Elon Musk is a nice chap

[bdunham7]

You can't simply ignore agriculture and luxury food consumption as being each country's own problem due to the limited shared "resource" of Earth's atmosphere. It is a tragedy of the commons situation.

If you want to start arguing that climate change isn't a real issue then I have no interest in further discussion. There is plenty of existing, widely available and strongly supported info for that discussion.

You most certainly can ignore climate change for the most part and when it comes to 'luxury food consumption' I predict that ignoring it is pretty much exactly what will happen.  We'll put up our solar panels and buy EVs, install water saving showerheads and toilets, but give up In-N-Out burger?  Not happening.  The herd of cattle just waiting at Harris Ranch to be ground up and put on a bun will continue to grow.

Climate change will not necessarily interrupt agricultural production--in some areas it may improve it while in others it may be quite detrimental.  Crops grow just fine with additional CO₂ and water in the atmosphere. The key ingredients are water and a suitable crop/climate match.  Despite the well publicized water issues in California (which are simply marginal anyway, not a systemic issue), there are many areas in the US with abundant water even in the driest years.  There will be some adaptations to be made, but again, those 'luxury consumers' will be the ones most able to adapt.  If we have to grow pineapples in North Dakota, we can.  If Bangladesh floods, they're screwed.

[james_s]

None of these poor countries fundamentally lack the resources to support population growth. The problem is that world as a whole currently lacks the resources to support the excessive life styles in "first-world" nations e.g. meat and dairy consumption. Building rockets isn't a lifestyle choice causing a burden on the planet, it's a undertaking benefiting the advancement of humanity. Conflating technological advancement expenditures with wasteful lifestyle choices lacks critical thinking. Saving food scraps on the dinner table at home will do little to help "starving children in Africa" and for that matter neither will giving money to "charities" attempting to use guilt to fill their pockets. Lifestyle changes will however help move society and humanity as a whole towards a more sustainable future. If there's anyone doing major work to pull African countries out of poverty and into development it's China, and they aren't doing to be altruistic.

So stop growing the population, that in my opinion is by far the biggest source of problems on earth, there are simply far too many of us and we keep procreating. As I said once to a good friend of mine who earned more than me but was perpetually short on money, he should focus not on earning more but on spending less, I think we should focus not on supplying larger and larger populations with resources but on not growing such large populations. There is some limit out there to the number of humans that can populate the earth, whether available food causes that limit or something else it is there, and nature will put a cap on it one way or another. I don't see why anyone should be tasked with pulling Africa and China out of poverty and into development other than Africa and China. From my limited observations, most 3rd world nations seem to be hobbled by corrupt government than by lack of resources. Virtually everywhere on earth is blessed with some sort of resource that is is valuable and can be exchanged with other parts of the world for the things they lack. Why they can't solve their own problems is somewhat of a mystery to me, the information is more available than it has ever been. Successful developed nations didn't spawn out of nowhere, they were built by people who had vision and motivation.

Whatever the case, I like meat and dairy, they are some of my favorite foods and I certainly am not going to give them up. I already take reasonable efforts to reduce my footprint on the world, I was an early adopter of efficient lighting and bought LED bulbs back when they were over $40 each, I've always driven a car that is at least moderately efficient and I drive very little, I take good care of my things and keep them for a long time and I very frequently take in cast off items (including cars) that were considered end of life and repair them for my own use rather than consuming resources on new stuff. According to the data on my utility bill my energy consumption is far lower than average for this area. I really don't feel any shame in my lifestyle, I don't live in 3rd world poverty and I don't want to, but I don't live a life of conspicuous and gratuitous consumption either.

[james_s]

Much of the problems with hunger

Come down with the endless wars fought over either power or 'trinkets' ( diamonds, gold , oil ). they displace entire populations. that power is mainly derived from selling such trinkets.

I have no use for those trinkets. Diamonds are good for cutting things and playing records, nothing else that I care about and industrial diamonds can be made synthetically. Gold is useful stuff but I have never used it for decoration and overall I consume very little of it. Oil is definitely useful but I try to reduce my dependence on that as well.

[james_s]

I don't know if the USA does grow pineapples, bananas, etc within the contiguous states, but it doesn't matter, as they do in Hawaii.
The rest of their climate range allows the growth of multiple crops that would be imports for countries of smaller area.

We could if we wanted to. I could grow pineapples and bananas right here in the Northwest if I were to build a large greenhouse and cultivate it. I have no motivation to do so though because I can simply import pineapples and bananas from somewhere they grow in the natural climate, perhaps trading some of the apples for example that grow in abundance here. This is all down to economics, we produce the foods that are economical to grow in specific regions and export them to regions where they are not economical to produce.

The big problem with food of course is storage, a lot of food spoils very rapidly and all food spoils eventually. A huge volume of food is wasted but I don't have a good solution for that, you can't grow an apple on demand, so you grow enough to keep the store stocked and if some of them don't sell in time they become waste. If we could teleport a lot of our at risk of spoiling food over to Africa I'm sure we would, but using available economical means to get it there it would surely be spoiled by the time it gets to the people who need it, and sending them rotting food is not helping anybody.

[EEVblog]

Oil is definitely useful but I try to reduce my dependence on that as well.

Lots of plastics are made from naphtha which comes from crude oil.

[sandalcandal]

You most certainly can ignore climate change for the most part and when it comes to 'luxury food consumption' I predict that ignoring it is pretty much exactly what will happen.  We'll put up our solar panels and buy EVs, install water saving showerheads and toilets, but give up In-N-Out burger?  Not happening.  The herd of cattle just waiting at Harris Ranch to be ground up and put on a bun will continue to grow.

Climate change will not necessarily interrupt agricultural production--in some areas it may improve it while in others it may be quite detrimental.  Crops grow just fine with additional CO₂ and water in the atmosphere. The key ingredients are water and a suitable crop/climate match.  Despite the well publicized water issues in California (which are simply marginal anyway, not a systemic issue), there are many areas in the US with abundant water even in the driest years.  There will be some adaptations to be made, but again, those 'luxury consumers' will be the ones most able to adapt.  If we have to grow pineapples in North Dakota, we can.  If Bangladesh floods, they're screwed.

That sounds all good to me. I think it's fair so say people aren't going to give up their real beef burgers easily or at least without a better alternative. I would lean more towards people (particularly younger generations) will move towards more sustainable food and there will be food/ag technology developments that will help to significantly reduce required resources and impacts for food production including meat replacements which will become more popular than "real" meat whether by cost advantages or otherwise being more tasty. The only (significant) issue I see with what you've written there is saying "You most certainly can ignore climate change" followed directly by stating actions and changes we will need to take to deal with climate change.

Anyway, seems the points I was trying to make have been acknowledged so I'm happy.

[sandalcandal]

So stop growing the population, that in my opinion is by far the biggest source of problems on earth, there are simply far too many of us and we keep procreating. As I said once to a good friend of mine who earned more than me but was perpetually short on money, he should focus not on earning more but on spending less, I think we should focus not on supplying larger and larger populations with resources but on not growing such large populations.

I would again encourage you to look at the earlier videos I posted regarding overpopulation and have a think. The point I want to make to you is the problem is more towards "spending less" in terms of not consuming as much and also "spending less" in terms of reducing required resources and impacts of agriculture through technology improvements.

[nctnico]

The problem with food production is not availability of land but availability of energy and efficient farming techniques. What the Dutch farmers are able to do with an extremely tiny amount of land proves that; the Netherlands is the 2nd largest exporter of agricultural goods after the US.

If the US can produce all of the food (beef, pork and chicken included) needed for its own inhabitants plus some to export, why would I care if some other nation is happy about it or not?  The world simply doesn't work the way you seem to imagine it.  For example, US agricultural production is actually significantly curtailed and could be increased easily.  Given sufficient economic incentive, it could be increased a lot.  The world isn't going hungry because I eat too much meat.  The reasons we don't export even more than we do now are primarily political and economic, probably in that order.  To me, 'sustainable' means living within your means.  So a 'sustainable food future' for any particular area means developing the capability to feed your population by either producing or importing, or limiting that population to what you can actually support. 

You are all over 'high consuming outliers' but consistently fail to acknowledge the key point that outside some small cases, those are also the high producing outliers.  That's not a coincidence!

Okay, you both seem to be making the assertion that agricultural practices in developed countries can be realistically scaled to support future food demand. The implication is then that production can simply scale and there will be no issues with world hunger given developing countries can attain a similar level of development and prosperity to current developed nations which do not have issues with hunger/malnutrition. That's logically coherent but the premise directly contradicts the sources I previously posted (and otherwise have seen) that current agricultural practices in developed countries CANNOT be realistically scaled to support future food demand. Is that premise factual or just wishful thinking?

It is clear your sources are wrong (as random Youtube videos often are) because they do not take into account that farming methods can be improved / changed to give higher yields from the same area of land. The ability to do so will go hand in hand with improving the economy of such countries which needs to start by ending the local wars and improving education.

edit: typo

[sandalcandal]

It is clear your sources are wrong (as random Youtube videos often are) because they do not take into account that farming methods can be improved / changed to give higher yields from the same area of land. The ability to do so will go hand in hand with improving the economy of such countries which needs to start by ending the local wars and improving education.

edit: typo

They aren't "random" youtube videos. They are videos I choose specifically because they provide citations and I think they are well written and well researched. Kurzgesagt in particular provides extensive source documents and consults SMEs for their videos (sources for climate responsibility video https://sites.google.com/view/sourcesclimateresponsibility/). I have also provided other articles and written sources if videos are so offensive to you. You can also look at the sources used in any of the videos as listed in their descriptions.

Edit: Relevant, new (May 2021) report. Explicitly includes yield gains. Reducing meat and milk consumption is major part of the recommendations in addition to other strategies. https://www.wri.org/research/pathway-carbon-neutral-agriculture-denmark
Webinar form: https://www.wri.org/events/2021/5/pathway-carbon-neutral-agriculture

What evidence do you have to say that "they do not take into account that farming methods can be improved / changed to give higher yields"? Are you assuming the research and papers which the videos are based on fail to take that into account? Do you have any evidence the improvement you claim can be achieved and to a sufficient level?

I don't contest land use can be solved by the current rate of progression. I support that statement and have in the past. Again, I'm not against the idea that technology can and should be used improve agriculture. If you read my recent response to bdunham7, the issue is primarily greenhouse emissions, not land use. The videos and sources I've posted similarly cite greenhouse emissions as the issue and not land use so I wonder if you actually looked at them. My assertion is that this isn't "someone else's problem" or "whatever happens elsewhere doesn't concern me" due to global impacts from greenhouse gas emissions, global responsibility should be taken.

The natural progression would then be "they do not take into account that farming methods can be improved/changed to give higher yields from the same GHG emissions". So I did some research there and found some data which provided some new information and changed my mind a bit. https://www.climatewatchdata.org/sectors/agriculture


Total World GHG emissions from agriculture are still rising and do not appear to be plateauing or reducing so there definitely needs to be more done to reduce Agricultural emissions.


If we look at per capita GHG emissions however, there is a strong reduction in the past 60 years. So despite improving agricultural allowing more people to be fed using less GHG emissions, the total emissions are still rising. A point to "overpopulation"?


Interestingly GHG emissions per GDP has plateaued so the ability to further reduce GHG emissions through economic development seems limited and already developed nations have limited capacity to further reduce emissions at the current rate. This graph could be more useful as a log vertical scale.

I'll just post my observations instead of filling this post with endless attachments from here. You can look at the graphs yourself by following the source linked above.
Emissions per capita for OECD countries also seems to have levelled out in the past decade at 880 to 960 mt per capita further confirming an impasse has been reached for reducing GHG emissions in developed countries.
Emissions per capita for "least developed countries" are at 960mt per capita in 2018. Least developed countries are already parity with developed countries
Emissions per capita for Nigeria (expected to be third largest in the world by 2050) Approximately net even change over the past 30 years. 350 mt per captia in 1989 and 360 mt per capital in 2018. Nigeria is likely to see significant increases in Agricultural emissions?
Emissions per capita for US Similar OECD, lack of change in emissions per capita in last decade. 1.1 t per capita in 2009 and 2018.
Emissions per capita for India Some downward trend but limited. 520 mt per capita in 2007 and 480 mt per capita in 2018.
Emissions per capita for China Was increasing up to 1996 550 mt per capita peak then decreasing to 480 mt per capita by 2003 followed by stability then recent drop to 460 mt per capita in 2018. Stable then recent decrease
Emissions per capita for Australia is a whooping 6 t per capita in 2018 but decreasing. Perhaps due to large agricultural export in Australia?


It seems to me that GHG emissions from Agricultural activities do have room to improve over the world with a downwards trend in per capita emissions globally but the current rate of improvement isn't sufficient to offset population growth leading to a continued increase in global GHG emissions due to agriculture. The downwards trend in per capita emissions appears to be due to a significant fraction of developing nations reducing per capita emissions but even the least developed have little rooms left to improve. If the largest developing countries (Nigeria, India, China) were to reach towards GHG emissions per Capita of first world countries such as the US by copying the consumption/production habits even with their "modernised" agriculture then the rise in GHG emissions would be much worse but fortunately this doesn't seem to be happening. Developed countries aren't reducing GHG emissions per capita in the last decade.

Unlike land use, GHG emissions for agriculture are not seeing an improvements in emissions with the benefit of being developed.
And let's not forget, the need is to become carbon neutral, not just stopping GHG emissions rising.

With regard to who is responsible and should be taking action, see the Kurzgesagt video posted previously.

I guess at best you could maybe contest developing countries will start to reduce their GHG emissions per capita even faster once more developed? but that seems unrealistic given they are already on par with developed countries and the most populous ones I looked at are already ~50% GHG emissions per capita of first world countries.

This is just looking at numbers and graphs so could definitely be missing the trees for the forest. It's also definitely not a full numerical analysis either. Data is a little bit dated too. I expect 2020 and 2021 will have a pretty massive dip due to COVID.

If anyone else can provide an alternative source for analysis that would be useful.

[sandalcandal]

Part 3 of Starbase tour with Elon Musk. Includes interactions with SpaceX staff and workers in the lead up to the stacking which is pretty fascinating.

Article form and notes here https://everydayastronaut.com/starbase-tour-and-interview-with-elon-musk/

[Psi]

For anyone saying something like...
"Elon's delusional because he thinks he can build a self sustaining city on mars, doing that will take many 100's of years, there's no way he can do that" 
You are making an assumption that he expects to finish it.

Elon has stated that he'll be long dead before any mars base is self sustaining.
He is trying to build one yes, but is not under any delusion that he will be the one to finish it.

[Zero999]

You most certainly can ignore climate change for the most part and when it comes to 'luxury food consumption' I predict that ignoring it is pretty much exactly what will happen.  We'll put up our solar panels and buy EVs, install water saving showerheads and toilets, but give up In-N-Out burger?  Not happening.  The herd of cattle just waiting at Harris Ranch to be ground up and put on a bun will continue to grow.

Climate change will not necessarily interrupt agricultural production--in some areas it may improve it while in others it may be quite detrimental.  Crops grow just fine with additional CO₂ and water in the atmosphere. The key ingredients are water and a suitable crop/climate match.  Despite the well publicized water issues in California (which are simply marginal anyway, not a systemic issue), there are many areas in the US with abundant water even in the driest years.  There will be some adaptations to be made, but again, those 'luxury consumers' will be the ones most able to adapt.  If we have to grow pineapples in North Dakota, we can.  If Bangladesh floods, they're screwed.

That sounds all good to me. I think it's fair so say people aren't going to give up their real beef burgers easily or at least without a better alternative. I would lean more towards people (particularly younger generations) will move towards more sustainable food and there will be food/ag technology developments that will help to significantly reduce required resources and impacts for food production including meat replacements which will become more popular than "real" meat whether by cost advantages or otherwise being more tasty. The only (significant) issue I see with what you've written there is saying "You most certainly can ignore climate change" followed directly by stating actions and changes we will need to take to deal with climate change.

Anyway, seems the points I was trying to make have been acknowledged so I'm happy.

I wouldn't mind eating less meat. I've tried some vegetarian burgers and sausages and they're better than the cheapest real meat products. The problem is they cost the same, or more than premium meat products, but don't taste as good. This is silly as it should be cheaper to just eat soy, rather than feed it to animals and eat them, but the fact that soy-based foods are made in smaller quantities drastically increases the price. I only buy faux meat, when it's heavily discounted.

Regarding the developing world: the people in many countries lack the knowledge and some don't seem to want to, or even be capable of change. Some African countries did quite well, when run by Europe. Rhodesia is one example. When the Brits ran it, most of the people there had access to food, a decent income and clean drinking water. I'm not saying it was acceptable for the British to treat the natives as second class citizens and crush any opposition, but the economy was booming. The Brits left and all was well for a couple of years, until the Mugabe regime decided it was a good idea to seize land off white farmers and hand it to natives, who knew little about farming and Zimbabwe went on a downwards spiral. Now South Africa seems to be on a similar path, after being the richest country in Africa.

I've read articles from the 1960s about the supposed bright future for many parts of Africa, which were being held back by European rule, yet there's been little progress and some retrogression in many countries, since the Europeans left. Some blame the lingering scars of colonialism, but lots of those countries have a young demographic, with only a small percentage old enough to remember. We can't blame the Europeans for everything bad, forever.

Throwing money at developing countries will not solve the problem, because the money will be wasted. The same is true for most poor people. If you gave the average working class person a large sum of money, they would spend it on something to give them immediate gratification, i.e. nice clothes, jewellery a sports car, rather than invest it in something for the future such as education, or starting a business.

Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic. After all Britain was pretty backward, until the Romans came here and it also retrogressed for awhile after they left. Hopefully the same will be true for Africa.

Anyway, going back to the topic of Musk. If humans are to establish a colony on Mars, it needs to be one of shared values and a culture of planning for the future, otherwise it will soon collapse due to poor investment and fighting.

[coppice]

Regarding the developing world: the people in many countries lack the knowledge and some don't seem to not want to, or even be capable of change. Some African countries did quite well, when run by Europe. Rhodesia is one example. When the Brits ran it, most of the people there had access to food, a decent income and clean drinking water. I'm not saying it was acceptable for the British to treat the natives as second class citizens and crush any opposition, but the economy was booming. The Brits left and all was well for a couple of years, until the Mugabe regime decided it was a good idea to seize land off white farmers and hand it to natives, who knew little about farming and Zimbabwe went on a downwards spiral. Now South Africa seems to be on a similar path, after being the richest country in Africa.

I could spin that another way. When the British ruled large parts of Africa they took western technology there, that greatly increased the yield of the land, reduced disease, and allowed the population to grow considerably. Then they left, and the local people started to revert to more traditional ways of using the land, which do not require the steady influx of fertilizer and chemicals, and should be a lot more sustainable. The problem is the population they have cannot be sustained by the methods they use, until hardship beings things into equilibrium.

[Zero999]

Regarding the developing world: the people in many countries lack the knowledge and some don't seem to not want to, or even be capable of change. Some African countries did quite well, when run by Europe. Rhodesia is one example. When the Brits ran it, most of the people there had access to food, a decent income and clean drinking water. I'm not saying it was acceptable for the British to treat the natives as second class citizens and crush any opposition, but the economy was booming. The Brits left and all was well for a couple of years, until the Mugabe regime decided it was a good idea to seize land off white farmers and hand it to natives, who knew little about farming and Zimbabwe went on a downwards spiral. Now South Africa seems to be on a similar path, after being the richest country in Africa.

I could spin that another way. When the British ruled large parts of Africa they took western technology there, that greatly increased the yield of the land, reduced disease, and allowed the population to grow considerably. Then they left, and the local people started to revert to more traditional ways of using the land, which do not require the steady influx of fertilizer and chemicals, and should be a lot more sustainable. The problem is the population they have cannot be sustained by the methods they use, until hardship beings things into equilibrium.

That's very true, but Africa is rich natural resources, which can be exploited for a huge profit, enabling them to procure any chemicals and fertilisers they can't produce domestically, to grow food. Some parts of Africa also have a huge reserve of untapped renewable energy in the form of wind, solar and hydroelectric power. The problem is the people there lack the technology to harness them and political instability stands in the way of foreign investment.

[coppice]

Regarding the developing world: the people in many countries lack the knowledge and some don't seem to not want to, or even be capable of change. Some African countries did quite well, when run by Europe. Rhodesia is one example. When the Brits ran it, most of the people there had access to food, a decent income and clean drinking water. I'm not saying it was acceptable for the British to treat the natives as second class citizens and crush any opposition, but the economy was booming. The Brits left and all was well for a couple of years, until the Mugabe regime decided it was a good idea to seize land off white farmers and hand it to natives, who knew little about farming and Zimbabwe went on a downwards spiral. Now South Africa seems to be on a similar path, after being the richest country in Africa.

I could spin that another way. When the British ruled large parts of Africa they took western technology there, that greatly increased the yield of the land, reduced disease, and allowed the population to grow considerably. Then they left, and the local people started to revert to more traditional ways of using the land, which do not require the steady influx of fertilizer and chemicals, and should be a lot more sustainable. The problem is the population they have cannot be sustained by the methods they use, until hardship beings things into equilibrium.

That's very true, but Africa is rich natural resources, which can be exploited for a huge profit, enabling them to procure any chemicals and fertilisers they can't produce domestically, to grow food. Some parts of Africa also have a huge reserve of untapped renewable energy in the form of wind, solar and hydroelectric power. The problem is the people there lack the technology to harness them and political instability stands in the way of foreign investment.

The technology is available to them. It was a lot more available just after the Europeans left, and their farms were still highly productive and making money. They seem to choose not to use it. Some of that will come from their fear of the western banks. China got a strong foothold in Africa some years ago, by not bringing their banks with them. China learns fast, so now its banks are as predatory as anyone else's. Maybe the Africans are right to do what they do.

[Zero999]

Regarding the developing world: the people in many countries lack the knowledge and some don't seem to not want to, or even be capable of change. Some African countries did quite well, when run by Europe. Rhodesia is one example. When the Brits ran it, most of the people there had access to food, a decent income and clean drinking water. I'm not saying it was acceptable for the British to treat the natives as second class citizens and crush any opposition, but the economy was booming. The Brits left and all was well for a couple of years, until the Mugabe regime decided it was a good idea to seize land off white farmers and hand it to natives, who knew little about farming and Zimbabwe went on a downwards spiral. Now South Africa seems to be on a similar path, after being the richest country in Africa.

I could spin that another way. When the British ruled large parts of Africa they took western technology there, that greatly increased the yield of the land, reduced disease, and allowed the population to grow considerably. Then they left, and the local people started to revert to more traditional ways of using the land, which do not require the steady influx of fertilizer and chemicals, and should be a lot more sustainable. The problem is the population they have cannot be sustained by the methods they use, until hardship beings things into equilibrium.

That's very true, but Africa is rich natural resources, which can be exploited for a huge profit, enabling them to procure any chemicals and fertilisers they can't produce domestically, to grow food. Some parts of Africa also have a huge reserve of untapped renewable energy in the form of wind, solar and hydroelectric power. The problem is the people there lack the technology to harness them and political instability stands in the way of foreign investment.

The technology is available to them. It was a lot more available just after the Europeans left, and their farms were still highly productive and making money. They seem to choose not to use it. Some of that will come from their fear of the western banks. China got a strong foothold in Africa some years ago, by not bringing their banks with them. China learns fast, so now its banks are as predatory as anyone else's. Maybe the Africans are right to do what they do.

Come to think of it, how much knowledge of technology did the natives ever have? You can have all the technology in the world, but it's no good in the long run, without understanding how it works and what's necessary to maintain it.

What they did have was the knowledge in the minds of the Europeans who stayed there, after the country was returned to the natives. Their mistake was allow hate to take over. Rather than ceasing land from the white farmers, they could have taxed them in a sustainable manner and infested the money in education of the poor. Perhaps they should have accepted that Europeans and their descendents would have remained relatively rich, for many generations to come, but it would have been better than the mess they created seeking revenge.

Anyway, again steering us back on topic, we need to learn from the mistakes of counties who've done poorly on earth, as repeating them on another planet would be much more costly. We need to be very selective at who is allowed in to the Martian colony. People need to be chosen on merit alone and no bums and criminals should be allowed in. We can allow different religions and ethnicities, but there needs to be unifying sense of purpose and identity. If we don't do these basic things, it will collapse.

[CatalinaWOW]

We don't have much of an algorithm for selecting good people.  Australia and the US were dumping grounds for malcontents and criminals and things turned out pretty well.  Central and south America in stead got mostly the later children of wealthy and successful families since primogeniture wasn't going to give them such great opportunities at home.  Has worked OK, but not spectacular.  Here in the US during the great expansion of European cultures there were several colonies of the "best and brightest".  None ever amounted to much.

[Zero999]

We don't have much of an algorithm for selecting good people.  Australia and the US were dumping grounds for malcontents and criminals and things turned out pretty well.  Central and south America in stead got mostly the later children of wealthy and successful families since primogeniture wasn't going to give them such great opportunities at home.  Has worked OK, but not spectacular.  Here in the US during the great expansion of European cultures there were several colonies of the "best and brightest".  None ever amounted to much.

The main reason why the US and Canada are better off than Hispanic America is probably because they had closer links to the British Empire, which being the home of the industrial revolution, was way ahead of Spain and Portugal. The same was true for African countries where there was heavy British influence vs those ruled by less advanced powers.

The above shouldn't matter for a Martian colony, where there will be influence from a highly technically advanced country: the US.

[sandalcandal]

NHTSA investigation into Autopilot driving Teslas into first responder scenes.
https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2021/INOA-PE21020-1893.PDF

[coppice]

We don't have much of an algorithm for selecting good people.  Australia and the US were dumping grounds for malcontents and criminals and things turned out pretty well.  Central and south America in stead got mostly the later children of wealthy and successful families since primogeniture wasn't going to give them such great opportunities at home.  Has worked OK, but not spectacular.  Here in the US during the great expansion of European cultures there were several colonies of the "best and brightest".  None ever amounted to much.

The main reason why the US and Canada are better off than Hispanic America is probably because they had closer links to the British Empire, which being the home of the industrial revolution, was way ahead of Spain and Portugal. The same was true for African countries where there was heavy British influence vs those ruled by less advanced powers.

The above shouldn't matter for a Martian colony, where there will be influence from a highly technically advanced country: the US.

Substantial chunks of Latin America have known considerable prosperity and human flourishing. Its a lack of political stability which keeps throwing them into chaos and poverty. We know quite a bit about political systems that work well and political systems that work badly, but how you reduce the risk of flipping between the two is still quite a mystery.

[CatalinaWOW]

The point is that success or failure has little to do with selection of the population.  Natural resources, political system, external support and good old luck are just some of the factors that are more important.

[wraper]

NHTSA investigation into Autopilot driving Teslas into first responder scenes.
https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2021/INOA-PE21020-1893.PDF

Interestingly enough, one of the things that were not mentioned much (if at all) in the general coverage of the NHTSA Autopilot investigation was the state of the drivers in some of the incidents. As aggregated by some Tesla watchers online, a good number of the drivers in the 11 crashes were hardly the most attentive. Two incidents were deemed as DUI cases, for example, and one driver had a suspended license. Four cases involved driver inattention, with one incident having a driver who did not have their hands on the wheel for 3 minutes 41 seconds. The other four incidents have no police report readily available.

[sandalcandal]

Tesla AI day presentation

Time stamps from Pyriphlegeton on Youtube
  0:47:09 Introduction by Elon Musk
Autonomy:
  0:48:44 Vision
  1:12:58 Planning & Control
Training Data:
  1:24:23 Manual Labeling
  1:27:57 Auto Labeling
  1:34:52 Simulation
  1:42:09 Scaling Data Generation
Running it in the Car:
  1:43:07 AI Compiler & Scheduling
Fast Iteration (Project Dojo):
  1:44:13 Tools & Evaluations
  1:45:02 Neural Network Training Cluster
End of Presentation
  2:05:07 What's next for AI? (Tesla Bot)
  2:12:56 Team Q&A

Technical overview of their approaches and strategies to ADS based on machine learning and computer vision methods. Mostly as expected, MV multi-frame and temporal engine, labelling, simulation and training as well as some nice details on the Dojo ASIC silicon.

Wtf was that dancer lol. Apparently Tesla getting more into robotics, particularly a humanoid robot. That was unexpected for me.

[Zero999]

The point is that success or failure has little to do with selection of the population.  Natural resources, political system, external support and good old luck are just some of the factors that are more important.

But the political system and external support depend on the people who settle there. Countries colonised by advanced powers and are populated by those who come from cultures with a history of civilisation, innovation and literacy tend to do better than those who are still tribal. Natural resources are important, but there are many counties rich in those and are still very poor, again due to the lack of a coherent government and widespread illiteracy. It's no coincidence that the most developed nations are populated by those who have a long history of civilisation. This is also true of countries who are greatly advancing, like China vx those who are remaining pretty much stagnant.

I concede the point that it doesn't matter if the most educated, or not are brought to this space colony, but things such as culture definitely do make a difference.

[Marco]

Then they left, and the local people started to revert to more traditional ways of using the land, which do not require the steady influx of fertilizer and chemicals, and should be a lot more sustainable.

The traditional ways of tribal population control are not pretty though. Like nature in general, quite horrific in fact. We need progress, not regress.