3 ms·
I think this is the $10B question! It would seem that altermatives which are much more friendly to the planet involve lower yields but of arguably higher quali
by lbriner 4y ago
I think this is the $10B question!
It would seem that altermatives which are much more friendly to the planet involve lower yields but of arguably higher quality.
This would mean food would be more expensive, although most western nations eat too much anyway and should appreciate that something as simple as food isn't cheap by definition, especially when we are effectively paying someone else to do all the work.
The other big question is about eating meat (or at least as much meat as we do) since if we could reduce wasted land for animals, we would have more space to grow crops which could make up the shortfall of the lower yields.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- throwaway0a5e 4y agoLiterally all of societal progress is built on the back of "that thing we used to spend a bunch of time/money on, well we made it cheap and can now redirect that productivity and resources elsewhere" for every conceivable value of "thing", food, clothes, written communication, transportation, energy, consumer junk. What you are arguing for is a non-starter. Society will not accept higher costs for any duration of time. Some route around the problem that is driving up prices will be found.
- reedjosh 4y agoThere is soooo much land that cows graze on that can't really produce crops. Space isn't an issue caused by meat consumption. Further cows often eat the parts of crops we won't like corn stalks. Cows and other ruminants are kind of miracles and absolutely need to be part of our food supply.