On May 15, 8:36*am, "Fred C. Dobbs"
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 3:30 PM, Rupert wrote:

[phony efficiency bullshit snipped]

It still isn't the claim. **Even* if meat were produced at the lowest
possible environmental impact, and all environmental costs were captured
in the price paid by the consumer, you "vegan" ****wits would still say
people shouldn't consume it. *Your opposition is not principally or even
significantly based on any environmental concern.


It may well be in some cases. You refuse to tell me which vegans you
actually want to engage with. Vegans are a diverse bunch, you know.

Probably most vegans would continue to oppose meat production on
animal-welfare grounds, yes, because the animal-welfare argument is an
additional argument which most vegans think carries some weight as
well. What of it? You said you wanted to address some kind of
"inefficiency" argument. It doesn't look as though you did a very good
job of correctly characterising your opponent's position in your OP.
You haven't produced any evidence that your OP addresses any argument
that anyone actually makes. Which was my point in replying to you. Bit
strange, really, how a man who has supposedly done postgraduate work
can't get this.

On May 15, 8:41*am, "Fred C. Dobbs"
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 3:37 PM, Rupert wrote:





On May 15, 7:23 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 1:34 PM, Dutch wrote:

*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.

On May 14, 2:26*pm, "Fred C. Dobbs"
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote:





On May 15, 6:15 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 1:06 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 5:40 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
livestock.

In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
there must be agreement on what the end product is
whose efficiency of production you are examining. *If
you're looking at the production of consumer
electronics, for example, then the output is
televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
Rather obviously, you need to get specific. *No
sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
discontinue the production of television sets, because
they require more resources to produce (which they do),
and produce more DVD players instead. *(For the
cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
television set is going to cost several hundred
dollars. *$500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
can easily pay $3000 or more for a large plasma TV
monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)

What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
"inefficiency"? *They're clearly saying that the end
product whose efficiency of production we want to
consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
calories. *Just as clearly, they are wrong. *Humans
don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
substitutable. *As in debunking so much of "veganism",
we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
than others.

But how do "vegans" actually behave? *Why, they buy
some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
relatively resource-INefficient. *You know this by
looking at retail prices: *higher priced goods ARE
higher priced because they use more resources to
produce. *If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
production efficiency, they would only be buying the
absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
nutritional requirement. *This would necessarily mean
there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.

If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
one brand). *The same would hold for every conceivable
garment. *A button-front shirt with collars costs more
to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
don't "need" meat. *But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
(all natural fiber, of course.) *"vegans" aren't
advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.

The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
then see if that product can be produced using fewer
resources. *It is important to note that the consumer's
view of products as distinct things is crucial. *A
radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
devices.

The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
of calories and other nutritional requirements. *Once
one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
"vegans" themselves, views food, then the
"inefficiency" argument against using resources for
meat production falls to the ground.

I hope this helps.

What the efficiency argument actually says, on any reasonably
intelligent reading, is that by going vegan you can have a diet which
is just as tasty and nutritious with a much smaller environmental
footprint.

That's not what it's saying at all, as we already know.

How do you know?

I already explained it to you several times over the last couple of
years. *The issue is *not* about environmental footprint, and you know
it. *It's about a misconceived and ignorant belief regarding resource
allocation.



Which translates to environmental footprint, you useless fool.

On 5/14/2010 3:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
On May 15, 8:23 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 3:14 PM, Rupert wrote:





On May 15, 6:26 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 6:15 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 1:06 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 5:40 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
livestock.

In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
there must be agreement on what the end product is
whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
you're looking at the production of consumer
electronics, for example, then the output is
televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
discontinue the production of television sets, because
they require more resources to produce (which they do),
and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
television set is going to cost several hundred
dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
can easily pay $3000 or more for a large plasma TV
monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)

What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
"inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
product whose efficiency of production we want to
consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
than others.

But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
higher priced because they use more resources to
produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
production efficiency, they would only be buying the
absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.

If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
(all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.

The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
then see if that product can be produced using fewer
resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
devices.

The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
"vegans" themselves, views food, then the
"inefficiency" argument against using resources for
meat production falls to the ground.

I hope this helps.

What the efficiency argument actually says, on any reasonably
intelligent reading, is that by going vegan you can have a diet which
is just as tasty and nutritious with a much smaller environmental
footprint.

That's not what it's saying at all, as we already know.

How do you know?

I already explained it to you several times over the last couple of
years. The issue is *not* about environmental footprint, and you know
it. It's about a misconceived and ignorant belief regarding resource
allocation.

The issue is not about environmental footprint *for whom*?

The issue is not about environmental footprint at all.


An argument can be made for going vegan based on environmental
footprint, right?

No, because you don't make the same commitment to minimize your
footprint in all other aspects of your life, *and* because that's not
why you're "going vegan", *and* because you'd "go vegan" *EVEN IF* it
had a higher environmental footprint than omnivory.


Do you claim that *no-one* who talks about the "inefficiency" of meat
production has this environmental argument in mind? That seems like a
pretty extraordinary claim to me.

I mean that everyone who has blabbered about it here is not talking
about the environment.

Thank you. It is helpful when you clarify for me whom you wish to
address, obviously.

Who has talked about it here?

Your good pal, Lesley R. Simon, the foot-rubbing whore of Aughalustia,
Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon, Ireland. Many others whose names
escape me. One was a ****wit named 'sam', 03 Mar 2008. Another ****wit
named 'pinboard' on the same date.

It is the standard position in aaev.


They're *all* talking about some kind of
nonsensical absolute inefficiency. The overwhelming majority have also
repeatedly maintained that the land currently in use for livestock
fodder continue to be used for agriculture, but that it be used to grow
food for "starving people" around the world.

You wouldn't be able to use all the land for that purpose.

Irrelevant.



*Clearly*, that means
those people, at least, are not advancing an environmental argument.


It doesn't really mean that,

It does mean that.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

On 5/14/2010 6:39 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
On May 14, 2:26 pm, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote:





On May 15, 6:15 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 1:06 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 5:40 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
livestock.

In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
there must be agreement on what the end product is
whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
you're looking at the production of consumer
electronics, for example, then the output is
televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
discontinue the production of television sets, because
they require more resources to produce (which they do),
and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
television set is going to cost several hundred
dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
can easily pay $3000 or more for a large plasma TV
monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)

What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
"inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
product whose efficiency of production we want to
consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
than others.

But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
higher priced because they use more resources to
produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
production efficiency, they would only be buying the
absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.

If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
(all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.

The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
then see if that product can be produced using fewer
resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
devices.

The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
"vegans" themselves, views food, then the
"inefficiency" argument against using resources for
meat production falls to the ground.

I hope this helps.

What the efficiency argument actually says, on any reasonably
intelligent reading, is that by going vegan you can have a diet which
is just as tasty and nutritious with a much smaller environmental
footprint.

That's not what it's saying at all, as we already know.

How do you know?

I already explained it to you several times over the last couple of
years. The issue is *not* about environmental footprint, and you know
it. It's about a misconceived and ignorant belief regarding resource
allocation.



Which translates to environmental footprint


It doesn't.



--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

"Rupert" wrote
Do you claim that *no-one* who talks about the "inefficiency" of meat
production has this environmental argument in mind? That seems like a
pretty extraordinary claim to me.
----

He's saying that the argument that you can grow 50 pounds of potatoes (or
whatever the number is) using the same resources as it takes to produce one
lb of beef (using conventional methods) is a silly argument, because
potatoes and beef are not equivalent commodities any more than bicycles and
cars or TVs and computers. It presumes that people are willing to substitute
something they want for something they don't want. In this case they want
both, and there are more than sufficient resources in the world to produce
both. What is lacking is the political and economic will to produce
distribute both to the hungry populations of the world.

On May 15, 11:59*am, "Fred C. Dobbs"
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 3:43 PM, Rupert wrote:



On May 15, 8:23 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 3:14 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 6:26 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 6:15 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 1:06 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 5:40 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
livestock.

In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
there must be agreement on what the end product is
whose efficiency of production you are examining. *If
you're looking at the production of consumer
electronics, for example, then the output is
televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
Rather obviously, you need to get specific. *No
sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
discontinue the production of television sets, because
they require more resources to produce (which they do),
and produce more DVD players instead. *(For the
cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
television set is going to cost several hundred
dollars. *$500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
can easily pay $3000 or more for a large plasma TV
monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)

What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
"inefficiency"? *They're clearly saying that the end
product whose efficiency of production we want to
consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
calories. *Just as clearly, they are wrong. *Humans
don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
substitutable. *As in debunking so much of "veganism",
we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
than others.

But how do "vegans" actually behave? *Why, they buy
some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
relatively resource-INefficient. *You know this by
looking at retail prices: *higher priced goods ARE
higher priced because they use more resources to
produce. *If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
production efficiency, they would only be buying the
absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
nutritional requirement. *This would necessarily mean
there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.

If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
one brand). *The same would hold for every conceivable
garment. *A button-front shirt with collars costs more
to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
don't "need" meat. *But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
(all natural fiber, of course.) *"vegans" aren't
advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.

The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
then see if that product can be produced using fewer
resources. *It is important to note that the consumer's
view of products as distinct things is crucial. *A
radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
devices.

The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
of calories and other nutritional requirements. *Once
one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
"vegans" themselves, views food, then the
"inefficiency" argument against using resources for
meat production falls to the ground.

I hope this helps.

What the efficiency argument actually says, on any reasonably
intelligent reading, is that by going vegan you can have a diet which
is just as tasty and nutritious with a much smaller environmental
footprint.

That's not what it's saying at all, as we already know.

How do you know?

I already explained it to you several times over the last couple of
years. *The issue is *not* about environmental footprint, and you know
it. *It's about a misconceived and ignorant belief regarding resource
allocation.

The issue is not about environmental footprint *for whom*?

The issue is not about environmental footprint at all.

An argument can be made for going vegan based on environmental
footprint, right?

No, because you don't make the same commitment to minimize your
footprint in all other aspects of your life, *and* because that's not
why you're "going vegan", *and* because you'd "go vegan" *EVEN IF* it
had a higher environmental footprint than omnivory.


This isn't really about me personally. There are various
considerations that might motivate someone to go vegan. The fact that
it significantly reduces your environmental footprint is one of them.
Someone might be rationally motivated to go vegan on those grounds.

The environmental considerations are not the main consideration for
me, no, but they are a significant consideration, and I do make some
effort to reduce my environmental footprint in other aspects of my
life as well. But that is irrelevant.

Do you claim that *no-one* who talks about the "inefficiency" of meat
production has this environmental argument in mind? That seems like a
pretty extraordinary claim to me.

I mean that everyone who has blabbered about it here is not talking
about the environment.

Thank you. It is helpful when you clarify for me whom you wish to
address, obviously.

Who has talked about it here?

Your good pal, Lesley R. Simon, the foot-rubbing whore of Aughalustia,
Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon, Ireland. *Many others whose names
escape me. *One was a ****wit named 'sam', 03 Mar 2008. *Another ****wit
named 'pinboard' on the same date.


Well, those people aren't here at the moment, are they? So you can't
really have a conversation with them.

It is the standard position in aaev.

They're *all* talking about some kind of
nonsensical absolute inefficiency. *The overwhelming majority have also
repeatedly maintained that the land currently in use for livestock
fodder continue to be used for agriculture, but that it be used to grow
food for "starving people" around the world.

You wouldn't be able to use all the land for that purpose.

Irrelevant.


It is highly relevant to the nonsensical statement you make below.

*Clearly*, that means
those people, at least, are not advancing an environmental argument.

It doesn't really mean that,

It does mean that.


You're a fool.

On 5/15/2010 1:26 AM, Rupert wrote:
On May 15, 11:59 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 3:43 PM, Rupert wrote:



On May 15, 8:23 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 3:14 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 6:26 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 6:15 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 1:06 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 5:40 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
livestock.

In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
there must be agreement on what the end product is
whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
you're looking at the production of consumer
electronics, for example, then the output is
televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
discontinue the production of television sets, because
they require more resources to produce (which they do),
and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
television set is going to cost several hundred
dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
can easily pay $3000 or more for a large plasma TV
monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)

What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
"inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
product whose efficiency of production we want to
consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
than others.

But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
higher priced because they use more resources to
produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
production efficiency, they would only be buying the
absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.

If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
(all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.

The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
then see if that product can be produced using fewer
resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
devices.

The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
"vegans" themselves, views food, then the
"inefficiency" argument against using resources for
meat production falls to the ground.

I hope this helps.

What the efficiency argument actually says, on any reasonably
intelligent reading, is that by going vegan you can have a diet which
is just as tasty and nutritious with a much smaller environmental
footprint.

That's not what it's saying at all, as we already know.

How do you know?

I already explained it to you several times over the last couple of
years. The issue is *not* about environmental footprint, and you know
it. It's about a misconceived and ignorant belief regarding resource
allocation.

The issue is not about environmental footprint *for whom*?

The issue is not about environmental footprint at all.

An argument can be made for going vegan based on environmental
footprint, right?

No, because you don't make the same commitment to minimize your
footprint in all other aspects of your life, *and* because that's not
why you're "going vegan", *and* because you'd "go vegan" *EVEN IF* it
had a higher environmental footprint than omnivory.


This isn't really about me personally. There are various
considerations that might motivate someone to go vegan. The fact that
it significantly reduces your environmental footprint is one of them.
Someone might be rationally motivated to go vegan on those grounds.

The environmental considerations are not the main consideration for
me, no, but they are a significant consideration, and I do make some
effort to reduce my environmental footprint in other aspects of my
life as well. But that is irrelevant.

Do you claim that *no-one* who talks about the "inefficiency" of meat
production has this environmental argument in mind? That seems like a
pretty extraordinary claim to me.

I mean that everyone who has blabbered about it here is not talking
about the environment.

Thank you. It is helpful when you clarify for me whom you wish to
address, obviously.

Who has talked about it here?

Your good pal, Lesley R. Simon, the foot-rubbing whore of Aughalustia,
Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon, Ireland. Many others whose names
escape me. One was a ****wit named 'sam', 03 Mar 2008. Another ****wit
named 'pinboard' on the same date.


Well, those people aren't here at the moment, are they? So you can't
really have a conversation with them.

It is the standard position in aaev.

They're *all* talking about some kind of
nonsensical absolute inefficiency. The overwhelming majority have also
repeatedly maintained that the land currently in use for livestock
fodder continue to be used for agriculture, but that it be used to grow
food for "starving people" around the world.

You wouldn't be able to use all the land for that purpose.

Irrelevant.


It is highly relevant

It is irrelevant. The people advancing the bogus "efficiency" argument
are doing so not because they think the land shouldn't be used for
agriculture, but because they think it should be used for /different/
output than it is currently used to produce.


*Clearly*, that means
those people, at least, are not advancing an environmental argument.

It doesn't really mean that,

It does mean that.


You're

Right. Yes, I'm right.

On May 16, 3:40*am, "Fred C. Dobbs"
wrote:
On 5/15/2010 1:26 AM, Rupert wrote:



On May 15, 11:59 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 3:43 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 8:23 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 3:14 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 6:26 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 6:15 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 1:06 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 5:40 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
livestock.

In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
there must be agreement on what the end product is
whose efficiency of production you are examining. *If
you're looking at the production of consumer
electronics, for example, then the output is
televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
Rather obviously, you need to get specific. *No
sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
discontinue the production of television sets, because
they require more resources to produce (which they do),
and produce more DVD players instead. *(For the
cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
television set is going to cost several hundred
dollars. *$500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
can easily pay $3000 or more for a large plasma TV
monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)

What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
"inefficiency"? *They're clearly saying that the end
product whose efficiency of production we want to
consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
calories. *Just as clearly, they are wrong. *Humans
don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
substitutable. *As in debunking so much of "veganism",
we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
than others.

But how do "vegans" actually behave? *Why, they buy
some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
relatively resource-INefficient. *You know this by
looking at retail prices: *higher priced goods ARE
higher priced because they use more resources to
produce. *If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
production efficiency, they would only be buying the
absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
nutritional requirement. *This would necessarily mean
there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.

If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
one brand). *The same would hold for every conceivable
garment. *A button-front shirt with collars costs more
to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
don't "need" meat. *But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
(all natural fiber, of course.) *"vegans" aren't
advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.

The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
then see if that product can be produced using fewer
resources. *It is important to note that the consumer's
view of products as distinct things is crucial. *A
radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
devices.

The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
of calories and other nutritional requirements. *Once
one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
"vegans" themselves, views food, then the
"inefficiency" argument against using resources for
meat production falls to the ground.

I hope this helps.

What the efficiency argument actually says, on any reasonably
intelligent reading, is that by going vegan you can have a diet which
is just as tasty and nutritious with a much smaller environmental
footprint.

That's not what it's saying at all, as we already know.

How do you know?

I already explained it to you several times over the last couple of
years. *The issue is *not* about environmental footprint, and you know
it. *It's about a misconceived and ignorant belief regarding resource
allocation.

The issue is not about environmental footprint *for whom*?

The issue is not about environmental footprint at all.

An argument can be made for going vegan based on environmental
footprint, right?

No, because you don't make the same commitment to minimize your
footprint in all other aspects of your life, *and* because that's not
why you're "going vegan", *and* because you'd "go vegan" *EVEN IF* it
had a higher environmental footprint than omnivory.

This isn't really about me personally. There are various
considerations that might motivate someone to go vegan. The fact that
it significantly reduces your environmental footprint is one of them.
Someone might be rationally motivated to go vegan on those grounds.

The environmental considerations are not the main consideration for
me, no, but they are a significant consideration, and I do make some
effort to reduce my environmental footprint in other aspects of my
life as well. But that is irrelevant.

Do you claim that *no-one* who talks about the "inefficiency" of meat
production has this environmental argument in mind? That seems like a
pretty extraordinary claim to me.

I mean that everyone who has blabbered about it here is not talking
about the environment.

Thank you. It is helpful when you clarify for me whom you wish to
address, obviously.

Who has talked about it here?

Your good pal, Lesley R. Simon, the foot-rubbing whore of Aughalustia,
Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon, Ireland. *Many others whose names
escape me. *One was a ****wit named 'sam', 03 Mar 2008. *Another ****wit
named 'pinboard' on the same date.

Well, those people aren't here at the moment, are they? So you can't
really have a conversation with them.

It is the standard position in aaev.

They're *all* talking about some kind of
nonsensical absolute inefficiency. *The overwhelming majority have also
repeatedly maintained that the land currently in use for livestock
fodder continue to be used for agriculture, but that it be used to grow
food for "starving people" around the world.

You wouldn't be able to use all the land for that purpose.

Irrelevant.

It is highly relevant

It is irrelevant. *The people advancing the bogus "efficiency" argument
are doing so not because they think the land shouldn't be used for
agriculture, but because they think it should be used for /different/
output than it is currently used to produce.


They think that a smaller amount of land should be used, obviously.
That involves reducing the environmental cost.

It's not really rocket science.

*Clearly*, that means
those people, at least, are not advancing an environmental argument.

It doesn't really mean that,

It does mean that.

You're

Right. *Yes, I'm right.

On May 15, 7:21*pm, Rupert wrote:
On May 16, 3:40*am, "Fred C. Dobbs"
wrote:





On 5/15/2010 1:26 AM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 11:59 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 3:43 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 8:23 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 3:14 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 6:26 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 6:15 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 1:06 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 5:40 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
livestock.

In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
there must be agreement on what the end product is
whose efficiency of production you are examining. *If
you're looking at the production of consumer
electronics, for example, then the output is
televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
Rather obviously, you need to get specific. *No
sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
discontinue the production of television sets, because
they require more resources to produce (which they do),
and produce more DVD players instead. *(For the
cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
television set is going to cost several hundred
dollars. *$500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
can easily pay $3000 or more for a large plasma TV
monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)

What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
"inefficiency"? *They're clearly saying that the end
product whose efficiency of production we want to
consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
calories. *Just as clearly, they are wrong. *Humans
don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
substitutable. *As in debunking so much of "veganism",
we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
than others.

But how do "vegans" actually behave? *Why, they buy
some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
relatively resource-INefficient. *You know this by
looking at retail prices: *higher priced goods ARE
higher priced because they use more resources to
produce. *If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
production efficiency, they would only be buying the
absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
nutritional requirement. *This would necessarily mean
there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.

If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
one brand). *The same would hold for every conceivable
garment. *A button-front shirt with collars costs more
to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
don't "need" meat. *But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
(all natural fiber, of course.) *"vegans" aren't
advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.

The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
then see if that product can be produced using fewer
resources. *It is important to note that the consumer's
view of products as distinct things is crucial. *A
radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
devices.

The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
of calories and other nutritional requirements. *Once
one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
"vegans" themselves, views food, then the
"inefficiency" argument against using resources for
meat production falls to the ground.

I hope this helps.

What the efficiency argument actually says, on any reasonably
intelligent reading, is that by going vegan you can have a diet which
is just as tasty and nutritious with a much smaller environmental
footprint.

That's not what it's saying at all, as we already know.

How do you know?

I already explained it to you several times over the last couple of
years. *The issue is *not* about environmental footprint, and you know
it. *It's about a misconceived and ignorant belief regarding resource
allocation.

The issue is not about environmental footprint *for whom*?

The issue is not about environmental footprint at all.

An argument can be made for going vegan based on environmental
footprint, right?

No, because you don't make the same commitment to minimize your
footprint in all other aspects of your life, *and* because that's not
why you're "going vegan", *and* because you'd "go vegan" *EVEN IF* it
had a higher environmental footprint than omnivory.

This isn't really about me personally. There are various
considerations that might motivate someone to go vegan. The fact that
it significantly reduces your environmental footprint is one of them.
Someone might be rationally motivated to go vegan on those grounds.

The environmental considerations are not the main consideration for
me, no, but they are a significant consideration, and I do make some
effort to reduce my environmental footprint in other aspects of my
life as well. But that is irrelevant.

Do you claim that *no-one* who talks about the "inefficiency" of meat
production has this environmental argument in mind? That seems like a
pretty extraordinary claim to me.

I mean that everyone who has blabbered about it here is not talking
about the environment.

Thank you. It is helpful when you clarify for me whom you wish to
address, obviously.

Who has talked about it here?

Your good pal, Lesley R. Simon, the foot-rubbing whore of Aughalustia,
Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon, Ireland. *Many others whose names
escape me. *One was a ****wit named 'sam', 03 Mar 2008. *Another ****wit
named 'pinboard' on the same date.

Well, those people aren't here at the moment, are they? So you can't
really have a conversation with them.

It is the standard position in aaev.

They're *all* talking about some kind of
nonsensical absolute inefficiency. *The overwhelming majority have also
repeatedly maintained that the land currently in use for livestock
fodder continue to be used for agriculture, but that it be used to grow
food for "starving people" around the world.

You wouldn't be able to use all the land for that purpose.

Irrelevant.

It is highly relevant

It is irrelevant. *The people advancing the bogus "efficiency" argument
are doing so not because they think the land shouldn't be used for
agriculture, but because they think it should be used for /different/
output than it is currently used to produce.

They think that a smaller amount of land should be used, obviously.
That involves reducing the environmental cost.

It's not really rocket science.



It is as far as Goobs is concerned.

On 5/15/2010 6:21 PM, Rupert wrote:
On May 16, 3:40 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/15/2010 1:26 AM, Rupert wrote:



On May 15, 11:59 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 3:43 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 8:23 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 3:14 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 6:26 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 6:15 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 1:06 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 5:40 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
livestock.

In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
there must be agreement on what the end product is
whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
you're looking at the production of consumer
electronics, for example, then the output is
televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
discontinue the production of television sets, because
they require more resources to produce (which they do),
and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
television set is going to cost several hundred
dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
can easily pay $3000 or more for a large plasma TV
monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)

What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
"inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
product whose efficiency of production we want to
consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
than others.

But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
higher priced because they use more resources to
produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
production efficiency, they would only be buying the
absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.

If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
(all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.

The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
then see if that product can be produced using fewer
resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
devices.

The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
"vegans" themselves, views food, then the
"inefficiency" argument against using resources for
meat production falls to the ground.

I hope this helps.

What the efficiency argument actually says, on any reasonably
intelligent reading, is that by going vegan you can have a diet which
is just as tasty and nutritious with a much smaller environmental
footprint.

That's not what it's saying at all, as we already know.

How do you know?

I already explained it to you several times over the last couple of
years. The issue is *not* about environmental footprint, and you know
it. It's about a misconceived and ignorant belief regarding resource
allocation.

The issue is not about environmental footprint *for whom*?

The issue is not about environmental footprint at all.

An argument can be made for going vegan based on environmental
footprint, right?

No, because you don't make the same commitment to minimize your
footprint in all other aspects of your life, *and* because that's not
why you're "going vegan", *and* because you'd "go vegan" *EVEN IF* it
had a higher environmental footprint than omnivory.

This isn't really about me personally. There are various
considerations that might motivate someone to go vegan. The fact that
it significantly reduces your environmental footprint is one of them.
Someone might be rationally motivated to go vegan on those grounds.

The environmental considerations are not the main consideration for
me, no, but they are a significant consideration, and I do make some
effort to reduce my environmental footprint in other aspects of my
life as well. But that is irrelevant.

Do you claim that *no-one* who talks about the "inefficiency" of meat
production has this environmental argument in mind? That seems like a
pretty extraordinary claim to me.

I mean that everyone who has blabbered about it here is not talking
about the environment.

Thank you. It is helpful when you clarify for me whom you wish to
address, obviously.

Who has talked about it here?

Your good pal, Lesley R. Simon, the foot-rubbing whore of Aughalustia,
Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon, Ireland. Many others whose names
escape me. One was a ****wit named 'sam', 03 Mar 2008. Another ****wit
named 'pinboard' on the same date.

Well, those people aren't here at the moment,

They are typical.


It is the standard position in aaev.

They're *all* talking about some kind of
nonsensical absolute inefficiency. The overwhelming majority have also
repeatedly maintained that the land currently in use for livestock
fodder continue to be used for agriculture, but that it be used to grow
food for "starving people" around the world.

You wouldn't be able to use all the land for that purpose.

Irrelevant.

It is highly relevant

It is irrelevant. The people advancing the bogus "efficiency" argument
are doing so not because they think the land shouldn't be used for
agriculture, but because they think it should be used for /different/
output than it is currently used to produce.


They think that a smaller amount of land should be used, obviously.

That's not obvious at all, liar. They think *more* land than is needed
to feed the people in the country should be farmed, and the food given
away to people.



--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

On May 17, 6:50*am, "Fred C. Dobbs"
wrote:
On 5/15/2010 6:21 PM, Rupert wrote:





On May 16, 3:40 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/15/2010 1:26 AM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 11:59 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 3:43 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 8:23 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 3:14 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 6:26 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 6:15 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 1:06 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 5:40 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
livestock.

In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
there must be agreement on what the end product is
whose efficiency of production you are examining. *If
you're looking at the production of consumer
electronics, for example, then the output is
televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
Rather obviously, you need to get specific. *No
sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
discontinue the production of television sets, because
they require more resources to produce (which they do),
and produce more DVD players instead. *(For the
cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
television set is going to cost several hundred
dollars. *$500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
can easily pay $3000 or more for a large plasma TV
monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)

What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
"inefficiency"? *They're clearly saying that the end
product whose efficiency of production we want to
consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
calories. *Just as clearly, they are wrong. *Humans
don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
substitutable. *As in debunking so much of "veganism",
we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
than others.

But how do "vegans" actually behave? *Why, they buy
some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
relatively resource-INefficient. *You know this by
looking at retail prices: *higher priced goods ARE
higher priced because they use more resources to
produce. *If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
production efficiency, they would only be buying the
absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
nutritional requirement. *This would necessarily mean
there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.

If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
one brand). *The same would hold for every conceivable
garment. *A button-front shirt with collars costs more
to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
don't "need" meat. *But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
(all natural fiber, of course.) *"vegans" aren't
advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.

The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
then see if that product can be produced using fewer
resources. *It is important to note that the consumer's
view of products as distinct things is crucial. *A
radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
devices.

The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
of calories and other nutritional requirements. *Once
one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
"vegans" themselves, views food, then the
"inefficiency" argument against using resources for
meat production falls to the ground.

I hope this helps.

What the efficiency argument actually says, on any reasonably
intelligent reading, is that by going vegan you can have a diet which
is just as tasty and nutritious with a much smaller environmental
footprint.

That's not what it's saying at all, as we already know.

How do you know?

I already explained it to you several times over the last couple of
years. *The issue is *not* about environmental footprint, and you know
it. *It's about a misconceived and ignorant belief regarding resource
allocation.

The issue is not about environmental footprint *for whom*?

The issue is not about environmental footprint at all.

An argument can be made for going vegan based on environmental
footprint, right?

No, because you don't make the same commitment to minimize your
footprint in all other aspects of your life, *and* because that's not
why you're "going vegan", *and* because you'd "go vegan" *EVEN IF* it
had a higher environmental footprint than omnivory.

This isn't really about me personally. There are various
considerations that might motivate someone to go vegan. The fact that
it significantly reduces your environmental footprint is one of them.
Someone might be rationally motivated to go vegan on those grounds.

The environmental considerations are not the main consideration for
me, no, but they are a significant consideration, and I do make some
effort to reduce my environmental footprint in other aspects of my
life as well. But that is irrelevant.

Do you claim that *no-one* who talks about the "inefficiency" of meat
production has this environmental argument in mind? That seems like a
pretty extraordinary claim to me.

I mean that everyone who has blabbered about it here is not talking
about the environment.

Thank you. It is helpful when you clarify for me whom you wish to
address, obviously.

Who has talked about it here?

Your good pal, Lesley R. Simon, the foot-rubbing whore of Aughalustia,
Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon, Ireland. *Many others whose names
escape me. *One was a ****wit named 'sam', 03 Mar 2008. *Another ****wit
named 'pinboard' on the same date.

Well, those people aren't here at the moment,

They are typical.





It is the standard position in aaev.

They're *all* talking about some kind of
nonsensical absolute inefficiency. *The overwhelming majority have also
repeatedly maintained that the land currently in use for livestock
fodder continue to be used for agriculture, but that it be used to grow
food for "starving people" around the world.

You wouldn't be able to use all the land for that purpose.

Irrelevant.

It is highly relevant

It is irrelevant. *The people advancing the bogus "efficiency" argument
are doing so not because they think the land shouldn't be used for
agriculture, but because they think it should be used for /different/
output than it is currently used to produce.

They think that a smaller amount of land should be used, obviously.

That's not obvious at all, liar.

It takes a smaller amount of land to feed the human population on a
plant-based diet than on an animal-based diet. What I said was
obvious, thank you.

On May 17, 9:51*pm, Rupert wrote:

It takes a smaller amount of land to feed the human population on a
plant-based diet than on an animal-based diet. What I said was
obvious, thank you.

While your claim might be theoretically correct, it ignores the fact
that all land is not arable and some non-arable land can be used for
grazing.

On 5/17/2010 1:51 PM, Rupert wrote:
On May 17, 6:50 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/15/2010 6:21 PM, Rupert wrote:





On May 16, 3:40 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/15/2010 1:26 AM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 11:59 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 3:43 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 8:23 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 3:14 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 6:26 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 6:15 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 1:06 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 5:40 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
livestock.

In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
there must be agreement on what the end product is
whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
you're looking at the production of consumer
electronics, for example, then the output is
televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
discontinue the production of television sets, because
they require more resources to produce (which they do),
and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
television set is going to cost several hundred
dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
can easily pay $3000 or more for a large plasma TV
monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)

What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
"inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
product whose efficiency of production we want to
consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
than others.

But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
higher priced because they use more resources to
produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
production efficiency, they would only be buying the
absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.

If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
(all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.

The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
then see if that product can be produced using fewer
resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
devices.

The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
"vegans" themselves, views food, then the
"inefficiency" argument against using resources for
meat production falls to the ground.

I hope this helps.

What the efficiency argument actually says, on any reasonably
intelligent reading, is that by going vegan you can have a diet which
is just as tasty and nutritious with a much smaller environmental
footprint.

That's not what it's saying at all, as we already know.

How do you know?

I already explained it to you several times over the last couple of
years. The issue is *not* about environmental footprint, and you know
it. It's about a misconceived and ignorant belief regarding resource
allocation.

The issue is not about environmental footprint *for whom*?

The issue is not about environmental footprint at all.

An argument can be made for going vegan based on environmental
footprint, right?

No, because you don't make the same commitment to minimize your
footprint in all other aspects of your life, *and* because that's not
why you're "going vegan", *and* because you'd "go vegan" *EVEN IF* it
had a higher environmental footprint than omnivory.

This isn't really about me personally. There are various
considerations that might motivate someone to go vegan. The fact that
it significantly reduces your environmental footprint is one of them.
Someone might be rationally motivated to go vegan on those grounds.

The environmental considerations are not the main consideration for
me, no, but they are a significant consideration, and I do make some
effort to reduce my environmental footprint in other aspects of my
life as well. But that is irrelevant.

Do you claim that *no-one* who talks about the "inefficiency" of meat
production has this environmental argument in mind? That seems like a
pretty extraordinary claim to me.

I mean that everyone who has blabbered about it here is not talking
about the environment.

Thank you. It is helpful when you clarify for me whom you wish to
address, obviously.

Who has talked about it here?

Your good pal, Lesley R. Simon, the foot-rubbing whore of Aughalustia,
Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon, Ireland. Many others whose names
escape me. One was a ****wit named 'sam', 03 Mar 2008. Another ****wit
named 'pinboard' on the same date.

Well, those people aren't here at the moment,

They are typical.





It is the standard position in aaev.

They're *all* talking about some kind of
nonsensical absolute inefficiency. The overwhelming majority have also
repeatedly maintained that the land currently in use for livestock
fodder continue to be used for agriculture, but that it be used to grow
food for "starving people" around the world.

You wouldn't be able to use all the land for that purpose.

Irrelevant.

It is highly relevant

It is irrelevant. The people advancing the bogus "efficiency" argument
are doing so not because they think the land shouldn't be used for
agriculture, but because they think it should be used for /different/
output than it is currently used to produce.

They think that a smaller amount of land should be used, obviously.

That's not obvious at all, liar.

It takes a smaller amount of land to feed the human population on a
plant-based diet than on an animal-based diet.

They're not calling for a reduction in land use.

On May 18, 2:53*pm, "Fred C. Dobbs"
wrote:
On 5/17/2010 1:51 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 17, 6:50 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/15/2010 6:21 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 16, 3:40 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/15/2010 1:26 AM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 11:59 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 3:43 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 8:23 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 3:14 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 6:26 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 6:15 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/14/2010 1:06 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 15, 5:40 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
livestock.

In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
there must be agreement on what the end product is
whose efficiency of production you are examining. *If
you're looking at the production of consumer
electronics, for example, then the output is
televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
Rather obviously, you need to get specific. *No
sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
discontinue the production of television sets, because
they require more resources to produce (which they do),
and produce more DVD players instead. *(For the
cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
television set is going to cost several hundred
dollars. *$500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
can easily pay $3000 or more for a large plasma TV
monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)

What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
"inefficiency"? *They're clearly saying that the end
product whose efficiency of production we want to
consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
calories. *Just as clearly, they are wrong. *Humans
don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
substitutable. *As in debunking so much of "veganism",
we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
than others.

But how do "vegans" actually behave? *Why, they buy
some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
relatively resource-INefficient. *You know this by
looking at retail prices: *higher priced goods ARE
higher priced because they use more resources to
produce. *If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
production efficiency, they would only be buying the
absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
nutritional requirement. *This would necessarily mean
there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.

If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
one brand). *The same would hold for every conceivable
garment. *A button-front shirt with collars costs more
to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
don't "need" meat. *But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
(all natural fiber, of course.) *"vegans" aren't
advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.

The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
then see if that product can be produced using fewer
resources. *It is important to note that the consumer's
view of products as distinct things is crucial. *A
radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
devices.

The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
of calories and other nutritional requirements. *Once
one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
"vegans" themselves, views food, then the
"inefficiency" argument against using resources for
meat production falls to the ground.

I hope this helps.

What the efficiency argument actually says, on any reasonably
intelligent reading, is that by going vegan you can have a diet which
is just as tasty and nutritious with a much smaller environmental
footprint.

That's not what it's saying at all, as we already know.

How do you know?

I already explained it to you several times over the last couple of
years. *The issue is *not* about environmental footprint, and you know
it. *It's about a misconceived and ignorant belief regarding resource
allocation.

The issue is not about environmental footprint *for whom*?

The issue is not about environmental footprint at all.

An argument can be made for going vegan based on environmental
footprint, right?

No, because you don't make the same commitment to minimize your
footprint in all other aspects of your life, *and* because that's not
why you're "going vegan", *and* because you'd "go vegan" *EVEN IF* it
had a higher environmental footprint than omnivory.

This isn't really about me personally. There are various
considerations that might motivate someone to go vegan. The fact that
it significantly reduces your environmental footprint is one of them.
Someone might be rationally motivated to go vegan on those grounds.

The environmental considerations are not the main consideration for
me, no, but they are a significant consideration, and I do make some
effort to reduce my environmental footprint in other aspects of my
life as well. But that is irrelevant.

Do you claim that *no-one* who talks about the "inefficiency" of meat
production has this environmental argument in mind? That seems like a
pretty extraordinary claim to me.

I mean that everyone who has blabbered about it here is not talking
about the environment.

Thank you. It is helpful when you clarify for me whom you wish to
address, obviously.

Who has talked about it here?

Your good pal, Lesley R. Simon, the foot-rubbing whore of Aughalustia,
Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon, Ireland. *Many others whose names
escape me. *One was a ****wit named 'sam', 03 Mar 2008. *Another ****wit
named 'pinboard' on the same date.

Well, those people aren't here at the moment,

They are typical.

It is the standard position in aaev.

They're *all* talking about some kind of
nonsensical absolute inefficiency. *The overwhelming majority have also
repeatedly maintained that the land currently in use for livestock
fodder continue to be used for agriculture, but that it be used to grow
food for "starving people" around the world.

You wouldn't be able to use all the land for that purpose.

Irrelevant.

It is highly relevant

It is irrelevant. *The people advancing the bogus "efficiency" argument
are doing so not because they think the land shouldn't be used for
agriculture, but because they think it should be used for /different/
output than it is currently used to produce.

They think that a smaller amount of land should be used, obviously.

That's not obvious at all, liar.

It takes a smaller amount of land to feed the human population on a
plant-based diet than on an animal-based diet.

They're not calling for a reduction in land use.

Of course they are, you fool.