2,956
edits
Archive:000/Crop choices: Difference between revisions
New template naming (talk page links are now {{tp}} and {{tp2}})
(New template naming (talk page links are now {{tp}} and {{tp2}})) |
|||
| Line 131: | Line 131: | ||
* Interpretation 2: Sugarcane etc. gets higher yields but only because corporations invest more money & [[fertilizer]] into growing it. First-world countries want sugar, and their spending power makes it happen (highly-valued currency). The same economics doesn't care about Africa's grains, because grains can be grown "at home" in rich countries. Perhaps if African grain farmers had more access to resources{{x|fertilizer? something else? depends on the specific case; this would be a whole topic in itself}}, grains would yield just as many calories as sugarcane. | * Interpretation 2: Sugarcane etc. gets higher yields but only because corporations invest more money & [[fertilizer]] into growing it. First-world countries want sugar, and their spending power makes it happen (highly-valued currency). The same economics doesn't care about Africa's grains, because grains can be grown "at home" in rich countries. Perhaps if African grain farmers had more access to resources{{x|fertilizer? something else? depends on the specific case; this would be a whole topic in itself}}, grains would yield just as many calories as sugarcane. | ||
* Interpretation 3: None of this really matters, because the whole crop-choices scenario is too hypothetical, and involves unrealistic dietary choices. | * Interpretation 3: None of this really matters, because the whole crop-choices scenario is too hypothetical, and involves unrealistic dietary choices. | ||
These interpretations are opposed to each other. The current dataset can't tell us which one (if any) is true. If you have some insight, join the {{ | These interpretations are opposed to each other. The current dataset can't tell us which one (if any) is true. If you have some insight, join the {{tp2}}. | ||