Some fairly complex issues there.
Of course weighing costs and benefits perfectly is impossible. We do it as well as we can with available information. How else can we make decisions?
I'm afraid you misunderstood me on the Asian farmers - modern agricultural technology won't cause them to farm limited plots of land, they already farm limited plots. Modern agriculture can help them to produce more on those limited plots.
Suppose that agriculture is controlled by 3 major companies, (This is not a far fetched idea, because most of the beef production is today is controlled by 4). Such total control is totalitarianism.
That's really not likely if we can maintain anything resembling a free market economy. Food production is too broad a range for single companies to dominate efficiently, there will always be new entries breaking off pieces and handling them more efficiently.
Even farmers who insist on doing it the old way will have the option of selling to the wealthy folks who are willing to pay the premium for the possibly greater safety and undoubtedly better taste of old-style produce. They will, of course, have to compete for that market. If people want to pay that premium, fine, but it's a bit churlish to try to force people to pay it.
But then in the last two sentences you pull back and still say that the price is worth paying.
If you want unqualified opinions, you've got the wrong guy.
Should we put an absolute ban on all logging of the California Redwoods? It seems that if one wants to save the Redwoods one cannot compromise on this issue as the time scale is such that cutting a 300 year old tree is irreversible for all intents and purposes.
It's not a situation I know enough about to have a firm opinion, but tentatively I would suggest protecting the largest and most contiguous tracts as National Forest, and allowing selective logging on private land. But if it was my decision to make, I would want to consult with people who know a lot more about forest management than I do before deciding anything. |
