A fellow blogger Janina commented on it. I am reproducing his words here.
This is a great argument against the technology-driven, big-ag “food security” approach which focuses on the “need to feed the world” through more and flashier technological inventions. It addresses what I have been thinking about a lot lately: “Technology, we’re promised, is fast and easy. Which is good because, as it happens, we also don’t want to change the way we eat. We want a sacrifice-free, everything-the-same-but-more-of-it future. And that’s not really a future we can have.”What do you think of that argument?
Related articles
- Well Fed (designfutured.wordpress.com)
- USAID Collaborates with Syngenta to Improve Global Food Security (isaaa.org)
- Global Food Security Symposium (jugraphia.wordpress.com)
- Obama Seeks to Advance African Agenda With Food Security Plan – Bloomberg (bloomberg.com)
- Mekong Dams Could Be Threat to Cambodia’s Food Security (cambodiadaily.com)
Despite what Monsanto and a surprising number of science writers want you to think, GMOs aren’t the only high-tech game in town when it comes to food and agriculture. In fact, there are groups out there that are marrying technology and food that aren’t about inserting bacterial genes into plants and animals.
One such group, the New York City-based company Food + Tech Connect, held its second annual Hack/Meat brainstorming/tinkering session last weekend. The event was designed to “develop technologies that help bridge the divide between pasture and plate.”
About 250 techy types, investors, meat producers, and farmers gathered on the Stanford University campus for a weekend of coding and design. Organizers presented the attendees with a series of challenges, and a panel of judges selected winners who shared cash and in-kind prizes valued at $125,000.
The winner was an intriguing concept called Farmstacker, which the developers describe as…
View original post 1,019 more words
