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

On Jun 4, 1:09 pm, "Dutch" <n....RemoveThis@home.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1180913971.592064.32150@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 4, 5:09 am, "Dutch" <n....RemoveThis@home.com> wrote:
> >> "Rupert" <rupertmccal....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> >> > I am honestly facing up to the difficulties with my position.
>
> >> I believe that you think that you are, but I don't see any evidence you
> >> actually are facing up to them. When you encounter one of these
> >> difficulties
> >> your apparent response is to acknowledge it, label it and file it away in
> >> a
> >> folder called "difficulties", then you carry on as before, the
> >> fundamental
> >> beliefs and conclusions that you had before encountering the difficulty
> >> remain unscathed. It's as if you find AR ideals so compelling, so
> >> comforting, that you have abandoned all real critical thought regarding
> >> them. You think that perhaps some solution will emerge to resolve the
> >> difficulties if you just leave them stored away long enough? De Grazia's
> >> "equal consideration" is one example of this phenomenon that comes to
> >> mind.
> >> You seem to find the notion so intuitive, so appealling, that even De
> >> Grazia's own admitted doubts and confusion over the concept don't deter
> >> you
> >> from viewing it as a de facto fundamental moral imperative.
>
> > You seem to think that, in light of these difficulties, the only
> > rational thing I can do is abandon equal consideration.
>
> Of course, that's what rational thought is supposed to allow you to do. That
> doesn't mean you can't reassess the position at any time.
>

Yeah, but you're wrong. There's no rational reason for be to abandon
equal consideration. If someone offered a good defence of species
discrimination, that might make it rational for me to do that.

> >Well, I don't
> > agree. It's true that equal consideration raises difficulties, but
> > there are also difficulties with unequal consideration, namely, the
> > challenge of explaining why discrimination on the basis of species is
> > justified. I've never seen what I regard as a satisfactory attempt to
> > do this.
>
> Why does it require justification? It seems to me that doing so is inherent
> in the very fabric of existence. Equal consideration, taken literally, which
> one must do or else find a new phrase, implies behaviours that are
> impossible to achieve.
>

No, it doesn't, or at least that hasn't been shown yet. You're
confused about what "equal consideration" means.

> > You don't seem to have a very good idea of what equal consideration
> > actually involves.
>
> The phrase seems to say it all.
>

Well, maybe you should pay more attention to the explanations given by
the people who originated the phrase.

> >You once asked me whether equal consideration for
> > humans entailed that we had strong positive duties towards humans who
> > are much less fortunate than us. Well, the answer is that it doesn't,
> > and if you were a bit more familiar with moral philosophy you'd
> > realize this.
>
> Then it's not equal consideration, call it unequal consideration instead.
>

Look, I'm telling you what meaning was intended for the phrase by the
person who invented it. You think he's come up with the wrong phrase
for what he means, well, you're entitled to your view, but seriously,
what would you know? You're really not competent to comment on this
issue.

> > Equal consideration is compatible with a broad variety
> > of ethical frameworks, including ones with quite limited positive
> > duties.
>
> How do we know if we don't have a clear definition of it?
>

I have read the explanation DeGrazia gave of the notion, and I know
that that is what he intended. You may not know this, but luckily for
you, I am happy to help you out.

> Yes, one could desire more clarity in the notion of equal
>
> > consideration, but people who have some familiarity with the diversity
> > of frameworks in moral philosophy will have an intuitive sense for how
> > the concept applies to these different frameworks. The notion is not
> > too vague to work with for someone who actually has some knowledge of
> > moral philosophy. Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is an
> > example of a theory which is consistent with equal consideration.
> > There could well be other theories that are consistent with it, which
> > are not absolute rights positions, but not consequentialist positions
> > either. The last time I said this you said I was just talking
> > meaningless waffle and engaging in "verbal tap dancing". Well, you're
> > wrong.
>
> In other words it's a term that philosphers bandy about whilst sitting
> sipping lattés in college lounges, don't expect it to sound reasonable to
> someone who is trying to apply it with common sense.
>

Look, this is just stupid anti-intellectualism. Moral philosophers
have spent more time thinking about ethical theory than you have.
There may be some concepts they can usefully employ which it might
take you a little while to understand. I mean, do you expect to be
able to understand all the concepts in my thesis (which is in
mathematics) just from "common sense" alone? You don't get what "equal
consideration" means. Acknowledge that fact, and if you feel inclined,
try to do the necessary study to understand the term, or else
acknowledge that you're not competent to say all that much about it.

>
>
> > There is a challenge: either construct a comprehensive, satisfactory
> > ethical theory that is consistent with equal consideration, or come up
> > with a good account of why discrimination on the basis of species is
> > justified. I intend to think seriously about this challenge.
>
> Discrimination of the basis of species is as much an inherent part of our
> reality as animals, and as humans as birth and death.
>

It has not been established that it is inescapable. You don't
understand what it would take to establish this.

> You're
>
> > wrong to say I'm not facing up to the difficulties. I acknowledge the
> > difficulties and am thinking seriously about them, I intend to write
> > some stuff on the subject. That doesn't mean that I am rationally
> > required to abandon equal consideration. Whether or not equal
> > consideration should be accepted is a difficult question, it's not as
> > simple as you think.
>
> As it stands, at this moment in time, you are abandoning equal
> consideration, as I understand it, when you realize the fact that in order
> to live your relatively comfortable existence in western academia you are
> sponsoring the systematic killing of animals.

Well, I'm not abandoning equal consideration as I or DeGrazia
understand it. You haven't managed to grasp that concept, you should
acknowledge that and concede that you're not competent to say anything
about it.

> This state of affairs in no
> minor hurdle, life for our species could go on if we did not do this. We
> even kill animals when we cut our lawns or wash our bodies.

Not members of the animal kingdom when we wash our bodies, I don't
think.

> This life is a
> bloody affair. Ironically, if we actually pursued this notion to the
> extinction of our species (perhaps we ought to), the remainingr 99.99% of
> the animal life on the planet would do very well without us and our silly
> conceits,

Yeah, you think it's obvious that taking equal consideration seriously
would require the extinction of our species. Well, I don't think
that's obvious. And I understand the concept and you don't. So you
should really acknowledge that you have no basis for saying that I'm
not taking the difficulties in my position seriously, because you
don't really understand what I am committed to.


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

On Jun 4, 5:02 pm, "Dutch" <n....RemoveThis@home.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> On Jun 4, 1:09 pm, "Dutch" <n....RemoveThis@home.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > I am honestly facing up to the difficulties with my position.
>
> > >> I believe that you think that you are, but I don't see any evidence you
> > >> actually are facing up to them. When you encounter one of these
> > >> difficulties
> > >> your apparent response is to acknowledge it, label it and file it away
> > >> in
> > >> a
> > >> folder called "difficulties", then you carry on as before, the
> > >> fundamental
> > >> beliefs and conclusions that you had before encountering the difficulty
> > >> remain unscathed. It's as if you find AR ideals so compelling, so
> > >> comforting, that you have abandoned all real critical thought regarding
> > >> them. You think that perhaps some solution will emerge to resolve the
> > >> difficulties if you just leave them stored away long enough? De
> > >> Grazia's
> > >> "equal consideration" is one example of this phenomenon that comes to
> > >> mind.
> > >> You seem to find the notion so intuitive, so appealling, that even De
> > >> Grazia's own admitted doubts and confusion over the concept don't deter
> > >> you
> > >> from viewing it as a de facto fundamental moral imperative.
>
> > > You seem to think that, in light of these difficulties, the only
> > > rational thing I can do is abandon equal consideration.
>
> > Of course, that's what rational thought is supposed to allow you to do.
> > That
> > doesn't mean you can't reassess the position at any time.
>
> Yeah, but you're wrong. There's no rational reason for be to abandon
> equal consideration.
>
> ---->
> You never embraced it, it's just a phrase you like the sound of.
>

No. I know what it means, you don't. You're not competent to comment
on the matter.

> If someone offered a good defence of species
> discrimination, that might make it rational for me to do that.
>
> ---->
> It doesn't require a defense, you can't live on this earth and not
> discriminate based on species. Therefore the only way to abandon it would be
> to cease to exist.
>

You don't understand what constitutes species discrimination and what
doesn't.

> > >Well, I don't
> > > agree. It's true that equal consideration raises difficulties, but
> > > there are also difficulties with unequal consideration, namely, the
> > > challenge of explaining why discrimination on the basis of species is
> > > justified. I've never seen what I regard as a satisfactory attempt to
> > > do this.
>
> > Why does it require justification? It seems to me that doing so is
> > inherent
> > in the very fabric of existence. Equal consideration, taken literally,
> > which
> > one must do or else find a new phrase, implies behaviours that are
> > impossible to achieve.
>
> No, it doesn't, or at least that hasn't been shown yet. You're
> confused about what "equal consideration" means.
>
> ---->
> I know what equal means, I know what consideration means, how hard can it
> be?
>

Well, it's not as simple as that, I'm afraid. I can see that your lack
of background in moral philosophy is giving you trouble understanding
the concept. I can try and help you if you like, but you may have to
do a bit of reading. You'll also have to give me credit for not
engaging in "circuitous sophisms". I'm not. If you don't accept that,
well, that's really not my problem.

> > > You don't seem to have a very good idea of what equal consideration
> > > actually involves.
>
> > The phrase seems to say it all.
>
> Well, maybe you should pay more attention to the explanations given by
> the people who originated the phrase.
>
> ---->
> De Grazia made up the phrase without knowing what it means. He admits that.
>

No.

> > >You once asked me whether equal consideration for
> > > humans entailed that we had strong positive duties towards humans who
> > > are much less fortunate than us. Well, the answer is that it doesn't,
> > > and if you were a bit more familiar with moral philosophy you'd
> > > realize this.
>
> > Then it's not equal consideration, call it unequal consideration instead.
>
> Look, I'm telling you what meaning was intended for the phrase by the
> person who invented it.
>
> ---->
> He has no authority to assign meaning to words that don't conform to their
> natural meanings, unless he's being colloquial.
>

"Equal consideration" is a good phrase for what he means. You would
understand this if you were more familiar with the different schools
of thought in moral philosophy and their different approaches to the
issue of what human equality means.

> You think he's come up with the wrong phrase
> for what he means, well, you're entitled to your view, but seriously,
> what would you know? You're really not competent to comment on this
> issue.
>
> ---->
> I am competent enough in the english language to know what equal
> consideration *should* mean.
>

No, I'm afraid you're not. It's not just the kind of thing that common
sense and competence in English gives you an insight into. You've got
to have some familiarity with the attempts by different moral
philosophers to explain what we mean by equality.

> > > Equal consideration is compatible with a broad variety
> > > of ethical frameworks, including ones with quite limited positive
> > > duties.
>
> > How do we know if we don't have a clear definition of it?
>
> I have read the explanation DeGrazia gave of the notion, and I know
> that that is what he intended. You may not know this, but luckily for
> you, I am happy to help you out.
>
> ---->
> Your explanations are circuitous sophisms, they don't clarify anything.
>

Not to you, maybe. My explanations are not sophisms. I may not be
doing a very good job of helping you at the moment. Some concepts take
time to explain. If you're prepared to listen and make a genuine
effort to understand we can work through the book again and I can
refer you to some other literature which may help you. I think my
explanations should have helped you at least a little bit. I think
you're not really making a good faith effort to understand. You've
just decided that there's nothing to understand.

> > Yes, one could desire more clarity in the notion of equal
>
> > > consideration, but people who have some familiarity with the diversity
> > > of frameworks in moral philosophy will have an intuitive sense for how
> > > the concept applies to these different frameworks. The notion is not
> > > too vague to work with for someone who actually has some knowledge of
> > > moral philosophy. Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is an
> > > example of a theory which is consistent with equal consideration.
> > > There could well be other theories that are consistent with it, which
> > > are not absolute rights positions, but not consequentialist positions
> > > either. The last time I said this you said I was just talking
> > > meaningless waffle and engaging in "verbal tap dancing". Well, you're
> > > wrong.
>
> > In other words it's a term that philosphers bandy about whilst sitting
> > sipping lattés in college lounges, don't expect it to sound reasonable to
> > someone who is trying to apply it with common sense.
>
> Look, this is just stupid anti-intellectualism.
>
> ---->
> No, it's anti-pseudo-intellectuallism.
>

No, it's not. I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about.
You're not competent to evaluate DeGrazia's work in moral philosophy
when you don't know the context which it fits into.

> Moral philosophers
> have spent more time thinking about ethical theory than you have.
> There may be some concepts they can usefully employ which it might
> take you a little while to understand. I mean, do you expect to be
> able to understand all the concepts in my thesis (which is in
> mathematics) just from "common sense" alone? You don't get what "equal
> consideration" means. Acknowledge that fact, and if you feel inclined,
> try to do the necessary study to understand the term, or else
> acknowledge that you're not competent to say all that much about it.
>
> ---->
> I know that "equal consideration" could not remotely apply to any way that
> humans could systematically relate to non-humans. A human could conceivably
> value a beloved dog as much as he values his child, even that is unlikely.
> In fact every consideration we have towards other beings is unique to the
> relationship between us and each of them. None of them is equal.
>

You're refusing to make an effort to understand what "equal
consideration" is really supposed to mean. What about your other
point, we spend money on ourselves instead of feeding the starving so
we don't give equal consideration to humans either? All right, in that
sense of equal consideration we don't, no. But it's silly to assume
that that's the only sense of equal consideration worth examining.

>
>
> > > There is a challenge: either construct a comprehensive, satisfactory
> > > ethical theory that is consistent with equal consideration, or come up
> > > with a good account of why discrimination on the basis of species is
> > > justified. I intend to think seriously about this challenge.
>
> > Discrimination of the basis of species is as much an inherent part of our
> > reality as animals, and as humans as birth and death.
>
> It has not been established that it is inescapable. You don't
> understand what it would take to establish this.
>
> ---->
> It's been established a hell of a lot more rigorously than "equal
> consideration" which make ZERO sense.
>

No, I'm afraid it hasn't. The concept of discrimination on the basis
of species is linked to the concept of equal consideration. If you
don't understand one, you don't understand the other. And if you don't
understand the concept of discrimination on the basis of species, you
can't rigorously establish anything about it. If you want to make a
respectable criticism of DeGrazia's ideas, you're going to have to
make a better effort to understand them. Your current attempts aren't
good enough. You're not manifesting any real understanding.

> > You're
>
> > > wrong to say I'm not facing up to the difficulties. I acknowledge the
> > > difficulties and am thinking seriously about them, I intend to write
> > > some stuff on the subject. That doesn't mean that I am rationally
> > > required to abandon equal consideration. Whether or not equal
> > > consideration should be accepted is a difficult question, it's not as
> > > simple as you think.
>
> > As it stands, at this moment in time, you are abandoning equal
> > consideration, as I understand it, when you realize the fact that in order
> > to live your relatively comfortable existence in western academia you are
> > sponsoring the systematic killing of animals.
>
> Well, I'm not abandoning equal consideration as I or DeGrazia
> understand it. You haven't managed to grasp that concept, you should
> acknowledge that and concede that you're not competent to say anything
> about it.
>
> ---->
> If you are trying to precipitate an insult by being tiresome so you can play
> the victim again I'm not going to bite this time.
>

Well, look, I'm sorry you find it tiresome, but I'm afraid it's true.
I find it pretty tiresome that you keep on carrying on as though
you're competent to criticize these ideas when you obviously don't
understand them, and that when I try to educate you you say I'm
engaging in sophisms.

> > This state of affairs in no
> > minor hurdle, life for our species could go on if we did not do this. We
> > even kill animals when we cut our lawns or wash our bodies.
>
> Not members of the animal kingdom when we wash our bodies, I don't
> think.
>
> ---->
> No?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demodex_mite
> You didn't comment about mowing the lawn, have you ever sat outside at night
> under a big light and watched the life in a lawn? There are millions of tiny
> creatures, whole bug worlds spring up in a few weeks. They are laid waste
> when we cut the grass.
>

Yes. Their sentience is a matter for reasonable doubt.

> > This life is a
> > bloody affair. Ironically, if we actually pursued this notion to the
> > extinction of our species (perhaps we ought to), the remainingr 99.99% of
> > the animal life on the planet would do very well without us and our silly
> > conceits,
>
> Yeah, you think it's obvious that taking equal consideration seriously
> would require the extinction of our species. Well, I don't think
> that's obvious. And I understand the concept and you don't. So you
> should really acknowledge that you have no basis for saying that I'm
> not taking the difficulties in my position seriously, because you
> don't really understand what I am committed to.
>
> ---->
> You're not saying anything of substance. I have demonstrated in this post
> that "equal consideration" can't really mean equal because we kill demodex
> mites when we wash our hair.

That's a silly argument. There's no reason to think demodex mites are
sentient.

>We also kill small creatures when we wash our
> clothes, vacuum the carpet, walk, even breathe. So you must least take the
> step of stipulating that size matters.

Some things matter. Sentience is one of them. Level of cognitive
complexity may be another.

> The problem with that is though, it
> doesn't stop with mites, the continuum.. continues. It keeps going up
> through beetles and grasshoppers, roaches, toads, lizards, finally mammals.
> Animal life is ubiquitous, we're part of an animal soup. It's difficult
> enough to give some kind of consideration to some people, much less every
> animal in existence. It's just not a plausible concept. It does have a nice
> ring to it though, I'll give you that. AR is all about concepts that have
> nice rings to them, people love that.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

"Rupert" <rupertmccallum.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180913971.592064.32150@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 4, 5:09 am, "Dutch" <n....RemoveThis@home.com> wrote:
>> "Rupert" <rupertmccal....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>> > I am honestly facing up to the difficulties with my position.
>>
>> I believe that you think that you are, but I don't see any evidence you
>> actually are facing up to them. When you encounter one of these
>> difficulties
>> your apparent response is to acknowledge it, label it and file it away in
>> a
>> folder called "difficulties", then you carry on as before, the
>> fundamental
>> beliefs and conclusions that you had before encountering the difficulty
>> remain unscathed. It's as if you find AR ideals so compelling, so
>> comforting, that you have abandoned all real critical thought regarding
>> them. You think that perhaps some solution will emerge to resolve the
>> difficulties if you just leave them stored away long enough? De Grazia's
>> "equal consideration" is one example of this phenomenon that comes to
>> mind.
>> You seem to find the notion so intuitive, so appealling, that even De
>> Grazia's own admitted doubts and confusion over the concept don't deter
>> you
>> from viewing it as a de facto fundamental moral imperative.
>
> You seem to think that, in light of these difficulties, the only
> rational thing I can do is abandon equal consideration.

Of course, that's what rational thought is supposed to allow you to do. That
doesn't mean you can't reassess the position at any time.

>Well, I don't
> agree. It's true that equal consideration raises difficulties, but
> there are also difficulties with unequal consideration, namely, the
> challenge of explaining why discrimination on the basis of species is
> justified. I've never seen what I regard as a satisfactory attempt to
> do this.

Why does it require justification? It seems to me that doing so is inherent
in the very fabric of existence. Equal consideration, taken literally, which
one must do or else find a new phrase, implies behaviours that are
impossible to achieve.

> You don't seem to have a very good idea of what equal consideration
> actually involves.

The phrase seems to say it all.

>You once asked me whether equal consideration for
> humans entailed that we had strong positive duties towards humans who
> are much less fortunate than us. Well, the answer is that it doesn't,
> and if you were a bit more familiar with moral philosophy you'd
> realize this.

Then it's not equal consideration, call it unequal consideration instead.

> Equal consideration is compatible with a broad variety
> of ethical frameworks, including ones with quite limited positive
> duties.

How do we know if we don't have a clear definition of it?

Yes, one could desire more clarity in the notion of equal
> consideration, but people who have some familiarity with the diversity
> of frameworks in moral philosophy will have an intuitive sense for how
> the concept applies to these different frameworks. The notion is not
> too vague to work with for someone who actually has some knowledge of
> moral philosophy. Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is an
> example of a theory which is consistent with equal consideration.
> There could well be other theories that are consistent with it, which
> are not absolute rights positions, but not consequentialist positions
> either. The last time I said this you said I was just talking
> meaningless waffle and engaging in "verbal tap dancing". Well, you're
> wrong.

In other words it's a term that philosphers bandy about whilst sitting
sipping lattés in college lounges, don't expect it to sound reasonable to
someone who is trying to apply it with common sense.

>
> There is a challenge: either construct a comprehensive, satisfactory
> ethical theory that is consistent with equal consideration, or come up
> with a good account of why discrimination on the basis of species is
> justified. I intend to think seriously about this challenge.

Discrimination of the basis of species is as much an inherent part of our
reality as animals, and as humans as birth and death.

You're
> wrong to say I'm not facing up to the difficulties. I acknowledge the
> difficulties and am thinking seriously about them, I intend to write
> some stuff on the subject. That doesn't mean that I am rationally
> required to abandon equal consideration. Whether or not equal
> consideration should be accepted is a difficult question, it's not as
> simple as you think.

As it stands, at this moment in time, you are abandoning equal
consideration, as I understand it, when you realize the fact that in order
to live your relatively comfortable existence in western academia you are
sponsoring the systematic killing of animals. This state of affairs in no
minor hurdle, life for our species could go on if we did not do this. We
even kill animals when we cut our lawns or wash our bodies. This life is a
bloody affair. Ironically, if we actually pursued this notion to the
extinction of our species (perhaps we ought to), the remainingr 99.99% of
the animal life on the planet would do very well without us and our silly
conceits,
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

"Rupert" <rupertmccallum.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
On Jun 4, 1:09 pm, "Dutch" <n....RemoveThis@home.com> wrote:


> >> > I am honestly facing up to the difficulties with my position.
>
> >> I believe that you think that you are, but I don't see any evidence you
> >> actually are facing up to them. When you encounter one of these
> >> difficulties
> >> your apparent response is to acknowledge it, label it and file it away
> >> in
> >> a
> >> folder called "difficulties", then you carry on as before, the
> >> fundamental
> >> beliefs and conclusions that you had before encountering the difficulty
> >> remain unscathed. It's as if you find AR ideals so compelling, so
> >> comforting, that you have abandoned all real critical thought regarding
> >> them. You think that perhaps some solution will emerge to resolve the
> >> difficulties if you just leave them stored away long enough? De
> >> Grazia's
> >> "equal consideration" is one example of this phenomenon that comes to
> >> mind.
> >> You seem to find the notion so intuitive, so appealling, that even De
> >> Grazia's own admitted doubts and confusion over the concept don't deter
> >> you
> >> from viewing it as a de facto fundamental moral imperative.
>
> > You seem to think that, in light of these difficulties, the only
> > rational thing I can do is abandon equal consideration.
>
> Of course, that's what rational thought is supposed to allow you to do.
> That
> doesn't mean you can't reassess the position at any time.
>

Yeah, but you're wrong. There's no rational reason for be to abandon
equal consideration.

---->
You never embraced it, it's just a phrase you like the sound of.


If someone offered a good defence of species
discrimination, that might make it rational for me to do that.

---->
It doesn't require a defense, you can't live on this earth and not
discriminate based on species. Therefore the only way to abandon it would be
to cease to exist.

> >Well, I don't
> > agree. It's true that equal consideration raises difficulties, but
> > there are also difficulties with unequal consideration, namely, the
> > challenge of explaining why discrimination on the basis of species is
> > justified. I've never seen what I regard as a satisfactory attempt to
> > do this.
>
> Why does it require justification? It seems to me that doing so is
> inherent
> in the very fabric of existence. Equal consideration, taken literally,
> which
> one must do or else find a new phrase, implies behaviours that are
> impossible to achieve.
>

No, it doesn't, or at least that hasn't been shown yet. You're
confused about what "equal consideration" means.

---->
I know what equal means, I know what consideration means, how hard can it
be?


> > You don't seem to have a very good idea of what equal consideration
> > actually involves.
>
> The phrase seems to say it all.
>

Well, maybe you should pay more attention to the explanations given by
the people who originated the phrase.

---->
De Grazia made up the phrase without knowing what it means. He admits that.


> >You once asked me whether equal consideration for
> > humans entailed that we had strong positive duties towards humans who
> > are much less fortunate than us. Well, the answer is that it doesn't,
> > and if you were a bit more familiar with moral philosophy you'd
> > realize this.
>
> Then it's not equal consideration, call it unequal consideration instead.
>

Look, I'm telling you what meaning was intended for the phrase by the
person who invented it.

---->
He has no authority to assign meaning to words that don't conform to their
natural meanings, unless he's being colloquial.

You think he's come up with the wrong phrase
for what he means, well, you're entitled to your view, but seriously,
what would you know? You're really not competent to comment on this
issue.

---->
I am competent enough in the english language to know what equal
consideration *should* mean.

> > Equal consideration is compatible with a broad variety
> > of ethical frameworks, including ones with quite limited positive
> > duties.
>
> How do we know if we don't have a clear definition of it?
>

I have read the explanation DeGrazia gave of the notion, and I know
that that is what he intended. You may not know this, but luckily for
you, I am happy to help you out.

---->
Your explanations are circuitous sophisms, they don't clarify anything.


> Yes, one could desire more clarity in the notion of equal
>
> > consideration, but people who have some familiarity with the diversity
> > of frameworks in moral philosophy will have an intuitive sense for how
> > the concept applies to these different frameworks. The notion is not
> > too vague to work with for someone who actually has some knowledge of
> > moral philosophy. Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is an
> > example of a theory which is consistent with equal consideration.
> > There could well be other theories that are consistent with it, which
> > are not absolute rights positions, but not consequentialist positions
> > either. The last time I said this you said I was just talking
> > meaningless waffle and engaging in "verbal tap dancing". Well, you're
> > wrong.
>
> In other words it's a term that philosphers bandy about whilst sitting
> sipping lattés in college lounges, don't expect it to sound reasonable to
> someone who is trying to apply it with common sense.
>

Look, this is just stupid anti-intellectualism.

---->
No, it's anti-pseudo-intellectuallism.

Moral philosophers
have spent more time thinking about ethical theory than you have.
There may be some concepts they can usefully employ which it might
take you a little while to understand. I mean, do you expect to be
able to understand all the concepts in my thesis (which is in
mathematics) just from "common sense" alone? You don't get what "equal
consideration" means. Acknowledge that fact, and if you feel inclined,
try to do the necessary study to understand the term, or else
acknowledge that you're not competent to say all that much about it.


---->
I know that "equal consideration" could not remotely apply to any way that
humans could systematically relate to non-humans. A human could conceivably
value a beloved dog as much as he values his child, even that is unlikely.
In fact every consideration we have towards other beings is unique to the
relationship between us and each of them. None of them is equal.

>
>
> > There is a challenge: either construct a comprehensive, satisfactory
> > ethical theory that is consistent with equal consideration, or come up
> > with a good account of why discrimination on the basis of species is
> > justified. I intend to think seriously about this challenge.
>
> Discrimination of the basis of species is as much an inherent part of our
> reality as animals, and as humans as birth and death.
>

It has not been established that it is inescapable. You don't
understand what it would take to establish this.

---->
It's been established a hell of a lot more rigorously than "equal
consideration" which make ZERO sense.


> You're
>
> > wrong to say I'm not facing up to the difficulties. I acknowledge the
> > difficulties and am thinking seriously about them, I intend to write
> > some stuff on the subject. That doesn't mean that I am rationally
> > required to abandon equal consideration. Whether or not equal
> > consideration should be accepted is a difficult question, it's not as
> > simple as you think.
>
> As it stands, at this moment in time, you are abandoning equal
> consideration, as I understand it, when you realize the fact that in order
> to live your relatively comfortable existence in western academia you are
> sponsoring the systematic killing of animals.

Well, I'm not abandoning equal consideration as I or DeGrazia
understand it. You haven't managed to grasp that concept, you should
acknowledge that and concede that you're not competent to say anything
about it.

---->
If you are trying to precipitate an insult by being tiresome so you can play
the victim again I'm not going to bite this time.

> This state of affairs in no
> minor hurdle, life for our species could go on if we did not do this. We
> even kill animals when we cut our lawns or wash our bodies.

Not members of the animal kingdom when we wash our bodies, I don't
think.

---->
No? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demodex_mite
You didn't comment about mowing the lawn, have you ever sat outside at night
under a big light and watched the life in a lawn? There are millions of tiny
creatures, whole bug worlds spring up in a few weeks. They are laid waste
when we cut the grass.


> This life is a
> bloody affair. Ironically, if we actually pursued this notion to the
> extinction of our species (perhaps we ought to), the remainingr 99.99% of
> the animal life on the planet would do very well without us and our silly
> conceits,

Yeah, you think it's obvious that taking equal consideration seriously
would require the extinction of our species. Well, I don't think
that's obvious. And I understand the concept and you don't. So you
should really acknowledge that you have no basis for saying that I'm
not taking the difficulties in my position seriously, because you
don't really understand what I am committed to.

---->
You're not saying anything of substance. I have demonstrated in this post
that "equal consideration" can't really mean equal because we kill demodex
mites when we wash our hair. We also kill small creatures when we wash our
clothes, vacuum the carpet, walk, even breathe. So you must least take the
step of stipulating that size matters. The problem with that is though, it
doesn't stop with mites, the continuum.. continues. It keeps going up
through beetles and grasshoppers, roaches, toads, lizards, finally mammals.
Animal life is ubiquitous, we're part of an animal soup. It's difficult
enough to give some kind of consideration to some people, much less every
animal in existence. It's just not a plausible concept. It does have a nice
ring to it though, I'll give you that. AR is all about concepts that have
nice rings to them, people love that.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

"Rupert" <rupertmccallum.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote
> The difference is, I have offered reasoning explaining why my point of
> view is correct, which you snipped and failed to engage with. You have
> offered no reasoning to back up your point of view whatsoever, you are
> just asserting it, because that is all you can do. No rational person
> is fooled.

Actually, this thread began by Mr Rudy posting an elegant argument on the
issue. Since then you have simply been barking back, asserting that are not
convinced, inserting numerous references to how qualified you are to talk on
these matters and whining about being insulted.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

On Jun 5, 6:01 pm, "Dutch" <n....TakeThisOut@home.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > What Ball did was construct this imaginary argument based purely on
> > resource-intensiveness and point out that it was flawed. It takes no
> > great intellectual effort to see that that argument is flawed. But
> > obviously no-one actually makes it. When people complain about the
> > resource-intensiveness of meat production, they are obviously really
> > referring to alleged environmental effects, or alleged pernicious
> > effects on global food distribution. No-one complains about resource-
> > intensiveness in itself. Ball thinks they do, but that is just because
> > he is seeing what he wants to see. He hasn't produced the slightest
> > shred of evidence for this bizarre interpretation.
>
> The efficiency argument is one frequently raised by vegans, in fact it is
> the most common argument we hear and I believe usually the first one a
> neophyte into the AR camp learns. It says that since it takes ten pounds (or
> whatever number) of plants to produce one pound of meat, therefore it is
> inefficient and wasteful to produce meat, and therefore we should stop
> producing meat and just eat the plants directly, *and* the difference could
> be used to alleviate world hunger. I believe that this is the argument he is
> referring to, and you can find it on nearly every website promoting
> vegetarianism.
>

That's right. There are two arguments, an environmental argument and
an argument from fairness of global food distribution. Ball has not
touched either of these, by his own admission. He is making the
bizarre and ridiculous interpretation that the argument is about
resource-intensiveness alone and attacking that version of the
argument.

> He goes on to point out why this argument is fallacious from the standpoint
> of true ecomonics, and his argument makes perfect sense.

As he himself concedes, his argument only bears on an argument from
resource-intensiveness alone. I maintain what I think should be fairly
obvious, that this is an argument nobody actually makes. This
shouldn't be too hard to understand if you've been listening.

> He also points out
> that how this dichotomy is used to target meat production but convenient
> ignores many other food comparisons that ought also to be considered, such
> as potatoes vs nuts.

Yes, that is one other point he made. I haven't really gone into this
in any depth, although I have made some remarks. That's a different
issue.

> This so-called efficiency argument also has other
> serious flaws he didn't mention. The plants eaten by animals are generally
> raw and unprocessed and generally too fibrous or of quality too poor for
> human consumption, these kinds of plants can be produced with little
> intervention.

Unless you're seriously claiming our level of crop production is no
higher than it would be if we were all vegan, I don't see what the
point is.

> Also there are the huge issues of distribution and political
> instability. Currently large surpluses of grains exist in developed nations
> that can't reach people who need them. Growing more is not the answer.

I'm not naive enough to believe that if the developed world went vegan
that would solve the world's food distribution problems. I believe
that the argument that if we weren't producing so many crops to feed
animals, the market price of certain crops would be more affordable to
people who are starving, deserves some consideration, however.

> It
> used to surprise me that so many otherwise intelligent folks swallow this
> argument unquestioningly. I'm used to it now. I attribute this to the effect
> of idealogical bias that I referred to earlier. Most of these arguments
> start from the premise that it's wrong to use animals for our own ends, so
> the trail inevitably ends up in the same place.

There's really nothing wrong with the environmental argument. It's
perfectly reasonable to point out that going vegan is one rational
thing to do from an environmental point of view. Obviously no-one's
going to do absolutely everything they can to minimize their impact on
the environment, but cutting down on animal products is nevertheless
one reasonable step to take.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

"Rupert" <rupertmccallum.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180860215.386739.99900@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 3, 3:32 pm, "Dutch" <n....RemoveThis@home.com> wrote:
>> "Rupert" <rupertmccal....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1180845821.686062.147880@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 3, 2:16 pm, "Dutch" <n....RemoveThis@home.com> wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" <rupertmccal....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:1180841496.877364.14480@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Jun 3, 5:03 am, "Dutch" <n....RemoveThis@home.com> wrote:
>> >> >> "Rupert" <rupertmccal....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote> On Jun 2, 12:15 am, Rudy
>> >> >> Canoza <notgen....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> [..]
>>
>> >> >> >> > > >> > 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.
>>
>> >> >> > The scientific consensus is that most people are perfectly
>> >> >> > capable
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > thriving on a vegan diet. I'm perfectly justified in being
>> >> >> > skeptical
>> >> >> > that it was impossible for him to be vegan and healthy.
>>
>> >> >> "Most people" leaves some of the population who can't. I am one of
>> >> >> them.
>>
>> >> > Possibly.
>>
>> >> Plausibly, you yourself left the possibility open with "most people
>> >> are
>> >> perfectly capable of thriving on a vegan diet". In fact making that
>> >> eminently reasonable interpertation of scientific consensus then
>> >> immediately
>> >> rejecting my own case without knowing anything about me shows that you
>> >> are
>> >> heavily influenced by idealogical considerations.
>>
>> > I made the conjecture that you could have resolved your health
>> > problems without abandoning veganism. I acknowledged that I did not
>> > know for sure. This was a reasonable conjecture based on what my state
>> > of knowledge about your situation at the time, and what I know about
>> > the scientific consensus. Now that I know that at least one dietitian
>> > had a different view things are different. There is no ideology
>> > involved.
>>
>> > Whatever. This is boring, anyway. Yes, I acknowledge the possibility
>> > that it might have been very difficult to resolve your health problems
>> > without abandoning veganism, as I always did, and I am now less
>> > skeptical about that possibility than before now that I know that at
>> > least one dietitian held that view. All right?
>>
>> > This all started with Ball saying that the fact that I claimed you
>> > were lying (which I didn't) shows that I am influenced by ideological
>> > considerations, which is very amusing and ironic given how often Ball
>> > expresses convictions that people are knowingly lying which are
>> > obviously totally irrational.
>>
>> > You say I'm influenced by ideology. Well, I don't think so, but I'll
>> > strive to watch out for any such tendency in myself and try to
>> > overcome it.
>>
>> Of course it is, if anything I have ever said to you is true, that is it.
>>
>
> You're saying of course I'm influenced by ideology, are you? Well, if
> it's so undeniable, do you care to argue the view? What exactly is an
> ideological belief? In what sense is my belief system different to
> yours?
>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >> > that seems very unlikely to me
>>
>> >> >> >> No, you mean it conflicts with your ideology, rupie.
>>
>> >> >> > I mean what I say. It is unlikely, given what is known about the
>> >> >> > nutritional adequacy of vegan diets, that he would have had to
>> >> >> > stop
>> >> >> > being vegan in order to resolve whatever problems he was having.
>>
>> >> >> You're not in a position to say what was possible for me and my
>> >> >> family
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> our particular medical circumstances.
>>
>> >> > True. I was never in a position to do anything more than conjecture,
>> >> > I
>> >> > never claimed to have reliable knowledge. Still, my conjecture was
>> >> > reasonable.
>>
>> >> Your conjecture contradicted your statement which left open the
>> >> possibility
>> >> that vegans diets are not always adequate.
>>
>> > No, not at all.
>>
>> >> >> You are neither qualified nor aware of
>> >> >> the specifics of our cases. He is correct, your reaction is
>> >> >> motivated
>> >> >> by
>> >> >> ideology.
>>
>> >> > No, it was a reasonable conjecture, which I never presented as fact,
>> >> > made on the basis of what I knew about your situation at the time
>> >> > and
>> >> > what I know about the scientific evidence. Nothing ideological about
>> >> > it. People often tell me anecdotes about their medical histories
>> >> > which
>> >> > strike me as implausible in the light of what I know about the
>> >> > scientific evidence. I conjecture to myself that some of their
>> >> > interpretations of what happened are mistaken, but acknowledge that
>> >> > I
>> >> > am not in a position to know. This was a case of that. Now that I
>> >> > know
>> >> > that at least one dietitian had a different view the situation is
>> >> > different.
>>
>> >> I didn't need a dietician to know that I did the right thing for me
>> >> and
>> >> my
>> >> family. My wife went from being wiry and energetic to being frail and
>> >> lethargic, much more so than the process of aging alone would have
>> >> dictated.
>> >> These effects were reversed almost immedately when we began to vary
>> >> our
>> >> diets. I have since read anecdotal reports of other who have similar
>> >> experiences.
>>
>> >>http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/veg-prob/veg-prob-scen1c.shtml
>> >> When there is too deep an emotional investment in diet,
>> >> open-mindedness
>> >> is
>> >> more difficult. For those of us whose diets are based not just on
>> >> nutritional ideas but on philosophical principles or beliefs that may
>> >> underlie an entire lifestyle, the toughest aspect of making a
>> >> transition
>> >> to
>> >> a different diet that may serve you better is not food. It is being
>> >> able
>> >> to
>> >> transcend your emotional identification with the philosophy or
>> >> worldview
>> >> underlying the diet you may have lived by for many years. This can
>> >> often
>> >> be
>> >> very difficult psychologically, because our food habits help to
>> >> comprise
>> >> a
>> >> literally "visceral" sense of who we are. Integrating a new or more
>> >> all-inclusive dietary vision based on new information that one may
>> >> only
>> >> be
>> >> beginning to realize the implications of, takes not only intellectual
>> >> understanding and assent but also patience and emotional honesty. Even
>> >> when
>> >> one is faced with well-corroborated research like what is presented in
>> >> some
>> >> sections of this site, we recognize it is difficult to change the
>> >> beliefs
>> >> of
>> >> a lifetime, or half a lifetime.
>>
>> > Health problems from eating too much meat are much more common than
>> > health problems from avoidance of animal products.
>>
>> Granted, no question, but these profound psychological barriers are no
>> less
>> real.
>>
>> Yes, of course
>>
>
> Well, when you say that people becoming emotionally invested in their
> identity as vegan, I agree with you, of course, but I think you're
> overestimating the extent to which this is likely to cause problems,
> and I also think that people who are attached to the typical meat-
> eating lifestyle may also have quite a strong attachment to that which
> may influence their decisions in ways whose rationality might be
> questioned.

People who eat meat are never prevented from switching to a vegetarian diet
due to guilt, or fear of doing something immoral, they just don't want to
give up something they like a lot. So it's not a psychological barrier.


>> > people become emotionally invested in their diet for one reason or
>> > another, and in the event of diet-related health problems they have to
>> > work out what their priorities are and how they are going to resolve
>> > their problem. Just as if someone finds they think they have reason to
>> > cut down on meat for ethical or health reasons, they have to work out
>> > how to balance this against whatever attachment they have to eating
>> > meat.
>>
>> Yes, absolutely.
>>
>> > This website is presenting a one-sided view of the issue in that it
>> > ignores the fact that for most people vegan diets are nutritionally
>> > adequate and in fact have significant health benefits. It's trying to
>> > say "Thinking of going vegetarian or vegan? Well, be careful, you
>> > might run into health problems" when the reality is that it is much
>> > more likely than not to improve your health in the long run. Every
>> > health professional with whom I have ever spoken about my diet has
>> > said that being vegan is really healthy.
>>
>> I think that is true in most cases. The key here being pointed out is to
>> avoid allowing oneself to be so emotionally invested in a diet that one
>> is
>> blocked from going back by psychological barriers.
>
> Well, one should strive for a situation in which one can make rational
> decisions about one's diet based on the facts and one's own personal
> priorities. I don't think vegans are more likely to have a problem in
> this department than anyone else.

Yes, they actually are. Diet is not normally considered to be a major moral
issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they want to explore the
health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely to feel a moral barrier to
making such a change, that would not even come up as an issue. However, a
vegan who is used to thinking of their diet as a statement of moral
commitment, which is most of them, is very likely to have psychological
barriers or hangups preventing them from starting to eat meat.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

On Jun 5, 9:42 am, "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.n... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
...
> What is there to justify? Man's brain developed off the back of eating
> protein-rich meat. If humans didn't eat meat then vegans would not be in a
> position to contemplate the fate of animals they might otherwise devour.

'There is a popular notion that anthropology can offer useful
insights for forming the basis of a dietary philosophy.
Anthropology is a science which is only just starting to mature,
previously having been little more that a systematic, but lose,
body of "say-so" information which attempted to explain our
species history and origins. With advances in dating methods,
including DNA analysis and more fossil finds, the science is
now embarking on its integration with biology. Previously,
anthropology was a pseudo-scientific marriage of traditional
views attempting to link the findings of robust sciences, such
as geology, palaeontology and archaeology. However, even
though anthropologists like Richard Leakey are aware that
their 'science' is often "based on unspoken assumptions"
(The Making of Mankind, p. 82, R. Leakey), they show that
they will persist in making them.

Anthropologies 'Man The Hunter' concept is still used as a
reason for justifying the consumption of animal flesh as food.
This has even extended as far as suggesting that animal foods
have enabled or caused human brain enlargement. Allegedly
this is because of the greater availability of certain kinds of
fats and the sharing behaviour associated with eating raw
animal food. The reality is that through natural selection, the
environmental factors our species have been exposed to
selected for greater brain development, long before raw animal
flesh became a significant part of our ancient ancestors diet.
The elephant has also developed a larger brain than the human
brain, on a diet primarily consisting of fermented foliage and
fruits. It is my hypothesis that it is eating fruits and perhaps
blossoms, that has, if anything, contributed the most in allowing
humans to develop relatively larger brains than other species.
The ability of humans to develop normal brains with a dietary
absence of animal products is also noted.
...
Given a plentiful supply of fruits the mother does not have to
risk expending much of her effort obtaining difficult to get foods
like raw animal flesh, insects, nuts and roots. Furthermore, fruits
contain abundant supplies of sugars which the brain solely uses
for energy. The mother who's genes better dispose her for an
easy life on fruits would have an advantage of those who do not,
and similarly, the fruit species which is the best food for mother
and child nutrition, would tend to be selected for. There is now
little doubt amongst distinguished biologists that fruit has been
the most significant dietary constituent in the evolution of humans.
...
What are the essential biochemical properties of human
metabolism which distinguish us from our non-human primate
relatives? One, at least, is our uniquely low protein requirement
as described by Olav T. Oftedal who says:

"Human milk has the lowest protein concentration (about 7% of
energy) of any primate milk that has been studied. In general, it
appears that primates produce small daily amounts of a relatively
dilute milk (Oftedal 1984). Thus the protein and energy demands
of lactation are probably low for primates by comparison to the
demands experienced by many other mammals." The nutritional
consequences of foraging in primates: the relationship of nutrient
intakes to nutrient requirements, p.161 Philosophical Transactions:
Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295, No. 1270

One might imagine that given our comparatively 'low protein' milk,
we would not be able to grow very fast. In fact, as the image on the
right shows, human infants show very rapid growth, especially of
the brain, during the first year of life. Human infants are born a
full
year earlier than they would be projected to, based on comparisons
with other animals. This is because of the large size their brains
reach. A human infant grows at the rate of 9 kg/year at birth, falling
to 3.5 kg/year a year later. Thereafter its growth rate is about half
that of a chimpanzees at 2 kg/year vs. about 4.5 kg/year. Humans
are relatively half as bulky as the other great apes, thus allowing
nutrients to be directed at brain development and the diet to be less
demanding. The advantages of such an undemanding metabolism
are clear. Humans delay their growth because they 'catch up' later,
during puberty as seen on the graph. Even so, the growth rate never
reaches that of a newborn infant who grows best by only eating
breast milk.
....
According to Exequiel M. Patiño and Juan T. Borda 'Primate milks
contain on the average 13% solids, of which 6.5% is lactose, 3.8%
lipids, 2.4% proteins, and 0.2% ash. Lactose is the largest
component of the solids, and protein is a lesser one'. They also say