3 ms·

Soon it will only be cheaper if you're completely discounting the price paid to the ecosystem. In fact with a full accounting I'd wager it's already cheaper. H

Soon it will only be cheaper if you're completely discounting the price paid to the ecosystem. In fact with a full accounting I'd wager it's already cheaper. How many unique species that evolved over tens of millions of years have been lost forever, in the last 50 years alone, due to clear-cutting in Brazil? How much clean water and topsoil has been polluted and washed away? How much carbon has been released? How much suffering from butchered animals? I really don't know how one can be so flippant about this.

ospzfmbbzr 4y ago
> I really don't know how one can be so flippant about this. Easy -- think for yourself! Easier to get rid of all the useless eaters. Are you sure that doesn't include you?
- AtlasBarfed 4y ago
worik 4y ago
Modern industrial agriculture, is what you are describing. It is very efficient form the POV of $/calorie. But it is terribly inefficient from a hectare/calorie. The purpose of modern industrial agriculture was to free up labour for industry. It has been a huge success in that. Applying technology to the food production system is IMO a good idea. I think we should be sensible. Using robotics and regenerative agriculture has huge potential to increase production, increase the quality of land husbandry, and sequester carbon in retained topsoil. Applying technology to growing meat in vats? It is hard to see how it could improve the situation. The one thing it does is free the consumer from being part of a killing chain. I can see no reason to believe that it will improve the system in any other respect. I retain an open mind about that, but am yet to be convinced. If you do not want to be part of a killing chain, perhaps the best way is to become a vegetarian rather than open a factory?
- dpkirchner 4y ago
  > It is very efficient form the POV of $/calorie. It's probably only efficient because farms don't have to cover the cost of their methane+CO2 emissions and water usage+pollution. I'd like to see these subsidies eliminated.

ospzfmbbzr 4y ago

> I really don't know how one can be so flippant about this. Easy -- think for yourself! Easier to get rid of all the useless eaters. Are you sure that doesn't include you?

AtlasBarfed 4y ago

worik 4y ago

Modern industrial agriculture, is what you are describing. It is very efficient form the POV of $/calorie. But it is terribly inefficient from a hectare/calorie. The purpose of modern industrial agriculture was to free up labour for industry. It has been a huge success in that. Applying technology to the food production system is IMO a good idea. I think we should be sensible. Using robotics and regenerative agriculture has huge potential to increase production, increase the quality of land husbandry, and sequester carbon in retained topsoil. Applying technology to growing meat in vats? It is hard to see how it could improve the situation. The one thing it does is free the consumer from being part of a killing chain. I can see no reason to believe that it will improve the system in any other respect. I retain an open mind about that, but am yet to be convinced. If you do not want to be part of a killing chain, perhaps the best way is to become a vegetarian rather than open a factory?

dpkirchner 4y ago
> It is very efficient form the POV of $/calorie. It's probably only efficient because farms don't have to cover the cost of their methane+CO2 emissions and water usage+pollution. I'd like to see these subsidies eliminated.