4 ms·
> Mass food production supposedly nourished more people: veggies today have 20% the minerals content they had 70y ago..the list go on and on. I suggest you sho
by azan_ 7mo ago
> Mass food production supposedly nourished more people: veggies today have 20% the minerals content they had 70y ago..the list go on and on.
I suggest you should have a look at malnutrition rates 100 years ago vs now. Without mass food production we would not be able to sustain even 50% of current population.
- mountainb 7mo agoWhy would that be bad? Why is more better?
- TeMPOraL 7mo agoWould you ask that your starving great-n-grandparents worried about whether they're able to feed the infant that would later become your ancestor?
- azan_ 7mo agoDo YOU want to die of starvation? Or are you ok with just others dying?
- hirako2000 7mo agotypical emotionally charged, false dichotomy. To your question I'm not ok with either. We will likely ALL die from the impact of industrialization.
- azan_ 7mo ago> To your question I'm not ok with either. Then you must be ok with mass food production, there's no third way.
- hirako2000 7mo agoI have looked. Malnutrition has effected humanity throughout history. But it correlates more with systems than technological development. I concede nutrient intake correlates with mass production we've seen in the last hundred years. The argument is fallacious and prevails because it supports a certain narrative.
- pocksuppet 6mo agoWithout this kind of food production maybe we'd have 50% the carrying capacity, but 20% of the actual population. What's your utility function? Is it the total happiness function that requires us to reproduce as much as possible even if conditions are shit, or is it the average happiness per person?