More "vegan" bullshit about meat "inefficiency"
in [Vegetarian]
|
Prev: More on fuckwitted "vegans" and their horrifically fuckwitted "inefficiency" argument
Next: ball/rudy/... still resorting to ad hominem diversion in unhinged desperation
From: Mr.Smartypants on 27 Jun 2008 22:48 On Jun 28, 11:47 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.not> wrote: > "Raising meat is economically inefficient. Meat animals, such as cows, > pigs and chicken, eat plant food. Instead of just growing the plants and > eating them, to get meat, we grow plants, feed the plants to the > animals, then eat the animal. This, from a purely economic perspective, > wastes a lot of resources." > > http://www.hereandok.com/Inventions.html > > Couldn't get plainer than that. This fuckwit isn't concerned about the > environment, he's *explicitly* concerned about economic "inefficiency", > which he clearly doesn't understand. More clown talk.
From: Rupert on 28 Jun 2008 19:16 On Jun 28, 9:47 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.not> wrote: > "Raising meat is economically inefficient. Meat animals, such as cows, > pigs and chicken, eat plant food. Instead of just growing the plants and > eating them, to get meat, we grow plants, feed the plants to the > animals, then eat the animal. This, from a purely economic perspective, > wastes a lot of resources." > > http://www.hereandok.com/Inventions.html > > Couldn't get plainer than that. This fuckwit isn't concerned about the > environment, he's *explicitly* concerned about economic "inefficiency", > which he clearly doesn't understand. Yep. All right, you've proved your point. (And of course you're going to snip everything after that). It took quite a while (some years, I believe) for you to actually demonstrate with citations your contention that some people make this argument, but you have now done so, so that's fine. I'm not sure that the author of the above quotation is completely indifferent to environmental concerns, but he's also attempting to make a purely economic argument, and of course you're right that it's a poor argument. One might perhaps argue that some sort of economic planning in preparation for future increases in the world's population might be prudent, and that would require a longer discussion. This ties in with an environmental argument, our current approach to agriculture is causing a decline in the soil quality which may well create problems later on when the world's population is larger. All of this is assuming that we are completely ignoring considerations about the well-being of nonhuman animals, of course. Enjoy the experience of having genuinely won for a change, as opposed to merely deluding yourself into thinking that you have. All the best.
From: Rupert on 29 Jun 2008 04:24 On Jun 29, 8:48 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > On Jun 28, 9:47 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.not> wrote: > >> "Raising meat is economically inefficient. Meat animals, such as cows, > >> pigs and chicken, eat plant food. Instead of just growing the plants and > >> eating them, to get meat, we grow plants, feed the plants to the > >> animals, then eat the animal. This, from a purely economic perspective, > >> wastes a lot of resources." > > >>http://www.hereandok.com/Inventions.html > > >> Couldn't get plainer than that. This fuckwit isn't concerned about the > >> environment, he's *explicitly* concerned about economic "inefficiency", > >> which he clearly doesn't understand. > > > Yep. All right, you've proved your point. (And of course you're going > > to snip everything after that). > > > It took quite a while (some years, I believe) for you to actually > > demonstrate with citations your contention that some people make this > > argument, but you have now done so, so that's fine. > > It was always right there in front of you. Well, no, actually, that's blatantly false clown talk, but never mind.
From: Rupert on 30 Jun 2008 22:48 On Jun 30, 9:00 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > On Jun 29, 8:48 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Jun 28, 9:47 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.not> wrote: > >>>> "Raising meat is economically inefficient. Meat animals, such as cows, > >>>> pigs and chicken, eat plant food. Instead of just growing the plants and > >>>> eating them, to get meat, we grow plants, feed the plants to the > >>>> animals, then eat the animal. This, from a purely economic perspective, > >>>> wastes a lot of resources." > >>>>http://www.hereandok.com/Inventions.html > >>>> Couldn't get plainer than that. This fuckwit isn't concerned about the > >>>> environment, he's *explicitly* concerned about economic "inefficiency", > >>>> which he clearly doesn't understand. > >>> Yep. All right, you've proved your point. (And of course you're going > >>> to snip everything after that). > >>> It took quite a while (some years, I believe) for you to actually > >>> demonstrate with citations your contention that some people make this > >>> argument, but you have now done so, so that's fine. > >> It was always right there in front of you. > > > Well, no, > > Yes, it was. Yawn. Did you cite this document on a previous occasion? Would you like to show me where?
From: dh on 1 Jul 2008 09:28
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:47:18 -0700, Rudy Canoza <pipes(a)thedismalscience.not> wrote: >"Raising meat is economically inefficient. Meat animals, such as cows, >pigs and chicken, eat plant food. Instead of just growing the plants and >eating them, to get meat, we grow plants, feed the plants to the >animals, then eat the animal. This, from a purely economic perspective, >wastes a lot of resources." > >http://www.hereandok.com/Inventions.html > > > >Couldn't get plainer than that. This fuckwit isn't concerned about the >environment, he's *explicitly* concerned about economic "inefficiency", Probably not, Goo. Does he appreciate and promote situations where raising animals is more efficient than raising crops, like he does when raising crops is more efficient than raising animals? Without even knowing the details I feel confident that the answer is: NO! Or maybe even more correctly: NEVER! If I'm right about that Goob, then efficiency is not the true objection either. People cut and burn forest areas to grow crops like corn or soy, but it only lasts for a few seasons before the quality of the ground can't support that type crop any more, so I believe then they grow something like wheat for as many seasons as they can get, then when it can't support that any more they try to grow grass so they can raise livestock. From what I understand that's the general cycle Goo. If after a few seasons of grass the land won't support even that any more, then it seems that if they had started with the grass and hadn't grown more demanding crops to begin with, they could have gotten more efficiency out of the land and been able to grow grass for many many more seasons. Even if they can grow grass as long as they want after they have depleted it with the more demanding veggies, grass/livestock eventually becomes the most efficient way of obtaining human food from some of the land on this planet, but some people not only don't point that out but instead don't want to see it taken into consideration at all. |