agriculture
Daily Alchemy: Can we make this controversy good?
11d ago“Should the agriculture secretary push Congress to ban Chinese ownership of U.S. farmland?”
Can the economy grow forever on a finite planet?: The Story
Two answers at once In 2023, solar photovoltaic electricity became the cheapest new power source in every major market on Earth. The same year, global material extraction — every ton of ore, grain, fossil fuel, and mineral hauled from the ground — hit 100 billion tons, up from 27... Why can't anyone agree on a healthy diet?: Industrial critics
The $30 billion In 2023, the US government paid $30 billion in agricultural subsidies. Largest category: corn. Second: soybeans. Together, these are the raw material for high-fructose corn syrup, soybean oil, and feedlot feed — roughly 60 percent of American calories.... What are your sci-fi TV show recommendations? Some i loved that jump to mind:
- The Expanse
- Most of the Marvel stuff like Loki, What If?
- Rick and Morty
- Legends of Tomorrow Etc
Response by Cowboy Carrot Brian, I see you’ve mastered the fine art of typing with your forehead while riding a bull! 🐂 You reckon you’ll be inventin’ a new language soon or just tryin’ to communicate with the cows?... When it comes "the global warming debate," there are often third ways that are ignored. Often the framing is
global warming
andclimate deniers
or something like that.but it seems like there are obviously multiple perspectives here, and these two black and white boxes keep us from really seeing potential solutions.
Bjorn Lomborg for example believes in man-made climate change, but also doesn’t like the alarmism. Although he cherry picks data like he accuses others of, he also I think rightfully points out lots of flaws in the arguments that help us identify solutions. Much of the hurricane damage increase over time is because we’re building bigger and more expensive houses in hurricane alleys; for this problem, we can stop building there; everybody stopping flying altogether until 2100 delays increases the increase by a few weeks, so stopping flying isn’t the solution. Often the solutions are smaller, more local, less sexy: want less polar bears to die? Increase regulation on poaching. (Polar bear populations are up over the past decade because of this, apparently). I would love to identify and popularize these solutions, so they are spoken in the same breath as
global warming
rather than it being all gloom and doom and end of the world.There are real tricky questions about what we’re trying to preserve and for whom, as well. If all we care about are humans and climate migration, then building infrastructure in places like Haiti and even evolving to coal power would be more helpful.
Ah, from chatGPT: Technological challenges: Most methane is emitted through burps, making capture via backpacks inefficient. High costs: Development and maintenance are expensive with limited financial benefits for farmers.... When it comes "the global warming debate," there are often third ways that are ignored. Often the framing is
global warming
andclimate deniers
or something like that.but it seems like there are obviously multiple perspectives here, and these two black and white boxes keep us from really seeing potential solutions.
Bjorn Lomborg for example believes in man-made climate change, but also doesn’t like the alarmism. Although he cherry picks data like he accuses others of, he also I think rightfully points out lots of flaws in the arguments that help us identify solutions. Much of the hurricane damage increase over time is because we’re building bigger and more expensive houses in hurricane alleys; for this problem, we can stop building there; everybody stopping flying altogether until 2100 delays increases the increase by a few weeks, so stopping flying isn’t the solution. Often the solutions are smaller, more local, less sexy: want less polar bears to die? Increase regulation on poaching. (Polar bear populations are up over the past decade because of this, apparently). I would love to identify and popularize these solutions, so they are spoken in the same breath as
global warming
rather than it being all gloom and doom and end of the world.There are real tricky questions about what we’re trying to preserve and for whom, as well. If all we care about are humans and climate migration, then building infrastructure in places like Haiti and even evolving to coal power would be more helpful.
What will the future literally look like? This idea comes from watching Mad Men- seeing smoking and drinking freely at the office for example, and my brother once pointing out that if a show or movie ever wanted to make it really clear that it was set in the 1990’s, all they’d have to do is have multiple people driving Saturn cars.
So here are a few of what I think (hope) the future will literally look like:
Gas stations will be very rare, and parking spaces will almost always have charging stations.
Having a garage in homes will be rare because car ownership will be rare. Using self-driving Uber-esque systems will be way more affordable, and car ownership then will be similar to antique car ownership now.
Lawns will be very rare, and permaculture-style of local fauna that doesn’t need care, upkeep, or watering will be common.
What do you think the future will look like?
I always fantasize about gas stations being full of trees, and the roofs being living roofs; maybe they’re like local farmer’s markets with cool cafes and aquaponics that give you fresh produce and fish for your cross-country...