4 ms·

I do not believe that everyone deciding to eat something different is "fixing" the food scarcity problem in the same way that desalinization (ignoring all other

by saurik 5y ago

I do not believe that everyone deciding to eat something different is "fixing" the food scarcity problem in the same way that desalinization (ignoring all other issues with it as we assumed technology improved to solve them also) "fixes" water scarcity: if everyone is told tomorrow "all water will safely come from desal" we might breath a collective sigh of relief... "starting tomorrow, all food will be replaced by seaweed" a lot of people are going to be super super pissed, right? Maybe even more basic: making enough potatoes to technically satisfy everyone's calorie requirements (ignoring nutrition) might be a technological problem, but the "similar change in food culture" is kind of begging the question, as if we could just cause that change before all the food was gone maybe we could still enjoy the occasional potato (a luxury in our new era of food molded out of seaweed), and if we could get equivalent cultural shifts in how people use transportation (along with food changes, such as not eating meat) maybe we could stave off climate change without technological fixes: if you are relying on a cultural change it isn't a technological fix, and if the way the cultural change will happen is because no one will have a choice... well, then you didn't fix anything in the first place!

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
simonh 5y ago
>if you are relying on a cultural change it isn't a technological fix If traditional food sources go away and technology provides an alternative food source, that is what people will eat. Culture will follow technology, if that's what people have to do to survive. EDIT:That mostly applies to the population in the developed world with access to capital, technology and industrial resources that we can use to adapt our food supply. Not everywhere in the world has those resources to fall back on though.
- coldtea 5y ago
  Yes, but survival is not living. And culture can adapt to everything, including slavery, dystopia, etc.
  - simonh 5y ago
    Indeed, I think those are much more likely outcomes than massive population collapse.
- Dudeman112 5y ago
  It also mostly assumes that the undeveloped world won't eat the developed world. Societal collapse in for example India or Brazil would make things awkward real fast for a large chunk of the world
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    In general, that would be prevented by the fact that the developed world is militarily stronger than the developing world. If some resources are not enough for India or Brazil, they can't take them from the developed world in the style of the earlier resource wars for e.g. oil.
    - Dudeman112 5y ago
      I wasn't even thinking about their states trying to take resources by force. What would happen if 20% of India decided that their society has collapsed and they should migrate at any cost to some developed country?
    - oezi 5y ago
      Military might is not very helpful in the modern world. The NATO coalition could not hold their ground in a country such as Afghanistan nor could all of Europe prevent that the collapse of order in Syria (a country of 20m) caused a spill of 2m migrants into Europe. Your parent was suggesting that the developed world could not deal with a collapse of India or Brazil or several populous African countries.
    - inglor_cz 5y ago
      It is not as if the countries lack resources. Their fast growing population does [0]. So far, Europe does not seem to be willing to repudiate the asylum treaties it signed, so the young men always have the option to try and reach Europe(an resources) under the guise of seeking protection. And once they are in, their forced removal is unlikely [1], so they cease to be a resource problem for their country of origin and start to be a resource problem for the new host society. The military does not even play a role here. All the poorer countries need to do is a) not prevent their own young people from leaving, b) not prevent activity of smuggler gangs, c) complicate deportations by refusing to issue passports to their citizens who destroyed their papers underway. None of those actions need guns, much less superior guns. [0] ... India and Brazil aren't really in the "top population growth" league. Look up population pyramids of Niger, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Yemen. Those graphs promise future mass migration streams. (https://www.populationpyramid.net https://www.populationpyramid.net) [1] ... https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Enforcement_of_immigration_legislation_statistics https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
belorn 5y ago
I agree fully that it is not a permanent solution, nor a possibility to replace all food with a single different one be that seaweed, insects farming, hydroponics, or other non-traditional forms. I do however want to highlight that food is cultural thus peacefully changeable. We can extend the window much further than just what currently exploitation of farm land do. Aquaculture is just one of the more likely approaches since it is already part of some cultures, although quite small ones in term of populations. It is an interesting question if a new world war is more likely than a major cultural change in our diet.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Imagine the uproar if you tried to build a nuclear powered desalination plant on Long Island. That's basically what you're alluding to with the seaweed and food thing. Cultural and ideological hangups will go right out the window in a hurry when there's a real crisis and a culturally incompatible solution. People aren't gonna let things truly go to shit over something as trivial as what they eat or where their water comes from. The primary danger in the first world as I see it is from the moneyed and empowered people F-ing it over for large enough other groups to cause probems. Doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to imagine how climate change might F-over downstate Illinois (because farms) but Chicago won't let them do anything about it because they hold all the cards and they make their money a different way. They'd probably figure it out eventually but with how unequal our society is I'm not gonna bet money on eventually happening before the shooting starts.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "Doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to imagine how climate change might F-over downstate Illinois (because farms) but Chicago won't let them do anything about it because they hold all the cards and they make their money a different way." I actually can't envision what you mean by "Chicago won't let them do anything about it". Isn't Chicago the more liberal area that wants to fight climate change?
  - ta988 5y ago
    On paper, but it is also full of rich liberals that care more about their money and look at people downstate with disdain.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    I just picked some random state that has a farming economy (very sensitive to slight environmental changes) at one end and a city economy (not so directly tied to the environment as long as energy is cheap and it isn't flooded) at the other that runs the show so forgive me if the example isn't bulletproof. >Isn't Chicago the more liberal area that wants to fight climate change? Right up until you have to take some other controversial step in order to do it. I'm sure you can imagine how things would go if downstate farmers wanted to all apply some sort of fertilizer that would make their farming economically viable but the beta and the v1 versions of the chemical also killed some sort of visible wildlife.

by saurik 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

simonh 5y ago

>if you are relying on a cultural change it isn't a technological fix If traditional food sources go away and technology provides an alternative food source, that is what people will eat. Culture will follow technology, if that's what people have to do to survive. EDIT:That mostly applies to the population in the developed world with access to capital, technology and industrial resources that we can use to adapt our food supply. Not everywhere in the world has those resources to fall back on though.

coldtea 5y ago
Yes, but survival is not living. And culture can adapt to everything, including slavery, dystopia, etc.
- simonh 5y ago
  Indeed, I think those are much more likely outcomes than massive population collapse.
Dudeman112 5y ago
It also mostly assumes that the undeveloped world won't eat the developed world. Societal collapse in for example India or Brazil would make things awkward real fast for a large chunk of the world
- PeterisP 5y ago
  In general, that would be prevented by the fact that the developed world is militarily stronger than the developing world. If some resources are not enough for India or Brazil, they can't take them from the developed world in the style of the earlier resource wars for e.g. oil.
  - Dudeman112 5y ago
    I wasn't even thinking about their states trying to take resources by force. What would happen if 20% of India decided that their society has collapsed and they should migrate at any cost to some developed country?
  - oezi 5y ago
    Military might is not very helpful in the modern world. The NATO coalition could not hold their ground in a country such as Afghanistan nor could all of Europe prevent that the collapse of order in Syria (a country of 20m) caused a spill of 2m migrants into Europe. Your parent was suggesting that the developed world could not deal with a collapse of India or Brazil or several populous African countries.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    It is not as if the countries lack resources. Their fast growing population does [0]. So far, Europe does not seem to be willing to repudiate the asylum treaties it signed, so the young men always have the option to try and reach Europe(an resources) under the guise of seeking protection. And once they are in, their forced removal is unlikely [1], so they cease to be a resource problem for their country of origin and start to be a resource problem for the new host society. The military does not even play a role here. All the poorer countries need to do is a) not prevent their own young people from leaving, b) not prevent activity of smuggler gangs, c) complicate deportations by refusing to issue passports to their citizens who destroyed their papers underway. None of those actions need guns, much less superior guns. [0] ... India and Brazil aren't really in the "top population growth" league. Look up population pyramids of Niger, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Yemen. Those graphs promise future mass migration streams. (https://www.populationpyramid.net https://www.populationpyramid.net) [1] ... https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Enforcement_of_immigration_legislation_statistics https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...

belorn 5y ago

I agree fully that it is not a permanent solution, nor a possibility to replace all food with a single different one be that seaweed, insects farming, hydroponics, or other non-traditional forms. I do however want to highlight that food is cultural thus peacefully changeable. We can extend the window much further than just what currently exploitation of farm land do. Aquaculture is just one of the more likely approaches since it is already part of some cultures, although quite small ones in term of populations. It is an interesting question if a new world war is more likely than a major cultural change in our diet.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

Imagine the uproar if you tried to build a nuclear powered desalination plant on Long Island. That's basically what you're alluding to with the seaweed and food thing. Cultural and ideological hangups will go right out the window in a hurry when there's a real crisis and a culturally incompatible solution. People aren't gonna let things truly go to shit over something as trivial as what they eat or where their water comes from. The primary danger in the first world as I see it is from the moneyed and empowered people F-ing it over for large enough other groups to cause probems. Doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to imagine how climate change might F-over downstate Illinois (because farms) but Chicago won't let them do anything about it because they hold all the cards and they make their money a different way. They'd probably figure it out eventually but with how unequal our society is I'm not gonna bet money on eventually happening before the shooting starts.

giantg2 5y ago
"Doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to imagine how climate change might F-over downstate Illinois (because farms) but Chicago won't let them do anything about it because they hold all the cards and they make their money a different way." I actually can't envision what you mean by "Chicago won't let them do anything about it". Isn't Chicago the more liberal area that wants to fight climate change?
- ta988 5y ago
  On paper, but it is also full of rich liberals that care more about their money and look at people downstate with disdain.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  I just picked some random state that has a farming economy (very sensitive to slight environmental changes) at one end and a city economy (not so directly tied to the environment as long as energy is cheap and it isn't flooded) at the other that runs the show so forgive me if the example isn't bulletproof. >Isn't Chicago the more liberal area that wants to fight climate change? Right up until you have to take some other controversial step in order to do it. I'm sure you can imagine how things would go if downstate farmers wanted to all apply some sort of fertilizer that would make their farming economically viable but the beta and the v1 versions of the chemical also killed some sort of visible wildlife.