Good effort in the interview Adam. I have to admit I got frustrated less than halfway through reading it and gave up because I completely disagree with Michael's argument (terrible on me for not plodding through it but if I get time I'll have a listen to the interview instead).
He should come here to the Philippines and see all the hungry and impoverished people and then go to one of the rural provincial distribution hubs where farmers all bring their produce in, and food dealers come and buy and transport it into the cities, etc. Thousands of kilograms of un-bought good fruit and vegetables dumped on the roadside to rot EVERY DAY. And tell me we need to intensify food production??
Yes. Production decisions appear to be based on more than just the laws of supply and demand perhaps? Maybe logics of extraction and control? This is where the certainty about the benefits of intensification (for hunger abatement or forest preservation) appear very out of touch.
Fascinating podcast, Adam...thanks. My book 'Food Fight' came out just before Michael's this year. In it, I dig into food histories up to the present day system which generates massive damage to people and planet. The focus of your discussion is on the economics of food quantity, land use in relation to population pressure and environmental consequences. It's not about food politics, food quality and human health (which is what I focus on). At some point Michael mentions 'the thing beyond the thing'.....which is a crucial part of the whole story.
At one point he says: "It is true that we eat a lot of shit in the United States and a lot of it is grown industrially, but it’s not shit because it’s grown industrially. It’s just shit because it’s shit."
And you respond: "But I think we should question why those shit products are being made and who gets to decide."
You're right to focus on products and politics...and Michael is wrong on this. It IS shit because its grown industrially...because the ultra-processed products that emerge from this system are those that maximise profit...they're also the least healthy for people and planet. It was a great discussion, but MG's central hypothesis on the economics of land sparing and yield is so mechanistic and linear at times...it's not feasible to duck politics.
Thanks Stuart! I'm glad you caught on to the "thing beyond the thing"comment. I think it reveals the limits of doing some opitmaility modelling and calling it a day. It would be optimal to do many things, but the the thing beyond the modelling-that produces real outcomes- is what matters.
Sometimes the land sparing and yield stuff is just "common sense" but then others it is a "long daisy chain of events." Sometimes it is just "econ 101" but then others it is a "wicked problem." Hard to pin down!
Good effort in the interview Adam. I have to admit I got frustrated less than halfway through reading it and gave up because I completely disagree with Michael's argument (terrible on me for not plodding through it but if I get time I'll have a listen to the interview instead).
He should come here to the Philippines and see all the hungry and impoverished people and then go to one of the rural provincial distribution hubs where farmers all bring their produce in, and food dealers come and buy and transport it into the cities, etc. Thousands of kilograms of un-bought good fruit and vegetables dumped on the roadside to rot EVERY DAY. And tell me we need to intensify food production??
Yes. Production decisions appear to be based on more than just the laws of supply and demand perhaps? Maybe logics of extraction and control? This is where the certainty about the benefits of intensification (for hunger abatement or forest preservation) appear very out of touch.
Fascinating podcast, Adam...thanks. My book 'Food Fight' came out just before Michael's this year. In it, I dig into food histories up to the present day system which generates massive damage to people and planet. The focus of your discussion is on the economics of food quantity, land use in relation to population pressure and environmental consequences. It's not about food politics, food quality and human health (which is what I focus on). At some point Michael mentions 'the thing beyond the thing'.....which is a crucial part of the whole story.
At one point he says: "It is true that we eat a lot of shit in the United States and a lot of it is grown industrially, but it’s not shit because it’s grown industrially. It’s just shit because it’s shit."
And you respond: "But I think we should question why those shit products are being made and who gets to decide."
You're right to focus on products and politics...and Michael is wrong on this. It IS shit because its grown industrially...because the ultra-processed products that emerge from this system are those that maximise profit...they're also the least healthy for people and planet. It was a great discussion, but MG's central hypothesis on the economics of land sparing and yield is so mechanistic and linear at times...it's not feasible to duck politics.
Thanks Stuart! I'm glad you caught on to the "thing beyond the thing"comment. I think it reveals the limits of doing some opitmaility modelling and calling it a day. It would be optimal to do many things, but the the thing beyond the modelling-that produces real outcomes- is what matters.
Sometimes the land sparing and yield stuff is just "common sense" but then others it is a "long daisy chain of events." Sometimes it is just "econ 101" but then others it is a "wicked problem." Hard to pin down!