5 ms·

> Similar things were predicted in the 70s but new sources of energy and improvements in productivity invalidated those predictions. ok, cool. So you've identi

> Similar things were predicted in the 70s but new sources of energy and improvements in productivity invalidated those predictions. ok, cool. So you've identified the limits (energy and productivity). Are you sure productivity has grown? Is this growth sustainable? For example, agriculture. Highly dependent on rapidly disappearing resources Like i.e. dirt. If you look at erosion rates in the US, we are on track to run out of soil by end of century. The petro-chemical fueled "green revolution" exhausts and kills biodiversity, leading to soil death in a century-- and we are 50 years into this. Water. See "US Drought Monitor". So have we really achieved long-term (> 100 year) productivity improvements in agriculture?

pharke 4y ago
A key insight into agriculture is that the main reason we spread our farms out over massive areas of land is because it is simply more economical. If you think about it from first principles, farming outdoors has major flaws the biggest of which is seasonality. Most crops mature in a handful of months but must be grown only at specific times of the year in order to maximize yield. Doing this out in the open puts you at the mercy of nature. Besides the limited growing season you also have to deal with losses due to weather, pests, competing plants (weeds), and other local conditions like drought or soil quality. The only reason we do it is because it's cheap. It requires less initial cost to set up and less energy input. If you were to redesign the process you could conceivably build massive greenhouses to control conditions. If you had surplus energy you could also actively heat, cool and light these greenhouses. From a quick look, greenhouse conditions can produce 15 times more yield per acre. They reduce wastage by a comparably large amount as well since half of produce is thrown away due to cosmetic blemishes. They would also drastically reduce the amount of fertilizer and pesticide needed. I think you could drive yields even higher with round the clock lighting, studies as well as practical experience from farmers in northern territories have shown that longer daylight hours allow plants to mature much more rapidly. An ideal farming setup to me would look like hectares of greenhouses located next to a nuclear power plant that can provide heated water for keeping them warm and cheap power for cooling and lighting.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> The petro-chemical fueled "green revolution" exhausts and kills biodiversity, leading to soil death in a century Interesting. Is this version of Capitalism better described ad Vandalism?
trashtester 4y ago
> For example, agriculture. I suppose this is not only an example, but probably the most critical type of productivity when determining how big of a population our planet can sustain. > So have we really achieved long-term (> 100 year) productivity improvements in agriculture? If you look back over the past 100 years we definitely have. If you look back over the past 60 years, yields of modern agriculture have tripled. Looking forward will always be speculation. > For example, agriculture. Highly dependent on rapidly disappearing resources Like i.e. dirt. I'm not disputing that such effects are going on in many places. Still, for productivity not only slow down but to actually go down, you need pretty strong effect sizes for such issues. > Water. See "US Drought Monitor". This is a factor that is harder to compensate for by fertilizers and modifications to farming practices. And some locations (possibly the US and even more likely, China) may be hit by this. As temperatures rise, more water is likely to evaporate from the world's oceans, though, and it has to come down somewhere. But that may be elsewhere, such as Central Asia, Canada or the Middle East. I think part of the issue is how willing we are to increase our energy production. In dry, warm climates, solar is likelty to become quite cheap eventually. In other locations, I believe nuclear is our best bet (though wind is maybe more popular with many). If we're able to produce enough energy, we can produce most of the phosphates, nitrates and even de-salinated water that is needed for farming. Personally I have relatively high faith that human ingenuity will provide technological answers to most such problems caused by our environment. I have way greater fear that war or similar conflicts may cause us to exterminate each other, or even that some day, AI will take over completely.
- weatherlite 4y ago
  > I have way greater fear that war or similar conflicts may cause us to exterminate each other, or even that some day, AI will take over completely. It's not like the energy/resource crunch is a totally separate problem to war. Together with climate change it is only going to increase the likelihood for war. It's kinda already happening in the the Middle East / Africa (I'm saying kinda because it's not the only reason for war...people are messed up...but it's not helping). > If we're able to produce enough energy, we can produce most of the phosphates, nitrates That's a big if yes? And even if, is the whole supply chain for modern agriculture sustainable? Are all fertilizers and material used renewable or are they coming out of finite earth resources? If it's finite - how long have we got? I'm not claiming to have all the answers but I just started looking at everything through this lens a few months ago ...and it's not going away.

pharke 4y ago

A key insight into agriculture is that the main reason we spread our farms out over massive areas of land is because it is simply more economical. If you think about it from first principles, farming outdoors has major flaws the biggest of which is seasonality. Most crops mature in a handful of months but must be grown only at specific times of the year in order to maximize yield. Doing this out in the open puts you at the mercy of nature. Besides the limited growing season you also have to deal with losses due to weather, pests, competing plants (weeds), and other local conditions like drought or soil quality. The only reason we do it is because it's cheap. It requires less initial cost to set up and less energy input. If you were to redesign the process you could conceivably build massive greenhouses to control conditions. If you had surplus energy you could also actively heat, cool and light these greenhouses. From a quick look, greenhouse conditions can produce 15 times more yield per acre. They reduce wastage by a comparably large amount as well since half of produce is thrown away due to cosmetic blemishes. They would also drastically reduce the amount of fertilizer and pesticide needed. I think you could drive yields even higher with round the clock lighting, studies as well as practical experience from farmers in northern territories have shown that longer daylight hours allow plants to mature much more rapidly. An ideal farming setup to me would look like hectares of greenhouses located next to a nuclear power plant that can provide heated water for keeping them warm and cheap power for cooling and lighting.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> The petro-chemical fueled "green revolution" exhausts and kills biodiversity, leading to soil death in a century Interesting. Is this version of Capitalism better described ad Vandalism?

trashtester 4y ago

> For example, agriculture. I suppose this is not only an example, but probably the most critical type of productivity when determining how big of a population our planet can sustain. > So have we really achieved long-term (> 100 year) productivity improvements in agriculture? If you look back over the past 100 years we definitely have. If you look back over the past 60 years, yields of modern agriculture have tripled. Looking forward will always be speculation. > For example, agriculture. Highly dependent on rapidly disappearing resources Like i.e. dirt. I'm not disputing that such effects are going on in many places. Still, for productivity not only slow down but to actually go down, you need pretty strong effect sizes for such issues. > Water. See "US Drought Monitor". This is a factor that is harder to compensate for by fertilizers and modifications to farming practices. And some locations (possibly the US and even more likely, China) may be hit by this. As temperatures rise, more water is likely to evaporate from the world's oceans, though, and it has to come down somewhere. But that may be elsewhere, such as Central Asia, Canada or the Middle East. I think part of the issue is how willing we are to increase our energy production. In dry, warm climates, solar is likelty to become quite cheap eventually. In other locations, I believe nuclear is our best bet (though wind is maybe more popular with many). If we're able to produce enough energy, we can produce most of the phosphates, nitrates and even de-salinated water that is needed for farming. Personally I have relatively high faith that human ingenuity will provide technological answers to most such problems caused by our environment. I have way greater fear that war or similar conflicts may cause us to exterminate each other, or even that some day, AI will take over completely.

weatherlite 4y ago
> I have way greater fear that war or similar conflicts may cause us to exterminate each other, or even that some day, AI will take over completely. It's not like the energy/resource crunch is a totally separate problem to war. Together with climate change it is only going to increase the likelihood for war. It's kinda already happening in the the Middle East / Africa (I'm saying kinda because it's not the only reason for war...people are messed up...but it's not helping). > If we're able to produce enough energy, we can produce most of the phosphates, nitrates That's a big if yes? And even if, is the whole supply chain for modern agriculture sustainable? Are all fertilizers and material used renewable or are they coming out of finite earth resources? If it's finite - how long have we got? I'm not claiming to have all the answers but I just started looking at everything through this lens a few months ago ...and it's not going away.