Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Sharon F.'s avatar

When you change the focus from "farmers" to "food systems" you have effectively changed the receiver of information and made it more abstract. Researchers at land grant universities help farmers grow food, including environmental and economic considerations. Researchers who study "food systems" don't appear to have the goal of talking to or helping real farmers; they talk about "transforming food systems". Leaving out the people who make the current system work. What could go wrong?

Expand full comment
Grumpy's avatar

You are making a point, but incredibly myopic.

We will make energy 10x cheaper as we correctly use nuclear and equally good energy supplies like deep enhanced geothermal.

That makes minerals, and products made from minerals about 8x cheaper.

We also have a new supply of energy or work. Automation. Now that AI can learn it's job we aren't held back by human programmers to make fleets of robots.

Indian farming is 9x more productive per unit land than American. It's the labor input. Automation can therefore make American farming 9x more productive without labor demands. And make Indian farming much more productive, while freeing the labor pool to do better things.

Indoor farming doesn't give a crap about climate and can easily be certified organic. It takes energy but not much.

Water is abundant in a cheap-clean energy world. The ocean has all the water we need, and it's easy to desalinate.

The main problem is making a food system that doesn't kill us all marketing toxic addictive foods, so Wall Street casinos prosper.

Healthy foods are easy.

Expand full comment
18 more comments...

No posts