@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 @feld

In short-term it certainly did work for them in terms of creating fear of GMO or nuclear power ("filthy") and promoting the technologies they liked at that moment - wind, solar, organic farming ("pure").

Playing with human emotions never comes without side effects. So now, when someone (like Gibbs and Moore) says "wait, but solar panels are also manufactured using dirty mining" they fall into a trap they set themselves. Suddenly they found themselves on the "filthy" side πŸ˜‚

Β· Β· 0 Β· 0 Β· 0
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon πŸ” 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!