3 ms·
There's not really. You need water for farming. Farming is necessary for survival and farmers sell their produce for profit. The line between small, local, "go
by KeplerBoy 3y ago
There's not really. You need water for farming. Farming is necessary for survival and farmers sell their produce for profit.
The line between small, local, "good" farmers and large "evil" corporations is all but clear cut.
- ethanbond 3y agoYou don't need to farm water-intensive crops in deserts, especially in the modern era of extremely effective logistics. We should be growing crops where they're most suitable for, and applying something closer to normal pricing dynamics will nudge us closer to that. Agreed there's not a bright line, but we're clearly at one undesirable end of the spectrum.
- KeplerBoy 3y agoI agree, but then we're back at exporting produce from wherever water is cheap and abundant. Which is a good thing and necessary, but it has to be done carefully at the industrial scale we're at.
- unshavedyak 3y agoIs it? What about using limited water for crops that don’t have as much value to survival as other crops? Or wasteful locations, etc. I’m not advocating charging necessarily, but using up a limited resource with reckless abandon seems short sighted. What am I missing? Is it not a very important resource to manage?
- seanp2k2 3y agoBut you see, their family got the land for free through a Homestead Act a few generations ago after they drove the Natives out (and/or murdered them) and now they get subsided water and property taxes through Prop 13 and cheap labor from undocumented workers, so why not do everything else in their power to maximize profits? That is the only mission in capitalism, after all.
- Dylan16807 3y agoFarming is necessary, correct. I don't see how this removes the wide gap. > farmers sell their produce for profit And that means they can pay for the resources they use!