4 ms·

This is a very dangerous narrative, for some reason popular nowadays — the scarcity mindset, the story of “limited resources”. If you go back 5000 years ago yo

This is a very dangerous narrative, for some reason popular nowadays — the scarcity mindset, the story of “limited resources”. If you go back 5000 years ago you’ll see there’s only so many people the planet can feed. The actual fact is that people _create_ resources when they cooperate (this is why now our planet can afford so many people that ancient would never imagine possible). It’s not about the technology but about good vs evil beliefs. Which lead to actions. Please spread good constructive beliefs, not scary destructive ones.

ASalazarMX 4y ago
Farming produces more food than needed, so you can feed others. Technology just makes farming more efficient, so a smaller percent of the population needs to farm. As long as there's still potential for more farming, population growth means more farmers producing food. If you exhaust the planet's resources for farming, or climate change reduces it, more people won't mean more resources anymore.
- aristofun 4y ago
  Why do you think farming is a linear game? What makes you think it’s impossible to get food from other sources that we didn’t invent yet and would probably not even call “farming”?
  - cercatrova 4y ago
    Indeed, it reminds me of lab grown meat, or lab growth anything for that matter. Didn't Star Trek have a machine that could make any food possible just by putting molecules together? That's not farming and yet it could feed people.
  - ASalazarMX 4y ago
    I think it's easier for the concept of farming to evolve as technology advances, than the production of food not being called farming anymore. Food made in labs could be considered farming, yeast cultures like the ones in Asimov's Foundation could too. As the sibling comment mentions, only things like Star Trek's replicator could be considered beyond farming, as you're using the same pool of resources used to other activities besides feeding. In this case, farming and mining would be interchangeable.
    - aristofun 4y ago
      >> I think it's easier for the concept of farming to evolve as technology advances, than the production of food not being called farming anymore Why are you so sure that your current speculations would have any sense 200 years from now when some agricultural breakthrough happens. The one we can't even dream about today. And this is the pattern that has been happening all the time through humankind history.
      - ASalazarMX 4y ago
        I'm just speculating that mass production of food will still be considered farming in the future, but you're right, I can't know.
        aristofun 4y ago
        I bet even the "consumption" or "feeding" itself might undergo some unexpected changes
sdwr 4y ago
badpun 4y ago
> Please spread good constructive beliefs, not scary destructive ones. What is the objective truth is "scary"? Can I spread it then?
- z3c0 4y ago
  You found out the objective truth? Please share, the rest of us are eager to know.
  - badpun 4y ago
    2 + 2 = 4 You're welcome.
    - z3c0 4y ago
      I disagree. 2 + 2 = 11 also 2 + 2 = 10
      - themelodyfarm 4y ago
        Go build a bridge with that math, and we'll see if it objectively lasts...
        z3c0 4y ago
        I love explaining jokes, so I'm glad I thought to look back at this comment. My statements are sound enough to build bridges on. It's all the same math, just in ternary and quaternary. My point is that there is no such thing as an objective interpretation, because all methods of communication are open to biases. Even math expressions. https://brilliant.org/wiki/number-base/ https://brilliant.org/wiki/number-base/
        themelodyfarm 4y ago
        I agree that there is no such thing as objective interpretation. The interpretation is always biased by the interpreter. But truth comes before interpretation, not after. Truth exists independently of the observer's bias. A bridge is either sound or unsound, engineering-wise. It is irrelevant whether any person judges the bridge to be sound or unsound--the soundness is tested by reality, and reality is mapped 1-to-1 to truth. Reality is truth. Your math statements are true in the context of the ternary and quaternary systems. However, if you led the project to engineer and build the bridge under one of those systems, i feel confident that the bridge would fail. Because your ' true statements' would meet the reality of an engineering and implementation world that does not use those systems. Your argument that they are true would be completely irrelevant in the practical domain of modern construction. Your statements are not sound enough to build a bridge upon because the building project lives in reality instead of possibility. One cannot argue for subjective truth because the nature of truth lies in its objectivity. Anyone who argues for subjective truth is in fact arguing for the non-existence of truth, which is foolishness.

ASalazarMX 4y ago

Farming produces more food than needed, so you can feed others. Technology just makes farming more efficient, so a smaller percent of the population needs to farm. As long as there's still potential for more farming, population growth means more farmers producing food. If you exhaust the planet's resources for farming, or climate change reduces it, more people won't mean more resources anymore.

aristofun 4y ago
Why do you think farming is a linear game? What makes you think it’s impossible to get food from other sources that we didn’t invent yet and would probably not even call “farming”?
- cercatrova 4y ago
  Indeed, it reminds me of lab grown meat, or lab growth anything for that matter. Didn't Star Trek have a machine that could make any food possible just by putting molecules together? That's not farming and yet it could feed people.
- ASalazarMX 4y ago
  I think it's easier for the concept of farming to evolve as technology advances, than the production of food not being called farming anymore. Food made in labs could be considered farming, yeast cultures like the ones in Asimov's Foundation could too. As the sibling comment mentions, only things like Star Trek's replicator could be considered beyond farming, as you're using the same pool of resources used to other activities besides feeding. In this case, farming and mining would be interchangeable.
  - aristofun 4y ago
    >> I think it's easier for the concept of farming to evolve as technology advances, than the production of food not being called farming anymore Why are you so sure that your current speculations would have any sense 200 years from now when some agricultural breakthrough happens. The one we can't even dream about today. And this is the pattern that has been happening all the time through humankind history.
    - ASalazarMX 4y ago
      I'm just speculating that mass production of food will still be considered farming in the future, but you're right, I can't know.
      - aristofun 4y ago
        I bet even the "consumption" or "feeding" itself might undergo some unexpected changes

sdwr 4y ago

badpun 4y ago

> Please spread good constructive beliefs, not scary destructive ones. What is the objective truth is "scary"? Can I spread it then?

z3c0 4y ago
You found out the objective truth? Please share, the rest of us are eager to know.
- badpun 4y ago
  2 + 2 = 4 You're welcome.
  - z3c0 4y ago
    I disagree. 2 + 2 = 11 also 2 + 2 = 10
    - themelodyfarm 4y ago
      Go build a bridge with that math, and we'll see if it objectively lasts...
      - z3c0 4y ago
        I love explaining jokes, so I'm glad I thought to look back at this comment. My statements are sound enough to build bridges on. It's all the same math, just in ternary and quaternary. My point is that there is no such thing as an objective interpretation, because all methods of communication are open to biases. Even math expressions. https://brilliant.org/wiki/number-base/ https://brilliant.org/wiki/number-base/
        themelodyfarm 4y ago
        I agree that there is no such thing as objective interpretation. The interpretation is always biased by the interpreter. But truth comes before interpretation, not after. Truth exists independently of the observer's bias. A bridge is either sound or unsound, engineering-wise. It is irrelevant whether any person judges the bridge to be sound or unsound--the soundness is tested by reality, and reality is mapped 1-to-1 to truth. Reality is truth. Your math statements are true in the context of the ternary and quaternary systems. However, if you led the project to engineer and build the bridge under one of those systems, i feel confident that the bridge would fail. Because your ' true statements' would meet the reality of an engineering and implementation world that does not use those systems. Your argument that they are true would be completely irrelevant in the practical domain of modern construction. Your statements are not sound enough to build a bridge upon because the building project lives in reality instead of possibility. One cannot argue for subjective truth because the nature of truth lies in its objectivity. Anyone who argues for subjective truth is in fact arguing for the non-existence of truth, which is foolishness.