Great Editorial Cartoon...

[shultice24]

You want less food available that costs more. Got it.

Do you have any idea how destructive and completely unsustainable industrialized agriculture is? My guess is no, given that clever remark.

You want an eventual collapse and famine that takes the lives of billions. Got it.

[cptacek]

dude. I'm a farmer. What is your experience with "industrialized agriculture"?

[shultice24]

dude. I'm a farmer. What is your experience with "industrialized agriculture"?

Maybe that's why you're biased to the status quo? Just wondering.

My experience is limited, but I've taken the time to study the issue.

[shultice24]

CPTACEK,

Before this spirals into worthless cheap shots on both sides, I'd like to ask, in all seriousness; what is your opinion on negative externalities?

How is it remotely right that the price we pay for everything from gasoline to grocery store beef does not reflect the true costs imposed on society?

[cptacek]

ok, truce. This has been a good discussion. Let's keep it going.

I guess I would have to know what specific negative externalities you want to talk about. A fish in California that took over a water canal system that was built specifically for use by farmers may die off? I really don't care. Let them die. Smog in cities? Take care of it. It is a local problem, it should have a local solution (even a statewide solution). But smog in Los Angeles shouldn't make me (in Kansas) pay a penalty...I'm not contributing to it. And ESPECIALLY smog in China shouldn't effect me. If an oil company drills and spills some oil, they should have to clean it up, but they shouldn't be banned from drilling in the first place (maybe that company should have more inspections until they show it wasn't a systemic problem, though). Wolves are threatening caribou and polar bears (or calves, deer and antelope)? Shoot the wolves.

What if it is found that because women are taking the pill and their waste water goes down the river to the next town, that cleans it and uses it for drinking, and they found massive quantities of estrogen in that water? Would you be for or against banning the pill?

I just want to fight against the idea that all of our awesome technology is bad...and we have some really awesome technology that people 100 years ago would drool over. It seems to me that if we get to the far edge of "environmentalism" those people want us back living in mud huts gathering nuts and berries.

Are you for nuclear energy? Why or why not? What do you think would happen if farmers were told they could only put a certain amount of fertilizer on their ground? Would that or would that not contribute to less food? What other country extracts and uses natural resources better than us?

I've asked you a bunch of questions in previous posts you haven't answered, and I would like to hear what you have to say about some of those old questions.

[shultice24]

1.) I agree with that local-externality thing. If someone directly contribute to significant social costs, they should be paying for it (ex: a factory in Shanghai with no emissions controls whatsoever). They should be the one burdened with the cost to clean up their act, not us in the American midwest. But there is so much resistance against this; nobody wants to assume that responsibility because it makes them uncompetitive against others who have no qualms about the side effects of their cost-cutting measures.

A good example of this in an article I read in the Des Moines register not long ago about the 'dead zone' in the gulf, a huge area of ocean where there is basically no life because of the mass amounts of fertilizer and pesticides that are present in the Miss. River. It seems obvious that this is a problem that should be attributed to farming in places like Iowa, yet the farm associations here were doing all they could to oppose measures to address the situation. I don't exactly remember what their argument was, but it was a poor one that basically tried denying responsibility. Am I suggesting that we eliminate the use of these chemicals overnight? No, but if measures can be taken to at least somewhat mitigate the problem, people here should be willing to make at least a small sacrifice to address the harm they've helped create.

I know that there are externalities involved with almost any type of economic activity whatsoever. That's inevitable, and it'd be futile to try and tackle them all (and some, like your bc pill example, would make for some tough decisions). But we should do more to force the issue on the biggest and most blatantly harmful, and do so to those who are directly responsible.

2.) What I'm also wondering, is how responsible should consumers be for these costs? If I routinely buy products from a Chinese company that is a horrible contributor to local pollution, should I be held responsible for condoning their behavior? Should I be expected to be an informed consumer and support companies with higher morals? Should I be freely allowed to buy products from this Chinese company, but have to pay a premium specifically in place to cover my support of their business and the harm that it creates? I guess the costs imposed on firms to clean up their acts would ultimately get passed on as higher prices, so maybe the market would do the trick if producers had to account for these previously ignored costs? In that case, we would go to the store and find that products that have long been produced in a responsible way are no longer the most expensive.

Note- Don't feel that all those questions were aimed specifically at you. I included them because I feel they're ones we as a society should address.

3.) Nuclear power- Let's do it! I have no objections.

4.) I agree that technology should not be shunned. I don't want to sound like someone who thinks we need to eliminate fossil fuels, fertilizers, etc today. I also feel that'd just be stupid. But we need to slowly but surely transition into a society that is not so dependent upon them. Domestic is certainly better than imported, and we should utilize these sources, but with the realization that it's not a permanent solution.

We may have enough fossil fuels to last through our lifetime, but our kids and grandkids might not. Future generations don't deserve to be handed an economy that is heavily dependent upon fossil fuels, but with a world supply that is severely strained.

That's all I have time for right now. Sorry if it's a little lengthy, and thanks for your reply!