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

On May 31, 11:43 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" <n... DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Rupert" <rupertmccal... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1180664666.067600.58170@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can... DeleteThis @excite.com> wrote:
> > >> pearl wrote:
> > >> > On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can... DeleteThis @excite.com> wrote:
> > >> >> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> > >> >> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>
> > >> > [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>
> > >> >> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> > >> >> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> > >> >> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> > >> >> *consumption*.
>
> > >> >> 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.
>
> > >> > "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
> > >> > and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
> > >> > raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
> > >> > feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
> > >> > hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
> > >> > livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>
> > >> > The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
> > >> > going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
> > >> > going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
> > >> > longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
> > >> > deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
> > >> > be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
> > >> > fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
> > >> > livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
> > >> > back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
> > >> > them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>
> > >> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
> > >> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
> > >> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
> > >> consumer demand.
>
> > > No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
> > > should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
> > > not enough internalization of externalities.
>
> > >> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
> > >> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
> > >> could use bicycles.
>
> > > You've totally missed the point.
>
> > No, you have.
>
> Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
> he gives.
>
> > He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
> > presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen.
>
> No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
> constitutes efficiency.

That's my criticism of it, and the criticism is correct. But it *is*
offered as a smokescreen. The stupid "vegans" can't win the battle of
ethics, so they try to venture into economics with their stupid
"inefficiency" smokescreen, and they lose there, too.


> > This is
> > clearly demonstrated by the errors of omission he illustrated which are
> > committed by vegans. A true efficiency equation would be far more complex
> > than "veganism", for one thing it would use animals and plants in symbiosis,
> > and it would utilize animals where plants were not as efficient to produce.
> > An obvious example is the consumer choice between South American grown
> > asparagus and locally obtained fish or game.- Hide quoted text -
>
> All this is as may be, but it's completely different to Rudy's
> argument.
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

"Rupert" <rupertmccallum RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote
> On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can... RemoveThis @excite.com> wrote:

[..]
>> 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.
>
> The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
> food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction. Also, we
> could feed more people from a given amount of land. That's the sense
> of "efficiency" being used. It shouldn't be too obscure. You may argue
> that we shouldn't bother to take into account environmental
> externalities or the fact that a lot of people are going hungry, but
> that's precisely the point at issue. There's no "unbelievably stupid
> mistake" involved. I hope this helps.

Why am I not surprised that the whole thing went right over your head?
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

"Rupert" <rupertmccallum RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180664666.067600.58170@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can... RemoveThis @excite.com> wrote:
>> pearl wrote:
>> > On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can... RemoveThis @excite.com> wrote:
>> >> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
>> >> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>>
>> > [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>>
>> >> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
>> >> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
>> >> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
>> >> *consumption*.
>>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> > "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
>> > and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
>> > raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
>> > feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
>> > hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
>> > livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>>
>> > The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
>> > going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
>> > going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
>> > longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
>> > deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
>> > be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
>> > fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
>> > livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
>> > back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
>> > them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>>
>> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
>> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
>> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
>> consumer demand.
>>
>
> No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
> should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
> not enough internalization of externalities.
>
>> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
>> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
>> could use bicycles.
>
> You've totally missed the point.

No, you have. He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen. This is
clearly demonstrated by the errors of omission he illustrated which are
committed by vegans. A true efficiency equation would be far more complex
than "veganism", for one thing it would use animals and plants in symbiosis,
and it would utilize animals where plants were not as efficient to produce.
An obvious example is the consumer choice between South American grown
asparagus and locally obtained fish or game.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

"Rupert" <rupertmccallum.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180680226.992093.32460@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" <n....RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>> "Rupert" <rupertmccal....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1180664666.067600.58170@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can....RemoveThis@excite.com> wrote:
>> >> pearl wrote:
>> >> > On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can....RemoveThis@excite.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
>> >> >> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>>
>> >> > [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>>
>> >> >> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
>> >> >> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
>> >> >> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
>> >> >> *consumption*.
>>
>> >> >> 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.
>>
>> >> > "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
>> >> > and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
>> >> > raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
>> >> > feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
>> >> > hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
>> >> > livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>>
>> >> > The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
>> >> > going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
>> >> > going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
>> >> > longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
>> >> > deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
>> >> > be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
>> >> > fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
>> >> > livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
>> >> > back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
>> >> > them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>>
>> >> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
>> >> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
>> >> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
>> >> consumer demand.
>>
>> > No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
>> > should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
>> > not enough internalization of externalities.
>>
>> >> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
>> >> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
>> >> could use bicycles.
>>
>> > You've totally missed the point.
>>
>> No, you have.
>
> Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
> he gives.
>
>> He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
>> presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen.
>
> No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
> constitutes efficiency.
>
>> This is
>> clearly demonstrated by the errors of omission he illustrated which are
>> committed by vegans. A true efficiency equation would be far more complex
>> than "veganism", for one thing it would use animals and plants in
>> symbiosis,
>> and it would utilize animals where plants were not as efficient to
>> produce.
>> An obvious example is the consumer choice between South American grown
>> asparagus and locally obtained fish or game.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> All this is as may be, but it's completely different to Jon's
> argument.

No it isn't, I dealt with the same issues, what constitutes efficiency, and
the fact that veganism only pretends to be about efficiency. Efficiency is a
cover story for veganism, just like animal suffering.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

"Rupert" <rupertmccallum.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180686847.720673.175500@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 1, 5:10 pm, "Dutch" <n....DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
>> "Rupert" <rupertmccal....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1180680226.992093.32460@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" <n....DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" <rupertmccal....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:1180664666.067600.58170@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can....DeleteThis@excite.com> wrote:
>> >> >> pearl wrote:
>> >> >> > On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can....DeleteThis@excite.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
>> >> >> >> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>>
>> >> >> > [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>>
>> >> >> >> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
>> >> >> >> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
>> >> >> >> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
>> >> >> >> *consumption*.
>>
>> >> >> >> 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.
>>
>> >> >> > "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
>> >> >> > and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
>> >> >> > raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
>> >> >> > feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
>> >> >> > hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
>> >> >> > livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>>
>> >> >> > The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
>> >> >> > going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
>> >> >> > going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
>> >> >> > longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
>> >> >> > deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
>> >> >> > be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
>> >> >> > fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
>> >> >> > livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
>> >> >> > back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
>> >> >> > them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>>
>> >> >> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
>> >> >> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
>> >> >> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
>> >> >> consumer demand.
>>
>> >> > No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
>> >> > should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
>> >> > not enough internalization of externalities.
>>
>> >> >> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
>> >> >> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
>> >> >> could use bicycles.
>>
>> >> > You've totally missed the point.
>>
>> >> No, you have.
>>
>> > Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
>> > he gives.
>>
>> >> He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
>> >> presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen.
>>
>> > No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
>> > constitutes efficiency.
>>
>> >> This is
>> >> clearly demonstrated by the errors of omission he illustrated which
>> >> are
>> >> committed by vegans. A true efficiency equation would be far more
>> >> complex
>> >> than "veganism", for one thing it would use animals and plants in
>> >> symbiosis,
>> >> and it would utilize animals where plants were not as efficient to
>> >> produce.
>> >> An obvious example is the consumer choice between South American grown
>> >> asparagus and locally obtained fish or game.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > All this is as may be, but it's completely different to Jon's
>> > argument.
>>
>> No it isn't, I dealt with the same issues, what constitutes efficiency,
>> and
>> the fact that veganism only pretends to be about efficiency. Efficiency
>> is a
>> cover story for veganism, just like animal suffering.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You did not deal with the issue of what constitutes efficiency. You
> accepted (for the sake of argument only, perhaps) the basic premises
> of the argument about what constitutes efficiency and tried to turn
> them against the advocate of the argument, arguing that on this
> account certain non-vegan foods would be more "efficient" than vegan
> foods. It's a completely different approach to Jon's.
>
> What you have succeeded in showing is the following. Let us ignore all
> arguments for veganism except the efficiency argument. Let us grant
> for the sake of argument the conception of efficiency advocated by the
> efficiency argument. Let us assume that the typical vegan diet is
> adequately "efficient". Then this argument will not suffice to rule
> out some non-vegan diets. This is correct. Well done.

What I am saying is that when advocates of veganism point out that consuming
plants is more efficient from a strict calorie-conversion point of view than
consuming animals, then extrapolate that to conclude that we should never
consume animals, they are perpetrating a hoax. Nobody lives their lives
according to strict caloric efficiencies, if they did then they would have a
much more complex and difficult job than simply avoiding animal products.

>
> It's a completely different approach to Jon's. Jon is rejecting the
> conception of "efficiency" on which the argument is based.

It's not a completely different approach, his was simply more thorough. The
essence of his argument is that efficiency in the sense of choosing the food
that causes the least environmental damage is not followed by vegans,
because avoiding meat and other animal products in and of itself does not do
that, and that is essentially all vegans do. That is also the point I made.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

On Jun 1, 1:54 am, Rupert <rupertmccal....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 5:03 pm, "Dutch" <n....DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Rupert" <rupertmccal....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1180674309.272796.40180@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Jun 1, 2:48 pm, Rudy Canoza <notgen....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> On May 31, 7:14 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can....DeleteThis@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> > >> > > with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
> > >> > > reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> > >> > > ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> > >> > > of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> > >> > > *consumption*.
>
> > >> > > 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 $8000 or more for 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.
>
> > >> > The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
> > >> > food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
>
> > Tasty and nutritious for whom? What if I hate it and do not thrive on it?
>
> Poor you.
>
> I don't believe you that you don't thrive on it,

You disbelieve him because of your dogmatic approach, not because you
have any legitimate reason to doubt him.


> that seems very unlikely to me

No, you mean it conflicts with your ideology, rupie.

> > >> That's the wrong argument.
>
> > > Sorry, I'm not clear here what you're claiming. You claim the argument
> > > is flawed? Fine, then offer reasons why we should agree with you. You
> > > haven't done this yet, I was simply pointing out this fact.
>
> > He's claiming that it's the wrong argument. He's made a considerable effort
> > to delineate his argument, you've done nothing in this thread, zero.
>
> Er, actually, no.

ERRRRRRRRR, yes, rupie - you've done zero apart from spouting classic
"vegan" dogma.


> I've explained why the argument which he's
> addressing is an argument which no-one actually makes.

You're lying. People *do* make this phony "inefficiency" argument.
The environmental argument is something different.

"vegans" say that the resources going to meat production are "wasted",
because it isn't "necessary" to eat meat in order to eat healthfully.
That is a misconceived efficiency argument, and people do indeed make
it. That stupid cunt lesley has made it dozens of times.


> > And now
> > you're demanding HE offer reasons??
>
> Yes. Because he hasn't offered the slightest reason to doubt this
> argument.

You're mixing it up with another argument.

Understand, rupie, that even if the environmental effects of livestock
production were fully mitigated, it still would take more resources to
produce livestock, and "vegans" would be claiming, wrongly, that the
resources are "wasted".


> > You have nerve, if nothing else.
>
> Well, that's a very interesting perspective you have,

No, you really do show an appalling amount of arrogance, rupie.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

On Jun 1, 8:11 pm, "Dutch" <n... RemoveThis @home.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1180686847.720673.175500@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 5:10 pm, "Dutch" <n... RemoveThis @email.com> wrote:
> >> "Rupert" <rupertmccal... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1180680226.992093.32460@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" <n... RemoveThis @email.com> wrote:
> >> >> "Rupert" <rupertmccal... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:1180664666.067600.58170@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can... RemoveThis @excite.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> pearl wrote:
> >> >> >> > On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can... RemoveThis @excite.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> >> >> >> >> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>
> >> >> >> > [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>
> >> >> >> >> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> >> >> >> >> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> >> >> >> >> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> >> >> >> >> *consumption*.
>
> >> >> >> >> 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.
>
> >> >> >> > "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
> >> >> >> > and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
> >> >> >> > raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
> >> >> >> > feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
> >> >> >> > hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
> >> >> >> > livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>
> >> >> >> > The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
> >> >> >> > going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
> >> >> >> > going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
> >> >> >> > longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
> >> >> >> > deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
> >> >> >> > be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
> >> >> >> > fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
> >> >> >> > livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
> >> >> >> > back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
> >> >> >> > them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>
> >> >> >> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
> >> >> >> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
> >> >> >> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
> >> >> >> consumer demand.
>
> >> >> > No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
> >> >> > should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
> >> >> > not enough internalization of externalities.
>
> >> >> >> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
> >> >> >> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
> >> >> >> could use bicycles.
>
> >> >> > You've totally missed the point.
>
> >> >> No, you have.
>
> >> > Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
> >> > he gives.
>
> >> >> He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
> >> >> presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen.
>
> >> > No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
> >> > constitutes efficiency.
>
> >> >> This is
> >> >> clearly demonstrated by the errors of omission he illustrated which
> >> >> are
> >> >> committed by vegans. A true efficiency equation would be far more
> >> >> complex
> >> >> than "veganism", for one thing it would use animals and plants in
> >> >> symbiosis,
> >> >> and it would utilize animals where plants were not as efficient to
> >> >> produce.
> >> >> An obvious example is the consumer choice between South American grown
> >> >> asparagus and locally obtained fish or game.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > All this is as may be, but it's completely different to Jon's
> >> > argument.
>
> >> No it isn't, I dealt with the same issues, what constitutes efficiency,
> >> and
> >> the fact that veganism only pretends to be about efficiency. Efficiency
> >> is a
> >> cover story for veganism, just like animal suffering.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > You did not deal with the issue of what constitutes efficiency. You
> > accepted (for the sake of argument only, perhaps) the basic premises
> > of the argument about what constitutes efficiency and tried to turn
> > them against the advocate of the argument, arguing that on this
> > account certain non-vegan foods would be more "efficient" than vegan
> > foods. It's a completely different approach to Jon's.
>
> > What you have succeeded in showing is the following. Let us ignore all
> > arguments for veganism except the efficiency argument. Let us grant
> > for the sake of argument the conception of efficiency advocated by the
> > efficiency argument. Let us assume that the typical vegan diet is
> > adequately "efficient". Then this argument will not suffice to rule
> > out some non-vegan diets. This is correct. Well done.
>
> What I am saying is that when advocates of veganism point out that consuming
> plants is more efficient from a strict calorie-conversion point of view than
> consuming animals, then extrapolate that to conclude that we should never
> consume animals, they are perpetrating a hoax. Nobody lives their lives
> according to strict caloric efficiencies, if they did then they would have a
> much more complex and difficult job than simply avoiding animal products.
>

Yes, the last point is certainly correct. I don't think anyone's
really advocating that we live our lives according to strict caloric
efficiencies. If they were, then of course you're right, they're being
hypocritical. It may, however, still be that people who are concerned
about the impact their lifestyle has on the environment might have a
rational motivation to go vegan. The typical vegan diet is not the
only possible equilibrium point between the desire to reduce one's
environmental impact and other, more self-interested desires, but it
is one possible equilibrium point. Someone might learn about the
environmental impact of modern farming and thereby become rationally
motivated to reduce their consumption of animal products, possibly to
the point of going vegan, possibly not that far, possibly even
further. Other strategies might be possible as well.

But this is a completely different point to the one Jon is making.
What Jon is doing is questioning the relevance of the notion of
calorie-conversion efficiency. That's a completely different strategy.
And I happen to believe he hasn't really addressed the most common
arguments that might be made for the relevance of this notion. So you
were wrong to say I missed the point. I was addressing Jon's argument,
then you introduced a completely new argument of your own, with which,
as it happens, I essentially agree.

>
>
> > It's a completely different approach to Jon's. Jon is rejecting the
> > conception of "efficiency" on which the argument is based.
>
> It's not a completely different approach, his was simply more thorough. The
> essence of his argument is that efficiency in the sense of choosing the food
> that causes the least environmental damage is not followed by vegans,

No, he never made that argument. He argued that the notion of
efficiency in question wasn't relevant.

> because avoiding meat and other animal products in and of itself does not do
> that, and that is essentially all vegans do. That is also the point I made.

You're seeing things that aren't there. Jon never made that point.
It's your point, not his.

> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

On Jun 1, 9:34 pm, Rudy Canoza <notgen....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 11:43 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" <n....RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Rupert" <rupertmccal....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1180664666.067600.58170@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can....RemoveThis@excite.com> wrote:
> > > >> pearl wrote:
> > > >> > On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can....RemoveThis@excite.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> > > >> >> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>
> > > >> > [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>
> > > >> >> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> > > >> >> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> > > >> >> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> > > >> >> *consumption*.
>
> > > >> >> 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.
>
> > > >> > "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
> > > >> > and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
> > > >> > raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
> > > >> > feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
> > > >> > hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
> > > >> > livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>
> > > >> > The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
> > > >> > going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
> > > >> > going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
> > > >> > longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
> > > >> > deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
> > > >> > be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
> > > >> > fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
> > > >> > livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
> > > >> > back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
> > > >> > them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>
> > > >> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
> > > >> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
> > > >> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
> > > >> consumer demand.
>
> > > > No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
> > > > should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
> > > > not enough internalization of externalities.
>
> > > >> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
> > > >> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
> > > >> could use bicycles.
>
> > > > You've totally missed the point.
>
> > > No, you have.
>
> > Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
> > he gives.
>
> > > He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
> > > presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen.
>
> > No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
> > constitutes efficiency.
>
> That's my criticism of it, and the criticism is correct.

In my view, you've misread the argument.

> But it *is*
> offered as a smokescreen. The stupid "vegans" can't win the battle of
> ethics, so they try to venture into economics with their stupid
> "inefficiency" smokescreen, and they lose there, too.
>

The ethical arguments for veganism (or some diet which is comparable
in terms of its impact on animals) are good ones. You've never offered
any good criticisms of these arguments in their strongest form, which
is simply: production of animal food products *usually* causes a lot
more suffering than plant food production, it is ethically obligatory
(or at least preferable) not to financially support gratuitous
unnecessary suffering when you can avoid doing so with no real
sacrifice, therefore it is ethically obligatory (or at least
preferable) to follow a vegan diet or at least a diet with only some
specially-selected animal products. That's basically the argument
which motivates most people to go vegan. You haven't shown that
there's anything wrong with it. You've shown that some of the strict
animal rights positions which are advanced in the literature might be
hard to sustain in a non-hypocritical way once we confront certain
facts about what it takes to sustain our lifestyles. Fine, so maybe we
should abandon these strict animal rights positions, or alternatively,
maybe we should make radical changes to our lifestyles such as growing
all our own food. But, if we decide to abandon the strict animal
rights positions, it doesn't at all follow that the status quo is
perfectly all right. You seem to think it does, but you've never
really produced any good arguments for this.

You've raised interesting questions about how far the ethical
arguments for veganism might be taken, and posed the challenge of
fitting them into a coherent and comprehensive ethical framework,
which is an important challenge. But you haven't shown that your own
ethical views are superior.

The argument you're addressing in this thread is really an
environmental argument, and I don't think you've done much to
undermine it. You haven't shown that the generally accepted definition
of economic efficiency has any bearing on the issue.

There are basically two arguments. One argument is that an individual
concerned about the impact of his lifestyle on the environment might
be rationally motivated to cut down on animal products. Interestingly,
I saw a news item recently indicating that the Environmental
Department of the UK Government appears to agree with this position,
although they fall short of recommending a vegan lifestyle, believing
that making such recommendations is not very likely to be productive.

Now, one way to read your argument is as a sort of free-market
environmentalism. You might be saying that the environmental costs of
meat production are fully reflected in the price, because as land,
high-quality soil, and so forth become more scarce, the price will
increase, and farmers who own land will have an incentive to farm it
in a sustainable way, and so forth. We might need some government
regulation to deal with the possible problem of anthropogenic climate
change, but never mind that. This is basically an economic debate, and
I acknowledge that your knowledge of economics is superior to mine,
but I also believe there are some qualified people who would take a
different position. Hence I suspend judgement on this matter. However,
I'm not sure this really affects the main point that an individual
concerned to reduce his environmental impact might rationally be
motivated to cut down on animal products. That's what the so-called
"efficiency argument" is really about. If you've got a good criticism
of this argument, then I don't think we've seen it yet.

Another argument, which Mylan Engel Jr. made in his essay "Taking
Hunger Seriously", is that if large numbers of people go vegan that
will have a desirable effect on global food distribution. He wasn't
very clear about the mechanism by which this would happen, but I think
the idea is that the demand for the crops which we produce to feed to
farm animals would decrease, hence the market price would decrease,
hence the parts of the crops suitable for human consumption would
become more affordable to starving people in the Third World, so that
fewer people would starve.

Now, perhaps you want to claim that this is shoddy economics and that
the effect in question wouldn't really happen. That's as may be.
Again, I acknowledge your superior knowledge in this department.

Alternatively, you might want to make an argument in moral philosophy,
saying that people shouldn't be coerced into making such choices,
because the entitlement theory of justice is correct, and that means
that, just as a suitor who is rejected because the object of his love
finds a more desirable partner has not had his rights violated, so the
starving people in the Third World who find it more difficult to buy
food because people in the developed world with more buying power want
to eat meat have not had their rights violated.

Well, that's all very well, but the suggestion that people should be
coerced into making those choices was never really on the table. The
claim was that if you were concerned about starvation in the Third
World you might rationally be motivated to go vegan. If it is conceded
that the effect in question would happen, then this argument from the
entitlement theory of justice doesn't really undermine that claim.

I'm not all that crazy about Mylan Engel Jr's argument. But the
environmental argument seems like a pretty reasonable one to me. If
you're concerned about climate change, or soil degradation, or
deforestation, then you might rationally be motivated to cut down on
your consumption of animal products in an effort to do something about
these problems. That's what all the talk about "efficiency" really is
about. Your notion of efficiency which is used by economists is not
really germane to the argument, as far as I can tell.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

On Jun 2, 12:15 am, Rudy Canoza <notgen... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 1:54 am, Rupert <rupertmccal... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 5:03 pm, "Dutch" <n... RemoveThis @email.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Rupert" <rupertmccal... Re