3 ms·

While it might seem logical in the peaceful times we've grown accustomed to, it is going to still be a tough sell for nations like the USA that have a war-centr

While it might seem logical in the peaceful times we've grown accustomed to, it is going to still be a tough sell for nations like the USA that have a war-centric mindset. A starving population is how you lose wars, and the work the government does to maintain the local food supply exists for that reason. Also, there is growing concern for our ability to replenish food-stocks as-is. If farming ceases in these nations, you lose a lot of food people directly eat too.

justin66 13y ago
> A starving population is how you lose wars, and the work the government does to maintain the local food supply exists for that reason. While it's true that having crops in the fields would help keep people fed during a world war that disrupted world agriculture, that's not the reason "the work the government does to maintain the local food supply exists." It exists because agriculture has a powerful lobby and they make a lot of money this way. Poor, developing world farmers don't get a vote. It's sometimes used as a post-hoc justification for what is done. > Also, there is growing concern for our ability to replenish food-stocks as-is. If farming ceases in these nations, you lose a lot of food people directly eat too. Killing developed world agricultural subsidies and allowing market competition to stimulate agricultural production in the developing world is one of those things that seems to unite almost all economists. This seems to be because they think it will make food less expensive and more accessible. I'm not familiar with anyone making the opposite case?