10 ms·

But on the other hand we couldn't be 8 billion without megacorp scaling and efficiency.

• bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  I think it would require a lot of work to show that megacorp scaling was an essential part of any process that led us to 8 billion, as opposed to just part of the process that was used.
  • 323 4y ago
    > The Haber process,[1] also called the Haber–Bosch process, is an artificial nitrogen fixation process and is the main industrial procedure for the production of ammonia today. > Nearly 50% of the nitrogen found in human tissues originated from the Haber–Bosch process.[59] Thus, the Haber process serves as the "detonator of the population explosion", enabling the global population to increase from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 7.7 billion by November 2018.[60] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
    • boudin 4y ago
      Isn't that just the result of having heavily used this process? This can indeed be a consequence (although I do find the source of the wikipedia article really light without a proper study to support the claim) but it doesn't mean that this is a necessity. It could just be a result of a transition of societies relying a lot on animals, so having a lot of fertilizer as a byproduct, to a mechanize society needing to find an alternative for fertilizing.
      • 323 4y ago
        > societies relying a lot on animals, so having a lot of fertilizer as a byproduct Animals also eat. There was never an abundance of fertilizer before industrial processes.
        • boudin 4y ago
          Although highly depending where, there definitely was. You can read about it in the Parisian farmers practice in the 19th century for example (not sure there's much material in English though)
        • jdmichal 4y ago
          > Animals also eat. I'm curious: what do you think they were eating? Livestock was and is used to convert plants humans can't eat into milk and meat that we can. Even modern grass-finished beef is raised mostly eating grasses. Grains are really expensive compared to some grass growing in a field. I don't understand why people think it would be even close to economical for a rancher to raise an animal over 1000 pounds on grain alone. That beef would be more expensive than any wagyu.
          • jdmichal 4y ago
            > Even modern grass-finished beef is raised mostly eating grasses. I meant, "Even modern grain-finished beef is raised mostly eating grasses."
    • OJFord 4y ago
      But isn't that just another example? GP's point/question still applies - that's how we did it, doesn't mean it couldn't have happened another way.
      • rcme 4y ago
        "It could have happened some other way" is a non-falsifiable statement. Therefore, it's not really that interesting to talk about. I counter with "It could have happened some other way" with "Prove it."
        • OJFord 4y ago
          I don't think that's true - imagine for example we'd run out of oxygen, and had needed to manufacture (extract) it somehow on a large scale to support a growing population: we could falsify it by saying 'no, it was necessary to produce more oxygen than was naturally available'. If we can't find any such way to falsify it, then the point stands.
          • rcme 4y ago
            Your example is not the same. The argument isn’t whether or not producing nitrogen is necessary. The question is whether how we produce nitrogen is necessary or if there is an alternative. Using your example, it’d be like if we produced oxygen using process X and then saying “process X was necessary to save the species because we would have run out of natural oxygen.” And someone saying “Not necessarily because process X might not be the only way to produce oxygen.”
        • bryanrasmussen 4y ago
          the original statement implied it couldn't have happened some other way (gotten to population of 8 billion without megacorps), to which I essentially replied "Prove it" If your reply to my "prove it" is also "prove it" then it would seem we are at an impasse.
          • rcme 4y ago
    • pigsty 4y ago
      Is that exclusively only manufacturable by multi-billion dollar mega corps? Is it impossible for every region of 10 million people to manufacture their own?
      • 323 4y ago
        One could say that a company serving 10 million is a megacorp.
        • CuriousCosmic 4y ago
          I don't believe that's the question being asked. Rather they are asking whether the process was/is only viable with the support of a megacorp? Could this same process not be just as effectively used by smaller geographically distributed facilities run separate orgs or corps?
          • jacobr1 4y ago
            That is plausible. It depends what you mean by "megacorp." If what we mean (in contrast to artisanal craftsmanship) is just industrial scale operations - then yes, we certainly can organize industrialization differently than megacorps. Smaller sized corps, State-owned enterprises, co-ops, federated mutualism, and more, are all possibilities. But if the suggestion is that we could support modern population levels with just traditional production methods - that probably is unlikely. To steelman the argument, maybe proponent could suggest something like advanced permaculture. I'm skeptical that would work, but something along those lines is a possibility.
        • thisGuyFlicks 4y ago
          What's empirical about that though?
• pegasus 4y ago
  So no resource and pollution crisis? Sounds even better to me.
  • pixl97 4y ago
    If you are on this site complaining about the resource and pollution crisis, you are part of that crisis and likely making a very hypocritical argument.
• boudin 4y ago
  Are megacorp really more efficient than many smaller scale and local businesses?
  • Bayart 4y ago
    Yes. Economies of scale is a large reason behind how we can feed 8 billion people where we had half a billion before the Industrial Revolution (the other is probably petroleum). Countries where land reforms consolidated arable land into large industrialized plots are far more productive than countries where the land is fragmented, all ecological and social considerations aside.
    • ulfw 4y ago
      And how much more efficiency did we gain since then through better machinery? I don't see how 1000 companies couldn't feed us but ten 100x-larger companies can. What you gain in economies of scale you lose on competitive edge.
      • snowpid 4y ago
        10 companies can be a very competitive market. e.g. German supermarket market.
    • pjmlp 4y ago
      We could still feed them before, the difference being not everyone had access to the latest goodies, which by the way many still don't as the Industrial Revolution isn't evenly distributed.
      • Bayart 4y ago
        Human population is a function of the species' calorific output. We can produce at least 16 times more calories on aggregate than we did 500 hundred years ago.
        • pjmlp 4y ago
• lm28469 4y ago
  Maybe we shouldn't be 8 billion
  • jjoe 4y ago
    Also said by Bill Gates https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/09/africas-rapid-population-growth-puts-poverty-progress-at-risk-says-gates https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/09/africas-rapid-populat...
    • account42 4y ago
      Bill has three kids so why should anyone listen to him about this if he wasn't willing to do his part?
      • remh 4y ago
        His youngest kid is 20 years old. Are you suggesting that one's perspective cannot change in 20 years or that he should kill his kids?
        • mrguyorama 4y ago
          It's important to note that Bill Gate's view is that population reduction should be done by lifting the world's women out of poverty and giving everyone easy access to birth control methods. This is decidedly less gross than the typical "we have too many people" take. In fact, Bill's take can be valid even if you believe the earth can support billions of more people sustainably.
      • LarryMullins 4y ago
        He also flies around in private jets (to this day, not only 20 years ago!) while scolding common people for owning cars. The logic of these rich fucks is something along the lines of "there are few rich people, so rich people polluting doesn't matter. There are lots of poor people, so poor people polluting matters a lot." Rules for thee, not for me. Money is privilege and they think this puts them above the standards they wish to impose on others.
• akira2501 4y ago
  It's sad to me that people accept this without evidence or critical thought, it's a serf's mentality.
  • nindalf 4y ago
    Here’s a thought - before the advent of modern fertiliser and high yield seeds we simply could not feed everyone. Famine was common, and when it struck people died. This is one of the many things that kept the population in check. Where do you expect to get your fertiliser from? Your local artisanal fertiliser maker? Perhaps you think you’ll go old school and use human refuse, despite it having much less nitrogen content than ammonia based ones? People want to live in well built homes that are warm in winter and cool in summer. Do you know of a way to build that without concrete and steel? Assuming you don’t, where will you get your concrete and steel from? Your local steelsmith, forging one steel ingot at a time? And fertiliser, concrete and steel - those can’t be made without fossil fuels. Where do you propose to get those? You’ll head down to the local coal mine whenever you need some? Society cannot function without these materials. These materials are produced at scale, at high efficiency thanks to the megacorps mentioned previously. If there was an artificial limit on the size of corps, they would not be able to achieve the scale needed to make this economical. Food and housing would be scarce. Lastly, calling someone a serf breaks HN guidelines. If you’re going to condescend to someone, at least don’t do it when your statement is so stunningly wrong.
    • akira2501 4y ago
      > Your local artisanal fertiliser maker? You leave no room for small to medium sized businesses? Your position is that in order to have fertilizer, you have to have mega corporations? > where will you get your concrete and steel from? I get my concrete from a business down the street. They buy materials, mix it locally, and deliver it for me. No mega corporations needed. Steel? In what context? Raw mineral? Refined ingots? Manufactured products? You're confusing an entire supply chain for a single entity. > Where do you propose to get those? The ground. Or, again, do you suppose that only three companies in the world can possibly do this? How do you account for the massive mergers and acquisitions in this space over the past few decades? Those were necessary to continue pumping liquid out of the ground? > These materials are produced at scale, at high efficiency thanks to the megacorps mentioned previously. Those materials will be produced at scale because there are enough mines to do it. You still haven't made a cogent case as to why megacorporations are more efficient or are required for this to happen. > calling someone a serf breaks HN guidelines. And you'll notice I didn't do that. I said it displays a certain type of mentality. Did you listen, or did you rush to be offended? > at least don’t do it when your statement is so stunningly wrong. Again.. it's a _very_ simple question: Can you make the case that mega corporations were necessary or that they actually are more efficient? You have completely failed to do that here.