3 ms·

> Eating less common varieties of vegetables... drives demand which will increase the variety of types of crops grown, which, in turn, makes the food system mor

> Eating less common varieties of vegetables... drives demand which will increase the variety of types of crops grown, which, in turn, makes the food system more resilient I get this, but it seems fundamentally at odds with economies of scale which surely the natural market would gravitate towards. Seems like government intervention would be necessary here to overcome the externalities that growing a single variety at extreme quantities creates?

luckylion 8y ago
Growing a single variety is likely too risky. While you may be able to minimize the risk with artificial watering, pest control etc, if it strikes, you'll end your company. Most companies don't aim for a series of all-or-nothing-bets even if the odds are in their favor on each one, they hedge their bets.
- 2T1Qka0rEiPr 8y ago
  This might be true, but there are plenty of cases where this is exactly the case (e.g. bananas, rubber). Also, as the article points out, there are "heirloom" crops which would surely mitigate this danger somewhat but would presumably still be perfect for economies of scale - e.g. due to the reduced marginal cost for R&D to build machines etc. appropriate for harvesting?
  - luckylion 8y ago
    Bananas are an example of a local single-crop bet, and they are hedged by planting different crops elsewhere. There certainly is a desire to reduce variety, but it's likely to come down to a few dozen plants (out of thousands, and for each one, there have been hundreds of variations and sub-types), not to a single one - too risky, and regional conditions are too different to have a one-size-fits-all-crop.
firethief 8y ago
On the supply side, government intervention is what it takes to internalize externalities. Monocropping is only the most profitable choice when the cost of heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides is low.
- 2T1Qka0rEiPr 8y ago
  Interesting, but could you elaborate? Are you saying governments are subsidising fertilizers and pesticides? And if so, why would that only be to the benefit of monocropping and no in general?
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    More "not charging for pollution from them" which it is kind of easy to see why trying to do so wouldn't be generally popular. And those techs benefits everything but monocropping more. Crop rotation also restores soil quality but it is less optimal in yields and a "cycle" of crops means more variables to optimize for like soil, temperature, and financial yields.

luckylion 8y ago

Growing a single variety is likely too risky. While you may be able to minimize the risk with artificial watering, pest control etc, if it strikes, you'll end your company. Most companies don't aim for a series of all-or-nothing-bets even if the odds are in their favor on each one, they hedge their bets.

2T1Qka0rEiPr 8y ago
This might be true, but there are plenty of cases where this is exactly the case (e.g. bananas, rubber). Also, as the article points out, there are "heirloom" crops which would surely mitigate this danger somewhat but would presumably still be perfect for economies of scale - e.g. due to the reduced marginal cost for R&D to build machines etc. appropriate for harvesting?
- luckylion 8y ago
  Bananas are an example of a local single-crop bet, and they are hedged by planting different crops elsewhere. There certainly is a desire to reduce variety, but it's likely to come down to a few dozen plants (out of thousands, and for each one, there have been hundreds of variations and sub-types), not to a single one - too risky, and regional conditions are too different to have a one-size-fits-all-crop.

firethief 8y ago

On the supply side, government intervention is what it takes to internalize externalities. Monocropping is only the most profitable choice when the cost of heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides is low.

2T1Qka0rEiPr 8y ago
Interesting, but could you elaborate? Are you saying governments are subsidising fertilizers and pesticides? And if so, why would that only be to the benefit of monocropping and no in general?
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  More "not charging for pollution from them" which it is kind of easy to see why trying to do so wouldn't be generally popular. And those techs benefits everything but monocropping more. Crop rotation also restores soil quality but it is less optimal in yields and a "cycle" of crops means more variables to optimize for like soil, temperature, and financial yields.