Sure, but it could be one of the best things for the environment. If crops are suddenly more expensive because of pests, then meat becomes more expensive to produce, then more land is left to re-wild because farming is not as lucrative.
We already grow more than enough food to feed everyone. If we’re worried about people being able to afford food, then let’s subsidize that instead of ethanol and corn syrup.
I get this is a pitch for forced veganism, but this is basically only a few degrees off of “if we let a bunch of humans die we would solve the climate crisis.”
Pest blights can wipe out entire harvests, not just a clean, manageable percentage of yields. People would go hungry and die. Our current population levels depend on pesticides and fertilizers in industrial quantities, and that surplus of food you mention would quickly deplete without them.
There are many other ways to keep pests out and such, but if it ain’t super easy to spray, no one wants to take the time to see how this really could work.
I’m not advocating for letting anyone die, nor am I suggesting forced veganism. My suggestion would let some people make less profit. Those people are willing to let a lot of people die to increase their profits. The climate crisis has killed people, and will kill far more than expensive corn would.
Our current population levels are going to experience a steep decline because people already cannot afford basic needs like food and rent and so they are not having children. Pesticides are not the only defense against total crop collapse due to blight. In fact, we’re doing more damage to pollinators than pests as a result of overuse of pesticides. Entire food chains rely on the birds and bugs industrial farming is eliminating, and the water runoff is poisoning the fish that keep our streams and rivers clean.
To be clear, RFK is completely wrong in his reasoning, and I don’t believe in doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. We should ban pesticides because pesticide use is a net bad for humans. Pesticides increase profits at the expense of ecosystems, and that in turn impacts humanity.
My suggestion would let some people make less profit.
This is the issue in every industry. The rich do not ‘take less profit’ - they offset costs to the poor, whether that is a financial cost or a reduction in available resources i.e. less food i.e. food costs more for the poors. I agree with everything else you’re saying, but food production can’t just be cut - it has to be shifted to a more eco-friendly version slowly and manageably to avoid catastrophe.
I don’t think you’re wrong, but that’s a different problem, one we aren’t solving with pesticides. People are starving now, and poor people have drastically limited options when it comes to food. Our current subsidy structure encourages corn syrup and soy protein in almost everything we eat.
I wouldn’t oppose a managed transition away from using pesticides over a reasonable amount of time, one that allows farmers to adapt to new strategies and new pricing structures. But catastrophe is upon us. Ecological indicators are all in the red, and we’re experiencing the effects of climate disasters at an unyielding pace. Fires, floods, and famines are coming to a neighborhood near you, and drastic action is required immediately to even hope to slow it down. There’s no avoiding it.
Sure, but it could be one of the best things for the environment. If crops are suddenly more expensive because of pests, then meat becomes more expensive to produce, then more land is left to re-wild because farming is not as lucrative.
We already grow more than enough food to feed everyone. If we’re worried about people being able to afford food, then let’s subsidize that instead of ethanol and corn syrup.
I get this is a pitch for forced veganism, but this is basically only a few degrees off of “if we let a bunch of humans die we would solve the climate crisis.”
Pest blights can wipe out entire harvests, not just a clean, manageable percentage of yields. People would go hungry and die. Our current population levels depend on pesticides and fertilizers in industrial quantities, and that surplus of food you mention would quickly deplete without them.
There are many other ways to keep pests out and such, but if it ain’t super easy to spray, no one wants to take the time to see how this really could work.
Farming isn’t the profession it once was.
I’m not advocating for letting anyone die, nor am I suggesting forced veganism. My suggestion would let some people make less profit. Those people are willing to let a lot of people die to increase their profits. The climate crisis has killed people, and will kill far more than expensive corn would.
Our current population levels are going to experience a steep decline because people already cannot afford basic needs like food and rent and so they are not having children. Pesticides are not the only defense against total crop collapse due to blight. In fact, we’re doing more damage to pollinators than pests as a result of overuse of pesticides. Entire food chains rely on the birds and bugs industrial farming is eliminating, and the water runoff is poisoning the fish that keep our streams and rivers clean.
To be clear, RFK is completely wrong in his reasoning, and I don’t believe in doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. We should ban pesticides because pesticide use is a net bad for humans. Pesticides increase profits at the expense of ecosystems, and that in turn impacts humanity.
I don’t think you’re wrong, but that’s a different problem, one we aren’t solving with pesticides. People are starving now, and poor people have drastically limited options when it comes to food. Our current subsidy structure encourages corn syrup and soy protein in almost everything we eat.
I wouldn’t oppose a managed transition away from using pesticides over a reasonable amount of time, one that allows farmers to adapt to new strategies and new pricing structures. But catastrophe is upon us. Ecological indicators are all in the red, and we’re experiencing the effects of climate disasters at an unyielding pace. Fires, floods, and famines are coming to a neighborhood near you, and drastic action is required immediately to even hope to slow it down. There’s no avoiding it.