Quote:
|
Originally Posted by milo
I think the core issue here (as it always is!!) isn't land or climate per se but energy. As long as theres an energy source we can use easily and cheaply we can grow food
|
Yeah, but that's the problem - we don't have any easy energy options at present. We've already coped with low soil quality problems by using fertilisers, which is just another way of transferring energy but again, that's drawing on a finite resource (with hydrocarbon based fertilisers).
And yeah, there'll be jobs created but it's only in economically irrational circumstances that "unemployment" is an actual problem. If anything, problems might occur because we don't have enough skilled people in a given field at one time (solved easily overtime, but hard in the interim). But looking at things in terms of "job creation" is to fall victim to the same fallacy I mentioned before. We have to analyse quality of life beyond just "having a job" or even "earning x wage" because these things are meaningless by themselves. The people worked to death in the gulag had jobs of sorts, but it wasn't necessarily great times.
Clueless people support a range of industries. Also, beyond a certain point perhaps convenience trumps cost. I used to be mystified by the mini-cab business model since as a pauper/student walking fifteen miles seemed a sensible way of avoiding spending £4. Now I'm happy to shove £30 into some greasy foriegners hand just so I can avoid the cold or hassle of public transport (post-pilling).