Thread.
Today's Suggestion for Clear Food Systems Thinking: HOW TO FEED THE WORLD WITH THE LEAST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EDITION
#fafdlstorm
Today's Suggestion for Clear Food Systems Thinking: HOW TO FEED THE WORLD WITH THE LEAST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EDITION
#fafdlstorm
1. In trying to answer the question of How to feed 7-11 billion people with the lowest impact on the environment? there are lots of sub-questions that need to be answered, but I think the two biggest are ....
2.
A. What production systems are most environmentally efficient, while being profitable, in meeting CURRENT demand? That is, the mix and profile of food people currently eat.
A. What production systems are most environmentally efficient, while being profitable, in meeting CURRENT demand? That is, the mix and profile of food people currently eat.
3.
B. What is the mix and profile of food choices that would be the most environmentally efficient given the current production practices and systems?
B. What is the mix and profile of food choices that would be the most environmentally efficient given the current production practices and systems?
4. Here's my suggestion. Get the answers – as best you can – to those to questions and internalize them BEFORE you start trying to synthesize them into a response the Big Picture™ question.
5. Here's why. You want to minimize motivated reasoning and confirmation bias. That's easier with discrete questions.
6. Not getting the two separate (sets) of answers first leads to two common problems. The first is that without those two questions answered clearly, people just start rationalizing whatever systems and food choices suit their political and cultural priors and intuitions.
7. Second, is that in discussions – what I see a lot with people various stripes of food politics – is that when you don't like the answer to a question, you change the subject to a question from the other bucket.
8. So, if the fact that X substantially lowered impacts in corn and soy production rubs someone the wrong way, the immediately pivot to the question of whether we should be producing so much corn and soy* rather than grasping the nettle before moving on.
9
* that is, if they don't try to play the "Externalities" Get of Jail Free Card.
* that is, if they don't try to play the "Externalities" Get of Jail Free Card.
10 OR another example. If the evidence shows a more plant-based diet would reduce impact rubs someone the wrong way, instead of grasping that nettle (or eating that bowl of Stinging Nettle Soup) they immediately pivot to improvement in meat production that have lowered impacts.
11 The result is muddled thinking. The most egregious, high profile recent example was that paper that asked "Can We Feed the World with Organic Farming?". When the answer came back, "NO, we can't because the land footprint of organic farming is too big."
12 They reasoned that if we shifted our consumption profile to a more environmentally efficient, more plant-based diet and made substantial progress on reducing food waste ...
13 ...then we would be able to accommodate the bigger environmental footprint of organic farming. Which had a lot of people scratching their heads, asking ...
14 Why would you spend the gains from shifting diet and reducing waste on accommodating environmentally inefficient farming when we could spend those gains on rewilding?
15 Don't make that mistake. Get the answers to the big discrete questions first. Kick the tires. Confirm your answers. Internalize them, especially if they seemed counter-intuitive or politically and/or culturally distasteful....
16 THEN go ahead and synthesize, think holistically to your heart's content, save the world.
~ fin ~
