Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

So where did we go wrong with food?
There was a time that almost everyone farmed and grew food for themselves and their neighbors and or trade, local trade and so on. But at some point, surplus became more important than feeding people. Growing food, or growing crops in order to sell them and make money became more important than growing crops to feed people.

And that process accelerated since 1500, or whenever you want to say capitalism began. To the point where, in the States at least, 95% of crops are basically grown as cash crops. And the question is almost never ‘What is the land telling us we want to grow? What can we grow that will be most beneficial for our community? What can I grow that’s most nutritious that will damage the land as little as possible?’ Those are not questions that are being asked.

Growing food, or growing crops in order to sell them and make money became more important than growing crops to feed people
The questions that are being asked or the question that’s being asked is ‘How can I make the most money possible with this land?’ Sometimes that means just selling the land for development. But often, it means growing one crop at a time. And it’s a crop that’s either directly or indirectly subsidized, like corn or soybeans. And it’s a crop that mostly goes into junk food or animal feed, or even ethanol, which is obviously not food at all.

I really think the enclosure of the commons was a big deal. When the nobility started dictating to peasants what should be grown and how it should be sold and to whom it should be sold. And peasants began to run out of land to grow food for themselves and their families. That was one of the driving factors in the industrial revolution. And we’ve just seen that accelerate.

GannonFan wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 7:18 am I didn't read the article, just going off of the portion you quoted. But I think the article seems to miss that there's a lot of benefit to freeing up people who previously couldn't do anything else other than tend to their own farm and feed themselves. Once we freed people from only getting to be farmers, all of a sudden we started coming up with a lot of new advances - new manufacturing, new medicines, new inventions, etc. I don't think I want everyone to be a farmer and to be responsible for growing enough food to feed themselves and their families. If we can do it more efficiently, which we obviously can, than that frees up people to pursue other interests that also could benefit mankind. I think we've made several advances since the 1500's precisely because we weren't all spending times tending to our crops in the field.

On the other hand, one could argue that the quality of life did not go up, but went down when agriculture became common.

Pwns wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:50 am That article is tinged with "profit motive is bad". I'd argue one of the biggest issues we have is over-production of certain crops (mainly corn) and a lot of of that ironically comes from subsidies distorting the market.

I was actually astonished when I started paying more attention to labels how sugar is added to damn-near everything other than meat and produce. They do that because they get cheap sugar and I suspect that's THE biggest contributor to obesity and all the related problems even more than lack of activity (I wish that weren't the case for my benefit, but it seems to be). And don't mistake me for some anti-HFCS zealot, it doesn't matter if the sugar comes from corn or sugar cane or beets or carrots, the result is the same.

Plus, you have those completely idiotic and pointless ethanol production from corn, too. I'm not against subsidies for Big Ag, but we need to make them work for the country and not Big Ag.

UNI88 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 10:01 am

GannonFan wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 7:18 am I didn't read the article, just going off of the portion you quoted. But I think the article seems to miss that there's a lot of benefit to freeing up people who previously couldn't do anything else other than tend to their own farm and feed themselves. Once we freed people from only getting to be farmers, all of a sudden we started coming up with a lot of new advances - new manufacturing, new medicines, new inventions, etc. I don't think I want everyone to be a farmer and to be responsible for growing enough food to feed themselves and their families. If we can do it more efficiently, which we obviously can, than that frees up people to pursue other interests that also could benefit mankind. I think we've made several advances since the 1500's precisely because we weren't all spending times tending to our crops in the field.

I don't disagree that Big Ag has something of a monopoly and has caused problems to the environment and our health but ...

On the other hand, one could argue that the quality of life did not go up, but went down when agriculture became common.

The average lifespan has doubled. Where would we be if people had been freed from having to worry about growing their own sustenance and being able to advance medicine and invent the many things that have improved our lives?

kalm wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 7:33 pm

UNI88 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 10:01 am

I don't disagree that Big Ag has something of a monopoly and has caused problems to the environment and our health but ...





The average lifespan has doubled. Where would we be if people had been freed from having to worry about growing their own sustenance and being able to advance medicine and invent the many things that have improved our lives?

There are a number of reasons why quality of life is better for sure. That’s why I appreciate the article...it challenges our modern perceptions. To use your example, I’ve read that lifespans had quite a bit do with infant mortality. Further, to Ganny’s point, in the 1500’s the innovators were often the aristocracy who could afford education and had idle time and resources to ponder, experiment, and develop technologies. Would innovation not have increased further if the masses had more to do than sort through filth in the fields?

Not to mention the American experience isn’t the same as other parts of the world.

AZGrizFan wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 4:18 pm

kalm wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 7:33 pm

There are a number of reasons why quality of life is better for sure. That’s why I appreciate the article...it challenges our modern perceptions. To use your example, I’ve read that lifespans had quite a bit do with infant mortality. Further, to Ganny’s point, in the 1500’s the innovators were often the aristocracy who could afford education and had idle time and resources to ponder, experiment, and develop technologies. Would innovation not have increased further if the masses had more to do than sort through filth in the fields?

Not to mention the American experience isn’t the same as other parts of the world.

Hmmm.....and what’s the primary difference between America and literally the rest of the world?

go ahead and think about it...I’ll wait....