top | item 37375703

(no title)

bandushrew | 2 years ago

The counterpoint is that this isn't a step that is being taken because we are desperately trying to feed all of humanity. Its a step thats being taken because these providers want to increase their profit margins.

The question is whether thats a good enough reason to take whatever risks are being taken here.

discuss

order

gloryjulio|2 years ago

The underlying point was never discussed enough. We just had too many people on earth and our technology is not good enough to feed all while being sustainable

pas|2 years ago

that's simply not true. there is both enough food and space and technology (and energy).

the problem is allocation and distribution of that.

eating industrial salmon is not a necessity for anyone.

space_fountain|2 years ago

And the counterpoint to that is that it’s searching for profits that push for greater efficiency in the presence of competition. They aren’t searching necessarily for larger profit margins, just more profit. Sure if they have a monopoly either in practice or classically they’ll just pocket more of the money, but ideally someone will realize they could make even more money by lowering prices. Ryanair is successful not because they have a huge profit margin, but because they move a lot of people.

octacat|2 years ago

More pesticides means more pollution. The farms are in the open rivers. Which means damage to the ecosystem and to the wild life (i.e. pesticides are to fight infection and that infection affects the wild fish population).

So, basically getting more profits by introducing more issues for "someone else to solve".

gdubs|2 years ago

This is basically intervening in the market though, by papering-over negative externalities. A true market efficiency scenario would mean that more sustainable upstarts have their shot. But if we keep giving established industries a pass, then we're essentially giving them an unfair advantage and removing the very competition that capitalism prides itself on.