5 ms·

> it's not all about food and fuel anymore Is it, though? The biggest IP bubble now is AI, and the main bottleneck of AI is energy to power those datacenters.

> it's not all about food and fuel anymore Is it, though? The biggest IP bubble now is AI, and the main bottleneck of AI is energy to power those datacenters. Doesn't google use as much energy as a few small countries now? Biggest pharma IP now is Ozempic, which let's be honest here, is because westerners are addicted to processed corn and fried stuff. And hectares of monoculture corn sprayed with Roundup and sprinkled with just the right amount of laboratory-calibrated satiating salt is far easier to produce than a balanced diet. And what is needed to grow all that corn, soy, and alfafa feed? The tapped-out Colorado or the dwindling Ogallala... I'm sure there are a couple of pure IP-value plays out there, but look deep enough and most everything is tied back to food, fuel, or the finite ability of the ecosystem to maintain infinitely-exponential growth.

jasperry 2y ago
Yes, everything is ultimately dependent on physical resources, but the value creation is at a higher level, and you hopefully get more value out of less resource as things advance. I don't consider AI a positive example, it's a hype bubble for sure. But think how much computing power per watt you get compared to 30 years ago.
- bckr 2y ago
  Consider also the green revolution which enabled more calories to be grown per hectare. I don’t know if it takes less water and nutrients, though.
  - floatrock 2y ago
    The Haber–Bosch process that powered the green revolution is merely a way of converting fuel into heat into fertilizer. Calories per hectare is one way of measuring food systems, and a great way when we assume fuel inputs are infinite, inexhaustible, and cheap. Calories per unit of inputs is another way.
    - bckr 2y ago
      The green revolution was not only a result of the Haber-Bosch process, although that's an aspect I wasn't thinking about. Hybridization of crop plants increased the calories per hectare per year produced. Again, I don't know if the plants were actually producing more edible nutrients per pound of fertilizer.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
gruez 2y ago
>Biggest pharma IP now is Ozempic, which let's be honest here, is because westerners are addicted to processed corn and fried stuff. And hectares of monoculture corn sprayed with Roundup and sprinkled with just the right amount of laboratory-calibrated satiating salt is far easier to produce than a balanced diet. And what is needed to grow all that corn, soy, and alfafa feed? The tapped-out Colorado or the dwindling Ogallala... Doesn't Ozempic make people eat less? If anything it's disproving your point. It's providing value, but at the same reducing the amount of "food and fuel" consumed.
- floatrock 2y ago
  To me it's more like slapping an expensive patch on an imperfect solution. Instead of encouraging healthier diets which have lots of follow-on nutritional and long-term medical benefits, we're paying pharma a huge monthly subscription price to keep doing something that's causing the problem in the first place. It's better than nothing, sure, but holistically it looks more like a rent-extraction trap to me.
  - Zababa 2y ago
    > Instead of encouraging healthier diets which have lots of follow-on nutritional and long-term medical benefits This has been done for a while and mostly doesn't work.
    - floatrock 2y ago
      Cool statement. Why not?
      - Zababa 2y ago
        Advice doesn't work that well in general, especially when it's vague and general advice like that. I would also guess that there are competing forces trying to make you eat their product and that they put a lot of money into that.
      - crop_rotation 2y ago
Scoundreller 2y ago
> And hectares of monoculture corn sprayed with Roundup and sprinkled with just the right amount of laboratory-calibrated satiating salt is far easier to produce than a balanced diet Man, i wish Americans were just eating the corn with salt. Would be a lot healthier than corn starch+syrup whatever. ~75% of US corn goes to fuel and animal feed.

jasperry 2y ago

Yes, everything is ultimately dependent on physical resources, but the value creation is at a higher level, and you hopefully get more value out of less resource as things advance. I don't consider AI a positive example, it's a hype bubble for sure. But think how much computing power per watt you get compared to 30 years ago.

bckr 2y ago
Consider also the green revolution which enabled more calories to be grown per hectare. I don’t know if it takes less water and nutrients, though.
- floatrock 2y ago
  The Haber–Bosch process that powered the green revolution is merely a way of converting fuel into heat into fertilizer. Calories per hectare is one way of measuring food systems, and a great way when we assume fuel inputs are infinite, inexhaustible, and cheap. Calories per unit of inputs is another way.
  - bckr 2y ago
    The green revolution was not only a result of the Haber-Bosch process, although that's an aspect I wasn't thinking about. Hybridization of crop plants increased the calories per hectare per year produced. Again, I don't know if the plants were actually producing more edible nutrients per pound of fertilizer.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

gruez 2y ago

>Biggest pharma IP now is Ozempic, which let's be honest here, is because westerners are addicted to processed corn and fried stuff. And hectares of monoculture corn sprayed with Roundup and sprinkled with just the right amount of laboratory-calibrated satiating salt is far easier to produce than a balanced diet. And what is needed to grow all that corn, soy, and alfafa feed? The tapped-out Colorado or the dwindling Ogallala... Doesn't Ozempic make people eat less? If anything it's disproving your point. It's providing value, but at the same reducing the amount of "food and fuel" consumed.

floatrock 2y ago
To me it's more like slapping an expensive patch on an imperfect solution. Instead of encouraging healthier diets which have lots of follow-on nutritional and long-term medical benefits, we're paying pharma a huge monthly subscription price to keep doing something that's causing the problem in the first place. It's better than nothing, sure, but holistically it looks more like a rent-extraction trap to me.
- Zababa 2y ago
  > Instead of encouraging healthier diets which have lots of follow-on nutritional and long-term medical benefits This has been done for a while and mostly doesn't work.
  - floatrock 2y ago
    Cool statement. Why not?
    - Zababa 2y ago
      Advice doesn't work that well in general, especially when it's vague and general advice like that. I would also guess that there are competing forces trying to make you eat their product and that they put a lot of money into that.
    - crop_rotation 2y ago

Scoundreller 2y ago

> And hectares of monoculture corn sprayed with Roundup and sprinkled with just the right amount of laboratory-calibrated satiating salt is far easier to produce than a balanced diet Man, i wish Americans were just eating the corn with salt. Would be a lot healthier than corn starch+syrup whatever. ~75% of US corn goes to fuel and animal feed.