Re:Decline of Species That Pollinate Poses a Threat to Globa...
by proksoup on Friday February 26, 2016 @11:31AM
(#11182262)
> Agriculture's purpose is economic. Eating (and eating tasty food) does have a large demand though.
I'm maybe just repeating what the parent comment said, but that seems backwards to me.
If we treat agriculture's purpose as economy for economy's sake, which we have been doing, it seems counter-productive to our goals of staying alive sustainably.
Re:Decline of Species That Pollinate Poses a Threat to Globa...
by swe on Friday February 26, 2016 @12:21PM
(#11182595)
This really should be no surprise. Mainstream economics practices that the environment is a subset of the economy and not the other way around.
"Sure, I can live without fresh water and clean air, but a market? I need a market." /s
Re:Decline of Species That Pollinate Poses a Threat to Globa...
by brightball on Friday February 26, 2016 @01:11PM
(#11182912)
If you lack fresh water and clean air, there would be a market for fresh water and clean air. :-)
A lot of agricultural foodstuff is terribly inefficient at meeting the goal of "keeping people from starving." We grow them though (and produce in the case of meat) because humans really enjoy them. If the main goal was to prevent starvation we wouldn't produce resource-intensive food products or we would produce them in moderation.
Agriculture's purpose is economic. Eating (and eating tasty food) does have a large demand though.