I had to stop (though I may resume later) at “People who buy less meat don’t really spend less money on food overall, they mainly just spend more money on other non-meat food”—it made me go “are you fucking kidding me” and wonder whether he has ever been to a supermarket. See also this—differences in retail prices aren’t quite that extreme, but that’s because governments subsidize meat production, so even though not all of the money comes out of meat eaters’ pockets, it still comes out of somewhere.
EDIT: I finished reading it, and… if I didn’t know who Hanson was and he had posted somewhere that allowed readers to comment, I would definitely conclude he was trolling. Along with things that others have already pointed out, “per land area, farms are more efficient at producing “higher” animals like pigs and cows”—where the hell did he take that from? Pretty much everyone I’ve ever read about this topic agrees that growing food for N people on a mostly vegetarian diet requires way less land, energy, and water than growing food for N people on a largely meat-based diet, and there’s a thermodynamic argument that makes that pretty much obvious.
(I do agree that “meat eaters kill animals” isn’t a terribly good argument because if it wasn’t for meat eaters those animals wouldn’t have lived in the first place (but that doesn’t apply to hunting and fishing); but that’s nowhere near one of the main reasons why I limit my consumption of meat.)
Along with things that others have already pointed out, “per land area, farms are more efficient at producing “higher” animals like pigs and cows”—where the hell did he take that from? Pretty much everyone I’ve ever read about this topic agrees that growing food for N people on a mostly vegetarian diet requires way less land, energy, and water than growing food for N people on a largely meat-based diet, and there’s a thermodynamic argument that makes that pretty much obvious.
The full sentence is
And if you do manage to induce less farmland and more wild land, you’ll have to realize that, per land area, farms are more efficient at producing “higher” animals like pigs and cows. So there is a tradeoff between producing more farm animals with worse lives, or fewer wild animals with better lives, if in fact wild animals live better lives.
or
per land area, farms are more efficient [than wilderness is] at producing “higher” animals like pigs and cows.
Thanks. I did think “more efficient than what?”, but none of the possibilities I came up with other than “than they are at producing other foodstuffs” seemed relevant in context. (I don’t even remember what they were.)
“People who buy less meat don’t really spend less money on food overall, they mainly just spend more money on other non-meat food”—it made me go “are you fucking kidding me” and wonder whether he has ever been to a supermarket.
Not only that, it makes me wonder if he realizes that most people in the world don’t live on six figures. I remember once living on nothing but cereal, milk, eggs and kimchi for about eight months because, when rent and bills were totalled, there simply wasn’t any money for more food than that.
Just one quibble: “other than pure aesthetics (“I just like it”) … which are idiosyncratic (i.e. not true for most people)” sounds like a overwhelming exception to me. Given that I’ve never met anyone trying to convince other people to become vegetarians (though I’ve read a couple such people), I guess that’s by far the most common reason. (I’ve eaten meat in front of at least a dozen different vegetarians from at least four different countries, and none of them seemed to be bothered by that.)
Depending on how ostentatiously (Which I know isn’t the right word, but I think conveys what I’m trying to evoke?) you were eating the meat, it would bother me. The type of meat would also make a difference to me. I know vegetarians who are bothered if you eat any meat near them. They are obviously polite about it, (I certainly never say anything) but it might bother people more than you realize.
Not at all—not that I tried to hide the fact that I was eating meat, but I tried to be as nonchalant as I would be if I didn’t know they were vegetarians. OTOH I’m not terribly good at hiding emotions, so probably some of them could tell I was feeling a little embarrassed.
The type of meat would also make a difference to me.
What kind of difference? Pork vs beef vs chicken? Steaks vs minced meat? Free-range vs factory farmed vs hunted (but how would you tell)?
This reminds me of something I’ve wondered about. It seems plausible that it’s cheaper to be a vegetarian, but the last I checked, meat substitutes seem to cost about as much as meat.
Is it just that no one’s been exploring how many people would like good cheap meat substitutes, or is there some reason meat substitutes are so expensive? Or are there cheap ones I haven’t noticed?
Fancy meat substitutes like quorn are expensive. TVP and tofu are dirt cheap. Going with vegetable sources of protein that make no attempt to directly replace meat, like rice and beans or peanut butter, is also cheap.
Basically what Alicorn said. People aren’t necessarily satisfied with the cheap ones that are available—mimicking the exact mouthfeel and flavor of meat is difficult, and because many of the original meat substitutes are from Asia, they weren’t common here until fairly recently Mock duck, aka Seitan (made from wheat gluten) is cheap, and very popular in Asia, but it seems to be a perennial also-ran in the US. Back during my veggie days I tried using it, only to find out I have a minor glutease deficiency (not full-on coeliac, but enough that seitan causes problems). It was by far the closest I’ve found to mimicking texture and mouthfeel for non-specific cuts of meat (as opposed to mimicking burgers or hot dogs or chicken nuggets or something); when prepared right it can be close to indistinguishable from meat.
Making good, cheap meat substitutes is a lot of work; Western would-be consumers often have high standards for them and aren’t satisfied with the more-established forms, such as tofu, while new forms have substantial outlays for R&D (Quorn) and sometimes face regulatory hurdles or other barriers to acceptance (Quorn’s initial attempt at a US release went very poorly). In the US, where meat production is directly subsidized, it’s hard to compete anyway because there’s lots of cheaper meat.
One of the confounding factors is that a lot of meat is raised on land that’s not suitable for human food farming. EG, free range cattle grazing in australia.
My evaluation is very much the same as yours, in that Hanson is way off on the efficiency of meat vs other foods. My conclusion is just that he is ignorant of the facts though, not trolling.
I had to stop (though I may resume later) at “People who buy less meat don’t really spend less money on food overall, they mainly just spend more money on other non-meat food”—it made me go “are you fucking kidding me” and wonder whether he has ever been to a supermarket. See also this—differences in retail prices aren’t quite that extreme, but that’s because governments subsidize meat production, so even though not all of the money comes out of meat eaters’ pockets, it still comes out of somewhere.
EDIT: I finished reading it, and… if I didn’t know who Hanson was and he had posted somewhere that allowed readers to comment, I would definitely conclude he was trolling. Along with things that others have already pointed out, “per land area, farms are more efficient at producing “higher” animals like pigs and cows”—where the hell did he take that from? Pretty much everyone I’ve ever read about this topic agrees that growing food for N people on a mostly vegetarian diet requires way less land, energy, and water than growing food for N people on a largely meat-based diet, and there’s a thermodynamic argument that makes that pretty much obvious.
(I do agree that “meat eaters kill animals” isn’t a terribly good argument because if it wasn’t for meat eaters those animals wouldn’t have lived in the first place (but that doesn’t apply to hunting and fishing); but that’s nowhere near one of the main reasons why I limit my consumption of meat.)
The full sentence is
or
Thanks. I did think “more efficient than what?”, but none of the possibilities I came up with other than “than they are at producing other foodstuffs” seemed relevant in context. (I don’t even remember what they were.)
Not only that, it makes me wonder if he realizes that most people in the world don’t live on six figures. I remember once living on nothing but cereal, milk, eggs and kimchi for about eight months because, when rent and bills were totalled, there simply wasn’t any money for more food than that.
Richard Carrier comes to mind as making counterintuitive claims about the efficiency of meat vs plant food: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/87/
Interesting...
Just one quibble: “other than pure aesthetics (“I just like it”) … which are idiosyncratic (i.e. not true for most people)” sounds like a overwhelming exception to me. Given that I’ve never met anyone trying to convince other people to become vegetarians (though I’ve read a couple such people), I guess that’s by far the most common reason. (I’ve eaten meat in front of at least a dozen different vegetarians from at least four different countries, and none of them seemed to be bothered by that.)
Depending on how ostentatiously (Which I know isn’t the right word, but I think conveys what I’m trying to evoke?) you were eating the meat, it would bother me. The type of meat would also make a difference to me. I know vegetarians who are bothered if you eat any meat near them. They are obviously polite about it, (I certainly never say anything) but it might bother people more than you realize.
Not at all—not that I tried to hide the fact that I was eating meat, but I tried to be as nonchalant as I would be if I didn’t know they were vegetarians. OTOH I’m not terribly good at hiding emotions, so probably some of them could tell I was feeling a little embarrassed.
What kind of difference? Pork vs beef vs chicken? Steaks vs minced meat? Free-range vs factory farmed vs hunted (but how would you tell)?
My opposition to meat varies linearly with the intelligence of the animal. I’m much more OK with fish than I am pigs.
This reminds me of something I’ve wondered about. It seems plausible that it’s cheaper to be a vegetarian, but the last I checked, meat substitutes seem to cost about as much as meat.
Is it just that no one’s been exploring how many people would like good cheap meat substitutes, or is there some reason meat substitutes are so expensive? Or are there cheap ones I haven’t noticed?
Price of quorn
Fancy meat substitutes like quorn are expensive. TVP and tofu are dirt cheap. Going with vegetable sources of protein that make no attempt to directly replace meat, like rice and beans or peanut butter, is also cheap.
Basically what Alicorn said. People aren’t necessarily satisfied with the cheap ones that are available—mimicking the exact mouthfeel and flavor of meat is difficult, and because many of the original meat substitutes are from Asia, they weren’t common here until fairly recently Mock duck, aka Seitan (made from wheat gluten) is cheap, and very popular in Asia, but it seems to be a perennial also-ran in the US. Back during my veggie days I tried using it, only to find out I have a minor glutease deficiency (not full-on coeliac, but enough that seitan causes problems). It was by far the closest I’ve found to mimicking texture and mouthfeel for non-specific cuts of meat (as opposed to mimicking burgers or hot dogs or chicken nuggets or something); when prepared right it can be close to indistinguishable from meat.
Making good, cheap meat substitutes is a lot of work; Western would-be consumers often have high standards for them and aren’t satisfied with the more-established forms, such as tofu, while new forms have substantial outlays for R&D (Quorn) and sometimes face regulatory hurdles or other barriers to acceptance (Quorn’s initial attempt at a US release went very poorly). In the US, where meat production is directly subsidized, it’s hard to compete anyway because there’s lots of cheaper meat.
One of the confounding factors is that a lot of meat is raised on land that’s not suitable for human food farming. EG, free range cattle grazing in australia.
See also.
My evaluation is very much the same as yours, in that Hanson is way off on the efficiency of meat vs other foods. My conclusion is just that he is ignorant of the facts though, not trolling.