Re:It looks like you’re trying to take over the world
by PaulDavisThe1st on Sunday March 27, 2022 @10:26AM
(#30820483)
Because as I already noted, there are two distinct problems: food production, and food distribution.
We already know how to produce enough food, new efforts to increase food production (other than coupled to some combination of local/global population change) are unnecessary (0). Therefore, destroying ecosystems and/or species to solve a a solved problem is at best less morally defensible.
The actions you've described are about food production, and thus I regard them as less morally defensible than things one might do to solve the problem of food distribution.
[0] I would note that we might still seek to change where food is produced, and what precise foods are produced, but I see that as a different question, mostly.
If your neighbor cuts down the forest to raise some cows, or a vine climbs up a tree and chokes it out to access more sunlight, where’s the right or wrong there?