Your 2nd point is complete nonsense. Something can be stable, inefficient and wasteful all at the same time.
Just because YOU think 'progress' is making something more efficient & less wasteful at the cost of stability does not make it fact. I, and probably many other people, would consider it a foolish approach. Progress, to me, would be making the food industry less fragile (i.e. more stable).
> Progress, to me, would be making the food industry less fragile (i.e. more stable).
How much so? FOr all the talk of techno-utopian ideals amongst the HN crowds, it isn't until you reach the 'I'm burned out, so I'm going farming' phase of a tech worker (I did rather early at 26) that most here will take any level of consideration in making any effort towards that end.
For most, it seems like a contrarian past time to argue the merits of conventional vs organic food becase: 'carbon is carbon.' Not realizing the underlying aspect of most of the local and organic movement is to strengthen the food supply that had been vastly consolidated by the pharmaceutical corporations in the late 70s who filled your plate with pesticide-laden franken-food shipped from all over the World and made us more food insecure (in non=processed junk) and diseased than ever in the US history.
In short, simply going to the farmers market once in a blue moon to have a story to tell here isn't living up to your rhetoric, and it seems that salary/TC alone isn't enough to compel some of the most well paid workers in the US to opt for making the food supply less fragile at all.
Just because YOU think 'progress' is making something more efficient & less wasteful at the cost of stability does not make it fact. I, and probably many other people, would consider it a foolish approach. Progress, to me, would be making the food industry less fragile (i.e. more stable).