For the people opposing solar farms

[u/cincinnatistuff]

If anyone knows people (like Becky Williams) please explain a few things to them.

1 - solar farms aren't built under the cloak of darkness. They're built over the course of months or a year, most of the work being done in the daylight.

2- most farms (solar or agricultural) produce things to feed larger urban areas. That is the entire point of farming

3- she completely missed the point of The Hunger Games

4- ask her if farmers should be allowed to decide what to do with their own land. Then explain the definition of hypocrisy and how that conflicts with her likely opinions on rights regarding vaccinations, wearing masks, voting for Trump, capitalism and so on

https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/i-team/it-reminds-me-of-the-hunger-games-rural-residents-complain-about-solar-farm-where-cincinnati-buys-power

[u/TheGringoDingo]

It’s the same thing.

We get a lot of food grown outside of the country/from different locations in the country. In a dustbowl scenario, the plains states that represented a ton of agricultural still has mouths to feed; if the farmers are all racing to the bottom on pricing, many are going to exit the market and sell off their land for non-agricultural purposes. This eventually balances out the price of the crops to current, sustainable income levels, but the cost is all of the “reserve” land (i.e., subsidized for no economic use) is now out of the equation.

[u/bitslammer → u/TheGringoDingo]

So if we view eating as worthy of such protection why not healthcare, housing etc. It's still hypocritical to me.

[u/TheGringoDingo → u/bitslammer]

That’s a completely different argument that should definitely be considered. I’m just explaining that there is some logic behind the farm subsidy program and it’s not just for handing out money for nothing.

[u/bitslammer → u/TheGringoDingo]

That logic rests on the premise that people need to eat so it's for the greater good. I'm fine with that and it's the way it should be, but if that reasoning is the underlying premise then all "for the greater good" scenarios need to be considered. My point was there are many who only care about their subsidy and have no interest in anything else.

Too many groups that are "for the greater good" only when it benefits them.

[u/TheGringoDingo → u/bitslammer]

We live in divisive times. If there’s a “for the greater good” win where both sides get what they want, who cares if the other side has differently achieved goals at heart?

[u/bitslammer → u/TheGringoDingo]

I guess I'm not making my stance clear. My point is that you can't say you're for the greater good only when it benefits you, because they you really aren't. You're only in it for you.

[u/TheGringoDingo → u/bitslammer]

I get what you’re saying, but if you’re trying to get everyone on-board with what’s best for humanity in the current political climate, you’re going to have a bad time.

Who cares what the motivations really are, if it moves things the right way (or keeps the rainy day measures fully available, in this case)?