logoalt Hacker News

chromacitytoday at 5:46 AM3 repliesview on HN

Why? If you have the money, the equipment, and the climate, what's stopping you from shifting agricultural production from one good to another on any scale you like? It's often as simple as the government saying "you know what, from now on, we're subsidizing beans instead of corn".

Barring some planetary-scale cataclysm, most of Europe and the US are at no real risk of starving. There are other countries that are at a real risk, but the map doesn't make a clear distinction between "red as a matter of convenience" and "red because they physically can't do it".


Replies

watwuttoday at 10:20 AM

> If you have the money, the equipment, and the climate, what's stopping you from shifting agricultural production from one good to another on any scale you like?

Then we will lack whatever was produced on the place where you those new ponds with huge amount of fish.

Nasrudithtoday at 8:53 AM

There is a difference between 'can produce the food with the climate' and 'should produce the food with the climate'. Comparative advantage crops up yet. Iceland can grow bananas by magma but they are grown slower and have more expensive labor than tropical banana growing countries.

actionfromafartoday at 8:09 AM

What's stopping us from shifting agricultural production, is probably the same that's stopping us from fixing climate change.