4 ms·

Such a short sighted comment, no, it would be best to have an efficient system where excess food could either be stored or delivered to those with food insecuri

• tomp 4y ago
  No, your comment is short-sighted. Ideally, you'd have a system that would massively over-produce food (and feed everybody and store some) so that localised disruptions / crop failures wouldn't bring the whole system down.
  • guerrilla 4y ago
    I'm pretty sure that's what they meant.
• ziml77 4y ago
  Perfect efficiency is how you end up with small disruptions turning into big problems. Compensating for lost production in one place by ramping it up elsewhere is not as quick as flipping a switch. Especially when your food needs a season to grow.
• atq2119 4y ago
  Excess food is being stored, but it can't be stored indefinitely. Others have explained again why excess food is a good thing. One thing in favor of your point is that we can still improve the system: avoid excess production of processed food, and find optimal uses for excess food that isn't eaten (compost, biofuels, etc.).
• joshuahaglund 4y ago
  We might agree -- because it's not excess if people still aren't having their needs met. But producing exactly enough is a recipe for not enough when something unexpected happens. There should be waste (or unused capacity, that can hopefully be somehow reclaimed as compost/bio-char/chemical feedstock/fuel/etc) in such an essential system.