3 ms·

Technically they did. They're not the first to many that choice, but they made it. They could have set up a global food infrastructure fund and used it develop

Technically they did. They're not the first to many that choice, but they made it. They could have set up a global food infrastructure fund and used it develop sustainable and accessible food technology to produce the food and get the calories to everyone. They didn't, and neither did anyone else, on the scale required (a few beleaguered charities, aid agencies and the UN notwithstanding) Ditto for the other example I gave, and any others you can think of.

boeingUH60 4y ago
This is a frankly disingenuous way to put it. Saudi isn’t to blame for world hunger, which isn’t caused by money anyways. The primary concern of the Saudi ruling family is themselves and their citizens and last time I checked, they weren’t facing food insecurity. Countries facing widespread hunger do so due a mix of factors, including war, corruption, lack of policies promoting agriculture, etc…throwing money alone at the problem won’t solve it and at some point, these countries should be held responsible to fix their problems.
- mkoubaa 4y ago
  The only hunger they are responsible for is in Yemen, and that's fixed by a change in policy not by funds
- Oxidation 4y ago
  Yes, poor maligned Saudi Arabia, they've never hurt anyone and haven't maintained a death grip on the world's energy for decades by undermining alternating energy at every turn (even while embracing it for domestic use). I mean, this [1] is from this year, and that after their own pivot into domestic renewables. Just from the damage they've caused by inhibiting renewables, they're up there as some of the biggest contributors to global issues now and in the future. It's not only on them, many others are more then complicit, but they know what they've been doing. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/21/climate/saudi-arabia-aramco-oil-solar-climate.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/21/climate/saudi-arabia-aram...
toast0 4y ago
SA (or whoever) can set up such a fund, but do they have the influence to make sure the fund does what it needs to do in other countries to actually get the work done? And then there's places where hunger is more of a factor of war or governnent corruption or ineptitude. It's hard to fix that without causing other problems.
- Oxidation 4y ago
  Everyone's focusing on what was the first example if what that much "will to get shit done" could do. There's lots you could do with that much. Hell, they could have done what I would have done if I were an country and slapped a cool trillion on modular, exportable, nuclear reactor technology and become the world's supplier of those (though actually maybe we've waited too long and bulk solar is a better bet these days, which they're in on domestically, but not apparently as a mass export). I don't think they'll get much useful return on these gigatonnes of steel, glass and concrete in the desert and that's more then a little sad to me. But maybe I'm wrong and it'll become a mega-Shenzhen and outshine the world.
  - toast0 4y ago
    Again, that's an idea that requires buy in from the outside. You could do all that, but not if the IAEA decides not to like you, and if you can't find buyers for the reactors when they're ready in 10? years what's the point. May as well build a locally focused boondongle. If the tolerances are good, maybe the central rail makes for a decent linear accelerator site if the rest of the building is vacant.
    - Oxidation 4y ago
      Well, again drilling into a specific off-the-cuff example, but even if Saudi of all countries can't muscle in there, install a shitload yourself on the peninsula and become a net fresh water exporter with massive desalination plants. Probably you don't even need nuclear at this point and go straight for solar. In 10 years, or 20, or 30, there's going to insane water demand on all sides: the entire middle East and most of Africa is going to be at each others throats for water and will pay whatever you ask. Pretty much how it works now for oil, actually. With that in mind, maybe it's indeed the best possible outcome that that KSA splash the cash harmlessly and uselessly rather then build a new chokehold on something.

boeingUH60 4y ago

This is a frankly disingenuous way to put it. Saudi isn’t to blame for world hunger, which isn’t caused by money anyways. The primary concern of the Saudi ruling family is themselves and their citizens and last time I checked, they weren’t facing food insecurity. Countries facing widespread hunger do so due a mix of factors, including war, corruption, lack of policies promoting agriculture, etc…throwing money alone at the problem won’t solve it and at some point, these countries should be held responsible to fix their problems.

mkoubaa 4y ago
The only hunger they are responsible for is in Yemen, and that's fixed by a change in policy not by funds
Oxidation 4y ago
Yes, poor maligned Saudi Arabia, they've never hurt anyone and haven't maintained a death grip on the world's energy for decades by undermining alternating energy at every turn (even while embracing it for domestic use). I mean, this [1] is from this year, and that after their own pivot into domestic renewables. Just from the damage they've caused by inhibiting renewables, they're up there as some of the biggest contributors to global issues now and in the future. It's not only on them, many others are more then complicit, but they know what they've been doing. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/21/climate/saudi-arabia-aramco-oil-solar-climate.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/21/climate/saudi-arabia-aram...

toast0 4y ago

SA (or whoever) can set up such a fund, but do they have the influence to make sure the fund does what it needs to do in other countries to actually get the work done? And then there's places where hunger is more of a factor of war or governnent corruption or ineptitude. It's hard to fix that without causing other problems.

Oxidation 4y ago
Everyone's focusing on what was the first example if what that much "will to get shit done" could do. There's lots you could do with that much. Hell, they could have done what I would have done if I were an country and slapped a cool trillion on modular, exportable, nuclear reactor technology and become the world's supplier of those (though actually maybe we've waited too long and bulk solar is a better bet these days, which they're in on domestically, but not apparently as a mass export). I don't think they'll get much useful return on these gigatonnes of steel, glass and concrete in the desert and that's more then a little sad to me. But maybe I'm wrong and it'll become a mega-Shenzhen and outshine the world.
- toast0 4y ago
  Again, that's an idea that requires buy in from the outside. You could do all that, but not if the IAEA decides not to like you, and if you can't find buyers for the reactors when they're ready in 10? years what's the point. May as well build a locally focused boondongle. If the tolerances are good, maybe the central rail makes for a decent linear accelerator site if the rest of the building is vacant.
  - Oxidation 4y ago
    Well, again drilling into a specific off-the-cuff example, but even if Saudi of all countries can't muscle in there, install a shitload yourself on the peninsula and become a net fresh water exporter with massive desalination plants. Probably you don't even need nuclear at this point and go straight for solar. In 10 years, or 20, or 30, there's going to insane water demand on all sides: the entire middle East and most of Africa is going to be at each others throats for water and will pay whatever you ask. Pretty much how it works now for oil, actually. With that in mind, maybe it's indeed the best possible outcome that that KSA splash the cash harmlessly and uselessly rather then build a new chokehold on something.