It’s not so much “accept” as that is the traditional way of eating in many cultures, even omnivorous ones.
3 Likes
I wasn’t referring only to meat but the entire food production and distribution system. As the article linked by @honkman points out “sustainable” agriculture yields 25% less than conventional means. What it doesn’t say is that unit cost goes up. That doesn’t help with poverty. Americans spend 6ish% of their income on food (correcting for putting restaurants out of business and everyone eating everything at home). Suppose that goes to 10%?
I think I agree with you about “big slabs of meat.” Maybe. One chicken breast is enough for both my wife and me. Six shrimp. For entertainment value, on the rare occasions I’m on that stretch of the US Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) there is a famous stop at Coinjock Marina and Restaurant. Good dock, good fuel dock, reasonable prices. There are some logistical reasons it’s a good stop.
Who the heck needs a 32 oz prime rib? sigh It’s sad how many meals I can get out of leftover prime rib between Coinjock and Annapolis. I consider that stuff something to watch vice participate in. Grilled shrimp appetizer and house salad as dinner works for me.
I keep coming back to the same conclusion. We have too many people. Many of you will not like my corollary: the wrong people are reproducing. Folks in generational social welfare should not be having half a dozen children. No one should be having half a dozen children, but there are communities that don’t contribute that are having more. See Idiocracy. Too. Many. People.
Indeed so. I can only plead that I was in a rush and was not careful with my wording
1 Like
Not only do I not like it, it is downright offensive and not a long walk away from eugenics.
If that’s the level the discussion has sunk to, then it’s time for the mods to close the thread. But, in any event, I’m out of this one.
4 Likes
I have to find the paper but that increase would be actually only minimal as it is a question of scale (and also enough interest in research). Sustainable agriculture doesn’t mean higher prices
I am sad to have offended you. I think my observation is correct. I’m talking about people who contribute the most to society at large vice those who take the most. There are no underlying characterizations. Too. Many. People.
Why do you repeat things which are not backing by evidence/science. You even reference a paper which shows that we are not too many people
1 Like
We’re already at scale.
As for research, making decision on the basis of what is not known carries a huge amount of risk. Famous cartoon: http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/images/miracle_sharris.gif
We are not even close to scale regarding organic/sustainable farming. One of the problems is that there is little interest in researching optimization of organic farming (and yes, there could be a lot of things researched to optimize much further) because research money, in particular in academic setting, is still heavily tied to big ag who has less interest to work in this direction and more in weakening the rules for “organic” etc.
A good first read which covers only some subsets of the problems
1 Like
And who gets to decide which people
It seems like this thread - although not very long - is about to prove Godwin’s law.
5 Likes
3 Likes
Well, this lasted longer than I expected… counting down to thread lock…
Fair question. I think there should be fewer people. I think people should have fewer children. I’m very squeamish about regulation. Both sides of my family survived persecution. On my father’s side, my grandfather walked across Europe from Ukraine to Dunkirk to escape the pogroms. That’s pretty recent.
In my view of the best of worlds people would simply have fewer children as a matter of personal responsibility. They’d get married and stay together for life. Kumbaya.
I’m by no means an expert, but from what I think I know China’s ‘one child policy’ that applies to everyone (ish) was actually pretty egalitarian. Someone will educate me I’m sure about what I don’t know. I think the concept has merit.
Specific to the US, I’d like to see social safety nets that do NOT encourage having more children. That give people support and encouragement to not have children they can’t support. I support the concept of workfare although the devil is in the details.
We know that what we have been doing has not broken the cycle of dependence that is multi-generational welfare. We should do something different.
I’ll go back to where I started. We’re looking for lost keys in the light (big corporations) instead of where we lost them (too. many. people.) I don’t see a crisis in the US food chain from big corporations.
While I’m at it, I’d like to see home economics and industrial arts (“shop”) back in education as part of core curriculum with STEM. I see that as related to food chain and self-sufficiency.
We are at scale in agriculture. It’s pretty hard to sell reduced production at higher unit cost for “organic.” I challenge the two year payback in the article. I challenge the assertion that “we can solve climate change with organic agriculture” particularly since there is no definition of “organic.”
I don’t think either of us is an expert. I’d like to see all the acreage growing inedible corn for ethanol in production for edibles. I’d sure like to see a change in the agenda that “big is bad” that ignores economies of scale and consistency. I’m all for the little guy. I AM a little guy. I don’t think it’s right to scoriate people/companies that grow because they are successful.
That’s not why the companies and the monopolies they form are coming under scrutiny. This kind of dismissal (‘you’re just jealous’) is not looking at sustainability and inequalities issues that come up time and again. These issues are also lost when we think only about the conditions of our own procurement. It’s not about the illusion of choice in the markets-- or the choice available to many of us on this board. It’s about so much more (and most of it not managed through individual choice).
1 Like
Yep, that worked out great.
4 Likes
Big isn’t defacto evil.
“Sustainability” and “inequality” are amorphous terms used to cast shade on people and organizations that are not liked for entirely subjective reasons. Solar power is “sustainable” but nuclear is not? A big farm is not okay but a small one is not?
So your premise is (all) governments are too big and
corporations aren’t big enough.
Is that about right?
1 Like
Nope. Right-sizing. J. Edwards Deming. Size to function.
Amazon would not have been able to achieve two, one, or same day delivery (depending on where you live) without economies of scale. Consider the charity of Berkshire-Hathaway and Microsoft, arguably more effective than government programs, during the pandemic. Remembering the tech transfer of space exploration to everyday lives, Musk, Bezos, and Branson have surpassed government programs not just in the US but across the globe. Where would HO be without Watson, despite his missteps?
There are functions that are clearly appropriate for government. In the US, the highway system, social safety net, national defense, public safety, OSHA stuff, FDA stuff, USDA stuff. DOT is dropping the ball and has for decades. Not excited about Ed but that is a shortfall, not because it isn’t a good government function.
My big issue with the US government is poor management with good intentions. Lobbying doesn’t help. Thus inedible corn for ethanol.
You don’t seem to understand ethanol and the power and influence of corn state legislators.
I’ll leave it at that.
1 Like
