| ▲ | Paradigm2020 5 hours ago | |||||||
The original turning the none used resource into a productive resource (your eg clearing land, irrigation etc etc) is productive. Big land owners / PE / ... cornering all the available agricultural land / needed supply chain / economies of scale etc etc to extract more and more value of Scarce resource that has already been optimized is extractive. The thing is that the word extractive makes it hard to have a good debate because pure extraction is rare (aka no need to add any extra labor to have the possesed "good" maintain or exceed its value vs inflation... Personally in general I would prefer more usage of the word rent seeking (aka legally and finite resource captured market) and others. As the current biggest problem in most countries in the world is housing and its cost for those who are renting and without any (realistic / statistical...) hope of ever entering the owners side that seems like something worth talking / voting for. (I can get my beef from brazil / australia / ... But i can't get my land from there while living here.) | ||||||||
| ▲ | sidewndr46 5 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||
Your argument is just one of perspective. From my view, clearing of land & irrigation is one of the greatest disasters of modernity. Extracting everything from land and rendering it barren and featureless. We traded biodiversity and ecosystems for increased food production. All to support a population of humans that is nowhere near any kind of population threat level. On the opposite exactly, human population has risen to levels unimaginable. Your remaining arguments are endless handwaving and use of 'etc' so I won't be responding to those. | ||||||||
| ||||||||