That shows the dominance of the financial market and the economic power over the structures of society. We find completely normal hundreds of billions be redirected to the owners of the capital but we would find an anomaly to think of a technological project that could bring real progress and costed that much.
Yeah, take something proportional to how big (population) AND rich a country is. Divide this by a metric that grows with how rich a country is. This way poorer but bigger countries score better. But that doesn't tell much.
The US is a country with rich people in it, it’s not a rich country.
( I live in New Orleans, 35% of kids don’t have enough calories per days to have a proper brain development. And New Orleans is fine compared to the rest or Louisiana )
> in New Orleans, 35% of kids don’t have enough calories per days to have a proper brain development
Source? I find that hard to believe, considering how cheap and plentiful calories are and how numerous the various public assistance programs exist relating to feeding the poor.
I know it’s intense. Those people must be stupid. Or it’s their fault and they deserve it. ( :s ! )
My bad for the figure, I had a third in mind. It’s less. Can’t find a general population figure in the short amount of time. 20 ish % of black kids is enough or it’s fine ?
What was eye opening to me was volonteering in a random school. And noticing how the breakfast was a important and respected steps. Like.. not everyone had dinner last night.
Been to new orleans. Didn't see anyone with 'caloric deficit' issues.
And you have it backwards. Louisiana has a problem with an overabundance of calories, not a lack of calories. Louisiana is one of most obese states in the country after all.
Or “no kid hungry Louisiana”, that the one I noticed here. Giving breakfast out in school. My first reaction was to wonder why. Digging I realized that a fair amount of kids were coming to school on a empty belly.
That’s it.
Also “been to New Orleans” is a funny statement! Congratulations on seeing Jackson square and the French quarter. It’s a city, not 10 historical blocks.
I find it utterly bizarre that this kind of ignorant hand-wringing is so pervasive. The US median household income is ~6x the global median. The average US household in the bottom income quintile has an income above global median before accounting for 10s of thousands of dollars in in-kind transfers (i.e. welfare).
> 35% of kids don’t have enough calories per days to have a proper brain development.
The article says nothing about children lacking the calories required for brain development. It says 23% of black households self-reported "not having enough food in the past week". Which is weird, because when I go looking for objective data that might support the assertion that a significant percentage of the population isn't getting enough calories, I don't find anything. I did find an article that obtained weight data on both whites and blacks nationwide, and broke them down in Underweight, Normal, Overweight, and Obese categories... but the number of underweight individuals was so low that it rolled them into the 'Normal' category, and didn't even report the Underweight category. It's almost like everyone is getting more than enough to eat!
Neither your anecdata on "visible poverty" nor the US Gini index contradict the obvious fact that the USA is, by any serious measure, a rich country.
So everything is fine and my experience is anecdotal.
It truly makes me feel better.
I should do the same exercise you did with Swiss data.
That what come to my personal mind when I think of “rich country” not the lower 9th ward, or New Orleans East.
But since the US is rich like demonstrated.
I should actively start to reframe those place into “rich”. And look more at all those fat people in the street.
Yeah, why not? Humanity seriously needs to develop the technology required for space stations dedicated to farming and livestock, space industry in general. Much better than wasting human talent and potential on adtech nonsense, that's for sure.
That idea seems to show up occasionally in science fiction which has quite the uncanny ability to predict the future so I'm just gonna assume it's going to happen at some point.
If it's complicated you should probably explain. Your link doesn't disprove the parent -- it compares different water and land use of various cattle raising methods.
Over 60% of cropland in the US goes towards raising beef, a food which makes up a very low percent of the calories in an average person's diet.
>
>Beef cattle use nearly 60% of the world’s agricultural land but account for less than 2% of global calories and 5% of global protein consumed
I provide a study from the National Library of Medicine.
This study provides a nuanced view of the topic here,
and provides a lot of data.
If you did read the scientific study I linked to, then you would now know
that land that "food animals" occupy is often not at all suited for other forms
of agriculture.
You would also know that various food animals can be fed and raised on
waste from other agricultural processes that humans could not consume.
That is why I stated "It is more complicated than what the original soundbite
line portrayed it as.
> If you did read the scientific study I linked to, then you would now know that land that "food animals" occupy is often not at all suited for other forms of agriculture.
How much of a cow's diet do you believe comes from resources that would not be otherwise useful to humans?
Your image of cattle grazing out on the range is out of touch with reality. Nearly all beef consumed in America starts with diverting water that could go towards directly feeding humans
Most of the feed that cattle get on feedlots is waste from ethanol and biofuel production, aka distillers grains. We feed cattle very little fresh grain so all of the statistics about cropland use are extremely misleading. Several industries use that grain one after the other.
That feed along with the fresh hay is fed to cows at the end of their life to fatten them up for human consumption. Notice how the article you linked says 200 million acres of cropland used for beef and 325 million overall versus 900 million acres of total farmland? Most of the difference is marginal pasture that can’t grow anything for human consumption. We don’t fertilize or water it, it’s just grassland that grow by itself where we raise cows before sending them to feedlots. Without that cropland going to distillers and cows, over 60% of our farmland would be completely useless. Not only that but most of our cropland isn’t very useful either - 95% of the corn we grow is inedible dent corn. It’s one of the cheapest commodities on the planet that’s only worth growing as a last resort.
We make this tradeoff because those 600 million acres of otherwise unusable farmland are far more resilient than our cropland so we have a huge backup of calories incase of massive crop failure.
That's a good point, I know in Australia, NZ, the Uk/Wales etc, sheep and cattle graze in farmland that would not be easy to reshape (e.g. terraced) for agriculture. So that otherwise "useless" farmland ends up being useful.
Source: rock climbing one day and finding sheep grazing on plush grass in an otherwise inaccessible location. Apparently it's well known, and locals will climb up to look for said lost sheep.
Their feed and hay occupy land and use water that could be used more efficiently to directly feed humans.
My uncle was a cattle rancher in Arizona, on "marginal" land that didn't grow food for humans. It didn't grow enough for his cows either. We would leave out bales of alfalfa to keep the cows healthy. Alfalfa is grown in those big irrigated circles you've surely seen while flying.
Most beef consumed in the US comes from feedlots. Over 70% of "grass-fed" beef sold in the US is imported.
>Grass fed beef does not add to Climate change, as all bio-emissions are bound in a circle. Unlike typical mass production which is importing feed from far abroad, often burning a good chunk of rainforest in the process on doing so.
There are many studies that show that beef, grass fed or not, add to Climate change.
The grass fed meme crowd thinks they are saving the rainforest by not eating beef fed with soy from monocultures in Latin America but conveniently forget that in order to feed the whole world with grass fed animals you would need more land than the world can provide. Much of the amazon is being cut down to create pastures for cattle. It's a complete tragedy.
>Beef cattle use nearly 60% of the world’s agricultural land but account for less than 2% of global calories and 5% of global protein consumed.
I think that patents should only be enforceable if there is a commercialy product or service using it in the interval of maybe 5 years since the patent was registered. People making money by buying patents and suing companies is downright evil.
Go is played in a a bigger board though and has this kind of recursive nature where a subset of a go game is also a go game while chess is more ad-hoc.
I think that at some point AI will enter the domain of repetitive physical jobs, like for example an experienced butcher will train an AI arm that eventually will learn to slice meat correctly since that's an activity that normally works with a reasonably standardized product(the animal carcass).
Keeping that in mind, honestly for me it's hard not to be very skeptical that it would make any economic sense in the next many decades to have an expensive humanoid robot performing tasks with a very low aggregated value like moving boxes one by one. Just because it's a robot performing an economic activity it doesn't necessarily mean it will be productive or competitive.
I don't know about your example, animal carcasses vary a bunch and it would have to be great at not leaving any meat wasted. Maybe like hammering a nail or properly turning screws and checking tightness?
I think it will do well at performing economic activities that don't have real hard time constraints, but just require labor. Ex. moving boxes around from one storehouse to another...leave the last bit of sorting and packing to humans, but now you don't need someone doing the boring work.
>I don't know about your example, animal carcasses vary a bunch and it would have to be great at not leaving any meat wasted.
Cutting meat in practice is an activity that's more complex than it looks and for sure carcasses vary a lot, but even taking in account all their variation they still follow a pattern. At some point I'm sure we'll have robotic AI arms that will be trainable just like chatGPT is, so after being trained by a profession with thousands and thousands of hours, the hypotetical intelligent robotic arm eventually learns to do the job just fine 99.99% of the time and that's enough.
