(July 17, 2014 at 10:48 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It's unlikely that reducing technology will lead to any benefits in ag either. We can take a look at "old tech" with our new high tech eyes, that's been showing promise, but just abandoning tech in ag isn't going to do anyone any good (that includes non-human animals). I promise you...lol, there's nothing inherently humanizing about working at a farm. I'd honestly prefer that you (and a few hundred others) were busy teaching and painting and composing and building and designing and playing (I could go on and on), while I dug the trenches. I love this stuff, I've never known anyone who didn't to be very good at it. Seems more like a chore to them(from my pov) - a hot, gritty hell with slim margins and no sense of achievement. The fewer people that have to be involved in this stuff from the working end the better. I just like to tell people whats involved, so that they can make informed decisions.The problem is that most people don't paint and compose and build and design and play, because they don't have the money or the health to do those things. Most people sit around watching Oprah re-runs and eating KindaMeat™ TV dinners. They are useless not only to the society by which they are unneeded and to which they do not contribute, they are useless to themselves or to the wonderful life they should be trying to lead.
Quote:You're against waste, you have a moral issue with it....but now we're "too efficient"?Yes, because the efficiency renders most of humanity as a wasted resource, and I'm against wasting resources.
I reckon we should distribute food better, guaranteeing all people adequate health, and then put that human labor to good use colonizing Mars or something. I do not think we should feed them waffles and Big Macs, requiring the existence of big animals in little shitty spaces, as a way to let off the "steam" caused by our efficient production of food.