Is probably true. However, one should question their world view if they measure everything as a minimization problem with respect to cost efficience and yield.
I get what you mean. Our system produces a ridiculous amount of quantity, which should be great! But in the context of where it’s firmly placed within existing socioeconomics, stupid things happen like “destroying all the product to keep the value from crashing” and the “distribution problem” that feeding the poor isn’t profitable.
Maybe industrial agriculture wouldn’t be so terrible if food production for the human race didn’t operate on the same metrics as handbags or funkopops. =\
I agree that commodifying food, especially locking nutrition behind class walls is barbaric. I also get that the current iteration of industrial farming is scary (don’t get me wrong, it sucks shit) and that “small scale farming solutions just haven’t been tried!” but clearly small scale farming is a long term fantasy that would take many decades of work and public acceptance, not even to mention the process of decommodifying the agriculture industry. All I’m saying is that if I’m playing in the same space, the method that would be the most environmentally friendly and efficient (not in an economic sense) is large scale industrial farms.
Is probably true. However, one should question their world view if they measure everything as a minimization problem with respect to cost efficience and yield.
I think it’s less about ruthless efficiency and more about which system will enable even the poorest in society to have nutritious food.
as if this system has done so…
I mean. It has? Even the poorest of the poor eat better than they did a couple hundred years ago
Not saying anything about the system, just about which farming method has the most potential to equitably distribute resources.
I get what you mean. Our system produces a ridiculous amount of quantity, which should be great! But in the context of where it’s firmly placed within existing socioeconomics, stupid things happen like “destroying all the product to keep the value from crashing” and the “distribution problem” that feeding the poor isn’t profitable.
Maybe industrial agriculture wouldn’t be so terrible if food production for the human race didn’t operate on the same metrics as handbags or funkopops. =\
I agree that commodifying food, especially locking nutrition behind class walls is barbaric. I also get that the current iteration of industrial farming is scary (don’t get me wrong, it sucks shit) and that “small scale farming solutions just haven’t been tried!” but clearly small scale farming is a long term fantasy that would take many decades of work and public acceptance, not even to mention the process of decommodifying the agriculture industry. All I’m saying is that if I’m playing in the same space, the method that would be the most environmentally friendly and efficient (not in an economic sense) is large scale industrial farms.
250 years ago people would rent pineapples for parties as status symbols because they cost $8000.
Nowadays the most expensive pineapple you can get is barely $400.
That’s progress
Is that Canadian toonies?
If it helps, I could sell you a pineapple for more than that.
No you couldn’t, they would never buy an 8000$ pineapple today because he could get one down the street for a couple bucks.
I’ll have to see what my social status raising fruit budget looks like.
Borlaug’s green revolution of the mid-20th century did lead to a rapid reduction in famines across Asia and Africa…
Well to be fair, that 3rd home in the Hamptons and a bigger yacht are not going to pay for themselves.