4 ms·
I think you're confusing multiple separate issues here. Efficiency in production and total amount of production are separate concerns. You don't aim to lower to
by jonfw 6y ago
I think you're confusing multiple separate issues here. Efficiency in production and total amount of production are separate concerns. You don't aim to lower total production numbers by decreasing the efficiency of production.
It sounds like you're unhappy with how much we produce. Not the point of the conversation. Looks like you're just shoe-horning your political agenda into a conversation which is barely tangential.
The bare minimum amount of food we could produce without starving is still more than enough to need very large farms to capture economies of scale.
- kiliantics 6y agoI don't think I am confused but maybe I wasn't clear enough for you. It's not just the quantity but the methods of production and the negative side effects of those methods. Just because we can scale output with these methods doesn't make them efficient in every sense. When you have to kill whole populations of birds and bats and other important participants of an ecosystem, across massive geographic regions, even if it's just to grow enough to keep from starving, then you are introducing a lot of problems that have so far gone unaccounted for. In fact, they will eventually lead to extreme decreases in production as the land withers. This is not a matter of shoe-horning an agenda, this is just the consequences of our trajectory as a society which are generally recognised by any relevant experts (but also pretty obvious to anyone who takes the time to think it through). I don't know why you seem to be unwilling to account for these factors and rather stick to your simplistic argument of "production efficiency by any means = good". It would seem that you are actually the one who is clinging to a political agenda, whether you are aware of it or not.