Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's wild that you got downvoted for this reasonable take.

Right next door, Ireland had a little problem with potatoes and a massive famine resulted from it. Had the island had a more diverse mix of crops, things probably would've been a little less severe.

There are currently pests and infections spreading around the world and destroying crops. Bananas are undergoing a repeat of their last global crop failure and isolated pockets of uninfected bananas are becoming more valuable. Natural rubber had a disease that wiped out most rubber trees. It's not impossible for wheat in Europe to be hit with a plague in the near future and absolutely wipe out crops and food sources for hundreds of millions. There's war in Eastern Europe that risks spreading, and if it does, embargoes are possible. Investing now in alternative local food sources is simply smart.

Profit now isn't everything. The problem that's gutting the west now is how countries shipped off every industry to other cheaper countries because it was "more profitable and nothing bad will happen." Now the youth are left with less than their parents had.

Plus the article addresses this being done as a climate change-proofing measure. With the UK getting hotter, rice grows better and better. Other crops may not.



> Right next door, Ireland had a little problem with potatoes

Common misconception: Ireland actually had a little problem with the British. Even during the most intense parts of the famine Ireland was still exporting food. The British absentee landowners simply did not care that their peasants were starving. The ruling party wanted to let the "free market" solve it, with some politicians considering it "divine providence" or a "lack of moral character". This was made even worse by refusing aid to small landowners, which killed sustenance farming.

People often forget that it was a European famine, rather than an Irish one. The Irish potato yield was reduced by 30%, while the potato yield in Denmark was reduced by 50%, The Netherlands by 71%, and Belgium by 87%! Tens of thousands died in those countries, but it is only Ireland where the population was reduced from 8 million to 4 million.

Monoculture (as decided upon by the absentee British landlords) was indeed the direct cause, but it only got as bad as it did because the British elite chose to let them die. Had they imported alternative crops to feed their peasants, or even just stopped potato export, it would've been far less severe.


Yes, the fact Britain was brutal to the Irish is no secret.

But had Ireland not had a monoculture that all rotted away, things would've been less severe. And what you've said only further proves the point I was making: you should grow other crops so that you're not dependent on imports. Britain wouldn't let the Irish import food. It's not impossible for a situation to arise where a country doesn't let Britain import food. Growing alternative grains is the British looking at their own brutal history and learning from it.


> But had Ireland not had a monoculture that all rotted away, things would've been less severe.

Ireland didn't have a monoculture. It exported other crops and meat throughout the famine and required calories never exceeded food production on the island.

The only monoculture was on tenant farmer's personal gardens, which were monocultures by necessity.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: