Elon Musk is a nice chap

[Psi]

Just because there is hunger somewhere in the world, does not mean people elsewhere shall become sore losers and not advance the technology. Also if you are concerned about useless stuff a lot of money is wasted on, you are looking in the wrong place. Not to say that if Elon wasn't doing what he's doing, he would not have the money anyway.

Exactly.

Any advancement in technology has a trickle down effect on everyone everywhere, including the 3rd world.

The automotive push for better battery tech and solar tech and perhaps starlink will have a positive affect on improving the quality of life in the 3rd world.  Also space technology invented for water extraction and mining on mars/moon will also have a trickle down effect.

It is often said that "the biggest problem is people starving and that we need to solve that by supplying food" but that is only treating the symptom and not the problem.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we shouldn't supply food to those in need. Everyone who can should give a little bit of their salary to help people less fortunate in some way. If you make like US$50k a year you are in the top ~1% of the world.

But the root problem in the 3rd world is a lack of education, a lack of their ability to know how to create food at scale and efficiently.  It is defiantly true that money and supplies are needed, but the money needs to be put in the right location. If you make the population smarter they can start to help themselves which is infinitely better than handouts. 

One big issue if you simply give "stuff" to 3rd world people in need is that someone else with a gun will usually come and take it away from them once you leave. 
But if you educate them on how to create more food that is not something others can easily take away.

[nctnico]

Just saying as long as there is hunger, you dont shoot rockets for fun.

Well, most of that hunger's root cause is people killing other people for no good reason so let's keep shooting rockets.

[sandalcandal]

Two recent interview/conversation tours of the goings on at SpaceX with Elon Musk. Some really nice insight into what's going on and the way things are being run. Part 3 coming soon.

[james_s]

Dont Elon has that commercial on tv while he eating diner,
you see a starving afrikan kid crying from hunger,
for 3 euro you can save 1 life they claim.

Just saying as long as there is hunger, you dont shoot rockets for fun.

Much of the problems with hunger come down to there being far too many people for the available resources, and fixing that is easier said than done. If the problem is simply insufficient food then just increasing the food supply will just result in the population rising to whatever the food supply can sustain unless something else becomes the limiting factor. Throwing food/money at the problem is not really going to solve anything and frankly I have my own life to think about and it is not my problem what is going on somewhere on the other side of the world. I can't fix their society, I can't replace their corrupt and ineffective governments, I can't stop their wars so I'm not even going to get involved. I'm certainly not going to hold off on doing anything fun until there is no suffering anywhere on the planet, that is an impossible task. At some point a person has to take responsibility for their own situation, sovereign nations are responsible for their own citizens. IMHO my country already does far too much meddling in places that have not asked for our help and do not appreciate us being there.

[sandalcandal]

Dont Elon has that commercial on tv while he eating diner,
you see a starving afrikan kid crying from hunger,
for 3 euro you can save 1 life they claim.

Just saying as long as there is hunger, you dont shoot rockets for fun.

Much of the problems with hunger come down to there being far too many people for the available resources, and fixing that is easier said than done. If the problem is simply insufficient food then just increasing the food supply will just result in the population rising to whatever the food supply can sustain unless something else becomes the limiting factor. Throwing food/money at the problem is not really going to solve anything and frankly I have my own life to think about and it is not my problem what is going on somewhere on the other side of the world. I can't fix their society, I can't replace their corrupt and ineffective governments, I can't stop their wars so I'm not even going to get involved. I'm certainly not going to hold off on doing anything fun until there is no suffering anywhere on the planet, that is an impossible task. At some point a person has to take responsibility for their own situation, sovereign nations are responsible for their own citizens. IMHO my country already does far too much meddling in places that have not asked for our help and do not appreciate us being there.

These are some pretty out dated and wrong misconceptions I would have hoped people here should be above.

South Asia has the highest share of children under 5 years old who are dangerously underweight.
Here's what is actually practically being done to help world hunger instead of ads you see trying to scam you out of money for "charity": https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/hunger/

Regarding over population:

https://www.gapminder.org/answers/will-saving-poor-children-lead-to-overpopulation/



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.

Check your understanding relative the actual statistics Common misconceptions about UN Goal 2: Zero hunger
I only got 50% correct which is still above the median I guess.

[bdunham7]

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.

If that meat and dairy is produced in country, what does the 'world as a whole' have to do with it?

[sandalcandal]

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.

If that meat and dairy is produced in country, what does the 'world as a whole' have to do with it?

Sorry, I could have written that more clearly. If the whole world were to consume resources on the same level as developed western nations then there would be a major lack of resources and other ecological problems. [To be fair, there are other "developing" and non-wester nations according to data below that would have issues supporting the same diet globally]



(This data is getting a bit dated but mostly still true AFAIK) https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-global-habitable-land-needed-for-agriculture-if-everyone-had-the-diet-of Edit: Replaced with slightly better graphic below as per later post

https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions#per-capita-methane-emissions-how-much-does-the-average-person-emit

Informative charts: https://www.wri.org/insights/sustainable-diets-what-you-need-know-12-charts

[tszaboo]

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.

If that meat and dairy is produced in country, what does the 'world as a whole' have to do with it?

Exactly. It started with petrol cars, that they are too much, fair enough, we have a better alternative.
Then they are going after meat and dairy production.
Some idiot from Beyond meat already wants to put taxes on meat. Thanks a lot but you should make your product more appealing by making it cheaper, not making the competition more expensive. Or maybe if the average meat replacement wouldn't taste like wood pulp, that would help.
Nowadays having leather in your car is considered bad. Is it? Eat the inside, turn the outside into furniture. Simple as that.

I honestly don't care if in ie. Africa they cannot drink cow milk, and eat steak every day. Guess what, there aren't any gazelles or yaks, or kangaroos here. It's like different parts of the world provide different living conditions, based on climate, isn't it?
Maybe start domesticating?

Just wait until they will go after our houses, because they are "not sustainable". It will be with taxes, and media shaming and other insidious methods.

We can fix it, and the way to do that isn't going backwards. Going backwards is never the answer. Providing a better alternative is.

[sandalcandal]

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.

If that meat and dairy is produced in country, what does the 'world as a whole' have to do with it?

Exactly. It started with petrol cars, that they are too much, fair enough, we have a better alternative.
Then they are going after meat and dairy production.
Some idiot from Beyond meat already wants to put taxes on meat. Thanks a lot but you should make your product more appealing by making it cheaper, not making the competition more expensive. Or maybe if the average meat replacement wouldn't taste like wood pulp, that would help.
Nowadays having leather in your car is considered bad. Is it? Eat the inside, turn the outside into furniture. Simple as that.

I honestly don't care if in ie. Africa they cannot drink cow milk, and eat steak every day. Guess what, there aren't any gazelles or yaks, or kangaroos here. It's like different parts of the world provide different living conditions, based on climate, isn't it?
Maybe start domesticating?

Just wait until they will go after our houses, because they are "not sustainable". It will be with taxes, and media shaming and other insidious methods.

We can fix it, and the way to do that isn't going backwards. Going backwards is never the answer. Providing a better alternative is.

The consumption of dairy generally has to do with spoilage of milk. Not a lack of cows They have cattle in Africa and the use them for meat and dairy. Maybe this 3rd grade National Geographic article would be at your comprehension level https://www.nationalgeographic.org/article/cattle-economy-maasai/3rd-grade/ "Maybe start domesticating?" What kind of pompous is that?

Not that you read anything I post because having your narrow myopic world view challenged is too much and you'd rather block bury your head in the sand and block me.

[sandalcandal]

Yes, let's use some arbitrary data, which is not applicable to most people and extrapolate for that.
They always do these idiotic mind exercises and conclude that we all gonna die. I could make a bunch of these. 
"If Everyone had 7 cats like the crazy lady at the end of the streets we would run out of mice."
"If Everyone went skydiving 3 times a year like the Johnsons, we would run out of kerosine"
My favorite, that I calculated: "If the cable theft continues at current rate in Hungary, in 2064, they will steal the cables that are just installed and everyone will be without electricity"

Yes, much like how you take a single graph and fail to comprehend what it illustrates and extrapolate into a conclusion. The diets of certain countries around the world are broadly unsustainable and cannot be replicated across the world. As for actually showing why this is a problem that requires changes, the WRI.org article and videos go over that.

[sandalcandal]

Yeah, you were already on my blocked list, I really dont know why I bothered reading anything you wrote.

Don't worry, they're not written for you and would go over your head anyway.

[free_electron]

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.

[bdunham7]

The diets of certain countries around the world are broadly unsustainable and cannot be replicated across the world.

Why would the ability to replicate a local diet across the world be a measure of anything?  Let's go back (or forward) to a time of hunter-gatherers.  If I'm a Hawaii native perhaps I can eat two pineapples a day or perhaps a nice fish.  If I'm a Arkansas native, I can have two squirrels or maybe a possum.   Some guy in California can't get any of those and is stuck trying to spear the little lizards or take a big risk going after a bear.  Is that somehow unexpected or a problem?  The unstated implication seems to be that the availability of meat and dairy in abundance in one area is somehow robbing another area that doesn't have the capability of producing those things.

[sandalcandal]

The diets of certain countries around the world are broadly unsustainable and cannot be replicated across the world.

Why would the ability to replicate a local diet across the world be a measure of anything?  Let's go back (or forward) to a time of hunter-gatherers.  If I'm a Hawaii native perhaps I can eat two pineapples a day or perhaps a nice fish.  If I'm a Arkansas native, I can have two squirrels or maybe a possum.   Some guy in California can't get any of those and is stuck trying to spear the little lizards or take a big risk going after a bear.  Is that somehow unexpected or a problem?  The unstated implication seems to be that the availability of meat and dairy in abundance in one area is somehow robbing another area that doesn't have the capability of producing those things.

And yet walk into any supermarket in the developed world and see what's on the shelves. Pineapples in Europe? No problem. Seafood in Alice Springs? Crappy but there.
I think if you took a moment to look at the videos or articles I posted then you should realise what the issue being brought up is. However, let me try spell out the reasoning (as I see it) to make it as clear as possible.

Countries around the world are becoming more developed and prosperous. As they become more prosperous and wealth they demand lifestyles and consumptions similar to that in "first world" countries.

Source: https://www.wri.org/insights/sustainable-diets-what-you-need-know-12-charts
With the global agricultural practices as they are, along with expected population plateaus, this would obviously cause "overpopulation issues" which I think we agree on?

The implication which you seem to be drawing as the only reasonable course of action given this is true is that everyone in "first world" countries must drastically change their lifestyles to something they dislike but I've never said that is required or what people should do let alone the only solution.

An alternative solution which others here seem to imply is that these developing nations need to have their population growth repressed or should a never achieve a standard of living equal to that in "developed" nations.

Why would the ability to replicate a local diet across the world be a measure of anything? 

I honestly don't care if in ie. Africa they cannot drink cow milk, and eat steak every day. Guess what, there aren't any gazelles or yaks, or kangaroos here. It's like different parts of the world provide different living conditions, based on climate, isn't it?
Maybe start domesticating?

Much of the problems with hunger come down to there being far too many people for the available resources, and fixing that is easier said than done. If the problem is simply insufficient food then just increasing the food supply will just result in the population rising to whatever the food supply can sustain unless something else becomes the limiting factor. Throwing food/money at the problem is not really going to solve anything and frankly I have my own life to think about and it is not my problem what is going on somewhere on the other side of the world. I can't fix their society, I can't replace their corrupt and ineffective governments, I can't stop their wars so I'm not even going to get involved. I'm certainly not going to hold off on doing anything fun until there is no suffering anywhere on the planet, that is an impossible task. At some point a person has to take responsibility for their own situation, sovereign nations are responsible for their own citizens. IMHO my country already does far too much meddling in places that have not asked for our help and do not appreciate us being there.

That's a silly idea though and I think that's somewhat recognised. You can't expect to go meddling in other country's affairs. Developing countries will grow to level their populations and they will demand increasing lifestyle and consumption as they became more prosperous and reach towards equality with the developed nations.

There is another alternative however which is:

Providing a better alternative

But then the same people hypocritically want to dismiss any option provided there let alone give it a try or provide any particularly constructive analysis or solutions. Seems more like being a reactionary rather than any sort of intelligent scepticism (or any intelligence at all).

To actually give my personal views, between the options of attempting to stifle developing nations, changing lifestyles in ready "developed" countries and providing newer better alternatives; I think the practical solution will be a mixture of the latter two with a bias to newer alternatives. I'd prefer to establish strong factual information and let people form their own opinions though.

[bdunham7]

And yet walk into any supermarket in the developed world and see what's on the shelves. Pineapples in Europe? No problem. Seafood in Alice Springs? Crappy but there.

Countries around the world are becoming more developed and prosperous. As they become more prosperous and wealth they demand lifestyles and consumptions similar to that in "first world" countries.

An alternative solution which others here seem to imply is that these developing nations need to have their population growth repressed or should a never achieve a standard of living equal to that in "developed" nations.

All of these issues boil down to economics.  I'm not going to wade through everything you posted, but I did see one that strongly refuted the idea that 'pineapples in Europe' is a big issue.  The vast majority of food is produced and consumed within the borders of individual nations.  And international trade will generally only happen where there is an economic incentive, so those developing nations can 'demand' all they want, but unless they can pay for it, they don't get.  And, surprise surprise, if they can pay for it, those very nations who are living high on the hog now--the ones presumed to be 'the problem--will likely be the ones to step up and produce that food.  The US has plenty of food (which is why we're all fatter now) and plenty more to export.  As for repressing population growth or development, the choices seem clear--gain the ability to produce the food, gain the ability to buy it, or eat less.  That's not externally applied repression, it's just economics.  How on earth would me switching to tofu burgers change any of that?

[sandalcandal]

And yet walk into any supermarket in the developed world and see what's on the shelves. Pineapples in Europe? No problem. Seafood in Alice Springs? Crappy but there.

Countries around the world are becoming more developed and prosperous. As they become more prosperous and wealth they demand lifestyles and consumptions similar to that in "first world" countries.

An alternative solution which others here seem to imply is that these developing nations need to have their population growth repressed or should a never achieve a standard of living equal to that in "developed" nations.

All of these issues boil down to economics.  I'm not going to wade through everything you posted, but I did see one that strongly refuted the idea that 'pineapples in Europe' is a big issue.  The vast majority of food is produced and consumed within the borders of individual nations.  And international trade will generally only happen where there is an economic incentive, so those developing nations can 'demand' all they want, but unless they can pay for it, they don't get.  And, surprise surprise, if they can pay for it, those very nations who are living high on the hog now--the ones presumed to be 'the problem--will likely be the ones to step up and produce that food.  The US has plenty of food (which is why we're all fatter now) and plenty more to export.  As for repressing population growth or development, the choices seem clear--gain the ability to produce the food, gain the ability to buy it, or eat less.  That's not externally applied repression, it's just economics.  How on earth would me switching to tofu burgers change any of that?

You still seem to not be reading the point being put forward here. You've acknowledged "developing" countries can and will move towards both producing more food and having the money to buy it. The issue is that even with (current) "first world" agricultural processes being adopted and implemented across the world, an equal level of consumption to that of countries such as the USA (let alone the consumption per capita in Australia) is going to cause issues.

The issue I'm taking with some of the views being presented here is less "me switching to tofu burgers" and more "everyone else should switch to tofu burgers while I shouldn't have to change anything". To think everyone else will be happy to only eat tofu burgers whilst you eat meat (produced with current ag tech) is unrealistic. A sustainable food future for the world (with equality) will require improvements in production efficiency likely combined with a decrease in consumption in the highest consuming outliers e.g. Australia. Honestly, with the older generations of a lot of people here, we're unlikely to get much useful change in behaviour but the older generations will only live so long It should be recognised that a downward trend in average consumption (for the highest consuming countries on Earth) is part of a greater need and already happening in some cases.

Source

Also to take it back to the original discussion topic. "me switching to tofu burgers" as well as

Just saying as long as there is hunger, you dont shoot rockets for fun.

Are both poorly informed ideas which have little relevance to solving hunger.

[I feel similarities to the right-to-repair discussion having to convince people what right-to-repair actually means]

[vk6zgo]

And yet walk into any supermarket in the developed world and see what's on the shelves. Pineapples in Europe? No problem. Seafood in Alice Springs? Crappy but there.

Countries around the world are becoming more developed and prosperous. As they become more prosperous and wealth they demand lifestyles and consumptions similar to that in "first world" countries.

An alternative solution which others here seem to imply is that these developing nations need to have their population growth repressed or should a never achieve a standard of living equal to that in "developed" nations.

All of these issues boil down to economics.  I'm not going to wade through everything you posted, but I did see one that strongly refuted the idea that 'pineapples in Europe' is a big issue.  The vast majority of food is produced and consumed within the borders of individual nations.

This is only true for nations occupying quite large geographical areas, covering a wide gamut of climates,  like Australia & the USA.

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.

The same applies to Australia, where the Northernmost parts grow tropical fruit with ease, whereas in the south, other crops are the mainstay.

Countries like the UK are large importers of food from other countries, as they have more limited crop options.

Traditionally, the UK (& other countries in Europe) exported manufactured goods & imported primary produce, but as other countries have developed their manufacturing capacity, their export  market has declined.

And international trade will generally only happen where there is an economic incentive, so those developing nations can 'demand' all they want, but unless they can pay for it, they don't get.  And, surprise surprise, if they can pay for it, those very nations who are living high on the hog now--the ones presumed to be 'the problem--will likely be the ones to step up and produce that food.  The US has plenty of food (which is why we're all fatter now) and plenty more to export.

How come the USA imports Australian beef?

As for repressing population growth or development, the choices seem clear--gain the ability to produce the food, gain the ability to buy it, or eat less.  That's not externally applied repression, it's just economics.  How on earth would me switching to tofu burgers change any of that?

My opinion is that many trade imbalances are caused by the silly exchange rates.

If an Australian goes to Thailand, he can live like a king on what would be a quite modest amount of money in this country.
At home, he can can feed his family, live in a house, whilst working to make enough to get by

People aren't dying of hunger in the streets in Thailand, so an equivalent man can do all these things on a wage which converts to below poverty level in Oz.

If the exchange rate was based on a parcel of goods & services of equal value in each country, the $A & the Thai Baht would be at parity, or close to it.

Instead, currencies are traded like shares, giving some ridiculously low values, & others undeservedly high ones.
This can be disadvantageous for those at both extremes

[nctnico]

The diets of certain countries around the world are broadly unsustainable and cannot be replicated across the world.

Why would the ability to replicate a local diet across the world be a measure of anything?  Let's go back (or forward) to a time of hunter-gatherers.  If I'm a Hawaii native perhaps I can eat two pineapples a day or perhaps a nice fish.  If I'm a Arkansas native, I can have two squirrels or maybe a possum.   Some guy in California can't get any of those and is stuck trying to spear the little lizards or take a big risk going after a bear.  Is that somehow unexpected or a problem?  The unstated implication seems to be that the availability of meat and dairy in abundance in one area is somehow robbing another area that doesn't have the capability of producing those things.

And yet walk into any supermarket in the developed world and see what's on the shelves. Pineapples in Europe? No problem. Seafood in Alice Springs? Crappy but there.
I think if you took a moment to look at the videos or articles I posted then you should realise what the issue being brought up is. However, let me try spell out the reasoning (as I see it) to make it as clear as possible.

And? It is not like all the exotic goods go from rich to poor countries. The Netherlands for example is exporting massive amounts of meat to China. You are confusing normal trade with something being rare. If people in Africa had more money they could buy meat from the NL as well.

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.

[bdunham7]

To think everyone else will be happy to only eat tofu burgers whilst you eat meat (produced with current ag tech) is unrealistic. A sustainable food future for the world (with equality) will require improvements in production efficiency likely combined with a decrease in consumption in the highest consuming outliers e.g. Australia.

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!

[sandalcandal]

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?

Can anyone provide a strong source/evidence that current/traditional agricultural practices in developed countries can be realistically scaled to support future food demand? Preferably not from studies where there is a conflict of interest with funding from Agricultural corporate interests.

Also to make it clear again:

To actually give my personal views, between the options of attempting to stifle developing nations, changing lifestyles in ready "developed" countries and providing newer better alternatives; I think the practical solution will be a mixture of the latter two with a bias to newer alternatives.

I'm not against the idea that land use productivity can and should be improved and I agree 100% that "The problem with food production is not availability of land but availability of energy and efficient farming techniques."  I'm against the notion (mostly that tszaboo and to a lesser extent bdunham7 and nctnico have) that current consumption and lifestyle habits in developed nations are "sustainable" and can reasonably continue unabated.

This extension aside, is there anyone still thinking developing space technology is some how an affront to the issue of world hunger?

[bdunham7]

Okay, you both seem to be making the assertion that agricultural practices in developed countries can be realistically scaled to support future food demand.

No, you are missing the point entirely.  I make no such assertion and I don't think anyone else has either.  I'm saying that the issue is a problem to be solved by those nations that are going to be the ones 'demanding' food but I make no predictions regarding their likely success.  For the most part, we high-production high-consumption nations produce our food and then we eat it, all regulated by the economics of supply and demand.  If some other nation has something we want (color TVs or budget oscilloscopes, for example) then we might be willing to export some of that food.  So they can produce their own food, produce goods that can be sold to buy food, or they can simply not have the same food that we do.

India, for example and perhaps surprisingly to the uninformed, mostly produces its own food.  Japan, having taken the second option, imports a lot of US beef and other foods.  Swaziland has taken the third option and this is leading to unrest, but they aren't likely to 'demand' my stock of frozen sausages anytime soon.

[sandalcandal]

No, you are missing the point entirely.  I make no such assertion and I don't think anyone else has either.  I'm saying that the issue is a problem to be solved by those nations that are going to be the ones 'demanding' food but I make no predictions regarding their likely success.  For the most part, we high-production high-consumption nations produce our food and then we eat it, all regulated by the economics of supply and demand.  If some other nation has something we want (color TVs or budget oscilloscopes, for example) then we might be willing to export some of that food.  So they can produce their own food, produce goods that can be sold to buy food, or they can simply not have the same food that we do.

India, for example and perhaps surprisingly to the uninformed, mostly produces its own food.  Japan, having taken the second option, imports a lot of US beef and other foods.  Swaziland has taken the third option and this is leading to unrest, but they aren't likely to 'demand' my stock of frozen sausages anytime soon.

Okay, we're getting somewhere here.

The problem with this idea of "I can do what I do and so can everyone else. People should fix their own problems and it has nothing to do with me" is that is only true to the extent which people and countries are isolated and independent with their individual actions not affecting one another. So far as land use, this is obviously true; how one country uses its land has no direct impact on how another country can use its land. The issue is agricultural has global consequences i.e. greenhouse gas emissions. Again, this is emphasised pretty heavily in the sources and videos I posted earlier. Some additional explanations regarding greenhouse gas emissions and global responsibilities:



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.

[Posting the graphic showing land use and trying to carry the discussion without bringing up greenhouse gas emissions was a mistake on my part. Methane emissions per capita are probably more representative but requires drawing the connection between meat consumption and methane emissions. I realise now why greenhouse gas emissions are an essential part of the over consumption issue.]

[wraper]

Regardless if Elon is delusional or not, this thread had steered completely away from the topic.

[sandalcandal]

Regardless if Elon is delusional or not, this thread had steered completely away from the topic.

Well the original connection was that Elon Musk was somehow a bad person for spending money on rockets instead of solving hunger in Africa which is clearly dumb but I had issues with the reasoning people were using to argue against that statement...

[rdl]

Somebody take that black and white photo Elon posted and add the caption "Delusion."



https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/E8J2IurVcAE0Zrr-800x499.jpg