3 ms·
I agree with maybe half the things the author is saying, but I hate the way he tries to group them all together into some larger narrative of "the way we live h
by ajscherer 16y ago
I agree with maybe half the things the author is saying, but I hate the way he tries to group them all together into some larger narrative of "the way we live has become synthetic and corrupted and we need to go back to a more natural way of life" Appealing to this story is only going to convince people who already believe it. If he has specific improvements in mind, he should describe them and make his case for how they will help.
Also, he opens up referring to 1 billion people going hungry, but never returns to this point. If we embrace techniques that produce less food, what happens to these people?
- teach 16y agoThat's probably because the blog linked to is mostly just a cut-and-paste from the linked Time article (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1917458-1,00.html http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1917458-1,00....). This blog post only quotes a part of page 2 of a five-page article, all of which is worth reading.
- ajscherer 16y agoThanks for pointing that out, I totally missed the attribution to time.com. I thought the article was just formatted weird. I agree the full Time article is better, but it still doesn't address the billion people it mentions going hungry. Ultimately the agricultural system that is sustainable determines the population that is sustainable, and I am concerned that the people who aren't going to be sustained won't have much say in the matter.