all 29 comments

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

That's a very superficial analysis. He simply drones on and on and on, oh god it's so dry and boring, about temprary factors like global investment and cheap food.

But any intelligent person would ask "why do those places need foreign investment and cheap food?". Those are welfare factors. Obviously any place that starts to get welfare will do better in terms of the superficial metrics of popupation growth and GDP. And any place that loses it will take a hit on those fronts.

The real metric for a countries viability is how industrious and inovative the population is. The developing world can't stand on it's own because the average IQ is too low, and the high IQ flee rather than waste their time trying to fix the place while fighting all the morons.

[–]Musky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

Obviously any place that starts to get welfare will do better in terms of the superficial metrics of popupation growth and GDP. And any place that loses it will take a hit on those fronts.

Seems like a Malthusian trap to me.

Malthusianism is the idea that population growth is potentially exponential while the growth of the food supply or other resources is linear, which eventually reduces living standards to the point of triggering a population die off. This event, called a Malthusian catastrophe (also known as a Malthusian trap, population trap, Malthusian check, Malthusian crisis, Malthusian spectre, or Malthusian crunch) occurs when population growth outpaces agricultural production, causing famine or war, resulting in poverty and depopulation. Such a catastrophe inevitably has the effect of forcing the population to "correct" back to a lower, more easily sustainable level (quite rapidly, due to the potential severity and unpredictable results of the mitigating factors involved, as compared to the relatively slow time scales and well-understood processes governing unchecked growth or growth affected by preventive checks)

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

I have come to the conclusion, after decades of experience with doomesday predictions, that the malthusian trap is far more myth than reality.

The malthusian claim is that population will always continue to grow exponentially unless curtailed by a tyrannical force. And that has proven not to be true.

Also, farming capability IS not linear. It is only linear if no new technology is invented. Only in that case does farming grow linearly with every new farmer born. As soon as you invent one thing that increases a farmers productivity all the farmers use it and farming capacity multiplies instantly, while population stays the same.

Because of that the developed world produces far more food than it needs, using a tiny fraction of the population and only the farmland that is easiest to farm.

So the question is why can't developing counties use the currently available technology to leap into the modern agricultural age and feed themselves?

If all the people were intelligent enough to advance their culture and country then more people is always better. Only when the people are anchors is more people worse.

[–]Musky 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

So the question is why can't developing counties use the currently available technology to leap into the modern agricultural age and feed themselves?

Tech doesn't infinitely scale upwards. We got spoiled. We figured out how to minmax grow nutrtionaly deficient food quickly, bloom the population, and well that worked great while everything was going fine, but the corrections are people's lives. It's brutal.

There's just some certain unpleasant realities out there.

I feel like you like Star Trek too (like me I mean) for some reason.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Tech doesn't infinitely scale upwards.

First off, yes it does. When a new tool is invented everyone gets to use it. That is what it means to scale. Spare me the "muh everyone cant buy one at once" bad faith arguments. The government can offer forgivable low interest loans for farm equipment.

Second, the tech is already established and does not need to scale. The governments of those countries can establish a department of agriculture that can use modern survey equipment to find the best areas for farms, determine the best soil treatments and fertilizers to use and the best crops to plant from established knowledge that took everyone else 5k years to develope.

Then buy the farm equipment that has been developed and tested over the last 2k years. Teach the farmers to use the equipment with instructuonal videos pumped directly to their cell phones and offer direct personal assistance through a help line for anyone with questions.

well that worked great while everything was going fine

What isn't going fine? There are no real issues with production aside from the EU destroying farms for "muh global warming". World supply is abundant.

We figured out how to minmax

Extremely dishonest take on modern farming technology. What we did was crack the genetic code and used it to inteligently design better crops, deveoloped fertilizers that can efficiently feed every nutrient and micro nutrient to any crop, and perfected mechanical technology to multiply the work capacity of any man by tens of thousands of times.

I feel like you like Star Trek too

My take on farming is based on the technology that is literally being used on farms, yours seems to be based on some lying progressive activist's propaganda. I grow plants in water. Literally fucking water and nutrients. They are delicious and nutritious. Anyone who claims there is land that is not farmable is a liar. Anyone who claims we have made land unfarmable by over farming is a liar.

[–]Musky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

When a new tool is invented everyone gets to use it.

I'm not talking about the farm equipment, I'm talking about the agricultural technology in a broad sense to be able to produce enough food for everyone. There is some hard limit to what we can do.

The governments of those countries can establish a department of agriculture that can use modern survey equipment to find the best areas for farms, determine the best soil treatments and fertilizers to use and the best crops to plant from established knowledge that took everyone else 5k years to develope.

Look at what happens with palm crops. It's not all as simple as what you're saying. The priority when they're slash and burning nature in these 'developing' countries isn't to feed their own poor savages, it goes to export, to bring in more valuable foreign currency. And to what end should the environment be destroyed to support masses of poor humanity.

The land and climate everywhere is not suited to growing large amounts of food cost and effort effectively. There is an actual reason why things are the way they are, with some countries are considered breadbaskets, and some countries are more like food lines. It isn't just we didn't want to give them tractors and a book on agriculture.

What isn't going fine?

The economic and political landscape is not as positive as it was a few years ago, or a decade ago, or a decade before that. There becomes a very real question of why are we helping these others when we could be helping ourselves. The political will to accomplish these things becomes more difficult to establish and maintain. What's the point of investing in a country if the aid is going to dry up before the effort becomes self-sustaining.

Extremely dishonest take on modern farming technology. What we did was crack the genetic code and used it to inteligently design better crops, deveoloped fertilizers that can efficiently feed every nutrient and micro nutrient to any crop,

The food is less nutritious. That's just a fact. The faster and bigger something grows the lower the nutritional value tends to be. The plant has less time and energy to dedicate to uptake and formation of vitamins. The minerals are only what is in the soil or you add.

Have you considered the diets of many asian countries are based on white rice. It's empty calories. They stuff themselves with empty carbs for calories. That's how we're feeding a sizeable chunk of the world right now.

nutrients

Those chemical fertilizers are problematic, that's its own whole thing. We throw nutrients out of the system constantly and need to replenish them continually, it's dirty and wasteful.

My take on farming is based on the technology that is literally being used on farms, yours seems to be based on some lying progressive activist's propaganda.

I like gardening and at my home, the conditions can barely sustain most food plants. Even in more favorable conditions, a bountiful garden could not sustain my own food needs. The logistics of food production interest me.

I asked about Star Trek because technology always fixing everything is a big theme in that franchise. I am not so optimistic there is always a way around problems that's just around the corner waiting to be developed or implemented.

I grow plants in water. Literally fucking water and nutrients. They are delicious and nutritious.

How many people can you sustain on that setup, and what's the cost in producing that food? I don't think that's a workable solution for most countries to implement wide scale hydroponic farms, hydroponic crops are pricey compared to those grown in soil.

[–]VLAD_THE_IMPALER 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

africa is corrupt because their leaders are corrupt and steal everything and leaves nothing for the people, which is what is happening to the united states now.

the united states has upcoming water shortages, but we ignore it like it isnt happening.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I'm not talking about the farm equipment, I'm talking about the agricultural technology

What agricultural technology are you talking about exactly? Because there is not a single thing I can think of that can be considered agricultural technology that does not scale.

[–]Musky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

All of it, every method and technique we have to extract food from a given area. I didn't say it doesn't scale, I said it doesn't scale endlessly.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Typical leftist bullshit. You tak on an "Infinity" to a true statement to claim it is false. Nothing needs to scale infinitely.

Why don't you try having a conversation without turning to bullshit like that?

[–]Musky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't think anyone else has called me liberal in years, it's weird. This has nothing to do with a political ideology. The point about scaling infinitely is to accommodate the population increase which causes the next food shortage and the cycle repeats. The Malthusian trap. It's like the entire point of what I originally wrote.

Why don't you try having a conversation without turning to bullshit like that?

I don't see how that's productive.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There is some hard limit to what we can do.

What is the limit you are talking about?

Why can't the third world meet (NOT EXCEED, JUST MEET) the agricultural level of the western world?

[–]Musky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm pretty sure people aren't just sitting around starving for no good reason. Take Africa for instance, off the top of my head, a lot of the area doesn't get enough water and the soil isn't fertile. If this was easily overcome, why aren't they?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A functional country requires a critical concentration of intelligence. Not just within the government but also amung the workers.

There are obstacles for everyone, everywhere in the world. The climate in Europe is far far worse for farming than in Africa. Pulling excuses out of thin air is very easy, but just because you invented an excuse does not make it valid. And clearly you don't care because you are still using the bullshit excuse that the soil isnt fertile when I have pointed out over and over the fact that we already have the knowledge and technology to grow food in water. Fertilizers exist, yet you pretend they don't just to manufacture excuses. These are bad faith arguments. You are pulling bullshit out of your ass to defent the montain of lies that is the progressive narrative.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's not all as simple as what you're saying.

It really is though. None of the "complications" you are coming up with are legitimate. They are all bullshit made up by progressives to excuse the failures of the third worlders.

The truth can be seen in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Both countries took developed and functioning farms away from white farmers and gave them to black farmers. Both had thier agricultural capacity collapse instantly, going from net food exporters to famine.

It is very simple, it just isn't pallatable. People like you just can't stomach admitting the truth.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

And to what end should the environment be destroyed to support masses of poor humanity.

The very idea that farming is evil and destroys nature is absurd.

It is also completely outside the scope of the discussion.

If you want to argue that they deserve to starve becsuse feeding them is bad for nature perhaps you should start a thread about that. But somehow I get the feeling you would take the other side of that argument as soon as it gets framed in the proper way.

[–]Musky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But somehow I get the feeling you would take the other side of that argument as soon as it gets framed in the proper way.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is your political boogeyman.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It has nothing to do with boogymen. You have a leftist mentality: feelings over facts. Your brain can't understand that when the facts run counter to your feelings that is proof that your feelings are wrong. So depending on how something is framed it will make you feel different ways. Rather than put your feelings aside and analize the facts you will let your feelings lead the way, then try to rationalize your position after.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The land and climate everywhere is not suited to growing large amounts of food cost and effort effectively.

"Cost effective" is a relative term. What is the value of life that you don't think their lives are worth the cost of farming? Is it all life you find so worthless or just residents of the third world.

You make a compeling argument though, if they cant feed themselves perhaps they should starve.

[–]Musky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Obviously it's not a plant, but Brazilians can barely afford beef, they raise it mostly for the US. They produce food they cannot afford to eat themselves. Unless you're talking about nationalizing food production, this is an issue.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They export the beef because they rather have iphones and nikes than beef for dinner.

If the country developed a better agriculture sector the animal feed would be cheaper, the cost of living would be lower, and they would have enough beef to export and eat.

Their output is low because they run everything poorly. Every single thing is effected, and in turn effects the next thing down the line. Bad water processing makes water expensive. Price gouging makes fuel expensive, that makes the poor farming effort even worse than it would have been. That makes domestic grain expensive. Imported grain gets terrifed because government corruption. And on and on. All of those factors scale with IQ.

[–]Musky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They export the beef because they rather have iphones and nikes than beef for dinner.

The beef prices in Brazil are the same as the US, but the average Brazilian earns $3/hr. They eat a lot of beans. Also, the phone market is dominated by Samsung and Xiaomi android phones. The admittedly few Brazilians I have spoked too had older or value priced phones, not flagship models too. Can't speak to the footwear, although sneakerheads are fucking weird.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

conditions can barely sustain most food plants

Don't blame the conditions, blame the farmer. Like i said, the technilogy exists to grow food in water. That means you can grow it in literally anything. You can add everything your plants need to the soil. You can add things to make it softer, retain moisture better, whatever you want. You can even supplament light, co2, and heat.

It won't be cheaper than store bought, but you can absolutely feed yourself if you had the will.

[–]1Icemonkey 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What do you get when you feed a billion starving niggers?

Two billion starving niggers!

[–]Evola 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I would say paying to keep pet niggers alive to be honest. The sign says not to feed the animals for a reason.

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

[–]Skankhunter42 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Maybe because niggers can't take care of their own. Fuck, shoot, beat, rape, murder instead of doing the right thing.

[–]Dragonerne 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Jews are the reason. They destroyed russia, then moved to the west and destroyed us too. What a lovely people.