I challenge you with a counterfactual: countries develop a comparative advantage in meat alternatives which is (as far as we know) not conscious, such as soy and its processing. This should enable the nations become affluent more easily, because not many people would have to farm (efficiency gains would be relatively low) but industrial processing machinery will be invested into.
Do you think that instead of bivalves, maybe even investments into affordable oyster imitations could raise the living standards in developing countries better?
This should enable the nations become affluent more easily, because not many people would have to farm (efficiency gains would be relatively low) but industrial processing machinery will be invested into.
I don’t understand this. More easily than what? What’s your story for why people aren’t doing this already, if it would make them more affluent?
Than if the people had to farm the bivalves. It may be also labor intensive. I think that it is knowledge, know-how, coordination skills, problem attitude norms, and credit constraints. People, in some cases, do not process agricultural products because they do not know how. They may, in these cases, also not have the knowledge that it could be beneficial for them (health-wise) or that they could sell (including abroad, if they knew how to fill in import-export and get quality certified). Increased efficiency requires coordination (e. g. bulk fermentation) which can be limited due to the norms that value solidarity/empathy in experiencing problems rather than outperforming others in solving them. Investment into farming and processing efficiencies can be limited due to limited access to credit.
So, the solution can be info on how they can increase plant-based efficiencies and gain credit financing while seeking to preserve local attitudes toward animal farming (good relationships, sharing fields or houses).
I challenge you with a counterfactual: countries develop a comparative advantage in meat alternatives which is (as far as we know) not conscious, such as soy and its processing. This should enable the nations become affluent more easily, because not many people would have to farm (efficiency gains would be relatively low) but industrial processing machinery will be invested into.
Do you think that instead of bivalves, maybe even investments into affordable oyster imitations could raise the living standards in developing countries better?
I don’t understand this. More easily than what? What’s your story for why people aren’t doing this already, if it would make them more affluent?
Than if the people had to farm the bivalves. It may be also labor intensive. I think that it is knowledge, know-how, coordination skills, problem attitude norms, and credit constraints. People, in some cases, do not process agricultural products because they do not know how. They may, in these cases, also not have the knowledge that it could be beneficial for them (health-wise) or that they could sell (including abroad, if they knew how to fill in import-export and get quality certified). Increased efficiency requires coordination (e. g. bulk fermentation) which can be limited due to the norms that value solidarity/empathy in experiencing problems rather than outperforming others in solving them. Investment into farming and processing efficiencies can be limited due to limited access to credit.
So, the solution can be info on how they can increase plant-based efficiencies and gain credit financing while seeking to preserve local attitudes toward animal farming (good relationships, sharing fields or houses).