The Observer. 22 June 2008.
Is meat off the menu?
Yes says Raj Patel: growing food for animals is a waste of
resources in an overcrowded world. No says Joanna Blythman:
with much of the world unsuitable for crops, meat is essential

America is the most overweight country on earth. Only three out of
10 Americans have a normal body weight. I should have guessed
that one of the side effects of moving to the US would be bloating.

Since leaving London for America a decade ago, I've put on a
couple of stone. It's easy enough to blame the food environment
here. This is, after all, the land where Reagan pronounced tomato
ketchup a fruit and, more recently, where French fries and chocolate-
covered cherries were legally dubbed 'fresh produce' under a US
Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulation known as the batter-
coating rule.

I can't just censure America for my condition, of course. Getting
older and stopping smoking have accelerated my middle-age spread.
I'm more active now than I used to be, but that hasn't kept the
podge at bay. And I'm convinced that part of the problem is that
I eat meat. I came to America a vegetarian and I've lapsed into
occasional chicken and fish (though, because of a residual
Hinduism, no beef).

I'm not the only person to be blaming flesh for bad outcomes.
In America, meat has been getting some bad press recently. The
Humane Society of the United States earlier this year posted a
widely circulated video, filmed undercover at an abattoir in
California. It shows workers ramming cows with fork-lift trucks in
order to persuade them to walk. There was a financial incentive for
them to do it - 'downer cows', cows that are too sick to walk, are
prohibited from entering the food system. By the time the story
broke and the USDA announced a recall, most of the beef had
already been distributed and fed to children through the school-meal
programme.

Even Oprah has announced that she's going vegan, if only for a three-
week 'cleanse'. Oprah has had run-ins with the meat industry before.
In 1998, on hearing that American cows were being fed to other
American cows in very British BSE-generating practices, she
'stopped cold' her beef consumption. A group of Texas cattlemen
were aggrieved. They used one of the handful of legal restrictions to
free speech rights in the US: you're not allowed to disparage
agricultural products here. They claimed that Oprah had done just that.
They lost in court. Twice. Yet the implication, not too far from the
surface in Oprah's vegan detox diet, is that there's something fairly
toxic about meat.

Meat consumption has come under attack on grounds of ethics,
environment and health and has even been blamed for the global food
crisis. A couple of weeks back, George Bush said: 'Worldwide, there
is increasing demand. There turns out to be prosperity in the
developing world, which is good... So, for example, just as an
interesting thought for you, there are 350 million people in India who
are classified as middle class... Their middle class is larger than our
entire population. And when you start getting wealth, you start
demanding better nutrition and better food, and so demand is high,
and that causes the price to go up.'

More people demanding more meat means that more land is dedicated
not to growing food for people, but food for animals - up to 9kg of
grain for every kilo of beef.

Ratcheting up meat consumption will drive up the price of feed grains,
other things being equal.

Except that other things aren't equal. Evidence suggests that it's hard
to impeach either India or China's meat-eating habits. According to
Daryll Ray at the University of Tennessee, the US government's own
figures show that China has been a net exporter of meats since 2001,
subsidised to some extent by the running down of local grain stores,
and an increased import of soybeans. Moreover, it has produced more
grain than it has consumed for every year since 2005, and continues
to export heavily. When it comes to India, Ray says the story is much
the same as China's. In fact India has been a net exporter of grains and
meat over nearly all of the past two decades even though it has the
world's largest number of hungry people. So the problem is a little
deeper than more Indians demanding things, as George Bush claims.

Blaming the world's two most populous countries, India and China,
is a bit of misdirection, particularly when the facts point the other
way. Although India's chicken consumption has gone from 0.2 million
tonnes to 2.3 million today, beef consumption is more or less the
same as it was in 1990 and, because of the cultural tilt against it, not
forecast to change.

China is certainly the world's largest consumer of meat in aggregate,
and that is because it is the world's most populous country. Meat
consumption has increased from 24kg per person in 1980 to 54kg
last year, and the chief of China operations for Tyson Foods, the
world's largest meat packer, predicts that this is the last year that
China will be self-sufficient in protein. Against this, soaring prices
for meat in China are certainly taking the edge off demand. But until
China's meat demand extends its footprint beyond its borders,
country number three in terms of global population, the United
States, remains a little more obviously culpable. Meat consumption
here is rather less sustainable than in China or India. Americans eat an
awful lot of meat - around 90kg of meat and fish per person per year.

Within the US, meat manufacturing is tremendously resource-
intensive. Partly, this is because there's just so much meat around
- nine billion animals per year according to one estimate. They
require water, land and environmental services, all of which
they're using unsustainably. More than half of American pastures
are being over-grazed, and are losing soil at six times their
sustainable rate. Water resources are also stretched to breaking
point - it takes 100 times more water to produce a kilo of animal
than vegetable.

And you've also got the problem of shit. Much of America's
cheaper meat is produced on Concentrated Animal-Feeding
Operations (CAFO), huge lots on which animals are confined, fed
and slaughtered within the same vast facility. These operations
produce the equivalent of five tonnes of waste for every US citizen.
But the waste isn't regulated in the same way. As researchers in a
2005 Johns Hopkins University study noted, a typical CAFO has
about 5,000 animals on it. That number of pigs produces as much
waste as a city of 20,000 people, but without any of the plumbing.

At one of the largest lots in the US, at the Harris Cattle Ranch in
Coalinga, California, 100,000 cattle are housed on a ranch roughly
twice the size of Hyde Park. The waste from these animals is
stored in a lagoon of shit bigger than Wembley Stadium. Although
such lagoons are meant to be insulated from the rest of the
environment, there are reports of effluent leaching into local water
supplies. In 1999, Hurricane Floyd caused 50 lagoons to flood in
North Carolina, and one lagoon burst its banks, releasing 2 million
gallons of soupy red liquid.

For CAFO workers, who are some of the poorest in the country,
respiratory disease rates are high. And when the waste makes it to
the sea, the results are even worse. The run-off is rich in fertilisers.
As a result of the run-off in the Mississippi, CAFOs cause an
annual 'dead zone' in the Gulf of Mexico the size of New Jersey.
And yet CAFOs remain largely untouched by government.

The effects of meat consumption reach beyond America's borders.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United
Nations, nearly a fifth of all greenhouse-gas emissions come from
livestock - more than from all forms of transport. Global livestock
production is set to double between now and 2050, setting another
hurdle on the road to sustainable emissions levels.

A University of Chicago study argued that the average meat eater in
the US produces about 1.5 tonnes of CO[squared] more than a
vegetarian per year. That's because animals are hungry and the grain
they eat takes energy, usually fossil fuels, to produce. It takes 2.2
calories of fossil fuel energy to produce a single calorie of plant
protein, according to researchers at Cornell University. And lots of
that plant protein is required to make animal protein. For chicken, the
ratio of energy in to protein out is 4:1. For pork it's 17:1. For lamb,
50:1. For beef, 54:1.

This is a lot of energy, and a lot of grain that gets diverted. The
amount of grains fed to US livestock would be enough to feed 840
million people on a plant-based diet. The number of food-insecure
people in the world in 2006 was, incidentally, 854 million. Of course,
this isn't simply anAmerican phenomenon - in aggregate, rich
countries feed about 60 per cent of their grain to livestock.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, nearly 70 per cent
of antibiotics used in the US are destined to be used on livestock.
The meat industry is, understandably, feeling a little defensive. 'It
seems the public is getting a terminal case of nutrition whiplash. A
study one week contradicts the findings of a study released the
previous week and has led to consumers either being downright
confused and sceptical, or altogether tuned out from that kind of
news reporting,' says Dave Ray from the American Meat Institute.
Yet the US diet, high in meat and low in fresh fruits and vegetables,
is being increasingly indicted. The Johns Hopkins study argues that
it leads to higher rates of heart disease, stroke, cancer and diabetes.
The cost associated with poor diet in just these diseases has been
estimated at $33 billion per year.

Yet there is enough food to feed the world now and in the future.
But not if larger and larger slices of it go to feed animals - a fact
that the governments of India, China, and the United States seem
unprepared to address.

At the moment, only about two per cent of Americans are vegans.
So the question remains: why is it so hard to go cold tofu? John
Cunningham, consumer research manager at the Vegetarian Research
Group, has commissioned a series of surveys on meat consumption
since the early 1990s, and he has noticed some trends. The number
of vegetarians has been going up. Between 2.5 per cent and 10 per
cent of Americans are now vegetarian, almost double from a decade
before, with numbers of young people higher than the general
population. 'There's been a deep change', says Cunningham. 'If you
talked about being vegetarian in the 1980s, people were incredulous.
Today, people say, "Wow, that's great, I wish I could do that".'

More people are finding a way to get there, but me, I'm still stuck.
Why do I find it so hard to nudge out the meat from my diet? Well,
there's a persistent trend in the data.

Vegetarian women outnumber men by two to one. Cunningham notes
that there's a connection between meat and masculinity, particularly
around beef. 'No one had their manhood questioned for not eating a
chicken sandwich,' he says, 'but if you don't eat a hamburger, well...'

Bob Torres, author of Making a Killing, a study of the philosophy
and political economy of veganism, has seen this too. In his job as
a professor, he has worked with young men from sports teams.
'Many don't get very far giving up meat - they get all kinds of shit
from their team mates, who say things like their athletic performance
is going to decline, they're pussies, they're not man enough. And
when they find out I'm vegan, some people ask me whether I did it
because my wife made me.'

There are other reasons why it's so hard to give up meat.
It's certainly harder for working-class Americans to eat sustainably
when they are working and living in 'food deserts', those parts of
the country where fresh fruit and vegetables are hard to come by,
and where processed meats are readily found on convenience-store
shelves. But I don't have these excuses. It's entirely possible for
me to make the right decision.

And the evidence for me rather tilts against meat consumption.
I care about climate change, animal suffering and the condition
of people in developing countries. Addressing meat's problems
will require a range of policies, from ending the subsidy to meat
prices from workers' low wages, to pricing the full cost of meat's
pollution into its price, to addressing unsustainable practices in
agriculture.

But in caring about all this, eating meat is a big strike against my
conscience. For this, I can't blame America, China or India.
I can only blame myself. It's becoming increasingly clear to
me that I'll need to become more human, even if, in America, it
means I'm less of a man.

· Raj Patel is the author of Stuffed and Starved (Portobello
Books), www.stuffedandstarved.org

http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/food/story/0,,2286172,00.html

NOTE DATE OF POST:  June 11, 2004
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:02 PM

Love P-I Focus:
While we're off fighting terror, the planet's crumbling
By PROFESSOR RICHARD STEINER


History has shown that human societies often misjudge risk,
and that is the case today. With world attention focused almost
exclusively on terrorism and Iraq, another, even more serious
security threat deepens -- the global environmental/humanitarian
crisis.

While we remain virtually hypnotized by terrorism, humanity is
quietly destroying the biosphere in which we live, ourselves and
our future along with it. Just since 9/11, 25 million children died
from preventable causes, the world's population grew by 200
million people and thousands of species went extinct. Also,
250,000 square miles of forest were lost, 50,000 square miles of
arable land turned to desert, 8 billion tons of carbon were added to
the atmosphere and air pollution claimed more than 4 million lives.

Our boat is sinking, we know the causes and consequences, and
we know how to solve the problem. Yet policy-makers keep
rearranging the deck chairs. Left unattended, this broad
environmental/humanitarian crisis will foreclose any hope for
security in the world. Certainly we must address terrorism, but
just as certainly we must ensure our planet's sustainability.

Some of the key indicators of our current condition help put
these relative risks in perspective.

Population

World population stands at 6.4 billion, more than four times its
number at the start of the 20th century. Although some nations
have reached population stability, many of the poorest, developing
nations are far from it. The population -- growing by 74 million a
year -- is projected to reach 9 billion by 2050, the additional
billions coming almost exclusively in the poorest countries.

The largest generation of young people ever, some 1.7 billion ages
10 to 24, is just now reaching reproductive age. Where fertility
remains high there is widespread poverty, discrimination against
women, high infant mortality and lack of access to family planning,
health care and education. More than 350 million women lack any
access to family planning. Some religions oppose contraception,
and female infanticide has become epidemic. Programs to stabilize
population need about $20 billion a year (about one week's worth of
world military expenditures) but now receive about $3 billion a year.

Consumption

Conspicuous consumption has become a homogenizing force
across the developed world. Just since 1950, we have consumed
more goods and services than all previous generations combined.
The consumption of energy, steel and timber more than doubled;
fossil fuel use and car ownership increased four-fold; meat
production and fish catch increased five-fold; paper use increased
six-fold, and air travel increased 100-fold.

In the United States, where malls are more prevalent than high
schools, shopping has become the primary cultural activity.
Although world economic output continues to increase, when
real costs are calculated, sustainable economic welfare has been
in decline since the '70s. One measure of resource consumption
of humanity -- our "ecological footprint" -- surpassed sustainable
levels in the late '70s, and for an average American is now 20 times
that of a person in some developing countries.

Studies estimate that, if the developing world were to consume at
our rate, another five or six planets would be needed to sustain
this level of consumption. The United Nations says that a 10-fold
reduction in resource consumption (or a 10-fold increase in energy/
material efficiency) in industrialized countries will be needed for
adequate resources to be available for developing countries.

Rich-poor divide

The unequal distribution of consumption adds to environmental,
social and economic damage as well. The gap in per-capita income
between rich and poor nations has doubled in the past 40 years.
The upper 20 percent in economic class -- Europe, Japan, North
America -- account for more than 80 percent of the material and
energy consumed globally while the poorest 20 percent account
for just 1 percent of consumption. The world's 350 billionaires
have a combined net worth exceeding that of the poorest 2.5 billion
people. Those poor live on less than $2 a day and lack basic
sanitation, health care, clean water and adequate food.

Despite unprecedented economic expansion of the '90s, today
some 900 million adults are illiterate and 30,000 kids die every day
from preventable causes. Poor countries pay more than $350
billion a year just to service the interest on their debt to developed
countries (a total of $2.4 trillion) and often try to raise this money
through environmentally destructive activities. Some countries
spend more to service their foreign debt than on education and
health care combined.

Biodiversity

Ecologists fear we are losing between 50 and 150 species each day,
a rate thousands of times higher than the evolutionary background
extinction rate of about one species a year. Some estimate that we
have lost perhaps 600,000 species since the "biotic holocaust"
began around 1950; if present trends continue, half of all species
on Earth would be extinct in the next 50 years. Overhunting,
invasive species, pollution and climate change are factors in this
sixth mass extinction event, but by far the greatest cause is habitat
loss. The lost ecological services could be devastating. It may take
5 million to 10 million years for biological diversity to recover.

Forests

Half of Earth's original forest cover is gone, and an additional
30 percent is degraded or fragmented. Only 20 percent of the
original forest on Earth remains today as large, relatively
undisturbed "frontier forests." And half of this frontier forest is
threatened by human activity, mostly by logging. Another 100,000
square miles of forest is lost each year, mostly in the tropics, and
only a very small amount of this forest loss is offset by regrowth.

Since 1960, about 30 percent of the Earth's tropical forests have
disappeared and with them, thousands of species. Between 50
percent and 90 percent of the terrestrial species inhabit and
depend upon the forests, and more than half of the threatened
vertebrate species on Earth are forest animals. The link is clear:
lose forests -- lose species.

Food

Today about 1 billion people are undernourished and 600 million
are overnourished. The United Nations lists 86 countries that can't
grow or buy enough food and predicts that by 2010 global food
supply will begin to fall short of demand.

More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion
cattle (weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a
quarter of the planet's land surface.

More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the
world rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result
in the loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.

Water

Fresh water may well be the most precious substance on Earth.
People use about half of all available fresh water, causing aquifers
to shrink around the world.

Some 70 percent of all water used by humans goes to irrigation;
most simply leaks and evaporates from inefficient irrigation
systems. Some water tables, such as the north China plain, drop
by more than a meter a year. Two billion people have no choice
but to drink water contaminated with human and animal waste and
chemical pollution.

The World Health Organization estimates there are 1.5 billion cases
of diarrhea a year in children from contaminated water, causing
3 million deaths.

Today, water supplies in 36 nations in Africa, Asia and the Middle
East are not sufficient to meet grain production needs. In China,
400 cities suffer from acute water shortage and half of the nation's
rivers are polluted. The world lost half of its wetlands in the past
century, and more than 22,000 square miles of arable land turns
into desert each year. It's projected that in 20 years, the demand
for water will increase by 50 percent and two-thirds of the world
population will be water-stressed.

Atmosphere

Air pollution exceeds health limits daily in many cities in the
world. Some 5,000 people a day die from air pollution, and kids
in some cities inhale the equivalent of two packs of cigarettes
every day just by breathing the air.

Carbon emissions from burning fossil fuel now stand at 6.5 billion
tons a year (four times 1950 levels), resulting in atmospheric
carbon dioxide concentrations 33 percent greater than pre-industrial
levels.

Global warming is no longer seriously doubted, and nine of the
hottest years on record have occurred since 1990. The warming
has accelerated the melting of polar ice caps and mountain glaciers;
a rising sea level has inundated some Pacific islands, and more
frequent and severe droughts, storms and floods cost more than
$50 billion and 20,000 lives a year. The Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change concluded most of the warming over past
50 years was human-induced.

Oceans

Once thought to be inexhaustible, the Earth's oceans are more
polluted and overexploited than at any other time in history.
Seventy percent of world fish populations are either overfished or
nearly so. Marine pollution has increased dramatically, and warming
ocean temperatures have killed more than a fourth of the world's
coral reefs. The 1998 coral "bleaching" event killed almost half of
all Indian Ocean corals in just a few months, and Australia's Great
Barrier Reef is threatened with complete collapse by the end of the
century if warming continues.

If we connect these dots, the picture is clear: We are approaching
a breaking point on the home planet.

The fate of the Earth may well be decided in our lifetime, and we
all should begin behaving as though we are living together on one
small, precious, life-sustaining spaceship, which indeed we are.

The solution is straightforward -- stabilize population, reduce
consumption and share wealth. We know exactly how to do this;
we just need to pay for it.

The United Nations says $40 billion a year -- about what consumers
spend on cosmetics -- would provide everyone on Earth with clean
water, sanitation, health care, adequate nutrition and education.

The secretary general of the 1992 Earth Summit cautioned, "no
place on the planet can remain an island of affluence in a sea of
misery ... we're either going to save the whole world or no one
will be saved."

Without urgent attention, the global ecosystem will continue to
unravel and we'll consign future generations to a nightmare of
deprivation, insecurity and conflict.

It's time to broaden our understanding of security beyond just
that of terrorism to securing a sustainable future for spaceship Earth.


Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation specialist at the
University of Alaska-Fairbanks.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/175309_focus30.html

Record corn prices mean more expensive meat, dairy
By STEVENSON JACOBS (AP Business Writer)
From Associated Press
June 22, 2008 3:05 PM EDT

NEW YORK - Raging Midwest floodwaters that swallowed crops
and sent corn and soybean prices soaring are about to give
consumers more grief at the grocery store.

In the latest bout of food inflation, beef, pork, poultry and even
eggs, cheese and milk are expected to get more expensive as
livestock owners go out of business or are forced to slaughter
more cattle, hogs, turkeys and chickens to cope with rocketing
costs for corn-based animal feed.

The floods engulfed an estimated 2 million or more acres of
corn and soybean fields in Iowa, Indiana, Illinois and other key
growing states, sending world grain prices skyward on fears of a
substantially smaller corn crop. The government will give a partial
idea of how many corn acres were lost before the end of the
month, but experts say the trickle-down effect could be more
dramatic later this year, affecting everything from Thanksgiving
turkeys to Christmas hams.

Rod Brenneman, president and chief executive of Seaboard Foods,
a pork supplier in Sawnee Mission, Kan. that produces 4 million
hogs a year, said high corn costs were already forcing producers
in his industry to cut back on the number of animals they raise.

"There's definitely liquidation of livestock happening," and that will
cause meat prices to rise later this year and into 2009, said
Brenneman, who is also the vice chairman of the American Meat
Institute.

Brenneman's cost for feeding a single hog has shot up $30 in the
past year because of record-high prices for corn and soybeans,
the main ingredients in animal feed. Passing that increase on to
consumers would tack an extra 15 cents per pound onto a pork
chop.

It's a similar story for U.S. beef producers, who now spend a
whopping 60-70 percent of their production costs on animal feed
and are seeing that number rise daily as corn prices hover near an
unprecedented $8 a bushel, up from about $4 a year ago.

"This is not sustainable. The cattle industry is going to have to get
smaller," said James Herring, president and CEO of Amarillo, Tex.-
based Friona Industries, which buys 20 million bushels of corn
each year to feed 550,000 cattle.

Corn's prices were already rising before the floods, driven up
80 percent over the past year as developing countries like China
and India scramble for grains to feed people and livestock. U.S.
production of ethanol, an alternative fuel that can be made with
corn, has also pushed prices higher, prompting livestock owners
to lobby Washington to roll back ethanol mandates.

Before the floods, corn farmers were enjoying record profits
selling the grain to feed animals and for use in cereals and as a
sweetener in soda and candy. But a sharply smaller corn crop
could wipe out those gains.

In Iowa, the No. 1 U.S. corn grower, floods inundated about
9 percent of corn crops, representing about 1.2 million acres -
almost 1.5 percent of the country's anticipated harvest.

In Indiana, another 9 percent of corn and soybean crops were
flooded, potentially costing farmers up to $840 million in lost
earnings, Indiana Agriculture Director Andy Miller said.

Floodwaters also tossed farm equipment, sprayed cornfields
with debris and silt and sucked away large chunks of topsoil.
For livestock owners and meat producers, the damage may be
felt long after the corn grows back.

Even before the floods, Tyson Foods was complaining that high
grain prices would drive up its costs by $600 million this year.
The world's largest poultry company has already raised its prices
over the past year, and expects to keep raising them, CEO Dick
Bond told analysts at a conference in May.

Higher feed prices will eventually filter through to the cost of milk,
cheese and yogurt, too, since 65 to 75 percent of a dairy farmers'
production costs are for feed, said Chris Galen, a spokesman for
the National Milk Producers Federation.

With the cost of animal feed only going higher, many poultry and
dairy farmers are starting to look for cheaper alternatives.

Nebraska dairy farmer Dan Rice, who has 1,500 cows, said one
alternative is to buy some of the byproducts of cereal or flour
production, but they're not nearly as productive compared to corn.

"If we all feed less corn and get less production, then the price at
the grocery stores are going to go up," said Rice, who supplies
milk to grocery stores in Omaha and around Kansas City.

Without easy ways to cut costs, many livestock producers will
have little choice but to slaughter more animals and send them to
market.

"We're in survival mode now," said Paul Hill, chairman of West
Liberty Foods, a turkey processor based in West Liberty, Iowa.
He estimated U.S. turkey producers will reduce their flocks by
10 to 15 percent nationwide, a cutback that will send consumer
prices dramatically higher.

"The cost of Thanksgiving and Christmas turkeys will go up this
year, and maybe even more next year," said Hill, who is also the
chairman of the National Turkey Federation.

If corn were to rise to $10 a bushel, Richard Lobb, spokesman for
the National Chicken Council, said recouping costs through higher
retail prices may not be possible.

"Can you possibly charge enough for the chicken to recoup that
investment?" he said. "That's a question no one can answer yet
because it's never been done."

---
Associated Press writers David Mercer in Champaign, Ill., and
Lauren Shepherd in New York contributed to this report.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved
http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20080622/485dce40_3ca6_1552620080622-740139181

pearl wrote:
> The Observer. 22 June 2008.
> Is meat off the menu?
> Yes says Raj Patel: growing food for animals is a waste of
> resources in an overcrowded world. No says Joanna Blythman:
> with much of the world unsuitable for crops, meat is essential

The comment by Patel proves what I have said all along about fuckwitted 
"vegans" and their bogus "efficiency" argument.  They are saying that 
more total undifferentiated food calories for human consumption can be 
produced from a given quantity of land if we don't produce and consume 
meat, and that is the *WRONG* notion of "efficiency".  It's wrong 
because humans don't want simply to consume calories; they want 
particular foods.  Among the foods they want is meat.

It is *INCORRECT* to think of food production efficiency simply in terms 
of raw calorie production.  The only meaningful sense of efficiency is 
economic efficiency:  that the economic value of the use of a unit of 
resource is the highest, compared to alternate uses of the resource. 
So, if hypothetically I could use an additional hectare of land to 
produce either 100 head of cattle with a total caloric value of 
15,000,000 calories in the form of edible meat; or, I could produce 44 
tons of potatoes (typical North American yield) providing some 
50,000,000 calories; but the net profit from the beef is $500,000 versus 
only $250,000 from the potatoes, then the beef is the correct use of the 
land.  As a farmer, I don't care at all about the total caloric value of 
what I produce - I care about the economic value.

The reason this outcome is seen is because people value beef more highly 
than potatoes, and they have the ability to buy it.  Thus, beef is 
produced.  Beef is produced, sold and consumed because Farmer Smith and 
Consumer Jones find it mutually beneficial to engage in that trade. 
People who say meat "ought" not be produced are sticking their noses 
where they don't belong:  into the private, consensual transactions 
between producers and consumers.

If you try to interrupt this trade, you will be ignored at best, 
violently swept aside at worst.  You are wasting your time.

pearl wrote:
> Record corn prices mean more expensive meat, dairy

Then people will cut back on them.

Markets work.

pearl wrote:
> NOTE DATE OF POST:  June 11, 2004
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:02 PM
> 
> Love P-I Focus:
> While we're off fighting terror, the planet's crumbling
> By PROFESSOR RICHARD STEINER

This is a typically stupid post from a typically stupid "ara".  For
starters, if you go to the link, the author is *NOT* identified as
"Professor Richard Steiner"; instead, it reads:

    Richard Steiner
    Professor

and then at the end of the article, he is identified as literate people
normally do:

    Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation specialist at the
    University of Alaska-Fairbanks.

But the post is stupid for more reasons than that.  In the article,
Steiner identifies environmental degradation resulting from animal
agriculture as a problem:

    More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
    malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
    damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion
    cattle (weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a quarter
    of the planet's land surface.

    More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the world
    rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result in the
    loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.

The implication is clear:  if only we weren't producing "wasteful" meat,
then six million people wouldn't die from malnutrition.  That claim is 
complete bullshit, of course.  Those people die because they mostly live 
in poor countries run by corrupt tyrannies who in many cases *want* 
people to die of starvation.  They die because their economies don't 
function, because of the incompetence and sheer evil of their regimes.

In terms of the environmental cost of agriculture, that is a problem of 
*all* of agriculture, not just meat production.  Everything produced 
should be done in such a way that the total cost, including 
environmental remediation, is captured in the price of the commodities 
sold.  If the production of meat causes a lot of environmental 
degradation, then by all means tax it, or the intermediate steps in 
between, in such a way that when consumers buy the stuff, they are 
paying for the cost of mitigating and reducing the environmental damage. 
  But the answer is not to forbid the production of the stuff.  People 
want to eat meat, and forbidding its production and consumption is 
fascist in design and effect.

On Jun 23, 11:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> > NOTE DATE OF POST:  June 11, 2004
> > Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:02 PM
>
> > Love P-I Focus:
> > While we're off fighting terror, the planet's crumbling
> > By PROFESSOR RICHARD STEINER
>
> This is a typically stupid post from a typically stupid "ara".  

It's very brave of you to talk about stupidity in the context of
recent conversations.

> For
> starters, if you go to the link, the author is *NOT* identified as
> "Professor Richard Steiner"; instead, it reads:
>
>     Richard Steiner
>     Professor
>
> and then at the end of the article, he is identified as literate people
> normally do:
>
>     Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation specialist at the
>     University of Alaska-Fairbanks.
>

What are you babbling about, you weirdo?

> But the post is stupid for more reasons than that.  In the article,
> Steiner identifies environmental degradation resulting from animal
> agriculture as a problem:
>

Oh, my goodness, how stupid.

>     More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
>     malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
>     damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion
>     cattle (weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a quarter
>     of the planet's land surface.
>
>     More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the world
>     rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result in the
>     loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.
>

Hmmm. He is stating some facts. And somehow this makes the post
stupid. What would we do without the insights of Jonathan Ball, I
wonder?

> The implication is clear:  

Er, no. What you have quoted are some factual statements. Any
"implication" will have to be drawn from the context. You are not
quoting the context so the "implication" you are about to talk about
is something you made up.

> if only we weren't producing "wasteful" meat,
> then six million people wouldn't die from malnutrition.  

Meat production requires high amounts of crop inputs. If people in
developed countries were not demanding food with such high crop
inputs, it is possible that the crops would become more affordable to
people in developing countries who are suffering from malnutrition,
and that as a result fewer people would die of malnutrition. This
doesn't go without saying, more research would be needed to know
whether this effect would actually happen, and there might be other
effects. But it's not out of the question. But, in any case, in the
part of the article Ball quoted the author made no such speculations,
he merely made some factual statements, so Ball calling the article
"stupid" on the grounds that it makes some factual statements which
Ball does not contest is just Ball being a goofy clown as usual.
Please feel free to continue to provide us with entertainment, Ball.

> That claim is
> complete bullshit, of course.  Those people die because they mostly live
> in poor countries run by corrupt tyrannies who in many cases *want*
> people to die of starvation.  

Government corruption is also a part of the problem, certainly.

> They die because their economies don't
> function, because of the incompetence and sheer evil of their regimes.
>
> In terms of the environmental cost of agriculture, that is a problem of
> *all* of agriculture, not just meat production.  Everything produced
> should be done in such a way that the total cost, including
> environmental remediation, is captured in the price of the commodities
> sold.  If the production of meat causes a lot of environmental
> degradation, then by all means tax it, or the intermediate steps in
> between, in such a way that when consumers buy the stuff, they are
> paying for the cost of mitigating and reducing the environmental damage.

Yes, this is a very reasonable stance to take if you ignore the
nonhuman animals that are involved in meat production. So maybe Ball
should call for a tax on meat to help offset the contribution of meat
production to global warming. We could tax plant-based food as well to
the extent that it could be shown that its production contributes
significantly to global warming.

>   But the answer is not to forbid the production of the stuff.  People
> want to eat meat, and forbidding its production and consumption is
> fascist in design and effect.

You might as well say that forbidding the slave trade is "fascist". We
know you think we're morally entitled to do everything that we do to
nonhuman animals just because we like the taste of their flesh, Ball,
but that is a point which neither you nor anyone else has ever done a
remotely adequate job of arguing, so it's time to stop asserting
without argument that objecting to the way food is currently produced
is "fascist".

In a recent conversation, you stupidly lied about something that was a
matter of recent memory and public record and made a total nincompoop
of yourself. Putting a brave face on it, you spent the entire
conversation babbling about how I needed to speak with my doctor. Now
you assert that this is a "typically stupid post from a typicall
stupid ARA" and all you have to say in support of this contention is
some babbling about calling someone "Professor Richard Steiner" when
they are a professor and a quotation from the article containing some
factual statements that you agree with.

Keep up the good work, Ball. You are as much of a clown when you are
attempting serious intellectual discussion as when you are playing
with Ronny Hamilton and David Harrison.

On Jun 23, 10:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> > The Observer. 22 June 2008.
> > Is meat off the menu?
> > Yes says Raj Patel: growing food for animals is a waste of
> > resources in an overcrowded world. No says Joanna Blythman:
> > with much of the world unsuitable for crops, meat is essential
>
> The comment by Patel proves what I have said all along about fuckwitted
> "vegans" and their bogus "efficiency" argument.  

The way to use that comment to prove anything would be to substantiate
the claim. Crop production in the US alone is more than adequate to
feed the world. There is certainly no problem based on the crop-
producing capacity of the world alone.

> They are saying that
> more total undifferentiated food calories for human consumption can be
> produced from a given quantity of land if we don't produce and consume
> meat, and that is the *WRONG* notion of "efficiency".  

Actually, Ball, it is only in your fevered and deluded mind that
anyone is saying that.

You indicated in a different post in this thread that you do actually
understand the environmental argument, and were even prepared to
endorse it, in the sense of taxing food products according to the
amount of environmental damage their production causes. Fantastic. Now
I have been patiently explaining to you the argument based on global
distribution of food. The idea is that an individual might decide, as
a matter of personal conscience, that they shouldn't consume more than
their fair share of the world's food resources, given that there is a
chance that if a large number of people in the developed world
consumed less resource-intensive food then fewer people would starve.
I grant you it would take more investigation to ensure that that
effect would happen, but it is still reasonable to make a personal
conscientious decision, possibly to be revised at a later date, if you
think that there is a significant probability that it would happen.

It is not going to be possible to feed 8 billion people on the current
Western diet. As you say, that means that eventually market forces
will correct the current Western diet. But some people might feel they
want to change their diet now in order to reduce their contribution to
environmental degradation, or to avoid consuming more than their fair
share of the world's resources if there is a chance that reducing
their consumption will help fewer people to starve (this latter effect
being more dubious).

Your caricature of the "efficiency" argument has always been a straw
person, as any sensible person can see.

There are also these arguments to do with nonhuman animals.

> It's wrong
> because humans don't want simply to consume calories; they want
> particular foods.  Among the foods they want is meat.
>
> It is *INCORRECT* to think of food production efficiency simply in terms
> of raw calorie production.  The only meaningful sense of efficiency is
> economic efficiency:  that the economic value of the use of a unit of
> resource is the highest, compared to alternate uses of the resource.
> So, if hypothetically I could use an additional hectare of land to
> produce either 100 head of cattle with a total caloric value of
> 15,000,000 calories in the form of edible meat; or, I could produce 44
> tons of potatoes (typical North American yield) providing some
> 50,000,000 calories; but the net profit from the beef is $500,000 versus
> only $250,000 from the potatoes, then the beef is the correct use of the
> land.  As a farmer, I don't care at all about the total caloric value of
> what I produce - I care about the economic value.
>

Yes, thank you, Mr C. Phil. in economics. This is all irrelevant.

> The reason this outcome is seen is because people value beef more highly
> than potatoes, and they have the ability to buy it.  Thus, beef is
> produced.  Beef is produced, sold and consumed because Farmer Smith and
> Consumer Jones find it mutually beneficial to engage in that trade.
> People who say meat "ought" not be produced are sticking their noses
> where they don't belong:  into the private, consensual transactions
> between producers and consumers.
>

I have been talking about arguments for individual conscientious
decisions. You've already endorsed taxation of meat productions as a
way of forcing consumers and producers to interalise the externalities
they cause. Beyond that, you wouldn't use the "efficiency" argument as
a basis for coercing other people into not eating meat, not if you
were a good libertarian anyway. To justify that you would have to
argue that meat production violates moral rights.

If you can actually find some evidence that someone is trying to use
the "efficiency" argument alone (as opposed to an animal rights
argument) to justify coercively interfering in the marketplace beyond
just requiring consumers and producers to internalise their
externalities, then you are fully entitled to rant and rave at that
person and call them a "totalitarian" and "statist" all you want.
(You, too, of course, are a totalitarian and statist because you think
you have a right to use your vote in elections to support parties who
will prevent poor foreigners from accepting offers of employment from
American companies who want to employ them, being under the delusion
that that will help you hold on to your extremely and undeservedly
generous share of the world's pie. But never mind that). You've never
produced any actual *evidence* that anyone uses the "efficiency"
argument (as opposed to an animal rights argument) in this way.

I hope this has helped to clear away the mists of confusion.

> If you try to interrupt this trade, you will be ignored at best,
> violently swept aside at worst.  You are wasting your time.

It is not feasible to ban all meat production tomorrow, no. And
perhaps it would not be justified either; perhaps we should agree that
some meat production is justified in the light of the collateral
deaths argument. Either that or we should all start growing our own
food, that too is a possibility. Still, it is not unreasonable to hold
that a lot of the meat production that goes on at the moment is
morally unjustified and it is not unreasonable to hope for the day
when food production of that sort doesn't happen. Or, at least, no-one
has shown that such a stance is any less reasonable than any stance
any of the antis here take. It must have looked like a pretty daunting
task trying to stop the slave trade. Rome wasn't built in a day. We
can hope that food production will become more humane and less
environmentally destructive and work towards that goal, and we can
modify our own consumption habits to reduce our own contribution to
the problem.

Ball, of course, chooses not to do this, preferring to make himself
look like a clown on usenet instead.

On Jun 23, 10:40 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> > Record corn prices mean more expensive meat, dairy
>
> Then people will cut back on them.
>
> Markets work.

A rare occasion indeed: a post from Ball containing only sensible
statements.

Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
> On Jun 23, 10:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>> pearl wrote:
>>> The Observer. 22 June 2008.
>>> Is meat off the menu?
>>> Yes says Raj Patel: growing food for animals is a waste of
>>> resources in an overcrowded world. No says Joanna Blythman:
>>> with much of the world unsuitable for crops, meat is essential
>> The comment by Patel proves what I have said all along about fuckwitted
>> "vegans" and their bogus "efficiency" argument.  
> 
> The way to use that comment to prove anything would be to substantiate
> the claim.

My claim is substantiated.


> 
>> They are saying that
>> more total undifferentiated food calories for human consumption can be
>> produced from a given quantity of land if we don't produce and consume
>> meat, and that is the *WRONG* notion of "efficiency".  
> 
> Actually, Rudy, it is only in your fevered and deluded mind that
> anyone is saying that.

No, this fuckwit Patel, and the slavishly copy-pasta fuckwit lesley are 
saying it.


> You indicated in a different post in this thread that you do actually
> understand the environmental argument, and were even prepared to
> endorse it, in the sense of taxing food products according to the
> amount of environmental damage their production causes.

The environmental argument is not what is meant by people saying meat 
production is "inefficient".  They're not talking about the degradation 
of the resource, you fucking moron - they're talking about the 
misapplication of it, and they are wrong.


>> It's wrong
>> because humans don't want simply to consume calories; they want
>> particular foods.  Among the foods they want is meat.
>>
>> It is *INCORRECT* to think of food production efficiency simply in terms
>> of raw calorie production.  The only meaningful sense of efficiency is
>> economic efficiency:  that the economic value of the use of a unit of
>> resource is the highest, compared to alternate uses of the resource.
>> So, if hypothetically I could use an additional hectare of land to
>> produce either 100 head of cattle with a total caloric value of
>> 15,000,000 calories in the form of edible meat; or, I could produce 44
>> tons of potatoes (typical North American yield) providing some
>> 50,000,000 calories; but the net profit from the beef is $500,000 versus
>> only $250,000 from the potatoes, then the beef is the correct use of the
>> land.  As a farmer, I don't care at all about the total caloric value of
>> what I produce - I care about the economic value.
>>
> 
> Yes, thank you, Mr C. Phil. in economics. This is all irrelevant.

It's perfectly relevant.


>> The reason this outcome is seen is because people value beef more highly
>> than potatoes, and they have the ability to buy it.  Thus, beef is
>> produced.  Beef is produced, sold and consumed because Farmer Smith and
>> Consumer Jones find it mutually beneficial to engage in that trade.
>> People who say meat "ought" not be produced are sticking their noses
>> where they don't belong:  into the private, consensual transactions
>> between producers and consumers.
>>
> 
> I have been talking about arguments for individual conscientious
> decisions.

You have been talking empty symbolism.


>> If you try to interrupt this trade, you will be ignored at best,
>> violently swept aside at worst.  You are wasting your time.
> 
> It is not feasible to ban all meat production tomorrow, no. And
> perhaps it would not be justified either; perhaps we should agree that
> some meat production is justified in the light of the collateral
> deaths argument.

It has nothing to do with the collateral deaths argument.  It has to do 
with people being free to consume what they want, without interference 
from incompetent moral nags like you.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 23, 10:40 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>> pearl wrote:
>>> Record corn prices mean more expensive meat, dairy
>> Then people will cut back on them.
>>
>> Markets work.
> 
> A rare occasion indeed: a post from Rudy containing only sensible
> statements.

No, that's the norm.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 23, 11:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>> pearl wrote:
>>> NOTE DATE OF POST:  June 11, 2004
>>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:02 PM
>>> Love P-I Focus:
>>> While we're off fighting terror, the planet's crumbling
>>> By PROFESSOR RICHARD STEINER
>> This is a typically stupid post from a typically stupid "ara".  For
>> starters, if you go to the link, the author is *NOT* identified as
>> "Professor Richard Steiner"; instead, it reads:
>>
>>     Richard Steiner
>>     Professor
>>
>> and then at the end of the article, he is identified as literate people
>> normally do:
>>
>>     Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation specialist at the
>>     University of Alaska-Fairbanks.
>>
>> But the post is stupid for more reasons than that.  In the article,
>> Steiner identifies environmental degradation resulting from animal
>> agriculture as a problem:
>>
> 
> Oh, my goodness, how stupid.

His fatuous hand-wringing over six million people a year dying of 
malnutrition, when it can in no way be blamed on meat production, is 
indeed stupid, you stupid telemarketing fuckwit.


>>     More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
>>     malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
>>     damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion
>>     cattle (weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a quarter
>>     of the planet's land surface.
>>
>>     More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the world
>>     rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result in the
>>     loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.
>>
> 
> Hmmm. He is stating some facts. And somehow this makes the post
> stupid. What would we do without the insights of Jonathan Ball, I
> wonder?
> 
>> The implication is clear:  
> 
> Er, no.

Yes, it is clear.


>> if only we weren't producing "wasteful" meat,
>> then six million people wouldn't die from malnutrition.  
> 
> Meat production requires high amounts of crop inputs. If people in
> developed countries were not demanding food with such high crop
> inputs, it is possible that the crops would become more affordable to
> people in developing countries who are suffering from malnutrition,
> and that as a result fewer people would die of malnutrition. 

No, *absolutely* not.  There is far more than enough unused agricultural 
capacity in the west to grow food for these poor starving people.  The 
problem is that they don't have any fucking MONEY to buy food from us, 
because their nations are run by murderous dictators who actually want 
many of those people to die.  It absolutely has nothing to do with meat 
being produced in the developed countries.


>> That claim is
>> complete bullshit, of course.  Those people die because they mostly live
>> in poor countries run by corrupt tyrannies who in many cases *want*
>> people to die of starvation.  
> 
> Government corruption is also a part of the problem, certainly.

It is far and away the biggest part.


>> They die because their economies don't
>> function, because of the incompetence and sheer evil of their regimes.
>>
>> In terms of the environmental cost of agriculture, that is a problem of
>> *all* of agriculture, not just meat production.  Everything produced
>> should be done in such a way that the total cost, including
>> environmental remediation, is captured in the price of the commodities
>> sold.  If the production of meat causes a lot of environmental
>> degradation, then by all means tax it, or the intermediate steps in
>> between, in such a way that when consumers buy the stuff, they are
>> paying for the cost of mitigating and reducing the environmental damage.
> 
> Yes, this is a very reasonable stance to take if you ignore the
> nonhuman animals that are involved in meat production.

It's a very reasonable stance to take, period.


>>   But the answer is not to forbid the production of the stuff.  People
>> want to eat meat, and forbidding its production and consumption is
>> fascist in design and effect.
> 
> You might as well say that forbidding the slave trade is "fascist".

No, they're not equivalent.  Animals don't have rights; people do.

On Jun 25, 3:39 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 23, 10:40 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> Record corn prices mean more expensive meat, dairy
> >> Then people will cut back on them.
>
> >> Markets work.
>
> > A rare occasion indeed: a post from Rudy containing only sensible
> > statements.
>
> No, that's the norm.

Sane posts from you are as rare as hen's teeth.

On Jun 25, 3:44 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 23, 11:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> NOTE DATE OF POST:  June 11, 2004
> >>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:02 PM
> >>> Love P-I Focus:
> >>> While we're off fighting terror, the planet's crumbling
> >>> By PROFESSOR RICHARD STEINER
> >> This is a typically stupid post from a typically stupid "ara".  For
> >> starters, if you go to the link, the author is *NOT* identified as
> >> "Professor Richard Steiner"; instead, it reads:
>
> >>     Richard Steiner
> >>     Professor
>
> >> and then at the end of the article, he is identified as literate people
> >> normally do:
>
> >>     Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation specialist at the
> >>     University of Alaska-Fairbanks.
>
> >> But the post is stupid for more reasons than that.  In the article,
> >> Steiner identifies environmental degradation resulting from animal
> >> agriculture as a problem:
>
> > Oh, my goodness, how stupid.
>
> His fatuous hand-wringing over six million people a year dying of
> malnutrition, when it can in no way be blamed on meat production, is
> indeed stupid, you stupid telemarketing fuckwit.
>

Thanks for the good laugh so early in the morning, Ball. Still talking
about telemarketing, eh? You don't think that's getting a little
desperate? Would you care to post your entire work history? Or even
just what you're doing at the moment?

Some might suggest that that little episode where you confidently
proclaimed that I was destined to become a career telemarketer is more
something to be embarrassed about than something to endlessly return
to. In any event there is no shame in telemarketing, it is a perfectly
honest job.

I look forward to seeing scanned images of your academic
qualifications and hearing all about the extraordinarily valuable
contribution you make to society.

Anyway, to return to the topic. It is reasonable to be concerned about
people dying of malnutrition, and it is reasonable to bring up the
topic of inequitable global distribution of food resources in the
context of discussing the current global system of food production.
All you have done so far to support your contention that the article
is stupid is to quote a set of factual statements from it which you
agree with. This is basically like putting on a clown suit and hitting
yourself in the face with a custard pie in public, which is pretty
much all you ever do.


>
>
> >>     More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
> >>     malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
> >>     damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion
> >>     cattle (weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a quarter
> >>     of the planet's land surface.
>
> >>     More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the world
> >>     rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result in the
> >>     loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.
>
> > Hmmm. He is stating some facts. And somehow this makes the post
> > stupid. What would we do without the insights of Jonathan Ball, I
> > wonder?
>
> >> The implication is clear:
>
> > Er, no.
>
> Yes, it is clear.
>

Ball, in that quotation he states a set of facts which you agree with,
and which are indeed not in dispute by any well-informed person. God
help me, I can't believe what a joke you are.

> >> if only we weren't producing "wasteful" meat,
> >> then six million people wouldn't die from malnutrition.
>
> > Meat production requires high amounts of crop inputs. If people in
> > developed countries were not demanding food with such high crop
> > inputs, it is possible that the crops would become more affordable to
> > people in developing countries who are suffering from malnutrition,
> > and that as a result fewer people would die of malnutrition.
>
> No, *absolutely* not.  There is far more than enough unused agricultural
> capacity in the west to grow food for these poor starving people.  The
> problem is that they don't have any fucking MONEY to buy food from us,

Yes, thank you, Ball, I'm well aware that that's the problem. Even I
can figure that one out despite not having an alleged C. Phil. in
economics which I refuse to actually scan in and post online.

Now, one way to address this problem that these people don't have
enough money is to take action which will have an effect on the prices
of food products. If you read what I said carefully you will find that
that is what I was suggesting.


> because their nations are run by murderous dictators who actually want
> many of those people to die.  It absolutely has nothing to do with meat
> being produced in the developed countries.
>

No-one has ever suggested that meat production in developed countries
is the primary cause of starvation in the third world. I certainly
have never suggested any such thing, and as far as what Richard
Steiner has said, all you've managed to quote from him so far is a set
of facts which you agree with.

There are lots of ways to help people suffering from malnutrition in
developing countries. One might lobby for political change, one might
lobby for the US to get rid of its farm subsidies and tariffs, or at
least its immigration restrictions (Mr Libertarian). One might donate
money to charities which are making effective life-saving
interventions. Or one might change one's diet in the hope that if
sufficiently many people do that then certain food products will
become more affordable to those who need them most. I make no comment
about what is the best way. It is reasonable to talk about the
distribution of global food resources in the context of a discussion
of our global system of food production. All you have quoted from
Richard Steiner so far is a set of facts which you agree with and are
not in dispute. The position you are attacking is something you made
up. You cannot produce any evidence that anyone actually holds it.

> >> That claim is
> >> complete bullshit, of course.  Those people die because they mostly live
> >> in poor countries run by corrupt tyrannies who in many cases *want*
> >> people to die of starvation.
>
> > Government corruption is also a part of the problem, certainly.
>
> It is far and away the biggest part.
>

Despite lacking a C. Phil. in economics, even I realise that the
causes of world poverty are quite complex and cannot be put down
entirely to governmental corruption. You might want to do a
comparative study of various states in India, for example.

> >> They die because their economies don't
> >> function, because of the incompetence and sheer evil of their regimes.
>
> >> In terms of the environmental cost of agriculture, that is a problem of
> >> *all* of agriculture, not just meat production.  Everything produced
> >> should be done in such a way that the total cost, including
> >> environmental remediation, is captured in the price of the commodities
> >> sold.  If the production of meat causes a lot of environmental
> >> degradation, then by all means tax it, or the intermediate steps in
> >> between, in such a way that when consumers buy the stuff, they are
> >> paying for the cost of mitigating and reducing the environmental damage.
>
> > Yes, this is a very reasonable stance to take if you ignore the
> > nonhuman animals that are involved in meat production.
>
> It's a very reasonable stance to take, period.
>
>

No, actually, my statement was the correct one.

>>   But the answer is not to forbid the production of the stuff.  People
> >> want to eat meat, and forbidding its production and consumption is
> >> fascist in design and effect.
>
> > You might as well say that forbidding the slave trade is "fascist".
>
> No, they're not equivalent.  Animals don't have rights; people do.

Ipse dixit. As I explained already in my last post, this point must be
argued, not asserted. Sorry that is so hard for you to grasp. You
performed poorly last time you attempted to argue this point, your
efforts are up there on my webpage.

We are not talking about the animal rights arguments in this thread.
We are talking about arguments based on the environmental effects of
meat production and on the global distribution of food resources, and
no-one is suggesting banning meat production on the basis of those
arguments alone except in your fevered brain. Once again, your
ambition was to demonstrate that pearl was stupid for posting the
article, and all you have managed to do so far by way of supporting
that contention is to quote a set of facts from the article which you
agree with and which are not in dispute. You yourself agree that a tax
to correct environmental externalities would be reasonable. I really
don't know why you bother to argue. So far there is no reason to think
that you have any point of disagreement with Richard Steiner. It is
just a blind, reflexive, knee-jerk reaction. Pearl posted something so
I will say it is stupid. On this occasion you are making a complete
clown of yourself in attempting to argue your case. But that is
nothing new.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 25, 3:39 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 23, 10:40 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> Record corn prices mean more expensive meat, dairy
>>>> Then people will cut back on them.
>>>> Markets work.
>>> A rare occasion indeed: a post from Rudy containing only sensible
>>> statements.
>> No, that's the norm.
> 
> Sane posts from you are 

the norm.

On Jun 25, 3:39 am, Jonathan Ball the ridiculous clown desperately
vomited all over his keyboard:

> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
>
> > On Jun 23, 10:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> The Observer. 22 June 2008.
> >>> Is meat off the menu?
> >>> Yes says Raj Patel: growing food for animals is a waste of
> >>> resources in an overcrowded world. No says Joanna Blythman:
> >>> with much of the world unsuitable for crops, meat is essential
> >> The comment by Patel proves what I have said all along about fuckwitted
> >> "vegans" and their bogus "efficiency" argument.
>
> > The way to use that comment to prove anything would be to substantiate
> > the claim.
>
> My claim is substantiated.
>

It is about as well-substantiated as your claim that "axiomatisable"
is not a real word. Do you feel like retracting that one, by the way?

>
>
> >> They are saying that
> >> more total undifferentiated food calories for human consumption can be
> >> produced from a given quantity of land if we don't produce and consume
> >> meat, and that is the *WRONG* notion of "efficiency".
>
> > Actually, Rudy, it is only in your fevered and deluded mind that
> > anyone is saying that.
>
> No, this fuckwit Patel, and the slavishly copy-pasta fuckwit lesley are
> saying it.
>

No, it is a straw person that you made up. The only actual quotation
you have provided so far contains a set of facts which are not in
dispute. From this you say "The implication is clear". It is like a
paranoid schizophrenic looking at ads on the sides of buses and saying
"The implication is clear, people are sending messages to me". Make
some effort to argue for your interpretation or shut up.

Making some effort to produce the same amount of calories with less
land is a reasonable goal, amongst others, given various
considerations, such as the environmental devastation caused by meat
production and the fact that it will not be possible to feed 8 billion
people on the current Western diet. That is all anyone is saying, and
it is just basic common sense. It is all very well to say "Oh yes, but
I am a very intellectually sophisticated person with an alleged C.
Phil. in economics which for some reason I choose not to scan in and
post online, and as a result of my extensive postgraduate training I
have managed to grasp an elementary point about the concept of
efficiency". The point is that point about efficiency is totally
irrelevant here. Global food production would become less
environmentally harmful if more people ate more plant-based food, and
if 8 billion people are going to get enough to eat then we will have
to eat more plant-based food. That's what's being said. It's not
rocket science.

> > You indicated in a different post in this thread that you do actually
> > understand the environmental argument, and were even prepared to
> > endorse it, in the sense of taxing food products according to the
> > amount of environmental damage their production causes.
>
> The environmental argument is not what is meant by people saying meat
> production is "inefficient".  They're not talking about the degradation
> of the resource, you fucking moron - they're talking about the
> misapplication of it, and they are wrong.
>

Sorry, Ball, but no sane person would think that for a second, unless
they were desperate to find an excuse to show that they once studied
economics at some level or other. There simply isn't the slightest
rational ground for thinking it, any more than there's any rational
grounds for thinking that immigration restrictions are consistent with
libertarian principles, or that no nonhuman animal ever anticipates,
or that "axiomatisable" is not a real word, or that I'm queer, or that
I'm a telemarketer. It's another classic Ball-ism which gives us all a
good laugh when we get up in the morning.

>
>
> >> It's wrong
> >> because humans don't want simply to consume calories; they want
> >> particular foods.  Among the foods they want is meat.
>
> >> It is *INCORRECT* to think of food production efficiency simply in terms
> >> of raw calorie production.  The only meaningful sense of efficiency is
> >> economic efficiency:  that the economic value of the use of a unit of
> >> resource is the highest, compared to alternate uses of the resource.
> >> So, if hypothetically I could use an additional hectare of land to
> >> produce either 100 head of cattle with a total caloric value of
> >> 15,000,000 calories in the form of edible meat; or, I could produce 44
> >> tons of potatoes (typical North American yield) providing some
> >> 50,000,000 calories; but the net profit from the beef is $500,000 versus
> >> only $250,000 from the potatoes, then the beef is the correct use of the
> >> land.  As a farmer, I don't care at all about the total caloric value of
> >> what I produce - I care about the economic value.
>
> > Yes, thank you, Mr C. Phil. in economics. This is all irrelevant.
>
> It's perfectly relevant.
>

You make a silly and totally unsubstantiated interpretive move in a
desperate bid to make it seem relevant, so that you have a chance to
demonstrate that you once learnt some basic economics. It's completely
irrelevant. No sensible person with minimal common sense would think
for a moment that this had the slightest bearing on the argument.

> >> The reason this outcome is seen is because people value beef more highly
> >> than potatoes, and they have the ability to buy it.  Thus, beef is
> >> produced.  Beef is produced, sold and consumed because Farmer Smith and
> >> Consumer Jones find it mutually beneficial to engage in that trade.
> >> People who say meat "ought" not be produced are sticking their noses
> >> where they don't belong:  into the private, consensual transactions
> >> between producers and consumers.
>
> > I have been talking about arguments for individual conscientious
> > decisions.
>
> You have been talking empty symbolism.
>

It's very easy to say that what someone else does is "empty symbolism"
when you're doing absolutely nothing. Do some research into the
reduction in carbon emissions caused by going vegan, the reduction in
the number of animals who have to spend their lives in factory farms
and ultimately be slaughtered, *and* the reduction in collateral
deaths caused by crop production, then get back to me.

> >> If you try to interrupt this trade, you will be ignored at best,
> >> violently swept aside at worst.  You are wasting your time.
>
> > It is not feasible to ban all meat production tomorrow, no. And
> > perhaps it would not be justified either; perhaps we should agree that
> > some meat production is justified in the light of the collateral
> > deaths argument.
>
> It has nothing to do with the collateral deaths argument.  It has to do
> with people being free to consume what they want, without interference
> from incompetent moral nags like you.

Such as child pornography or products of slave labour?

Get serious, Ball. No-one thinks there is an unconditional right to
consume whatever you want. You have to settle the question of what our
moral obligations are to nonhuman animals are before you can determine
what sort of state intervention is justified in food markets. You've
certainly done nothing by way of moving that debate forward, all you
do is say "No nonhuman animals have any rights whatsoever, species in
itself is morally relevant, it's your job to prove me wrong". You're
going to assert that without argument again under the delusion that
it's some sort of reply.

You have to sort out what we are and are not morally entitled to do to
nonhuman animals before you can decide what sort of processes of food
production the government should allow to go on. No-one thinks that no
regulation at all would be appropriate, not even Tibor Machan. The
question is not whether we should give any measure of protection at
all to nonhuman animals, but how much. The collateral deaths argument
has some bearing on that if you want to criticise the vegan position,
and that was my point. I don't know why you aren't thanking me for
acknowledging that you have on one occasion in your life made a
serious point.

Since you want to talk about incompetence, what do you suggest I say
to my doctor next time I see her? Shall we discuss the question of
whether you've ever claimed that "axiomatisable" is not a real word?

On Jun 25, 6:52 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 25, 3:39 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 23, 10:40 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> Record corn prices mean more expensive meat, dairy
> >>>> Then people will cut back on them.
> >>>> Markets work.
> >>> A rare occasion indeed: a post from Rudy containing only sensible
> >>> statements.
> >> No, that's the norm.
>
> > Sane posts from you are
>
> the norm.

Yes, thanks, Ball. You're a very sane person. That's why you talk
about "HIV-spreading whores" and "assfelching queers" and
telemarketing all the time.

So, I'm touched by your concern for my mental health. I pointed out
that you once said that "axiomatisable" is not a real word, and you
became very concerned and suggested that I should speak with my
doctor. What do you think I should say to her next time I see her?
Maybe we could discuss the correct way to interpret arguments about
the "efficiency" of meat production.

(Watch this, folks. He's going to snip everything except "Yes").

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 25, 3:44 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 23, 11:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> NOTE DATE OF POST:  June 11, 2004
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:02 PM
>>>>> Love P-I Focus:
>>>>> While we're off fighting terror, the planet's crumbling
>>>>> By PROFESSOR RICHARD STEINER
>>>> This is a typically stupid post from a typically stupid "ara".  For
>>>> starters, if you go to the link, the author is *NOT* identified as
>>>> "Professor Richard Steiner"; instead, it reads:
>>>>     Richard Steiner
>>>>     Professor
>>>> and then at the end of the article, he is identified as literate people
>>>> normally do:
>>>>     Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation specialist at the
>>>>     University of Alaska-Fairbanks.
>>>> But the post is stupid for more reasons than that.  In the article,
>>>> Steiner identifies environmental degradation resulting from animal
>>>> agriculture as a problem:
>>> Oh, my goodness, how stupid.
>> His fatuous hand-wringing over six million people a year dying of
>> malnutrition, when it can in no way be blamed on meat production, is
>> indeed stupid, you stupid telemarketing fuckwit.
>>
> 
> Thanks for the good laugh so early in the morning, Rudy.

Any time, ham hock.

> Anyway, to return to the topic.

After 150 words of wheeze.



> It is reasonable to be concerned about
> people dying of malnutrition,

Red herring - I never suggested it wasn't, you stupid shitbag.



> and it is reasonable to bring up the
> topic of inequitable global distribution of food resources in the
> context of discussing the current global system of food production.

There is no "inequitable" distribution, ham hock.  American and European 
- and maybe even Australian - farmers produce far more food than farmers 
in poorer places because they're better at it, and because their 
governments don't handcuff them.

In what way is it "inequitable" that North American farmers can get 44 
tons of potatoes per hectare, while Chinese farmers manage 12 tons?


>>
>>>>     More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
>>>>     malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
>>>>     damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion
>>>>     cattle (weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a quarter
>>>>     of the planet's land surface.
>>>>     More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the world
>>>>     rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result in the
>>>>     loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.
>>> Hmmm. He is stating some facts. And somehow this makes the post
>>> stupid. What would we do without the insights of Rudy Canoza, I
>>> wonder?

You'd continue as a tele-marketer.


>>>> The implication is clear:
>>> Er, no.
>> Yes, it is clear.
>>
> 
> Rudy, in that quotation he states a set of facts which you agree with,

Some of them, but not at all with his implication of what ought to be done.


> and which are indeed not in dispute by any well-informed person.

What is very much in dispute is what, if anything, should be done.


>>>> if only we weren't producing "wasteful" meat,
>>>> then six million people wouldn't die from malnutrition.
>>> Meat production requires high amounts of crop inputs. If people in
>>> developed countries were not demanding food with such high crop
>>> inputs, it is possible that the crops would become more affordable to
>>> people in developing countries who are suffering from malnutrition,
>>> and that as a result fewer people would die of malnutrition.
>> No, *absolutely* not.  There is far more than enough unused agricultural
>> capacity in the west to grow food for these poor starving people.  The
>> problem is that they don't have any fucking MONEY to buy food from us,
> 
> Yes, thank you, Rudy, I'm well aware that that's the problem.

And Americans and Europeans and Australians producing meat is *not* the 
problem, and you're very well aware of that, too, but because you're a 
sleazy and cynical and dishonest shitbag, you're willing to go along 
with this pseudo-scientist's political rant in the the guise of a 
scientifically based opinion, and overlook the out-and-out bullshit he 
writes.


>> because their nations are run by murderous dictators who actually want
>> many of those people to die.  It absolutely has nothing to do with meat
>> being produced in the developed countries.
>>
> 
> No-one has ever suggested that meat production in developed countries
> is the primary cause of starvation in the third world.

Yes, quite a lot of fuckwitted "vegan" fanatics suggest exactly that, 
you stinking douchenozzle, and you cynically keep quiet about it rather 
than point out their dishonesty.


>>>> That claim is
>>>> complete bullshit, of course.  Those people die because they mostly live
>>>> in poor countries run by corrupt tyrannies who in many cases *want*
>>>> people to die of starvation.
>>> Government corruption is also a part of the problem, certainly.
>> It is far and away the biggest part.
>>
> 
> Despite lacking a C. Phil. in economics, even I realise that the
> causes of world poverty are quite complex and 

You don't know anything about the causes of world poverty.


>>>> They die because their economies don't
>>>> function, because of the incompetence and sheer evil of their regimes.
>>>> In terms of the environmental cost of agriculture, that is a problem of
>>>> *all* of agriculture, not just meat production.  Everything produced
>>>> should be done in such a way that the total cost, including
>>>> environmental remediation, is captured in the price of the commodities
>>>> sold.  If the production of meat causes a lot of environmental
>>>> degradation, then by all means tax it, or the intermediate steps in
>>>> between, in such a way that when consumers buy the stuff, they are
>>>> paying for the cost of mitigating and reducing the environmental damage.
>>> Yes, this is a very reasonable stance to take if you ignore the
>>> nonhuman animals that are involved in meat production.
>> It's a very reasonable stance to take, period.
>>
>>
> 
> No, actually, 

Actually, I am correct:  It's a very reasonable stance to take, period.


>>>   But the answer is not to forbid the production of the stuff.  People
>>>> want to eat meat, and forbidding its production and consumption is
>>>> fascist in design and effect.
>>> You might as well say that forbidding the slave trade is "fascist".
>> No, they're not equivalent.  Animals don't have rights; people do.
> 
> Ipse dixit. 

No.

Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
> On Jun 25, 3:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> 
>> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
>>
>>> On Jun 23, 10:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> The Observer. 22 June 2008.
>>>>> Is meat off the menu?
>>>>> Yes says Raj Patel: growing food for animals is a waste of
>>>>> resources in an overcrowded world. No says Joanna Blythman:
>>>>> with much of the world unsuitable for crops, meat is essential
>>>> The comment by Patel proves what I have said all along about fuckwitted
>>>> "vegans" and their bogus "efficiency" argument.
>>> The way to use that comment to prove anything would be to substantiate
>>> the claim.
>> My claim is substantiated.
>>
> 
> It is about as well-substantiated as 

It is substantiated.


>>
>>>> They are saying that
>>>> more total undifferentiated food calories for human consumption can be
>>>> produced from a given quantity of land if we don't produce and consume
>>>> meat, and that is the *WRONG* notion of "efficiency".
>>> Actually, Rudy, it is only in your fevered and deluded mind that
>>> anyone is saying that.
>> No, this fuckwit Patel, and the slavishly copy-pasta fuckwit lesley are
>> saying it.
>>
> 
> No, it is a straw person that you made up.

No.  "vegans" are making a crude, and worthless, comparison of total 
caloric outputs.  It is stupid on their part, and stupid of you to 
defend it and try to salvage it.  It cannot be salvaged.  They don't 
know what the fuck they're talking about regarding "efficiency", and you 
can't save them.

They are not talking about environmental degradation.  That's a separate 
issue.


> 
>>> You indicated in a different post in this thread that you do actually
>>> understand the environmental argument, and were even prepared to
>>> endorse it, in the sense of taxing food products according to the
>>> amount of environmental damage their production causes.
>> The environmental argument is not what is meant by people saying meat
>> production is "inefficient".  They're not talking about the degradation
>> of the resource, you fucking moron - they're talking about the
>> misapplication of it, and they are wrong.
>>
> 
> Sorry, Rudy, but no sane person would think that for a second, 

All sane and honest people can see it.  They are engaging in a 
fuckwitted misunderstanding of, and misapplication of, the idea of 
economic efficiency.  This is not in rational dispute.  Only lying 
polemicists like you try to deny it.


> 
>>
>>>> It's wrong
>>>> because humans don't want simply to consume calories; they want
>>>> particular foods.  Among the foods they want is meat.
>>>> It is *INCORRECT* to think of food production efficiency simply in terms
>>>> of raw calorie production.  The only meaningful sense of efficiency is
>>>> economic efficiency:  that the economic value of the use of a unit of
>>>> resource is the highest, compared to alternate uses of the resource.
>>>> So, if hypothetically I could use an additional hectare of land to
>>>> produce either 100 head of cattle with a total caloric value of
>>>> 15,000,000 calories in the form of edible meat; or, I could produce 44
>>>> tons of potatoes (typical North American yield) providing some
>>>> 50,000,000 calories; but the net profit from the beef is $500,000 versus
>>>> only $250,000 from the potatoes, then the beef is the correct use of the
>>>> land.  As a farmer, I don't care at all about the total caloric value of
>>>> what I produce - I care about the economic value.
>>> Yes, thank you, Mr C. Phil. in economics. This is all irrelevant.
>> It's perfectly relevant.
>>
> 
> You make a silly and totally unsubstantiated interpretive move in a
> desperate bid to make it seem relevant

It's relevant.  It is the *only* relevant meaning of efficiency.


>>>> The reason this outcome is seen is because people value beef more highly
>>>> than potatoes, and they have the ability to buy it.  Thus, beef is
>>>> produced.  Beef is produced, sold and consumed because Farmer Smith and
>>>> Consumer Jones find it mutually beneficial to engage in that trade.
>>>> People who say meat "ought" not be produced are sticking their noses
>>>> where they don't belong:  into the private, consensual transactions
>>>> between producers and consumers.
>>> I have been talking about arguments for individual conscientious
>>> decisions.
>> You have been talking empty symbolism.
>>
> 
> It's very easy to say that what someone else does is "empty symbolism"

It's very easy for any reasonably literate person to see that you talk 
nothing but empty symbolism.  You are a narcissistic ego-polisher who is 
trying to portray yourself as more virtuous than others.  I shot you 
down years ago.


>>>> If you try to interrupt this trade, you will be ignored at best,
>>>> violently swept aside at worst.  You are wasting your time.
>>> It is not feasible to ban all meat production tomorrow, no. And
>>> perhaps it would not be justified either; perhaps we should agree that
>>> some meat production is justified in the light of the collateral
>>> deaths argument.
>> It has nothing to do with the collateral deaths argument.  It has to do
>> with people being free to consume what they want, without interference
>> from incompetent moral nags like you.
> 
> Such as child pornography or products of slave labour?

Those violate rights.  Meat production doesn't.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 25, 6:52 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 25, 3:39 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 23, 10:40 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> Record corn prices mean more expensive meat, dairy
>>>>>> Then people will cut back on them.
>>>>>> Markets work.
>>>>> A rare occasion indeed: a post from Rudy containing only sensible
>>>>> statements.
>>>> No, that's the norm.
>>> Sane posts from you are
>> the norm.
> 
> Yes, thanks, Rudy. 

You're welcome, ham hock.

On Jun 24, 4:57 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 25, 3:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> >> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
>
> >>> On Jun 23, 10:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> The Observer. 22 June 2008.
> >>>>> Is meat off the menu?
> >>>>> Yes says Raj Patel: growing food for animals is a waste of
> >>>>> resources in an overcrowded world. No says Joanna Blythman:
> >>>>> with much of the world unsuitable for crops, meat is essential
> >>>> The comment by Patel proves what I have said all along about fuckwitted
> >>>> "vegans" and their bogus "efficiency" argument.
> >>> The way to use that comment to prove anything would be to substantiate
> >>> the claim.
> >> My claim is substantiated.
>
> > It is about as well-substantiated as
>
> It is substantiated.
>

By what? Your repeated unargued assertions that it is?

>
>
> >>>> They are saying that
> >>>> more total undifferentiated food calories for human consumption can be
> >>>> produced from a given quantity of land if we don't produce and consume
> >>>> meat, and that is the *WRONG* notion of "efficiency".
> >>> Actually, Rudy, it is only in your fevered and deluded mind that
> >>> anyone is saying that.
> >> No, this fuckwit Patel, and the slavishly copy-pasta fuckwit lesley are
> >> saying it.
>
> > No, it is a straw person that you made up.
>
> No.  "vegans" are making a crude, and worthless, comparison of total
> caloric outputs.  

Endlessly repeating this obvious nonsense doesn't make it any more
plausible.

> It is stupid on their part,

No, it is stupid on your part to constantly babble obvious nonsense,
such as "I never said 'axiomatisable' wasn't a real word", and what
you said just above, and continue to believe that you have an ounce of
credibility on this newsgroup.

> and stupid of you to
> defend it and try to salvage it.  

I'm not defending it, quarter-wit, it's a straw person. The argument I
am actually defending is the one that is actually being made, which
you have actually already agreed with. Time to go back to talking
about assfelching and posting looping through Norway now, that's your
level.

> It cannot be salvaged.  They don't
> know what the fuck they're talking about regarding "efficiency", and you
> can't save them.
>

Economic efficiency has nothing to do with it. When are we going to
see your academic credentials in economics, by the way?

> They are not talking about environmental degradation.  

Environmental degradation, and the impending food crisis as the
world's population grows, is precisely the whole point, as anyone with
a single functioning brain cell can see.

> That's a separate
> issue.
>

Your skills at interpreting arguments which any moron can comprehend
are just as amusing as your attempts to critique mathematical papers
by consulting online dictionaries.

>
>
> >>> You indicated in a different post in this thread that you do actually
> >>> understand the environmental argument, and were even prepared to
> >>> endorse it, in the sense of taxing food products according to the
> >>> amount of environmental damage their production causes.
> >> The environmental argument is not what is meant by people saying meat
> >> production is "inefficient".  They're not talking about the degradation
> >> of the resource, you fucking moron - they're talking about the
> >> misapplication of it, and they are wrong.
>
> > Sorry, Rudy, but no sane person would think that for a second,
>
> All sane and honest people can see it.  They are engaging in a
> fuckwitted misunderstanding of, and misapplication of, the idea of
> economic efficiency.  This is not in rational dispute.  

It is cross-eyed-blithering-drivel buffoonery, and you are only
arguing it because you are so desperate to say "Look at me, I've
mastered the concept of economic efficiency, aren't I clever".

> Only lying
> polemicists like you try to deny it.
>

Unfortunately you are still a fool.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> It's wrong
> >>>> because humans don't want simply to consume calories; they want
> >>>> particular foods.  Among the foods they want is meat.
> >>>> It is *INCORRECT* to think of food production efficiency simply in terms
> >>>> of raw calorie production.  The only meaningful sense of efficiency is
> >>>> economic efficiency:  that the economic value of the use of a unit of
> >>>> resource is the highest, compared to alternate uses of the resource.
> >>>> So, if hypothetically I could use an additional hectare of land to
> >>>> produce either 100 head of cattle with a total caloric value of
> >>>> 15,000,000 calories in the form of edible meat; or, I could produce 44
> >>>> tons of potatoes (typical North American yield) providing some
> >>>> 50,000,000 calories; but the net profit from the beef is $500,000 versus
> >>>> only $250,000 from the potatoes, then the beef is the correct use of the
> >>>> land.  As a farmer, I don't care at all about the total caloric value of
> >>>> what I produce - I care about the economic value.
> >>> Yes, thank you, Mr C. Phil. in economics. This is all irrelevant.
> >> It's perfectly relevant.
>
> > You make a silly and totally unsubstantiated interpretive move in a
> > desperate bid to make it seem relevant
>
> It's relevant.  It is the *only* relevant meaning of efficiency.
>

Classical Ball. :)

When there are 10 billion people in the world and not enough food, or
when Pacific islands such as Kiribati become submerged due to rising
sea levels, creating large numbers of environmental refugees, be sure
to give us a lecture about what the only relevant meaning of
efficiency is. After you've posted a scanned copy of your C. Phil.,
that is.

Will you ever get tired of wasting your life making a clown out of
yourself in public?


> >>>> The reason this outcome is seen is because people value beef more highly
> >>>> than potatoes, and they have the ability to buy it.  Thus, beef is
> >>>> produced.  Beef is produced, sold and consumed because Farmer Smith and
> >>>> Consumer Jones find it mutually beneficial to engage in that trade.
> >>>> People who say meat "ought" not be produced are sticking their noses
> >>>> where they don't belong:  into the private, consensual transactions
> >>>> between producers and consumers.
> >>> I have been talking about arguments for individual conscientious
> >>> decisions.
> >> You have been talking empty symbolism.
>
> > It's very easy to say that what someone else does is "empty symbolism"
>
> It's very easy for any reasonably literate person to see that you talk
> nothing but empty symbolism.  

How much money did you give to charity in the last three years, Ball?
How much research have you done about the effectiveness of various
interventions in saving lives? Exactly what have you ever done to try
to make the world a better place?

It's very easy for any reasonably well-informed person to see that the
more people who go vegan (or make some other change in their diets
which is comparably effective at reducing environmental degradation
and harm to nonhuman animals), the better the world will be. You
choose to do absolutely nothing, and sit around in your underwear all
day posting to newsgroups about assfelching and posts looping through
Norway, and telling people they are morally bankrupt. Much good may it
do you.

> You are a narcissistic ego-polisher

As opposed to you, who is the smartest person David Harrison has ever
encountered by far, and is therefore the smartest person on this
newsgroup by far.

> who is
> trying to portray yourself as more virtuous than others.  

I have never made any such claim. You are free to form your own
judgement about that. I do contend that your judgement that I am
"morally bankrupt" is pretty funny. However, I am more interested in
what I can do to help humans and nonhuman animals. You should take an
interest in what you can do about that, just once, instead of wasting
your time making a fool out of yourself on usenet.

> I shot you
> down years ago.
>

You never did any such thing, I'm afraid, Ball. My stance has remained
unchanged and unrefuted throughout my entire posting history on this
newsgroup. Never once have you succeeded in substantiating your
charges of hypocrisy.

What do you suppose I have been doing to you in recent conversations,
by the way?



> >>>> If you try to interrupt this trade, you will be ignored at best,
> >>>> violently swept aside at worst.  You are wasting your time.
> >>> It is not feasible to ban all meat production tomorrow, no. And
> >>> perhaps it would not be justified either; perhaps we should agree that
> >>> some meat production is justified in the light of the collateral
> >>> deaths argument.
> >> It has nothing to do with the collateral deaths argument.  It has to do
> >> with people being free to consume what they want, without interference
> >> from incompetent moral nags like you.
>
> > Such as child pornography or products of slave labour?
>
> Those violate rights.  Meat production doesn't.

Which, as I patiently explained to you, is precisely the point that
needs to be argued, and until it has been argued then you haven't done
anything to defend your position. Perhaps after repeating it for the
fiftieth time this point will gradually penetrate your thick skull.
Glad to be of help.

On Jun 24, 4:49 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 25, 3:44 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 23, 11:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> NOTE DATE OF POST:  June 11, 2004
> >>>>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:02 PM
> >>>>> Love P-I Focus:
> >>>>> While we're off fighting terror, the planet's crumbling
> >>>>> By PROFESSOR RICHARD STEINER
> >>>> This is a typically stupid post from a typically stupid "ara".  For
> >>>> starters, if you go to the link, the author is *NOT* identified as
> >>>> "Professor Richard Steiner"; instead, it reads:
> >>>>     Richard Steiner
> >>>>     Professor
> >>>> and then at the end of the article, he is identified as literate people
> >>>> normally do:
> >>>>     Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation specialist at the
> >>>>     University of Alaska-Fairbanks.
> >>>> But the post is stupid for more reasons than that.  In the article> >>>> Steiner identifies environmental degradation resulting from animal
> >>>> agriculture as a problem:
> >>> Oh, my goodness, how stupid.
> >> His fatuous hand-wringing over six million people a year dying of
> >> malnutrition, when it can in no way be blamed on meat production, is
> >> indeed stupid, you stupid telemarketing fuckwit.
>
> > Thanks for the good laugh so early in the morning, Rudy.
>
> Any time, ham hock.
>

It's very generous of you. :)

> > Anyway, to return to the topic.
>
> After 150 words of wheeze.
>
> > It is reasonable to be concerned about
> > people dying of malnutrition,
>
> Red herring - I never suggested it wasn't, you stupid shitbag.
>

You said it was stupid to "wring your hands" about it. Which is
perhaps a reasonable point to make if "wringing your hands" implies
not actually doing anything constructive, but what he's actually doing
is drawing attention to the fact that there's an impending food crisis
about to be caused by the soil degradation caused by animal
agriculture, which will make it very difficult to feed the world's
population once it gets past a certain point. Quite a lot of well-
respected agricultural scientists with no particular animal rights
agenda are concerned about this one, you know. Pearl thought this
point might be of some interest. But of course she's just being
stupid.

> > and it is reasonable to bring up the
> > topic of inequitable global distribution of food resources in the
> > context of discussing the current global system of food production.
>
> There is no "inequitable" distribution, ham hock.  American and European
> - and maybe even Australian - farmers produce far more food than farmers
> in poorer places because they're better at it,

Oh, I see, it's because of their superior abilities and their work
ethic. Thanks for clearing things up, Mr. C. Phil. in economics. :)

> and because their
> governments don't handcuff them.
>

It might help poor people if their governments didn't mollycoddle them
and protect them from competition by poverty-stricken farmers
overseas. Done any activism about that issue lately, Mr. Libertarian?

This is all a red herring. There is an unequal global distribution of
food resources and an impending food crisis. If you're not interested
in doing anything about it, then at least stop wasting your life
making a clown out of yourself in public.

> In what way is it "inequitable" that North American farmers can get 44
> tons of potatoes per hectare, while Chinese farmers manage 12 tons?
>
>
>
> >>>>     More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
> >>>>     malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
> >>>>     damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion
> >>>>     cattle (weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a quarter
> >>>>     of the planet's land surface.
> >>>>     More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the world
> >>>>     rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result in the
> >>>>     loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.
> >>> Hmmm. He is stating some facts. And somehow this makes the post
> >>> stupid. What would we do without the insights of Jonathan Ball who keeps comically trying to hide
> >>> his real name, I
> >>> wonder?
>
> You'd continue as a tele-marketer.
>

Is that what I'm doing today, Ball? Promoting technology exhibitions
over the phone? :)

> >>>> The implication is clear:
> >>> Er, no.
> >> Yes, it is clear.
>
> > Rudy, in that quotation he states a set of facts which you agree with,
>
> Some of them, but not at all with his implication of what ought to be done.
&