On May 18, 8:13*am, Steelclaws wrote:
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.

I doubt that that would affect the final outcome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this helps.

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

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

How do you know?

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

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

The issue is not about environmental footprint at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who has talked about it here?

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

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

They are typical.

It is the standard position in aaev.

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

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

Irrelevant.

It is highly relevant

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

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

That's not obvious at all, liar.

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

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

Of course they are

They're not, fool. They're calling for different food to be grown, and
given away to humans.

On 5/18/2010 2:18 AM, Rupert wrote:
On May 18, 8:13 am, wrote:
On May 17, 9:51 pm, 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.

I doubt that that would affect the final outcome.

It certainly does.

On May 19, 12:40*am, "Fred C. Dobbs"
wrote:
On 5/18/2010 2:18 AM, Rupert wrote:

On May 18, 8:13 am, *wrote:
On May 17, 9:51 pm, *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.

I doubt that that would affect the final outcome.

It certainly does.

Do you have some data to back that up?

On 5/18/2010 12:46 PM, Rupert wrote:
On May 19, 12:40 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/18/2010 2:18 AM, Rupert wrote:

On May 18, 8:13 am, wrote:
On May 17, 9:51 pm, 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.

I doubt that that would affect the final outcome.

It certainly does.

Do you have some data to back that up?

Shove it, rupie - you know there is non-arable land used for grazing.

"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.
----

So? Simply the amount of land used is not the only criterion. In many areas
cultivation, irrigation, pest control and everything else associated with
plant agriculture is extremely difficult if not impossible. And also grazing
of animals is in most cases less resource intensive and less harmful to the
environment than large scale "gardening".

In other words your statement is misleading.

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.

As Dutch said: So what? The issue is not "minimizing" environmental
degradation - it's optimizing it, i.e., ensuring that the benefit from
using some resource in a manner that causes environmental degradation is
of greater value than the cost of the degradation. Because the crops
grown as animal feed are heavily subsidized, that optimization almost
certainly doesn't happen - that is, the total cost of the goods
produced, including environmental degradation, is higher than the price
paid by people who consume the meat. But that may well be true for
certain human-consumed vegetable crops, too, yet you don't hear stupid
"vegans" shrieking about it.

You will not succeed in persuading anyone that this "efficiency"
argument is about the environment. What it is, is a desperate grasping
about for something else to try to buttress the sagging, nonsensical
anti-meat position.

On May 19, 12:40*am, "Fred C. Dobbs"
wrote:
On 5/18/2010 2:17 AM, Rupert wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this helps.

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

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

How do you know?

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

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

The issue is not about environmental footprint at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who has talked about it here?

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

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

They are typical.

It is the standard position in aaev.

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

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

Irrelevant.

It is highly relevant

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

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

That's not obvious at all, liar.

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

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

Of course they are

They're not, fool. *They're calling for different food to be grown, and
given away to humans.

Different food to be grown which requires less land use in order to
produce.

Sheesh. It really isn't all that difficult, you know.

On May 22, 4:22*am, Rupert wrote:
On May 19, 12:40*am, "Fred C. Dobbs"
wrote:

On 5/18/2010 2:17 AM, Rupert wrote:

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



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

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

Of course they are

They're not, fool. *They're calling for different food to be grown, and
given away to humans.

Different food to be grown which requires less land use in order to
produce.

Sheesh. It really isn't all that difficult, you know.


But it *is* that difficult if your name is "Goober Dobbs"

On 5/22/2010 3:22 AM, Rupert wrote:
On May 19, 12:40 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/18/2010 2:17 AM, Rupert wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this helps.

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

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

How do you know?

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

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

The issue is not about environmental footprint at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who has talked about it here?

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

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

They are typical.

It is the standard position in aaev.

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

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

Irrelevant.

It is highly relevant

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

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

That's not obvious at all, liar.

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

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

Of course they are

They're not, fool. They're calling for different food to be grown, and
given away to humans.

Different food to be grown which requires less land use in order to
produce.

Different food to be grown and given away to unproductive people, period.

On May 23, 2:52*am, "Fred C. Dobbs"
wrote:
On 5/22/2010 3:22 AM, Rupert wrote:

On May 19, 12:40 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/18/2010 2:17 AM, Rupert wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this helps.

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

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

How do you know?

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

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

The issue is not about environmental footprint at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who has talked about it here?

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

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

They are typical.

It is the standard position in aaev.

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

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

Irrelevant.

It is highly relevant

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

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

That's not obvious at all, liar.

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

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

Of course they are

They're not, fool. *They're calling for different food to be grown, and
given away to humans.

Different food to be grown which requires less land use in order to
produce.

Different food to be grown and given away to unproductive people, period.

Actually, my statement was correct.

On 5/22/2010 7:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
On May 23, 2:52 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/22/2010 3:22 AM, Rupert wrote:

On May 19, 12:40 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/18/2010 2:17 AM, Rupert wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this helps.

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

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

How do you know?

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

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

The issue is not about environmental footprint at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who has talked about it here?

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

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

They are typical.

It is the standard position in aaev.

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

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

Irrelevant.

It is highly relevant

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

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

That's not obvious at all, liar.

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

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

Of course they are

They're not, fool. They're calling for different food to be grown, and
given away to humans.

Different food to be grown which requires less land use in order to
produce.

Different food to be grown and given away to unproductive people, period.

Actually,

Actually, the "inefficiency" argument is shit.

On May 23, 12:36*pm, "Fred C. Dobbs"
wrote:
On 5/22/2010 7:00 PM, Rupert wrote:

On May 23, 2:52 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/22/2010 3:22 AM, Rupert wrote:

On May 19, 12:40 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/18/2010 2:17 AM, Rupert wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this helps.

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

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

How do you know?

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

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

The issue is not about environmental footprint at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who has talked about it here?

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

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

They are typical.

It is the standard position in aaev.

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

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

Irrelevant.

It is highly relevant

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

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

That's not obvious at all, liar.

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

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

Of course they are

They're not, fool. *They're calling for different food to be grown, and
given away to humans.

Different food to be grown which requires less land use in order to
produce.

Different food to be grown and given away to unproductive people, period.

Actually,

Actually, the "inefficiency" argument is shit.

What exactly *is* the "inefficiency" argument, in your view?

On May 19, 6:25*am, "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.

As Dutch said: *So what? *The issue is not "minimizing" environmental
degradation - it's optimizing it, i.e., ensuring that the benefit from
using some resource in a manner that causes environmental degradation is
of greater value than the cost of the degradation. *Because the crops
grown as animal feed are heavily subsidized, that optimization almost
certainly doesn't happen - that is, the total cost of the goods
produced, including environmental degradation, is higher than the price
paid by people who consume the meat. *But that may well be true for
certain human-consumed vegetable crops, too, yet you don't hear stupid
"vegans" shrieking about it.


They are correctly pointing out that changing to a vegan diet from a
typical Western diet reduces the associated environmental cost. There
is no particular reason why they have to turn their attention to every
environmental issue in the world.

You will not succeed in persuading anyone that this "efficiency"
argument is about the environment. *

It is obvious to any person of good sense that that is what it is
about.

What it is, is a desperate grasping
about for something else to try to buttress the sagging, nonsensical
anti-meat position.

On May 19, 6:07*am, "Fred C. Dobbs"
wrote:
On 5/18/2010 12:46 PM, Rupert wrote:



On May 19, 12:40 am, "Fred C.
wrote:
On 5/18/2010 2:18 AM, Rupert wrote:

On May 18, 8:13 am, * *wrote:
On May 17, 9:51 pm, * *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.

I doubt that that would affect the final outcome.

It certainly does.

Do you have some data to back that up?

Shove it, rupie - you know there is non-arable land used for grazing.

We're talking about the proposition "It takes a smaller amount of land
to feed the human population on a plant-based diet than on an animal-
based diet", nincompoop. You have done nothing to cast doubt on that,
because you can't.