3 ms·

I am not so sure "a farm-free future with food primarily manufactured via precision fermentation and other scientific processes" is going to feed the hungry mas

I am not so sure "a farm-free future with food primarily manufactured via precision fermentation and other scientific processes" is going to feed the hungry masses.

ben_w 3y ago
Why not? We already do a lot of processing even just to turn wheat into bread, all beer is fermented, and “other scientific processes” is what let us feed more than 790 million people worldwide. Feeding the masses this way seems at least plausible to me, even if it might turn out too expensive to bother. (Of course, for something this important it makes a lot of sense to be slow to change so you can spot any mistakes before they’re important; doing it fast and only then finding out you made a huge mistake will make all the pandemic deaths seem like “the good old days” in comparison).
- 23B1 3y ago
  Like nearly all social engineering/behavioral economics theories, they fail the moment they're exposed to reality. So while Monibot et. al. can make a fine caloric calculation, they fail to imagine what'd happen when you start telling cultures with millennia of food traditions what they can and can't eat. So you and I agree in that it'd be too expensive to bother – namely that you'd be attempting to erase some of the most important cultural traditions 'for the greater good'.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > they fail to imagine what'd happen when you start telling cultures with millennia of food traditions what they can and can't eat. McDonalds exists and is popular, so traditions are not why I think it might be expensive. Also traditional food is mostly much younger than it seems. Old World dishes involving tomatoes or potatoes or maize or chillies or chocolate, not possible before trade with the Americas.
    - 23B1 3y ago
      I'm not talking about expensive in terms of currency, I'm talking about it in terms of human cost. Many, many wars have been fought over attempts to control food, and the lives lost can be counted in the hundreds of millions.
23B1 3y ago
...and history has shown that the hungry masses don't take too kindly to 'let them eat cake'.
- jacknews 3y ago
  Yet this is exactly what the article's argument amounts to. There is simply no way to feed 8B with cozy 'holistic regenerative' approaches to farming. We're barely capable of doing it with the current rapacious mega-conglomerate chemical-soaked system. To go beyond it, and scale back the damage, we're going to need fermented foods, indoor fish races, synthetic juices/pulps/flours, proteins/meats, etc, etc. There's still a place for 'premium' food from local farms, etc. 'Cake' as you put it.
  - 23B1 3y ago
    > There is simply no way to feed 8B with cozy 'holistic regenerative' approaches to farming This is exactly wrong. I highly recommend you dig deeper, start with Wendell Berry and then into the authors and scientists in his orbit.

I am not so sure "a farm-free future with food primarily manufactured via precision fermentation and other scientific processes" is going to feed the hungry masses.

ben_w 3y ago

Why not? We already do a lot of processing even just to turn wheat into bread, all beer is fermented, and “other scientific processes” is what let us feed more than 790 million people worldwide. Feeding the masses this way seems at least plausible to me, even if it might turn out too expensive to bother. (Of course, for something this important it makes a lot of sense to be slow to change so you can spot any mistakes before they’re important; doing it fast and only then finding out you made a huge mistake will make all the pandemic deaths seem like “the good old days” in comparison).

23B1 3y ago
Like nearly all social engineering/behavioral economics theories, they fail the moment they're exposed to reality. So while Monibot et. al. can make a fine caloric calculation, they fail to imagine what'd happen when you start telling cultures with millennia of food traditions what they can and can't eat. So you and I agree in that it'd be too expensive to bother – namely that you'd be attempting to erase some of the most important cultural traditions 'for the greater good'.
- ben_w 3y ago
  > they fail to imagine what'd happen when you start telling cultures with millennia of food traditions what they can and can't eat. McDonalds exists and is popular, so traditions are not why I think it might be expensive. Also traditional food is mostly much younger than it seems. Old World dishes involving tomatoes or potatoes or maize or chillies or chocolate, not possible before trade with the Americas.
  - 23B1 3y ago
    I'm not talking about expensive in terms of currency, I'm talking about it in terms of human cost. Many, many wars have been fought over attempts to control food, and the lives lost can be counted in the hundreds of millions.

23B1 3y ago

...and history has shown that the hungry masses don't take too kindly to 'let them eat cake'.

jacknews 3y ago
Yet this is exactly what the article's argument amounts to. There is simply no way to feed 8B with cozy 'holistic regenerative' approaches to farming. We're barely capable of doing it with the current rapacious mega-conglomerate chemical-soaked system. To go beyond it, and scale back the damage, we're going to need fermented foods, indoor fish races, synthetic juices/pulps/flours, proteins/meats, etc, etc. There's still a place for 'premium' food from local farms, etc. 'Cake' as you put it.
- 23B1 3y ago
  > There is simply no way to feed 8B with cozy 'holistic regenerative' approaches to farming This is exactly wrong. I highly recommend you dig deeper, start with Wendell Berry and then into the authors and scientists in his orbit.