The idiom of "doesn't grow on trees" as a metaphor for scarcity falls apart when you realize that food does grow on trees yet is still very scarce.
The idiom of "doesn't grow on trees" as a metaphor for scarcity falls apart when you realize that food does grow on trees yet is still very scarce.
Extremely not-fun fact: collectively, humanity currently produces more than enough food for every person. But a huge part of it is either wasted or inaccessible by people that need them, which usually results in them not going to anyone and being wasted, which is why we still have food scarcity.
You're viewing part of a thread.
That is literally the first comment in this thread, gtfo. Not going in circles with you.
Then what would you suggest? If getting rid of food costs say $5 and sending to a different area costs say $10 then between both selections which one is better for the economy?
I stated a fact, I didn't suggest anything. wtf are you still talking for?
If you're paying to get rid of something you paid for, you fucked up.
Sounds like you figured it out then. If we can just determine a way to efficiently distribute the food, then we'll be good.
Seriously, why are you still talking?
I thought we we were close to a breakthrough. Just for fun imagine a situation where eliminating a food product costs 100 pesos, but packaging and shipping that same food product to another location costs 200 pesos; which of these is more economical?
I'm going to block you because I'm not interested in speaking with you.
Probably smart. Blocking me costs you about one minute of time, whereas continually responding to me has already cost you several minutes. Way more efficient.