34 ms·

For what it's worth, I totally agree. Without artificial fertilizer, half the world would starve. I don't think that kind of process makes sense within the cont

For what it's worth, I totally agree. Without artificial fertilizer, half the world would starve. I don't think that kind of process makes sense within the context of capitalism, though. One obvious driver in the downward nutritional trend is the fact that faster-growing, larger, longer-lasting vegetables are better products, even if they taste worse and do less for the body. The problem with products is they're optimized for sale, not for use. Adding in extra nutrients is unlikely to improve the product, since it would increase costs.

primroot 7y ago
> faster-growing, larger, longer-lasting vegetables are better product Whatever product fits into the economies of scale, and selective commoditization solely for the sake of profit concentration not nutrition or environment. But back to the idea of measuring everything. These are the counterpoints I can think about regarding measuring and controling: * Measuring and controlling cost resources, some less, some more. E.g. It is easier to measure yields than to measure nutrition. * There is imperfect knowledge on how to respond (control) after a given measurement, or even what measurements are important. E.g. Premature optimization, Goodhart's law, lack of certainty regarding nutrition. * There are conflicting interests on what the result of controlling should be. E.g. more profits or more nutrition? * Under appropriate circumstances systems can respond to variability or keep functioning without human control or input. This is resilience. E.g. Pollinating insects, edible weeds.