3 ms·

Very true, dietary choices have much larger impact (I'm currently eating broccoli as I'm typing this because of that very reason). However the claim that organi

Very true, dietary choices have much larger impact (I'm currently eating broccoli as I'm typing this because of that very reason). However the claim that organic produce is better for the environment seems false nonetheless. Happy to read literature that proves otherwise.

ip26 6y ago
I don't have literature one way or the other, it's a very hard question that depends a lot on your criteria... But I don't think organic will ever take over completely, I mainly hope that it demonstrates to producers that consumers value attributes other than $/lb, trials a different way of doing things, and leads to industrial ag adopting the best parts. While we are talking hopes & dreams, I also have my fingers crossed that a growing higher-end market for fruits & vegetables could push back on some of the consolidation & commodification happening in US farmland, which has not been good for small farmers.
- exfalso 6y ago
  I don't know whether that change can originate from consumers alone. Maybe I'm just jaded, but imho any plan that starts with "we need to teach people..." is doomed from the start. Take a capitalistic system and leave it running for a long time, company structures will inevitably gravitate towards these giant over-optimized organizations living off the tiniest margins that no smaller competitor can compete with. Try to change things locally, your neighbour will blow you out of the water. I think our best chance is utilizing the social contract. Push for legislative change, taxes/subsidies to control for changes that no single individual/organization would ever have incentive to make. It seems like a boring and daunting task, but isn't this the only way to effect actual change? And we need the changes on a global scale. How should we make our markets less efficient if other countries don't? I think this over-optimization/homogenization is a general problem of humanity now, and it appears in seemingly unrelated areas too like social media, advertising, even music and tv. Perhaps our best chance is to try to introduce some sort of fragmenting force that reintroduces heterogeneity. Inefficiency is not such a bad thing, it's more robust to change, redundant, and ultimately just more interesting. Getting quite philosophical and ranty now, but I was also thinking, didn't this very change happen already, in nature, many millions of years ago, when lifeforms evolved the ability to die naturally? Species that don't die have smaller chances to survive environmental changes and adapt to resource scarcity. Doesn't this hint at the kind of decisions we need to make as a species? Introduce some notion of organizational death, or renewal, or limiting force, to make room for differentiation?

ip26 6y ago

I don't have literature one way or the other, it's a very hard question that depends a lot on your criteria... But I don't think organic will ever take over completely, I mainly hope that it demonstrates to producers that consumers value attributes other than $/lb, trials a different way of doing things, and leads to industrial ag adopting the best parts. While we are talking hopes & dreams, I also have my fingers crossed that a growing higher-end market for fruits & vegetables could push back on some of the consolidation & commodification happening in US farmland, which has not been good for small farmers.

exfalso 6y ago
I don't know whether that change can originate from consumers alone. Maybe I'm just jaded, but imho any plan that starts with "we need to teach people..." is doomed from the start. Take a capitalistic system and leave it running for a long time, company structures will inevitably gravitate towards these giant over-optimized organizations living off the tiniest margins that no smaller competitor can compete with. Try to change things locally, your neighbour will blow you out of the water. I think our best chance is utilizing the social contract. Push for legislative change, taxes/subsidies to control for changes that no single individual/organization would ever have incentive to make. It seems like a boring and daunting task, but isn't this the only way to effect actual change? And we need the changes on a global scale. How should we make our markets less efficient if other countries don't? I think this over-optimization/homogenization is a general problem of humanity now, and it appears in seemingly unrelated areas too like social media, advertising, even music and tv. Perhaps our best chance is to try to introduce some sort of fragmenting force that reintroduces heterogeneity. Inefficiency is not such a bad thing, it's more robust to change, redundant, and ultimately just more interesting. Getting quite philosophical and ranty now, but I was also thinking, didn't this very change happen already, in nature, many millions of years ago, when lifeforms evolved the ability to die naturally? Species that don't die have smaller chances to survive environmental changes and adapt to resource scarcity. Doesn't this hint at the kind of decisions we need to make as a species? Introduce some notion of organizational death, or renewal, or limiting force, to make room for differentiation?