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.