3 ms·
If the predicate is wholesale changes in human behavior, there are plenty of less costly ways people could, and can, produce their own food. Imposing a moral j
by fredkbloggs 11y ago
If the predicate is wholesale changes in human behavior, there are plenty of less costly ways people could, and can, produce their own food. Imposing a moral judgment on people obsessed with things you don't happen to like is orthogonal to that. People will change their behaviors when the market dictates that they change them, and when that happens they will change them in the direction dictated by the market. Your personal preferences for how others should spend their time will not factor.
- codingdave 11y agoClearly, you and I are not going to see eye to eye. "The market" is a societal construct to begin with. Money is a societal construct. "Less costly" is a concept based on top of those things. In my mind, humans starving to death is a pretty high cost, no matter how much cash a solution would require.
- fredkbloggs 11y ago> Clearly, you and I are not going to see eye to eye. For sure. The market is not a social construct at all; beings that want to reproduce (i.e., everyone) are going to adopt the lowest-cost means of doing so. Growing plants indoors will always be a higher-cost solution. "Money" has nothing to do with it. What you're really saying is that you want huge numbers of less-fit humans to survive and reproduce. That's a profound statement that deserves its own article and a tremendous depth of thought to evaluate. As you probably imagine, I don't share your goal.
- codingdave 11y ago"You want huge numbers of less-fit humans to survive and reproduce." Yes, I really do. I believe wars have been fought over people putting fitness requirements on survival and reproduction.