This stuff scares me. The NYT is running an article about how China is destroying the Yellow River, and is slowly but surely running out of freshwater supplies, as I believe we are as well. Climate change is aggravating this significantly as well.
I think we are stuck in a quandary. Capitalism has improved the lives of millions, if not billions of people, as every aspect of our lives is now cheaper and more efficiently produced. The problem is that capitalism is not perfect, and in a vacuum requires certain conditions which cannot be met, the largest being perfect distribution and flow of information. And our inability to criticize capitalism and acknowledge its shortcomings makes it even more difficult to solve what is rapidly becoming a resource depletion problem and inability to recognize market failures.
Cheap protein is generally a good thing. Cheap protein produced through cutting serious corners in safety and quality, with active obfuscation of this fact, is a public menace. Do people want cheap meat if it means e.coli and salmonella outbreaks that are extremely impossible to trace and do measurable damage to your health? Do we want our meat to be cheap if it means employing illegal immigrants who routinely get injured and killed on the job? I don’t know. What I do know is that meat producers aren’t taking any chances and letting you make that explicit choice. And I think this is part of the problem.
You combine this with market externalities that visited upon consumers by a whole host of producers using unsustainable methods, resulting in both resource depletion and potentially catastrophic environmental damage, and you have a deadly serious policy problem which very few have had the stomach to even acknowledge, much less propose solutions for. And this is certainly even more likely under administrations whose ideology demands that they protect the status quo and the strong.
Or one could fall into the school of thought of the objectivists, or what I like to call, the “let them eat cake” political ideology. They suggest that man and technology can overcome any obstacle. What they fail to mention is that this comes at great cost and as a result subdivides societies into groups who have and those who have not, at least when it comes to particular issues. For instance, why should I worry about global climate change, because man will come up with better air conditioners, high priced water, power, food, and security? What they fail to mention is that not everybody will be able to afford these things, and it will almost certainly be a smaller and more select group than had these privileges before. But distributional and equity issues are beyond the scope of the mighty objectivist.
Sorry for the rant. Just using this as a jumping off point for something I’ve been thinking about.
On the other hand, we could all just eat In-n-Out.