I’d rather there be so much food it’s worthless than what we have now.
You’re not wrong, but when food is worthless there’s no reason to grow it. Farms cost money to run. Now a solution could be to nationalize or subsidize farms completely so that the tax dollars put into them directly lower the cost of food, but that ain’t happening.
Might be a carbon and unwanted other animal species issues. Bugs, small mammals, and predators thereof. Compost is great but it’s still producing by-products. If distribution and politics could be solved (probably politics is the main barrier in distribution, followed by natural disaster, many of which are the direct result of politics), perhaps these things wouldn’t be a great concern. But I’m not a scientist.
![Copy and Paste [Last Place Comics]](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8799ce1f-c9cc-4c02-9c51-aa8bd22b0c47.jpeg){kind=link}
Honestly would that ever actually be a bad thing?
Like I really can’t fathom a realistic way producing too much food (or whatever they’re growing) can be a problem.
And before anyone brings up the economy I’d rather there be so much food it’s worthless than what we have now.
You’re not wrong, but when food is worthless there’s no reason to grow it. Farms cost money to run. Now a solution could be to nationalize or subsidize farms completely so that the tax dollars put into them directly lower the cost of food, but that ain’t happening.
Wouldn’t it even itself out
Probably not, but it’s better than subsidizing farmers to not sell stuff and crash the market. That’s just doubling down on waste.
Might be a carbon and unwanted other animal species issues. Bugs, small mammals, and predators thereof. Compost is great but it’s still producing by-products. If distribution and politics could be solved (probably politics is the main barrier in distribution, followed by natural disaster, many of which are the direct result of politics), perhaps these things wouldn’t be a great concern. But I’m not a scientist.