4 ms·
Not only is it an issue of scale, it's also an ignorant view that the human species can only solve one issue at a time.
by arekkas 9y ago
Not only is it an issue of scale, it's also an ignorant view that the human species can only solve one issue at a time.
- ainiriand 9y agoJust like the false conundrum of caring for animals when kids are starving in the 3rd world.
- zimablue 9y agoWhilst it's not true that the world can only progress on one issue at a time, I think that there's a fair point to make about prioritization. You as an individual can only focus or fund so many issues and we do have to make choices on what to focus, eg. first world identity politics vs wealth inequality.
- aaron695 9y agoHmmmm it's one issue. Micronutrient deficiencies. We can solve this issue today at cost Y. Or we can pay 10*Y to reduce 1/10 of the issue in 50-70 years time. This thesis,'if true' is a small part of the nutrient problem, it won't even touch the poorest of the poor in the western world for instance. Because once you pull people a little above poverty nutrients in foods are meaningless. Micronutrient deficiencies are solvable today at 'low' cost (~zero cost compared to the global warming issue) They are considered perhaps the leading problem in the world today.