I think you’re abstracting too much to try and make your point. What on earth does “efficiency of human health per natural resources” mean in comparison to “efficiency in produce per monetary cost”. I think youre just lost in a little too much sauce when trying to justify your view.
I mean, say you have a certain amount of natural resources (land, chemicals, organisms) and you want to maximise health; or you have a certain standard of health and want to minimise resources used.
To put it another way, I think if across the whole of society we had more small-scale gardening that would be a benefit to human health and the environment compared to exclusively using large scale farming.
Conversely, if the goal is maximum financial profit, or absolute quantity of produce, it is more ‘efficient’ - i.e. more quantity of your goal for less quantity of your cost - to do large scale farming.
I see solutions to make Industrial Agriculture work to help all people: land redistribution, regulation, subsidization of what is actually needed. I see no way to make gardens at home work for every person, it’s a complete nonstarter.
You’re the defeatist, here. You’re fleeing from the problems.
Good. You go ahead and work on you proposals to improve industrial agriculture. I might not think that’s a complete solution, but it’s not defeatist. Saying, “only the wealthy can eat healthy” and leaving it at that, sounded defeatist.
But I hope you can agree my support of more people doing home gardening - also not a complete solution - is a suggestion of how to improve things, not defeatist. You might disagree with its utility. You certainly disagree with it being a solution for everybody. But need you attack it as defeatist and running from problems?
Okay I’ve re-read back to your first comment and I think I see what you mean, now.
You mean, that you see gardening as something available only to the wealthy, so discussion of gardening helping with health is of no relevance/help to the question of how to improve the situation for the less wealthy, right?
I see your point. When I chimed in with gardening’s ‘efficiency’, I wasn’t trying to think of it as a solution for all people. That said, I do think some of the less industrial methods of farming are worth more effort. Maybe more people having gardens, rooftop aquaponics allotments. Small/local farming collectives. These things can help the balance be more in favour of getting the most health and human benefit, rather than the most money for shareholders and owners.
Efficiency in produce per monetary cost. But for efficiency of human health per natural resources, I think gardening might be a winner.
I think you’re abstracting too much to try and make your point. What on earth does “efficiency of human health per natural resources” mean in comparison to “efficiency in produce per monetary cost”. I think youre just lost in a little too much sauce when trying to justify your view.
I mean, say you have a certain amount of natural resources (land, chemicals, organisms) and you want to maximise health; or you have a certain standard of health and want to minimise resources used.
To put it another way, I think if across the whole of society we had more small-scale gardening that would be a benefit to human health and the environment compared to exclusively using large scale farming.
Conversely, if the goal is maximum financial profit, or absolute quantity of produce, it is more ‘efficient’ - i.e. more quantity of your goal for less quantity of your cost - to do large scale farming.
It was already well established that only the wealthy can afford a consistently healthy lifestyle, but thanks for chiming in.
Sounds pretty defeatist to me.
Defeatist is accepting a system that harms the poor. Separating yourself from the system is unrealistic for the vast majority and doesn’t fix it.
That seems to be what you’re doing. “Only the wealthy can live healthy” and giving up on discussion to change that.
I see solutions to make Industrial Agriculture work to help all people: land redistribution, regulation, subsidization of what is actually needed. I see no way to make gardens at home work for every person, it’s a complete nonstarter.
You’re the defeatist, here. You’re fleeing from the problems.
*proposes way to help*
“Noo! You’re fleeing from the problems”
Good. You go ahead and work on you proposals to improve industrial agriculture. I might not think that’s a complete solution, but it’s not defeatist. Saying, “only the wealthy can eat healthy” and leaving it at that, sounded defeatist.
But I hope you can agree my support of more people doing home gardening - also not a complete solution - is a suggestion of how to improve things, not defeatist. You might disagree with its utility. You certainly disagree with it being a solution for everybody. But need you attack it as defeatist and running from problems?
Okay I’ve re-read back to your first comment and I think I see what you mean, now.
You mean, that you see gardening as something available only to the wealthy, so discussion of gardening helping with health is of no relevance/help to the question of how to improve the situation for the less wealthy, right?
I see your point. When I chimed in with gardening’s ‘efficiency’, I wasn’t trying to think of it as a solution for all people. That said, I do think some of the less industrial methods of farming are worth more effort. Maybe more people having gardens, rooftop aquaponics allotments. Small/local farming collectives. These things can help the balance be more in favour of getting the most health and human benefit, rather than the most money for shareholders and owners.