Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would we do that?
Climate change maybe?
We're not yet rich enough to be able to afford such virtue. Give us some time.
Brazil develops tropical wheat and predicts self-sufficiency in 5 years
111–120 of 255 posts
Re: Brazil develops tropical wheat and predicts self-sufficiency in 5 years
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a technical term has the effect of framing a specific viewpoint, then it's perhaps not a very good technical term. I'm not actually convinced that it is a technical term, but even if it is, that's ultimately just an argument from authority.
The word "induction" frames a very specific viewpoint for a mathematician that's different from the specific viewpoint of an electrician. Your argument falls apart if you consider that people can have different viewpoints. Also, bad actor is usually used in cybersecurity contexts. It could be a scammer or your CTO testing you - shouldn't really matter.
[deleted]
Re: Brazil develops tropical wheat and predicts self-sufficiency in 5 years
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Fertilizers: The largest world food producer needs imported fertilizers. The irony: our main supplier is Russia. This basically prevents Brazil taking any side in the conflict and affects our (and our buyers) food prices as much as wheat. No, it means you can’t take a position without paying a cost. A lot of countries used to depend on Russia for various things, and they have paid a price to change this.
Brazil is not Europe. It’s not going to be some minor inconvenience like having people to take cold showers and virtual signal on the internet. There will be famine and the poorest people will die.
Indeed, Sri Lanka's latest crisis is a heavy example of fertilizer disruption without long term planning.
Re: Brazil develops tropical wheat and predicts self-sufficiency in 5 years
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Fertilizers: The largest world food producer needs imported fertilizers. The irony: our main supplier is Russia. This basically prevents Brazil taking any side in the conflict and affects our (and our buyers) food prices as much as wheat. No, it means you can’t take a position without paying a cost. A lot of countries used to depend on Russia for various things, and they have paid a price to change this.
Brazil is not Europe. It’s not going to be some minor inconvenience like having people to take cold showers and virtual signal on the internet. There will be famine and the poorest people will die.
Europe got lucky with the cold, but for (many) other aspects has been very effective at diversifying very quickly away from Russian supply.
Sure, even the poorest countries in the EU are significantly richer than Brazil, but it's not like we didn't get significant food price inflation either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...
Re: Brazil develops tropical wheat and predicts self-sufficiency in 5 years
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This basically prevents Brazil taking any side in the conflict and affects our (and our buyers) food prices as much as wheat. Not at all. President Lula sided with China and Russia already. Dude loves communists. He even had Venezuelan dictator Maduro over for lunch.
Ah so Russia is a communist country?
It was once. Lula literally wants to turn South America into a southern Soviet Union. Not even kidding.
Re: Brazil develops tropical wheat and predicts self-sufficiency in 5 years
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
It might be a net benefit, but distributing that wealth from oil producers to oil users within Brazil isn't easy. And when oil users see the price of their oil going up, that's what triggers inflation.
But would that change if it was refined within the borders?
Only if you also closed the borders, so that the internal and external prices were insulated from eachother.
Re: Brazil develops tropical wheat and predicts self-sufficiency in 5 years
#117Re: Brazil develops tropical wheat and predicts self-sufficiency in 5 years
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Fertilizers: The largest world food producer needs imported fertilizers. The irony: our main supplier is Russia. This basically prevents Brazil taking any side in the conflict and affects our (and our buyers) food prices as much as wheat. No, it means you can’t take a position without paying a cost. A lot of countries used to depend on Russia for various things, and they have paid a price to change this.
Brazil is not Europe. It’s not going to be some minor inconvenience like having people to take cold showers and virtual signal on the internet. There will be famine and the poorest people will die.
It's not about not buying stuff at all. Just buy it from different sources. Morocco for example.
Re: Brazil develops tropical wheat and predicts self-sufficiency in 5 years
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
Climate change maybe?
We're not yet rich enough to be able to afford such virtue. Give us some time.
Are renewables economically viable? I don't expect any nation that isn't "rich enough" to go green, but the trends of it becoming cheaper means it will become the cheapest means.
Are we there yet? My assumption was the political climate of Brazil was primarily pushing oil dependence
Re: Brazil develops tropical wheat and predicts self-sufficiency in 5 years
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Russian gas, which has caused widespread misery in Europe. I agree with you cynicism about the free market, but the situation with Russian gas turned out way better than was feared. Party this was due to a mild winter but the forecasts were very grim for a while there.
In matters like this, it’s not what actually happened, but what might have happened, that is important.
They are responding to a factual statement: "... caused widespread misery in Europe".
I live in Europe and have to laugh at that. The misery they're talking about is a 2x increase in the electric bill, which some of the richer governments (e.g. Sweden) paid back to most consumers (I got two paybacks so far, making my electric bill for the year about the same as the year before, I would say). If they think this is "misery", I think the commenter has absolutely never seen anything even close to real misery.