Food ethics: From ought to action
A time-boxed (4 hours in total) writing experiment exploring the ways in which our values and principles might help shape a more equitable and sustainable food system.
Cue the crickets. This isn’t an ‘alternative protein’ reference, but rather a recognition that the topic I’m writing about here is confrontational, deeply cultural, highly personal (in many ways, depending on many factors) and most certainly something that creates divisions of ‘us versus them’.
My intention here isn’t to provide a systematic analysis of the scholarship on this broad set of interconnected and interdependent issues. I would, however, like to create an opening for consideration and practical action that relates to the purpose, values and principles upon which a future food system might be ‘designed’. I’d like to do this in a way that thoughtfully respects socio-economic, cultural and geographical considerations. And, through the conversation that follows, I’d like to further erode my ignorance and learn as part of the process.
I’ll do this sequentially by:
Defining key terms / concepts / initiatives (skip this if you want to get to the gist)
Briefly covering a (non-exhaustive) landscape of relevant topics in the hope that it establishing some baseline context (i.e. what’s the problem and opportunity space)
Defining a purpose for the food system, along with values and principles that might guide ethical decision-making as it relates (mostly) to food system policy (but there is an argument to suggest that some of the values and principles could inform everyday citizen action and a bunch of stuff in between)
Framing some big ‘applied questions’. Consider these ethical provocations (i.e. should people be vegan, should people eat local, is it right to use biotechnology to create food in new ways, can what we seemingly need to do to transform the food system co-exist with capitalism or is something else required? etc.) that can help frame thought experiments using the values and principles I highlight
I won’t be:
Making binary normative claims (i.e. defining actions or outcomes as good, desirable, or permissible, and others as bad, undesirable, or impermissible. The idea is more that we use ethics as an active process to establish a reflective equilibrium where different moral frameworks, value tensions etc. can help inform the decisions we make and actions we commit to. This isn’t about comparing one normative theory against another and I operate here in a recognition of the spectrum of ‘goodness’ and ‘rightness’)
Sharing any specific metaethical position (i.e realism versus relativism for instance) that locks us into a specific direction
Referencing like crazy (I’m writing this entire post off the top of my head, which means it comes with even more caveats than usual. It’s a conversation starter folks, so please treat it that way. And if you’re wondering why I’m taking this approach, it mostly comes down to opportunity cost. My experience enables me to write about these issues as they enter my ‘stream of consciousness’. Does that make this useless? Might this approach limit the utility of what I write? I’ll let you decide)
All I ask of you, if you make the investment decision to read this, is that you explore openly and engage compassionately. We’re all in this thing together. Let’s not forget it.
Key terms / concepts / initiatives of relevance
An unofficial unit of geologic time, used to describe the most recent period in Earth’s history when human activity started to have a significant impact on the planet’s climate and ecosystems.
Ethics
Ethics can be thought of as the deliberative process we execute in a given situation to stress test our first-order beliefs (our moral values and principles) about what is good and right, in our attempt to make informed decisions about possible actions that are most likely to be:
Net beneficial (utilitarian approach)
Respecting of people’s rights and freedoms (rights approach)
Equity enhancing (justice approach)
In service of the common good (common good approach), and
Leading us to act as the sort of person we would most like to be (virtue approach)
The above are moral theories that heavily feature in Western approaches to ethics. It is worth noting that Ubuntu Ethics, Confucian Ethics, relational ethics, ethics informed by the philosophy of deep ecology, ethics of care and ethics deriving from different indigenous wisdom systems are being more actively considered in different applied areas.
With the above out of the way, when I refer to ‘ethics’ in this article, I refer to the active decision-making process in which an individual or group explores the available options in a given situation in an attempt to align the choice and its likely consequences to their purpose, values and principles (more on this below).
*Note that the words ‘morals’ and ‘ethics’ are at times used interchangeably. Some argue moral philosophy is equal to ethics, others argue they are related yet distinct. This isn’t particularly helpful for us today. Let’s skip over this for now.
Loosely a reflective equilibrium is the end-point of a deliberative process in which we reflect on and revise our beliefs about an area of inquiry, moral or non-moral. Specifically I’d refer you to the Principles for Good Tech work and the diagram below that explores how different ethical theories can be used to ground, balance and enable our decision-making. The idea here is really about using different moral / ethical theories in combination, rather than orienting our entire decision-making process to one or / over the other.
Normative
The phenomenon in human societies of designating some actions or outcomes as good, desirable, or permissible, and others as bad, undesirable, or impermissible.
This word is, of course, used in other, albeit related ways.
The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES), the science and economics research division of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.
Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs)
Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), also known as chronic diseases, tend to be of long duration and are the result of a combination of genetic, physiological, environmental and behavioural factors.
A situation in which multiple global systems become causally entangled in ways that significantly degrade humanity’s prospects. These interacting crises produce harms greater than the sum of those the crises would produce in isolation, were their host systems not so deeply interconnected.
Basically it’s shit hitting the fan. You’re welcome for the ELI5 explanation.
A model that defines the safe operating space for humanity with respect to the Earth’s life giving systems.
Scientific targets for a healthy and sustainable global dietary pattern (including the ‘food system’ that enables this).
A common framework to understand, measure and monitor the state of farming systems globally.
A guide for the widespread uptake of sustainable farming systems and markets based on the principles of organic agriculture.
A planned reduction of energy and resource use designed to bring the economy back into balance with the living world in a way that reduces inequality and improves human well-being.
The landscape (an ‘off the top of my head’ representation)
As of right now, depending on your statistical interpretation, lived experience, socioeconomic status, upbringing, culture, and / or ethical framework, society is either in a peak or trough (perhaps it’s a constant fluctuation…).
Many ‘data points’ suggest that more people than ever before have access to the basic necessities that provide the foundation for a life well lived. But it seems likely that the actual picture for anyone paying attention is soooooooooo much more complex (Our World in Data has some great visualisations for this type of stuff. Just note it’s of course one of many sources). At the same time, there’s rampant inequality, inequity and a polycrisis that many argue is existential.
I’m not taking a side here, but one has to recognise the grand canyon of variance.
Let me ground the rest of this section by bringing this high level summation closer to home (for me, meaning Australia). This of course does not perfectly map to every point of view, but should be ‘good enough’ for the purposes of this post.
ABARES just announced farm gate value hit 90bn Australian dollars. Australia exports approximately 71% of the food we produce. At the same time, Australia is a nation that, statistically speaking, is home to many people who are overweight or obese. I realise this is controversial to discuss, and I want to be VERY CLEAR that I am not placing a value judgment on any individual that may be in this category. Regardless of the sensitivity, this likely means we are producing more food that we can productively and healthily use.
We also waste a lot (globally). This is one of those, “all models are wrong, some are useful” times. So depending on the data source, we ‘waste’ between 30% and 50% of the food we produce (some industries, geographies and supply chains are better / worse than others. Anything food system related has variance). This occurs all throughout supply and value chains, starting within the farm gate (different incentive structures and market dynamics impact this) and going all the way to my fridge and beyond (buying too much, not using effectively, not using ‘all’ of the food, not composting etc. etc.).
We have a proliferation of ultra processed foods. Although it’d be a gross oversimplification to suggest that all food processing is bad (some is necessary, nutrient enhancing etc. depending on the context and scope of the intervention), ultra-processed foods are typically associated with NCDs and other health issues (the early / emergent evidence on ‘plant-based meats’ does call some of this into question because they are technically ultra processed foods. The early evidence we have here suggests that, at least in an interventional setting over a number of weeks, these foods may be equal to or even offer benefits above and beyond some of their traditional counterparts. This is measured through various biomarkers. A great overview of this can be found here).
We have huge issues with soil quality. Nutrient density has been measurably declining in both plant and animal foods for decades.
We have fairly limited diversity in global food systems. Most of our calories come from a small number of plant and animal species.
We often grow crops and raise animals in physical contexts that are poorly suited to biodiversity and the typical cycles of growth > degeneration > regeneration (or however you want to frame that complex biological process).
Certain ‘production systems’ have also been consistently called out for very poor animal welfare practices. This differs by country and many other contextual factors. But, in any moral / ethical discussion we’d be doing a significant disservice if we didn’t call out the quality (or lack thereof) of life many animals experience due to industrial farming practices.
At least in this country, and it seems globally, there are rising food costs that are threatening millions upon millions of families.
We have hundreds of millions that, irrespective of rising food costs, don’t really know where their next meal might come from. Money ain’t exactly equitably distributed. And, we have in very many cases had what is effectively wage stagnation for decades.
Due to the current impacts of climate change, combined with other factors, farmer’s are also doing it tough. They’re often squeezed for margins and experience many other hardships.
All of this, including every intersubjective human system (politics, many aspects of ‘the economy’ etc.), exists within the biosphere and has physical limits.
Now, at the same time this is happening, there is genuinely a proliferation of AgTech and related innovation that holds promise. But it’s not always ‘tech to the rescue’ (there’s a real risk of positivity bias, techno optimism, nihilistic design, technological instrumentalism etc.). We’re seeing movements towards regeneration, community resiliency and all manner of seemingly positive things (cooperative movements like Regen Farmer’s Mutual that bring together low tech and high tech solutions to create better outcomes for farmers, entire supply chains, citizens, animals and broader ecosystems).
This is but the highest of high level pictures of where we are at.
In short, we face myriad challenges. They are interconnected and interdependent. And, many of the world’s leading experts on each of these topics suggest that, taken together, they threaten the opportunity we have to flourish as a species within the biosphere of this planet.
What to do?
This is a huge question that I cannot answer myself. Nor can it be answered simply (an important note, simple and clear are often conflated, as are complex and complicated. What we are discussing is inherently complex, but that doesn’t mean we can’t operate with clarity as we seek to make our future one that’s truly worth living in the most holistic of senses). The good news is millions of people around the world are working on it. So instead of offering ‘an answer’, I’d like to cover a few simple ideas that draw on the purpose, values and principles framework The Ethics Centre published in 2018 targeted at ‘good tech’.
My hope is that, for those choosing to read this, the approach I explore might help you navigate this complexity in a way that really works for you. It may help surface an actionable clarity that you can carry forward.
This should mostly be considered from the level of system interventions that tackle material throughput (folks doing policy, building companies etc.), but may also be relevant at the level of our everyday consumption and contribution (it’s important, I’ll argue, that those two c’s go together. Being a citizen is an active process).
Here’s an image that offers up the basic gist of what The Ethics Centre defines as an ‘Ethics Framework’ (much of the work I’ve done on ethics frameworks centres around how to bring ethics into everyday organisational workflows, product design, development and marketing practices etc. So the definitional scope of ‘ethics framework’ typically requires clarification / specificity. I’m going to leave this for now). I’m going to draw from this structure in an attempt to describe how it might be used in the context of what we value and what we should do - because we believe it to be right - to help transform the food system in ways that meet our present and emerging needs.
Purpose
*To grow and equitably distribute nutrient dense, geographically appropriate and culturally relevant food within the physical constraints of the biosphere.
Off the top of my head, like the rest of this content, this feels like a purpose statement for our global food system that I could support (not without debate, further refinement etc. of course).
What do you think?
*I know that some folks, depending on their ‘leaning’, will take offense to this. I mean, doesn’t the food system exist within our political and economic systems? Therefore doesn’t it fall within the bounds of our interpretations of capitalism?
There are many questions that could be asked in an attempt to better understand the intent behind the sentence I’ve written. If you’d like to get into it, start a discussion.
It’s also worth noting that my purpose statement is largely functional. This is deliberate, but it isn’t without consideration for the joy of growing, harvesting, preparing, cooking and eating together in communal settings. This should not be discounted. And features prominently in the values section. After all, htese can be amongst the most meaningful and mindful experiences we have.
Values (not rank or priority ordered. No even alphabetical. Yup, off the top of my head folks!)
Nutrient density: The bioavailability / absorbability of key vitamins and minerals, as measured (ideally) in human studies.
Individual variability will always play a role here. That’s why we look, ideally, at large populations, various different methods, replication, the magnitude of effects etc. and see how this plays out in terms of the standard / normal distribution.
Proximity (growth - consumption): The distance between where food is grown and eaten, also considering total food miles (hopefully in an attempt to discourage crazy practices that see food shipped all around the world due to strange economic structures).
Wellbeing promoting: By this I mean that the best available balance of evidence, considering observational data, interventional data and basic science, suggest that consumption of a given food seems to positively impact (primarily, but not limited to) biological health. But this should really be considered from a biopsychosocial view, which means we consider myriad determinants of wellbeing across psychological and social factors. Taking the systems view with pretty much everything is something I’d strongly advocate.
Cultural appropriateness: The idea here is that the food system and how a given culture interacts with it deliberately respects the nuance of how the culture in question has developed historically, the stories it tells, the social contexts it values etc.
Diversity: In simple terms, cultivating an incredibly rich and diverse assortment of edible wonders. But this also translates to diverse inputs and contributions in terms of who is involved, how they get involved, the ideas we explore and bring to life etc. I do mean this in a very broad sense.
Resiliency: The capacity that the entire food system has to weather storms (shitty pun, I know) and consistently deliver on its purpose.
Regeneration: Food system practices that ‘net positively’ contribute to society in various ways, including in relation to planetary boundaries (where possible).
Agency: Respecting people’s fundamental rights and freedom, self determination, dignity etc. which relates to all actors within the food system.
Affordability: Really? This is covered by one of the provocations focusing on a Universal Food Allowance. Check it out.
Accessibility: Quality food aligned to many of the values (and many that I haven’t described) in this post that people can access without horrifically impacting other aspects of their life (i.e traveling for hours and hours and hours).
Joy: Have fun, laugh, savour every bite where possible. Let’s design the food system to make these outcomes far more common.
Connection: So much could be said here. But I really think we are talking about connection in a fairly deep emotional sense. Imagine a world where the food system encouraged this connection to other living things - plants, fungi and animals - such that we ‘felt something’ when we grow and harvest, and / or when we purchase and consume? This requires unpacking, so let’s just sit with that for now and explore together.
Compassion: Let’s start from the basis that every is connected and interdependent. We should value everything within the biosphere. And if we value it, we should act out of a fundamental compassion for it.
In an actual ethics framework (i.e one that I or someone else formally designs through a deliberate process that includes meaningful engagement with those a given ethical framework might impact), this is likely too many principles. Too much info at this level is a risk to the frameworks’ effectiveness. Given how working memory seems to operate, it’d likely be advantageous to focus on 3 - 5 truly memorable values. The same can be said for principles as they are the primary reference point (in many ways) when considering the actions we ‘ought’ to take.
In my opinion, this might be one of many reasons that Principlism - respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence and justice - is becoming popular, even outside of the bioethics space where it has traditionally featured (AI Ethics is a space where these principles are quite prominent).
Please also note that values can exist in tension and may have to be ‘traded off’ against one another in some type of moral /ethical calculus. For instance, a specific type of slaughtering process may be culturally appropriate, yet also be far objectively worse for the living being in question (this is hard to subjectively interpret as an observer without science. This is one of myriad reasons why our ethical decision making frameworks need to interact with and be informed by our scientific institutions). In this case, the values of culture appropriateness and compassion may come into direct conflict. I make no claims as to how you or anyone else ought to deal with such a tension (if you hold both values). There is, however, literature that’s widely available on this and many other topics.
Please also note there’s about a million very specific things I’ve missed here. We could add soil health, hydrogen cycles, on farm conditions, data veracity through supply chains and traceability systems etc. This is non-exhaustive and focuses more on the way we think about what we value in a very broad sense. This shouldn’t come at the expense of critical functional considerations.
Principles
Come on mate, let’s regenerate!
This is of course a play on slang that is only culturally relevant to a few people, so I do not suggest this specific framing has global relevance. However, the idea that a key principle of food system transformation focuses on giving more than it takes might well make sense. This helps animate a number of values that likely amplify, rather than contradict one another.
Informed by science, inspired by values
There’s a dynamic interplay between many of the values described above and the interaction the food system has with our scientific institutions. The idea of a principle like this is that art, philosophy, science, spirituality and other human institutions co-exist within a paradigm of respect and wholesomeness. They are greater than the sum of their parts.
All for one and one for all
Oh man, my reference game is bad today. Excuse me. The idea here is, of course, that the food system exists for us and is by us. It’s not about exclusion, but rather inclusion. It’s not about extraction and exploitation, but care, compassion and stewardship. It’s about relevance to time, place and culture. By recognising that the food system exists to serve us all, and that each of us can play a role in helping with positive food system transformation (even though certain parties have the capacity to disproportionately impact said positive transformation, we might be able to orient decisions and actions towards a food system that helps bring a number of the values above to life.
Wellness in every bite
Now, this might be a pipe dream, but why be anything other than beautifully ambitious here? Wellness, unlike the framing of ‘health’, is more whole in its set of considerations. A model for wellness that works likely features determinants across biological, psychological and social dimensions. Humans are, after all, biopsychosocial creatures (this is not a claim about the particulate matter that makes us us. It’s about what that particulate matter can do; the higher order functioning of the system / organism).
Today and every day
Overcoming short-termism simply has to happen. As a custodial species we cannot afford to think only about the now if it literally risks our shared tomorrow. The idea of a principle like this would be to balance the needs of the now with our best educated guesses about the future. There’s also an angle to this that suggests, ethically speaking, we owe something to the future. We ought to care about it in some meaningful way. If this were embedded in food system design (assuming certain counterfactuals i.e. the food system is no longer driven by quarterly reporting cycles) ASAP, one hopes that it’d have a serious impact on how we strategically plan to support, empower, connect with and feed communities all around the world.
Alright, go easy on me. This section, given the time constraints I put myself under, was not easy. I’m not exactly stoked with what I’ve produced, but I’m comfortable with it as the starting point of a dynamic, open and considered conversation.
Before moving on I should clarify that the idea here is that the food system has an inspiring purpose that meets the needs of today, whilst giving us empirically grounded confidence for the future. From this basis, the values help describe what (you guessed it!) we value and therefore want to prioritise in our decision-making processes. The principles support this by basically acting as heuristics or ‘rules of thumb’ that guide our conduct (principles, unlike rules, create space for context, offer flexibility / extensibility and place a certain type of responsibility on the decision-maker / actor).
I make no claims as to the ‘rightness’ of what I’ve written (again, all of this is off the top of my head and was written within a timeboxed writing session).
Ethical provocations for discussion
There are many ‘applied’ questions being explored in this space (which isn’t one discipline or field, but many working together, which is required given the complex nature of these system problems). This is so far from an exhaustive list it’s crazy. My hope is merely that the below creates a frame for applying some of the values and principles described above to issues that are concrete, interesting, controversial and colourful (in terms of their possibility, the spectrum of consequences, both intended and unintended etc.).
Should we be vegan?
I’ll start by saying this is a poorly framed question. It lacks the requisite specificity and is fraught with issues.
Nonetheless, this is something that, amongst scholars and interesting parties of all descriptions, is a hot topic of lively debate.
For different people in different contexts with different resources at their disposal, the ‘choice’ of attempting to live a lifestyle where you seek to actively do as little harm as you can (let’s just get out in front of the idea that there is no such thing as living without doing any harm. We need to get away from the sometimes ridiculous extremes that come from both ends of the spectrum; those wholly in support of veganism and those vehemently against it) might, on balance, be totally worth it.
One obviously has to consider nutrient adequacy (which has a developmental angle - meaning we have different requirements at different ‘life stages’ - amongst other things), accessibility, affordability (interestingly, some types of ‘plant based’ diets seem to be cheaper in economically developed countries, yet more expensive in less economically developed countries. This itself is a challenging issue with many moral dimensions) and many other ‘values’ when making such a decision.
In addition, consideration for biodiversity and the natural relationships between different animal species and their environment is important. This gets into the territory of what it might mean to reduce or eradicate herds, whether it’s necessary to eat the animals that are grazing etc. There really is sooooo much in this question. There’s no way we’re exploring it all.
Moving on.
In my experience, outside the scholarship on these topics (which are tackled through different frameworks / lenses, even if the conclusion is somewhat similar. By this I mean a ‘Deontological’ analysis might arrive as the same conclusion as a ‘Consequentialist’ analysis, even though the reasoning for that arrival differs quite a bit), it seems many people operate based on a moral / ethical logic that’s something like this: If I am able to live a lifestyle that contributes less active harm (whether assumed or actual) to many types of non-human animals (also hopefully including humans…), whilst maintaining my quality of life, why wouldn’t I?
As a deeply practical question one might pose in an everyday setting, I have no problem with this framing. There are of course important caveats, including the idea that this logic informs a deliberate process so that one’s dietary pattern meets their fundamental needs (amongst other things).
So where to from here? Send ideas my way and we can explore.
Should we eat local?
Many data sources suggest that food miles have less of a resource impact than we might intuitively think (Our World in Data is commonly cited here). Irrespective of this, there are environmental and many other reasons why one might like to consider eating local.
For instance, the values of agency, accessibility, connection, cultural appropriateness, proximity, joy, resiliency and regeneration, to name a few, all become relevant when thinking about eating local.
But, if the purpose of the global foods system is “to grow and equitably distribute nutrient dense, geographically appropriate and culturally relevant food within the physical constraints of the biosphere”, which assumes cooperation and many other ‘features’, one has to consider the impact of the anthropocene on people living in different parts of the world.
If one’s climate is ravaged by heat, drought, and other weather extremes, then it may be impractical to expect community self-sufficiency or any other hyper local initiative.
As is often the case when considering diverse geographical landscapes, whether patterns and other complex systems within the biosphere (hydrogen cycles etc.), a ‘one size fits all’ approach is very unlikely to yield the best results.
This may again be a nudge in the direction of purpose, values and principles system intervention, providing this is grounded in the best available balance of system (and other) science.
Should synthetic biology and related practices prominently feature in our future food system?
I’ve long had an interest in this space. I mean, how incredible is it to consider that one might eventually enjoy a steak without killing something? To many outside of this industry / movement, this feels very Star Trek like. But, it absolutely is happening and it’s clear that some progress is being made both technically and legislatively.
With that said, there are strong arguments that push back against some of the more bullish projections about the growth of this sector, the sustainability of these methods and the overall impact it might have on the diversity and resiliency of our global food system.
We can’t cover all of this today, so what can we cover?
Well, there’s a possibility that this method of ‘growing our food’ could be considered far more compassionate (although, there will be significant variance in arguments here for many reasons). Under certain conditions and / or counterfactuals, this ‘might’ enhance the diversity and resiliency of the food system. Is there any possibility that this contributes to regeneration? It depends on the entire lifecycle of an operation, the ancillary activities of the organisation/s operating in this space etc.
For folks that intrinsically value ‘innovation’ (I don’t fall neatly into this category, but my analysis of that subject is another story entirely), there’s value in exploring this - with appropriate checks and balances - even if the likelihood of huge impact is low. The analysis here would of course have to be based on modeling that suggests the overall positive impact could be huge to justify investment if the likelihood of impact is low.
Much more could be said about all this. Bioethicists deal with this type of stuff, often in other settings, daily.
Like the other topics I’ve briefly highlighted, I’m happy to dive much deeper into this space with anyone who is interested.
How might the food system be impacted if degrowth policies become more prominent?
This is, in my current opinion, one of the most important topics of today. It’s about how we alter the way we live collectively to meet the needs of the many within the very real constraints of the biosphere. It’s not communism and for those interested, has a deep empirical grounding.
For those interested, here’s a great debate on green growth versus degrowth.
A significant and rapidly growing body of literature exists on this topic. I cannot cover all of this in detail. Nor do we have the space. So what’s a meaningful provocation that might help frame mutual exploration?
I’m going to ask you to imagine - let’s call this a thought experiment - that governments around the world adopt degrowth policies. This is a stretch, but go with me on this.
We collectively agree that there are certain parts of the ‘economy’ we’d like to continue growing and there are other parts of the economy we want to phase out at different paces. We collectively agree that this will happen in a way that is somewhat proportional to the level of socioeconomic sufficiency different jurisdictions presently experience, which means that some economies will likely reduce in size and others will increase (it also likely means overall degrowth, some notion of post growth and then stepping into / fully embracing a steady state).
Void of all detail, which I realise is tough, I’d like you to consider what might be good and right, or perhaps better framed as “the best of available options when considering our purpose, values and principles”, in the context of how degrowth impacts the food system and its overarching ability to deliver its purpose.
What comes to mind here? Do some ‘commodities’ grow? Do others shrink? What happens to the distribution of power? What sorts of cooperative models might we design, and which might emerge somewhat organically? How might the average meal change? Might we see something more likened to the EAT Planetary Health Diet? Might we see something entirely different? Who might ‘drive’ this change? Who will benefit from this redistribution? Will change in this direction cause unnecessary suffering? How do we mitigate this?
n questions abound. Such is the nature of ethics.
What if food had nothing to do with money?
Holy shit! I just went there. UFA, a Universal Food Allowance, is an interesting concept. But is it something that is good and right (form whom, in what context etc.)? Is it something we ought to explore? Might it be something we deliberately, based on our orientation as a species, ‘decouple’ (hope you economists get a kick out of this!) from the economy?
Questions like this cannot exist in a moral silo. They must be weighted against other criteria that help inform the decisions we make and actions we take.
With that said, just as UBI is being explored in myriad different ways, I’d love to see initiatives going in this direction. We never know until we put it to the test, so we may as well get out and give it a try (some cool stuff from The Food Ethics Council here).
Okay, I’m going to wrap this up now. My four hours are up.
I hope this musing encourages you to consider many of these topics. I look forward to diving into more nuanced discussions over the coming weeks.