@feld @kravietz you have set up a binary distinction "happy about 100% of big ag behavior pro GMO" vs "complete moron who doesn't understand basic science anti GMO"

there is a lot of nuance and challenging trade-offs, also big players, subsidies, and potential regulatory capture. TO an extent, technology has unquestionably improved agriculture, and arguably, beyond a point, technology is being used for profits at the expense of ecological and dietary health. the calculus has been based on minimizing human labor and maximizing profits via useage of subsidized fossil fuel. One specific vision of the economy.

Yes, there is the farming 1e9 acres with mostly automated mega-machines and a few decorative human operators. There is also Curtis Stone and JM Fortier making 6 figures on less than an acre. If you decide one thing is the answer and subsidize it, you've made your own conclusion instead of letting the market decide.
Follow

@hushroom

> you have set up a binary distinction

Sorry but it's neither me nor @feld who did it. It was Greenpeace and other environmental activists who created this black-and-white world of "good" vs "evil", "pure" vs "filthy", "natural" vs "chemical" etc in the first place.

They turned something that is - as you correctly noted - nuanced and should be analysed using tools like cost-benefit analysis and risk analysis into a fight between two moral categories.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon 🔐 privacytools.io

Fast, secure and up-to-date instance. PrivacyTools provides knowledge and tools to protect your privacy against global mass surveillance.

Website: privacytools.io
Matrix Chat: chat.privacytools.io
Support us on OpenCollective, many contributions are tax deductible!