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 5/18/2010 2:17 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On May 18, 2:53 pm, "Fred C. >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/17/2010 1:51 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On May 17, 6:50 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2010 6:21 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On May 16, 3:40 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2010 1:26 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 11:59 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 3:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 8:23 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 3:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 6:26 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 6:15 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 1:06 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 5:40 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> livestock.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there must be agreement on what the end product is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're looking at the production of consumer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electronics, for example, then the output is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discontinue the production of television sets, because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they require more resources to produce (which they do),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> television set is going to cost several hundred
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can easily pay $3000 or more for a large plasma TV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product whose efficiency of production we want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than others.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher priced because they use more resources to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production efficiency, they would only be buying the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then see if that product can be produced using fewer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devices.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meat production falls to the ground.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope this helps.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What the efficiency argument actually says, on any reasonably
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intelligent reading, is that by going vegan you can have a diet which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just as tasty and nutritious with a much smaller environmental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> footprint.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what it's saying at all, as we already know.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I already explained it to you several times over the last couple of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years. The issue is *not* about environmental footprint, and you know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. It's about a misconceived and ignorant belief regarding resource
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocation.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue is not about environmental footprint *for whom*?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue is not about environmental footprint at all.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> An argument can be made for going vegan based on environmental
>>>>>>>>>>>>> footprint, right?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, because you don't make the same commitment to minimize your
>>>>>>>>>>>> footprint in all other aspects of your life, *and* because that's not
>>>>>>>>>>>> why you're "going vegan", *and* because you'd "go vegan" *EVEN IF* it
>>>>>>>>>>>> had a higher environmental footprint than omnivory.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This isn't really about me personally. There are various
>>>>>>>>>>> considerations that might motivate someone to go vegan. The fact that
>>>>>>>>>>> it significantly reduces your environmental footprint is one of them.
>>>>>>>>>>> Someone might be rationally motivated to go vegan on those grounds.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The environmental considerations are not the main consideration for
>>>>>>>>>>> me, no, but they are a significant consideration, and I do make some
>>>>>>>>>>> effort to reduce my environmental footprint in other aspects of my
>>>>>>>>>>> life as well. But that is irrelevant.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you claim that *no-one* who talks about the "inefficiency" of meat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production has this environmental argument in mind? That seems like a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty extraordinary claim to me.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I mean that everyone who has blabbered about it here is not talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the environment.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you. It is helpful when you clarify for me whom you wish to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> address, obviously.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who has talked about it here?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your good pal, Lesley R. Simon, the foot-rubbing whore of Aughalustia,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon, Ireland. Many others whose names
>>>>>>>>>>>> escape me. One was a ****wit named 'sam', 03 Mar 2008. Another ****wit
>>>>>>>>>>>> named 'pinboard' on the same date.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, those people aren't here at the moment,
>>
>>>>>>>> They are typical.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the standard position in aaev.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're *all* talking about some kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsensical absolute inefficiency. The overwhelming majority have also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repeatedly maintained that the land currently in use for livestock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fodder continue to be used for agriculture, but that it be used to grow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> food for "starving people" around the world.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You wouldn't be able to use all the land for that purpose.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is highly relevant
>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is irrelevant. The people advancing the bogus "efficiency" argument
>>>>>>>>>> are doing so not because they think the land shouldn't be used for
>>>>>>>>>> agriculture, but because they think it should be used for /different/
>>>>>>>>>> output than it is currently used to produce.
>>
>>>>>>>>> They think that a smaller amount of land should be used, obviously.
>>
>>>>>>>> That's not obvious at all, liar.
>>
>>>>>>> It takes a smaller amount of land to feed the human population on a
>>>>>>> plant-based diet than on an animal-based diet.
>>
>>>>>> They're not calling for a reduction in land use.
>>
>>>>> Of course they are
>>
>>>> They're not, fool. They're calling for different food to be grown, and
>>>> given away to humans.
>>
>>> Different food to be grown which requires less land use in order to
>>> produce.
>>
>> Different food to be grown and given away to unproductive people, period.
>
> Actually,

Actually, the "inefficiency" argument is shit.

On May 23, 12:36*pm, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
wrote:
> On 5/22/2010 7:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On May 23, 2:52 am, "Fred C. >
> > wrote:
> >> On 5/22/2010 3:22 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On May 19, 12:40 am, "Fred C. >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 5/18/2010 2:17 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On May 18, 2:53 pm, "Fred C. >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/17/2010 1:51 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On May 17, 6:50 am, "Fred C. >
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/15/2010 6:21 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On May 16, 3:40 am, "Fred C. >
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2010 1:26 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 11:59 am, "Fred C. >
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 3:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 8:23 am, "Fred C. >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 3:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 6:26 am, "Fred C. >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 6:15 am, "Fred C. >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 1:06 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 5:40 am, "Fred C. >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> livestock.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there must be agreement on what the end product is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whose efficiency of production you are examining. *If
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're looking at the production of consumer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electronics, for example, then the output is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rather obviously, you need to get specific. *No
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discontinue the production of television sets, because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they require more resources to produce (which they do),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and produce more DVD players instead. *(For the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> television set is going to cost several hundred
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dollars. *$500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can easily pay $3000 or more for a large plasma TV
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "inefficiency"? *They're clearly saying that the end
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product whose efficiency of production we want to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calories. *Just as clearly, they are wrong. *Humans
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substitutable. *As in debunking so much of "veganism",
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than others.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But how do "vegans" actually behave? *Why, they buy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relatively resource-INefficient. *You know this by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking at retail prices: *higher priced goods ARE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher priced because they use more resources to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce. *If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production efficiency, they would only be buying the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nutritional requirement. *This would necessarily mean
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one brand). *The same would hold for every conceivable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> garment. *A button-front shirt with collars costs more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't "need" meat. *But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (all natural fiber, of course.) *"vegans" aren't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then see if that product can be produced using fewer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources. *It is important to note that the consumer's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view of products as distinct things is crucial. *A
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devices.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of calories and other nutritional requirements. *Once
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meat production falls to the ground.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope this helps.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What the efficiency argument actually says, on any reasonably
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intelligent reading, is that by going vegan you can have a diet which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just as tasty and nutritious with a much smaller environmental
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> footprint.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what it's saying at all, as we already know..
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I already explained it to you several times over the last couple of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years. *The issue is *not* about environmental footprint, and you know
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. *It's about a misconceived and ignorant belief regarding resource
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocation.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue is not about environmental footprint *for whom*?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue is not about environmental footprint at all.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> An argument can be made for going vegan based on environmental
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> footprint, right?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, because you don't make the same commitment to minimize your
> >>>>>>>>>>>> footprint in all other aspects of your life, *and* because that's not
> >>>>>>>>>>>> why you're "going vegan", *and* because you'd "go vegan" *EVEN IF* it
> >>>>>>>>>>>> had a higher environmental footprint than omnivory.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> This isn't really about me personally. There are various
> >>>>>>>>>>> considerations that might motivate someone to go vegan. The fact that
> >>>>>>>>>>> it significantly reduces your environmental footprint is one of them.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Someone might be rationally motivated to go vegan on those grounds.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The environmental considerations are not the main consideration for
> >>>>>>>>>>> me, no, but they are a significant consideration, and I do make some
> >>>>>>>>>>> effort to reduce my environmental footprint in other aspects of my
> >>>>>>>>>>> life as well. But that is irrelevant.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you claim that *no-one* who talks about the "inefficiency" of meat
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production has this environmental argument in mind? That seems like a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty extraordinary claim to me.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I mean that everyone who has blabbered about it here is not talking
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the environment.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you. It is helpful when you clarify for me whom you wish to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> address, obviously.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Who has talked about it here?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Your good pal, Lesley R. Simon, the foot-rubbing whore of Aughalustia,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon, Ireland. *Many others whose names
> >>>>>>>>>>>> escape me. *One was a ****wit named 'sam', 03 Mar 2008. *Another ****wit
> >>>>>>>>>>>> named 'pinboard' on the same date.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Well, those people aren't here at the moment,
>
> >>>>>>>> They are typical.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is the standard position in aaev.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're *all* talking about some kind of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsensical absolute inefficiency. *The overwhelming majority have also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> repeatedly maintained that the land currently in use for livestock
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fodder continue to be used for agriculture, but that it be used to grow
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> food for "starving people" around the world.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You wouldn't be able to use all the land for that purpose.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It is highly relevant
>
> >>>>>>>>>> It is irrelevant. *The people advancing the bogus "efficiency" argument
> >>>>>>>>>> are doing so not because they think the land shouldn't be used for
> >>>>>>>>>> agriculture, but because they think it should be used for /different/
> >>>>>>>>>> output than it is currently used to produce.
>
> >>>>>>>>> They think that a smaller amount of land should be used, obviously.
>
> >>>>>>>> That's not obvious at all, liar.
>
> >>>>>>> It takes a smaller amount of land to feed the human population on a
> >>>>>>> plant-based diet than on an animal-based diet.
>
> >>>>>> They're not calling for a reduction in land use.
>
> >>>>> Of course they are
>
> >>>> They're not, fool. *They're calling for different food to be grown, and
> >>>> given away to humans.
>
> >>> Different food to be grown which requires less land use in order to
> >>> produce.
>
> >> Different food to be grown and given away to unproductive people, period.
>
> > Actually,
>
> Actually, the "inefficiency" argument is shit.

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

On 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.