Grit dog wrote:
JRscooby wrote:
propchef wrote:
Yours as well.
Yes, there are two sides. You should check it out.
One problem is most discussions are limited to 2 sides, which totally blocks out some solutions that could "save the planet"
In how much of the world does the average meal travel thousands of miles between field and table?
And where else in world does most of workforce spend hour a day by themselves in a car going to/from work?
Good points!
And it’s amazing to think how many “things” or processes could be changed to be entirely more efficient from a “travel” standpoint. None of which rely on finding a “better” means of propulsion but moreso a more efficient means of production.
Nice thought, but until I can grow enough lettuce (the edible kind not the folding kind) in WA efficiently enough to compete with the folks growing it in Arizona. Or the US ranchers somehow become more efficient than those supplying McDonalds beef from Brazil or wherever the story said, generally the most “efficient” path has been carved.
And what “if” one only at local foods and didn’t commute? That sounds all warm n fuzzy and saving the planet type stuff.
What if 50% of people did that and reduced the need for air travel and cars and fast food restaurants? Well that’s a lot of industry that just went belly up and quit supporting a significant chunk of the population, financially. The employees.
Apply the same theory to a bunch of other stuff as well until one is literally surviving off of what is available locally.
Then you need less roads and infrastructure so Scooby couldn’t have earned a living delivering dirt and gravel.
And pretty soon, we’re all sitting around a campfire in animal skins waiting for something to run by to spear for dinner!
I will confess in my lifetime I have made money transporting things with questionable utility. Mid 70s, load swinging beef Ks, Co, or Iowa, to the east coast, wash out, load swinging beef (from Argentine at that time) back to Kansas for Mcdees. But Bell, last year I worked, loaded a load of dirt at a excavation site north Phoenix, delivered to parks department to a town in Texas. (Midland? Odessa? They wanted it to spread on little league infield. Packed, with little slope, rain won't soak in. Game can start as soon as stops)
As for growing food. If we, as a society would work on expanding the technology a lot of food could be grown inside. (Year round employment for many people) I don't know if the canine has yapped about it, but food production in much of the country (Fruits, nuts and veggies in southwest, wheat in Ks. And people are mad regulators reduce chances of dumping oil into water we have left) is at risk from climate change.