• FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    How about this correction, then: “Food crops can only be sustained for some period of time at which point it won’t affect me and in that case it might as well be 100% sustainable because I completely lack empathy or attachment to humanity.”

    • Qwazpoi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Echoing malthusian sentiments of “there’s not enough food for everyone” is not helping anyone.

      Pointing out the actual problem which is that big farms that exist right now aren’t there to get food to people they are there to make money and they don’t care if it’s sustainable or if anyone gets to eat, is what I did. You’re the one glossing over that.

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        I have accurately assessed the problem that you are attempting to ignore, I gave no potential solutions but if you want one then just reduce meat consumption and production (preferably through regulations and tax incentives) which will reduce crop usage by maybe 20-30%.

        Even in a perfect socialist utopia without greed The Fields Are Not Sustainable. If human population stays where it is or grows again then there will be no other solution than reducing the population through child policies or similar measures, or famine will be inevitable.

        Despite your fantasy world, the fields are not sustainable.