3 ms·

This is true up to the point of food scarcity. Between geopolitical conflict and crop failures around the world this year due to severe heat waves, we’re lookin

• tsimionescu 4y ago
  So instead of stopping the wars and the global warming which increases the chance of the heat waves, we should jump straight to genetic engineering? Is that the better solution?
  • goatlover 4y ago
    More realistic as stopping wars and climate change are much harder. The war in Ukraine hasn’t ended despite the West’s efforts. And CO2 emissions continue on a large scale despite all warnings.
    • tsimionescu 4y ago
      The West's efforts have been to continue the war, not to stop it. When you're supplying arms, you're not acting to stop a war. Not saying that Ukraine didn't have a right to be defended, but it should be pretty objectively obvious that the war would have stopped long ago had the West not intervened. This would have been unjust and a massive slap to the people of Ukraine, and arguably worse for the world in other ways - so I'm not saying that we shouldn't have supplied them. But we also can't claim we are doing what we can to stop the war: we're (at best) doing what we can to help the right side to win, while prolonging the war.
      • kortilla 4y ago
        >The West's efforts have been to continue the war, not to stop it. When you're supplying arms, you're not acting to stop a war. The lazy “military industrial complex” take. Tell me, how do you propose that the US should support stopping the war that doesn’t involve Ukraine ceasing to be independent and losing its leaders? Your comment is basically the same as, “The west’s efforts have been to prolong hunger, not to stop it. When you’re suppling food you’re not acting to stop hunger. It should have been objectively obvious that the hunger would have stopped long ago had we just let people starve to death.”
        • tsimionescu 4y ago
          > Tell me, how do you propose that the US should support stopping the war that doesn’t involve Ukraine ceasing to be independent and losing its leaders? First of all, I have been very explicit that "stopping the war" and "the best thing that can be done for the people of Ukraine" are not necessarily aligned. The fastest way of stopping the war would have probably been to supply Russia with arms and know-how, but I am not in any way advocating for such a criminal act. Secondly, the West could have acted to capitalize on Ukraine's initial success in stopping the Russian blitzkrieg by convincing Ukraine's leaders to negotiate a neutrality agreement, similarly to Switzerland. Instead of seeking to join NATO and/or re-conquer the land they lost in 2014, Ukraine could have accepted the loss of Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea, and started to design a way to become a neutral country, dealing with both Russia and the EU. Instead, we have been supplying Ukraine with arms, intelligence and even targeting information and stoking their belief that they can actually win a war with Russia. If we are right, then of course this will be a massive benefit to the people of Ukraine and arguably all of Eastern Europe, with a relatively mild cost to the people of Russia (a huge cost to the leaders of Russia though). However, I believe that Russia will literally stop at nothing to prevent this outcome. I personally fully believe that Russia will nuke Ukraine before allowing it to win back the territory it has lost, especially Crimeea. And that outcome, if it comes to pass, will be the worst thing that could have happened to Ukraine and its people, and probably the entire world. It would be much worse than being conquered by Russia in the initial attack, and definitely much much worse than a negotiated peace where they would cede territory to Russia.
          • _kbh_ 4y ago
            > Secondly, the West could have acted to capitalize on Ukraine's initial success in stopping the Russian blitzkrieg by convincing Ukraine's leaders to negotiate a neutrality agreement, similarly to Switzerland. The difference is that Russia does not respect any agreements it signs. Russia promised to not invade Ukraine or threaten its borders when it gave up its nukes, look how well that went. > Instead, we have been supplying Ukraine with arms, intelligence and even targeting information and stoking their belief that they can actually win a war with Russia. The west have been supplying Ukraine with weapons that appear to be making the difference. There’s a reason Russias advances have pretty much stalled entirely, there ammo depots and command centre keep exploding. Turns out Russia is actually kinda not so great at this entire war thing. > However, I believe that Russia will literally stop at nothing to prevent this outcome. I personally fully believe that Russia will nuke Ukraine before allowing it to win back the territory it has lost, especially Crimeea. If Russia even blinks at a nuke the international response will make the sanctions look like child’s play. I think Ukraine can win this fight, every week they get more and better weapons from the west whilst Russia keeps rolling out older and older equipment.
      • JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > should be pretty objectively obvious that the war would have stopped long ago had the West not intervened It would have never begun if we’d denuclearised Russia in the 90s, yet here we are. Facing, once again, a choice between appeasing a murderous dictator or not.
  • hypertele-Xii 4y ago
    Genetic engineering may in fact be easier than achieving world peace, yes.