[Poll] Food, Inc. -- would you advocate reduced immigration if that meant higher quality food?

[WhipperSnapper]

Here's a repost of my response to the first Food, Inc. thread. I wanted to make a poll.

Is this a touchy-feely movie that merely condemns what most people would condemn without actually addressing some of the large underlying issues other than the easy target of corporate greed? Does it address how Malthusian forces and population explosion may be contributing to the problem? After all, when you have a nation of 300+ million hungry people, compromises are inevitable.

It's easy to condemn greedy businesses, but what about advocating for population stabilization, gradual population reduction, and an end to illegal immigration and legal immigration? I suspect that addressing some of the driving forces behind our nation's food quality problems would be very politically incorrect and that documentary filmmakers just don't have the cajones to do it.

Just to clarify the relationship between population and food quality, having a higher population means that less land is available for farming and herding and that the land is more expensive. So, instead of being able to have enough land so that chickens and can easily and affordably roam around, they end up in crowded pens. Also, the increased cost for land and resources gets passed right along to consumers, making it more difficult for them to be able to afford more expensive, more wholesome food. (Of course, since people also have to pay more money for real estate and other resources and goods as a result of population explosion, they also have less money for high quality food.)

So, I am left wondering, will people who are concerned about food quality come out in opposition to legal immigration and illegal immigration?

 

[MotF Bane]

I oppose illegal immigration because it's, well, illegal.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

There's no shortage of farm land out there. I see it every day. A lot of it is just sitting there because no one wants it for anything else and no one wants to farm it and compete with the big boys. This isn't an immigration or population issue, it's an ignorant and lazy consumer issue like a myriad of other things. Not that there aren't valid concerns with illegal immigration and how horribly this country handles it.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

To some extent, Malthusian Forces have to be having an impact on this. It makes sense that if the cost of land were lower that it would be less expensive to allow chickens and cattle to roam freely. It still might make the meat more expensive than concentrated animal farming, but it would be less expensive than it would be now and thus easier for people to afford. Also, like I mentioned, increased resource and land costs reduce the amount of money people have to spend on higher quality food.

 

[Jaskalas]

I oppose illiegal immigration due to quality of life. For both them and us.

 

[dphantom]

I don't oppose immigration. I do oppose illegal crossing of our borders. If you mean the former, no. If you mean the latter, yes.

 

[Robor]

Why oppose 'mass legal immigration'?

<== wife is a for'ner

Edit: What dphantom said.

 

[davestar]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Here's a repost of my response to the first Food, Inc. thread. I wanted to make a poll.

Is this a touchy-feely movie that merely condemns what most people would condemn without actually addressing some of the large underlying issues other than the easy target of corporate greed? Does it address how Malthusian forces and population explosion may be contributing to the problem? After all, when you have a nation of 300+ million hungry people, compromises are inevitable.

It's easy to condemn greedy businesses, but what about advocating for population stabilization, gradual population reduction, and an end to illegal immigration and legal immigration? I suspect that addressing some of the driving forces behind our nation's food quality problems would be very politically incorrect and that documentary filmmakers just don't have the cajones to do it.

Just to clarify the relationship between population and food quality, having a higher population means that less land is available for farming and herding and that the land is more expensive. So, instead of being able to have enough land so that chickens and can easily and affordably roam around, they end up in crowded pens. Also, the increased cost for land and resources gets passed right along to consumers, making it more difficult for them to be able to afford more expensive, more wholesome food. (Of course, since people also have to pay more money for real estate and other resources and goods as a result of population explosion, they also have less money for high quality food.)

So, I am left wondering, will people who are concerned about food quality come out in opposition to legal immigration and illegal immigration?

So you have no knowledge of the food system in America yet you immediately lay the majority of the blame for its shortcomings on immigration because it's "easy to condemn greedy businesses". Wow.

While I think that a policy of continual population growth is doomed for failure, I'd imagine we have completely different reasons for reaching that conclusion.

 

[DrPizza]

Our population in the US is no where near a level where it affects the quality of food available.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: davestarSo you have no knowledge of the food system in America yet you immediately lay the majority of the blame for its shortcomings on immigration because it's "easy to condemn greedy businesses". Wow.

I'm not laying the majority of the blame on it, but it has to be a contributing factor for the reasons I mentioned.

While I think that a policy of continual population growth is doomed for failure, I'd imagine we have completely different reasons for reaching that conclusion.

What is your reasoning?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Our population in the US is no where near a level where it affects the quality of food available.

Given the sort who pick our fruit these days, I wouldn't be saying our food hasn't been contaminated.

 

[JSt0rm]

I think we should kill, process, package and sell immigrants as delicious bit sized pizza products.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
I think we should kill, process, package and sell immigrants as delicious bit sized pizza products.

Would you call it Soylent Pizza?

 

[eits]

immigration is not an issue when it comes to making good, healthy, organic food

 

[coloumb]

Originally posted by: eits
immigration is not an issue when it comes to making good, healthy, organic food

But would that same good, healthy, organic food be healthy if it were picked by "dirty" illegal immigrants (Jaskalas said: "Given the sort who pick our fruit these days, I wouldn't be saying our food hasn't been contaminated")

I really think it has to do more with greed than anything else - if you can make more profit without having to spend money on expansion - then some farmers have no problem doing this [ie: stufffing 2x as many chickens in the same shed].

It all boils down to what you, as a consumer, can and are willing to spend on food. If more healthy [organic] food was on sale [and cheaper than mass produced crap] - people would buy the healthier food. However as it is - people buy the cheap mass produced crap because..well..it's usually cheaper than organic.

 

[Siddhartha]

Would I advocat reduced immigration if that meant I won the Powerball lottery?

Would I advocat reduced immigration if that meant I could be a NBA superstar?

Hell Yes!

 

[ahenkel]

Yea well mass produced food is cheap for a reason we keep buying it. If people demanded better quality food then the market would shift in that direction and you'd just have the same migrant workers picking your organic strawberries, and slaughtering your free range beef. Part of the problem though is access. I live in small town that still has 2 butchers where I can get locally raised meat, I have fresh eggs every morning. there are plenty of places to get fresh produce too. It's hard to do that in a lot of other places where the only access to groceries is the wal-mart super center. ( which I'm not bad mouthing I love 24 hour shopping centers I just don't buy meat or produce there)

 

[First]

There is no relationship between the two, except to the layman observer.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

To some extent, Malthusian Forces have to be having an impact on this. It makes sense that if the cost of land were lower that it would be less expensive to allow chickens and cattle to roam freely. It still might make the meat more expensive than concentrated animal farming, but it would be less expensive than it would be now and thus easier for people to afford. Also, like I mentioned, increased resource and land costs reduce the amount of money people have to spend on higher quality food.

No. The reason they don't roam freely is because it is easier and cheaper to raise them industrially.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

To some extent, Malthusian Forces have to be having an impact on this. It makes sense that if the cost of land were lower that it would be less expensive to allow chickens and cattle to roam freely. It still might make the meat more expensive than concentrated animal farming, but it would be less expensive than it would be now and thus easier for people to afford. Also, like I mentioned, increased resource and land costs reduce the amount of money people have to spend on higher quality food.

No. The reason they don't roam freely is because it is easier and cheaper to raise them industrially.

But for those people who did want to eat the ones who were allowed to roam freely, might it be less expensive if the land for roaming were less expensive?