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.
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.