3 ms·

It's not our ability to survive as a species that concerns me, it's the imminent period of contraction as previously abundant resources become expensive, techno

It's not our ability to survive as a species that concerns me, it's the imminent period of contraction as previously abundant resources become expensive, technology-dependent, and competed over.

rvense 5y ago
Here in Denmark, almost none of the food that the actual people here will eat next week is in the country yet. It's on its way in from overseas or further south. Now, about 60% of the surface area is cultivated. Most of that (80%, so half of the country all in all) is used to grow pig feed. A lot (most, I think) of that meat is exported, in exchange for money - which was always very bad sustenance for pigs and people alike, and, these days, is digital, so in the sense that it "exists" at all, does so in the imagination of sand that was tricked into thinking. There are many adjectives one could use to describe this situation. "Resilient" isn't one of them.
- sharikous 5y ago
  Coming from Israel, where everything is looked at through a military/security/strategic lens, this seems a strategic nightmare, but also wonderful. Danish people know that neighboring nations won't wage war in the near future and can afford to be several steps removed from survival considerations. I don't think, however, that Denmark is irresilient. The same supply chain you are worried to be too dependent from has to be quite robust for the country to rely on that. Apart from sudden and rapid events I bet that same supply chain will handle well medium/slow changes like climate change.
  - titzer 5y ago
    > has to be quite robust Absent frequent disruptions, markets do not optimize for robustness; they optimize for efficiency and profit. So no, I don't agree that these supply chains are robust. It's like arguing "life on Earth evolved to be dependent on oxygen, therefore oxygen must be everywhere in the universe" (not remotely true); classic overfitting.

It's not our ability to survive as a species that concerns me, it's the imminent period of contraction as previously abundant resources become expensive, technology-dependent, and competed over.

rvense 5y ago

Here in Denmark, almost none of the food that the actual people here will eat next week is in the country yet. It's on its way in from overseas or further south. Now, about 60% of the surface area is cultivated. Most of that (80%, so half of the country all in all) is used to grow pig feed. A lot (most, I think) of that meat is exported, in exchange for money - which was always very bad sustenance for pigs and people alike, and, these days, is digital, so in the sense that it "exists" at all, does so in the imagination of sand that was tricked into thinking. There are many adjectives one could use to describe this situation. "Resilient" isn't one of them.

sharikous 5y ago
Coming from Israel, where everything is looked at through a military/security/strategic lens, this seems a strategic nightmare, but also wonderful. Danish people know that neighboring nations won't wage war in the near future and can afford to be several steps removed from survival considerations. I don't think, however, that Denmark is irresilient. The same supply chain you are worried to be too dependent from has to be quite robust for the country to rely on that. Apart from sudden and rapid events I bet that same supply chain will handle well medium/slow changes like climate change.
- titzer 5y ago
  > has to be quite robust Absent frequent disruptions, markets do not optimize for robustness; they optimize for efficiency and profit. So no, I don't agree that these supply chains are robust. It's like arguing "life on Earth evolved to be dependent on oxygen, therefore oxygen must be everywhere in the universe" (not remotely true); classic overfitting.