View Single Post
  #8   Report Post  
Old 14-05-2010, 10:23 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,uk.rec.gardening
Fred C. Dobbs[_3_] Fred C. Dobbs[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: May 2010
Posts: 10
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On 5/14/2010 1:34 PM, Dutch wrote:

"Rupert" wrote

What the efficiency argument actually says, on any reasonably
intelligent reading, is that by going vegan you can have a diet which
is just as tasty and nutritious with a much smaller environmental
footprint. That's the claim, and it's true, and some people reasonably
see it as a good reason for going vegan.
------

I would dispute all of the claims in that response.

Vegan diets are not just as tasty, not to me. Meat and dairy introduces
irreplaceable tastes and variety to any diet.

Vegan diets are not just as nutritious in many cases. I have personally
experienced failure to thrive on vegetarian diets and I know many people
have. There was a recent study to this effect posted to aaev, and the
issue is well documented at beyondveg.com.

Vegan diets are not always associated with a smaller environmental
footprint. They CAN BE, but Steven Davis's study, the Polyface Farm, and
the experience of many small farmers illustrate that it is quite
possible to use meat in a diet and have a small environmental footprint.

These claims should be modified and placed in context.

I also don't agree that veganism is reasonable, *vegetarianism* is
reasonable, veganism is extreme and unreasonable.

The vegan argument in reality is the AR argument, it is based on the
notion that it is *unjust* to use animals as products.


That's right. The blabber about "efficiency" is merely a flabby attempt
at buttressing their lame "ar" argument - sort of saying "...and
/another/ thing..."

Rupie is flatly wrong about what they're "really" saying with this phony
"efficiency" argument. They're not *really* saying that the additional
land (used to grow fodder) shouldn't be used - they're saying that it
should be used for something else, including agriculture. You can see
this when many of them say that what it "ought" to be used for is to
grow food for starving people around the world. If they /really/ were
making an environmental protection argument, then they'd be saying it
shouldn't be used at all and those poor starving people should just be
allowed to die.