[nyc_data_geek]

Fair point about monocultures increasing yields. That said, they are also more susceptible to being wiped out by black swan events (see:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_disease)

Resilience of your food supply should matter to you, as an organism that needs food to live.

[ffsm8]

But the reality is that whenever such an event happened... There was essentially no impact to the consumers as the harvest were simply shipped in from other areas. Once again, hard to convince anyone under these circumstances

[nyc_data_geek]

There was an impact to consumers! The Cavendish is not equivalent to the Gros Michel, it is supposedly an inferior fruit as far as size, texture and flavor. Granted a slight degradation in quality just may not grab people, but they should see that climate stresses increase the chance of their favorite food being next lost, or of missing out on a vital cure yet to be discovered. These things have immediacy.

[kergonath]

> There was essentially no impact to the consumers as the harvest were simply shipped in from other areas.

… in the US. You left that critical bit out, and even then you have things like the dust bowl. Even to this day, without going back to the potato blight, there are famines regularly. It’s really hard not to see that as a direct effect on consumers.

[hollerith]

During the Dust Bowl, there was no welfare, so the families in Oklahoma and nearby who were relying on a harvest and had no other plan for getting income and no savings ended up without food and without money with which to buy food.

There's never been a time in US history or a place in the US such that there was a shortage of food for people who had money to buy food unless you count situations like the Donner Party in which a caravan spent the winter of 1846–1847 snowbound in the Sierra Nevada mountain range.

The US not only has the most productive chunk of farmland in the world, but also much fewer natural barriers to efficient transportation compared to productive farming regions in the rest of the world. Certainly during the Dust Bowl, there was plenty of food grown in places like Iowa and Illinois that could easily and reliably have been shipped to Oklahoma, but no one did because no one (not even the federal government) considered it their job to help the hungry people in Oklahoma.

Part of the reason it took so long for the US to grow a welfare system is the American ethic of individual freedom and distrust of government, but another part is that it was easier for people to get the basics of survival than in places like Germany where the welfare system developed many decades earlier (the Dust Bowl being of course an exception to the general easiness).

[kergonath]

> During the Dust Bowl, there was no welfare, so the families in Oklahoma and nearby who were relying on a harvest and had no other plan for getting income and no savings ended up without food and without money with which to buy food.

This is still pretty much the situation in most of the world. Your argument is completely American-centric, which is fine. But again, there are many examples of the lack of resilience of some agriculture practice doing quite a lot of damage.

> There's never been a time in US history or a place in the US such that there was a shortage of food for people who had money to buy food unless you count situations like the Donner Party in which a caravan spent the winter of 1846–1847 snowbound in the Sierra Nevada mountain range.

I did not know about that episode, thanks for the rabbit hole :)

That said, the “who had money to buy food” is problematic. Of course there will always be people who can afford 1) unsustainable practices to secure their supply of food, 2) importing stuff from the other side of the world, or 3) just move to where life is easier. It does not mean that famine does not exist, just that some people have more than they deserve.