this post was submitted on 13 May 2024
1739 points (99.2% liked)

Microblog Memes

5801 readers
2959 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Donkter@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I think you're abstracting too much to try and make your point. What on earth does "efficiency of human health per natural resources" mean in comparison to "efficiency in produce per monetary cost". I think youre just lost in a little too much sauce when trying to justify your view.

[โ€“] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

I mean, say you have a certain amount of natural resources (land, chemicals, organisms) and you want to maximise health; or you have a certain standard of health and want to minimise resources used.

To put it another way, I think if across the whole of society we had more small-scale gardening that would be a benefit to human health and the environment compared to exclusively using large scale farming.

Conversely, if the goal is maximum financial profit, or absolute quantity of produce, it is more 'efficient' - i.e. more quantity of your goal for less quantity of your cost - to do large scale farming.