3 ms·

Does the example of the world's recent adaptations to COVID-19 give you confidence that "we" would make the necessary adjustments to redirect livestock feeds to

by gojomo 5y ago

Does the example of the world's recent adaptations to COVID-19 give you confidence that "we" would make the necessary adjustments to redirect livestock feeds to humans in an emergency? I doubt that for any famine of the last 200 years, including those that killed tens of millions, the problem has been, "not enough food in the world". The problem has been, "failed institutions don't put the food where it's most needed". Vaccines are even easier to ship than food. Are they getting to where they're most needed?

jltsiren 5y ago
It does give me confidence. There were three periods in the COVID-19 response. The initial response was limited, because people were still unsure whether the virus was a serious threat. Then, in March 2020, we saw determined efforts to stop the virus that were unprecedented in speed and scale. People were playing it safe, because it was obvious that the threat was serious, but nobody knew how serious it would be. Around May 2020, it became clear that the threat was not that serious after all. The focus then switched to the cost-effectiveness of the response from various points of the view. The worst case for COVID-19 was maybe 1% of the population dead, 10% with serious long-term health consequences, a global depression, and a handful of coups, revolutions, and civil wars. It would have been bad, but only on the level we should expect a few times in a century anyway. It was serious enough to warrant a large-scale response but not serious enough to mobilize the entire society.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Unless anyone pulls a Stalin and intentionally mismanages things to starve people we'll probably be fine. Modern communications and commerce channels should let us route around stupidity unless we're prevented from doing so. If someone does pull a Stalin at any meaningful scale that's probably not gonna be possible to keep on the down low and heads will roll, likely literally.

by gojomo 5y ago

jltsiren 5y ago

It does give me confidence. There were three periods in the COVID-19 response. The initial response was limited, because people were still unsure whether the virus was a serious threat. Then, in March 2020, we saw determined efforts to stop the virus that were unprecedented in speed and scale. People were playing it safe, because it was obvious that the threat was serious, but nobody knew how serious it would be. Around May 2020, it became clear that the threat was not that serious after all. The focus then switched to the cost-effectiveness of the response from various points of the view. The worst case for COVID-19 was maybe 1% of the population dead, 10% with serious long-term health consequences, a global depression, and a handful of coups, revolutions, and civil wars. It would have been bad, but only on the level we should expect a few times in a century anyway. It was serious enough to warrant a large-scale response but not serious enough to mobilize the entire society.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

Unless anyone pulls a Stalin and intentionally mismanages things to starve people we'll probably be fine. Modern communications and commerce channels should let us route around stupidity unless we're prevented from doing so. If someone does pull a Stalin at any meaningful scale that's probably not gonna be possible to keep on the down low and heads will roll, likely literally.