4 ms·
The unsurprising result is that naysayers call the change a failure before the first harvest after the change. They "predict" that they will lose 50% of the ha
by yarcob 5y ago
The unsurprising result is that naysayers call the change a failure before the first harvest after the change.
They "predict" that they will lose 50% of the harvest. Let's not call it a failure just yet and see how this turns out after a few years.
Sure, sudden change is disruptive, but humans are adaptable and can accomplish amazing things in a crisis. If they don't revert it and stay organic only, maybe they'll have an amazing reputation and a huge competitive edge in a decade.
- bserge 5y agoAs long as you're not one of those who need to adapt, I guess. They won't have an edge. The green revolution is what allowed population to boom. Now some people are like "yeah, let's go back to before"? Sounds a lot like the people who shun vaccines and medication.
- Veen 5y ago> Sure, sudden change is disruptive, but humans are adaptable Yes, the population can adapt downwards as people starve or migrate somewhere else. After a decade or so, the people who are left will be in an excellent position to sell organic tea to middle-class Americans. Similar arguments were made in defence of collectivization in the 1920s. The complacency is astounding.