3 ms·
>If we're willing to accept higher labor intensiveness In general will translate to >If we're willing to accept higher costs We may be willing to accept the
by Loughla 4y ago
>If we're willing to accept higher labor intensiveness
In general will translate to
>If we're willing to accept higher costs
We may be willing to accept the first one, but I am absolutely not convinced of the second.
- mjhay 4y agoCurrent industrial agriculture isn't physically sustainable in the long run for many reasons (soil loss, depleted aquifers, salinity), so the status-quo isn't a long-term option. Either we figure out how to feed billions of people sustainably, or things will get rather unpleasant in the future. I don't disagree with you though.
- sillystuff 4y agoFlorida farm workers got McDonald's to agree to paying a penny per pound extra for tomatoes where the penny was to go directly to the farm workers' wages. This resulted in a 71% increase in farm worker pay. It appears that labor costs are not a significant portion of the price of produce. Of course, this would not apply if automated harvesting had to be replaced by manual labor. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0933192520070409 https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0933192520070409
- mdavis6890 4y agoThe problem with the word “costs” is that it’s too easy to conflate this with money, and just think it means spending more of an abstract and essentially unlimited resource (money). The reality is that it means we will HAVE LESS STUFF, food or otherwise, because we are increasing the effort required to generate a unit of food.