It's easy to be picky about nutrient density and sustainable farming when you have a full belly. Modern farming techniques have saved the lives of millions of people who would otherwise starve to death.
The only problem is (can’t tell if you intend it) an implied false dichotomy. Why do we have to pick abundant calories or nutritious food? This is a false choice. In the short term, it is a tradeoff given a particular set of technological and economic constraints.
Over the medium and long-term, the constraints change.
If people were wiser, {technological development, economics, and policy} could have led us to a better place.
Perhaps one with a better mix of agricultural offerings: a range of calorie dense & nutrient dense & combinations of both. All at prices that people are willing to pay, which of course depends on subsidies, earning power, and personal values.
Forgive me, but I’m going to preempt one kind of knee-jerk response someone might feel they need to write next: I’m describing a range of possible future outcomes, not a particular political philosophy.
Remember, my point is to reject the false choice. The tiresome (but classic) “next move” for someone would be to move the goalposts and criticize some particular policy they think I’m recommending. I’m not recommending a particular policy. I’m simply saying there are other possible futures that are available to us.
I challenge everyone on (and off) Hacker News to not fall into the obvious ‘debate’ patterns that add minimal value. I’m done with debate. I want to learn, and I want to teach. I’m not here to score points.
Synthesize. Be curious.
What do you all think are the most likely technological advancements that could revolutionize food?
If there was no modern industrial agricultural, probably fewer people would have been born to be at risk of starving to death.
When the synthetic inputs disappear (due to, say, war or supply chain disruption) or the soil is simply too exhausted & eroded altogether, lots of people starve.
People want "sustainable" agriculture so that the system is resilient to shocks. It's possible to have this and feed the same amount of people. Maybe even for a lower percentage of GDP. But it requires a drastically different approach to the problem.
