4 ms·
It seems that naturally with technological progress and population increase, we are doomed to always zero out our gains in the minute with losses in the aggrega
by sova 7y ago
It seems that naturally with technological progress and population increase, we are doomed to always zero out our gains in the minute with losses in the aggregate. How is it that science and technology move forward but crop yields remain constant? Cowen mentions that it seems to be a "last mile problem" for delivering scientific research benefits to all. Collison has a cool list of "Fast" completed projects on his site of big tasks in human history on the order of hundreds of days. Zuckerberg's main focus is to invest in medicine research because he believes the long term eventuality of such investment is a definite decrease in healthcare. Overall, it seems that the questions focus on the global population in aggregate or nations as wholes, and on long-term or permanent solutions to emergent issues. I disagree that Zuckerberg's major impact will be on medicine, human opinion is much more influential than hard science in the shimmering parallax of annals of dimly lit human history backwards into the ages.
I'm glad they are talking about such matters: the intellectual hubs of Vienna and Silicon Valley, the research (or lack of research) in coming to understand Human Progress.
One thing that seems to be ignored the whole time is the progress of the individual, the progress of the family, and the progress of the tribe. We can measure in aggregate all day, but the only true test of progress is if our newer generations of humans shine brighter and are more illuminated than we are.
- the_watcher 7y ago> I disagree that Zuckerberg's major impact will be on medicine, human opinion is much more influential than hard science in the shimmering parallax of annals of dimly lit human history backwards into the ages. If CZI is successful, over the long arc of history, it's almost inarguable that his greatest impact will be on medicine.
- Isamu 7y ago>but crop yields remain constant Some, not all, crop yields have been stalling in recent years. I think Tyler's point was maybe the increasing cost of research and effort to keep moving the yield curves up, such that it may be stalling progress there. Data on crop yields here: https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields
- mikorym 7y ago>> crop yields remain constant > some, not all... Good that you made this correction. In 1960 the average yield for tomatoes was 50 ton/ha or less in the area where I am from. [1] In 2019, the yield was 100 ton/ha, but in the most optimal areas you get 140 ton/ha. If you use nets you get 250 tons/ha. >> How is it that science and technology move forward but crop yields remain constant? This is bordering on conspiracy theory; I have experience in tech in agriculture and the progress the last 50 years is nothing short of a humanitarian miracle. The miracle is far from complete though. [1] First hand knowledge.
- eigenvalue 7y agoIt could be that the low hanging fruit in crop yields has already been reached. That is, the part addressable through better fertilizer, crop rotation, trait selection via breeding, etc., and to get a large leap from here requires something much more drastic (e.g., wholesale gene editing via CRISPR or the like) which may not be practicable given social pressures. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the low-single digit CAGR in crop yields this century is remotely replicable. It's not like we are ever going to get 10,000 bushels of corn per acre.
- asdfadsfgfdda 7y agoThe energy content of corn is about ~100 kWh per bushel. If you can magically convert all of the sun's solar radiation into corn with perfect efficiency (~2,500 kWh/m2 per year), you get 100,000 bushels of corn per acre. Compared to the actual efficiency of 176 bushels per acre, there's a lot of room for improvement. It might not be possible with anything similar to modern agriculture, but it's fun to think about.