3 ms·
> the total number of cows is somewhat constant. But the number of cows isn't constant. The entire premise of the article is a demonstration of how large numbe
by CaptArmchair 6y ago
> the total number of cows is somewhat constant.
But the number of cows isn't constant. The entire premise of the article is a demonstration of how large numbers and power laws work in economics.
> To feed a growing population on earth, we do need industrial farming.
Do we? That's a massively contested debate. See: (Neo)Malthusianism.
> But in general, higher efficiency and more professional operations should be applauded
These aren't virtues that one should blindly laud if the net result is externalizing costs towards the commons: society and ecology.
What's the point of being able to feed 8 or 9 billion people on the planet, if quality of life for the majority of those individuals is rather low?
The article rightly points at the glaring moral questions beneath all of this.
- corty 6y ago>> To feed a growing population on earth, we do need industrial farming. > Do we? That's a massively contested debate. See: (Neo)Malthusianism. On the one hand, you dismiss my population growth argument as "Malthusianism" (which I don't consider a counter-argument at all, it is just naming things). But on the other hand you acknowledge that we cannot just feed ever more people: > What's the point of being able to feed 8 or 9 billion people on the planet, if quality of life for the majority of those individuals is rather low? So on one hand you are dismissing my argument as Malthusian, on the other hand you are making a very Malthusian argument yourself. My argument would be: I agree with you that mankind needs to shrink and right-size so the then-sustainable population can have some level of comfort for everyone.