Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"The greatest human being who ever lived" has died

theglobeandmail.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 54 posts

Re: "The greatest human being who ever lived" has died

#41

Post by lupin_sansei »

petercooper wrote: post #24

This guy isn't famous because people who complain about GM food, the environment (or whatever ) are louder and harder to ignore than scientists quietly solving those problems. Science and technology have provided most of the solutions to our most pressing problems, typically quietly, over a long period of time, and with little fanfare. This noble work will go on even if "eco-warriors" or anti-GM activists only want t…

"people were inclined to believe the very worst about anything and everything; they were immune to contrary evidence just as if they'd been medically vaccinated against the force of fact. Furthermore, there seemed to be a bizarre reverse-Cassandra effect operating in the universe: whereas the mythical Cassandra spoke the awful truth and was not believed, these days "experts" spoke awful falsehoods, and they were believed. Repeatedly being wrong actually seemed to be an advantage, conferring some sort of puzzling magic glow upon the speaker."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon-Ehrlich_wager

Re: "The greatest human being who ever lived" has died

#42

Post by billswift »

ardit33 wrote: post #13
mynameishere wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Staved = Pushed back the date. .... I'm honestly not sure why people are dazzled by this guy. Partly it was...his specific intention to increase yields, which make him seem like a humanitarian. The Fordson tractor did more for agriculture (and, much much much more for the economy and day-to-day existence) than this guy. Is Henry Ford the greatest human being who ever lived?

Why so negative? It seems that Europe's population is actually declining, so is japan's, and a lot of advanced countries. If they keep feed themselves right now, they should be so even 100 years from now, given the same condition (unless we have some drastic global climatic change). it is the poor countries, whose economies are based in subsistence agriculture, that are having a huge population increase. So, the othe…

The problem is that the declining population is temporary. Every area with declining population, except perhaps Japan which I don't know enough about to say, has sub-populations with higher growth. Eventually, those populations are going to become large enough that the population as a whole will start growing again, and will continue increasing until it reaches the rate of the high-growth formerly-sub population. It's just a hiccup. Unless something external - singularity, war, whatever - intervenes.

Re: "The greatest human being who ever lived" has died

#43

Post by billswift »

hughprime wrote: post #11
drubio wrote: post #2

Unbelievable, I'll take the 'over the top titles' but false economic statements like: "When his seeds were used widely in 1963, Mexico instantly went from famine-prone to a wheat-exporter. Their wheat harvest was six times greater after" I guess that's why Mexico has been a net wheat IMPORTER since the 70's , subsidized and even banned wheat imports to protect the agro industry. Relevant sources without the sensation…

Does any of that contradict the statement: "When his seeds were used widely in 1963, Mexico instantly went from famine-prone to a wheat-exporter. Their wheat harvest was six times greater after" ? The seeds may have been capable of increasing the Mexican wheat crop by a factor of six, but not capable of making Mexican wheat production price-competitive with producing it elsewhere and shipping it to Mexico. They may h…

In fact, since the 1970s, the almost sole cause of poor crop production has been political; there have been droughts, but only a small portion of the poor countries have been affected by them at any given time. The most common causes have been either the gov't cutting off supplies to "rebels" or politicians beholden to poor urban masses holding down food prices so much that farmers can't sell their crops for enough to break even, so they grow only enough for themselves (or both together, with other stupidities thrown in, like current Zimbabwe).

Re: "The greatest human being who ever lived" has died

#44

Post by RyanMcGreal »

petercooper wrote: post #28
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dramatic increases in per acre yields over the past fifty years are closely tied to equally dramatic increases in per acre energy inputs over the same period. The Green Revolution amounts to the replacement of sunlight with hydrocarbons as the main fuel of food production. Global oil production has now peaked and will slide, sooner or later, into permanent and progressive decline year-over-year. When that happens…

Global oil production has now peaked and will slide, sooner or later, into permanent and progressive decline year-over-year. When that happens, all the blue-sky technology in the world won't keep food production rates increasing. Hydrocarbons aren't the only source of energy into the future. Your complaint is like noting that a shortage of horses in the 1880s would lead to a lack of future mobility. When resources fa…

> Hydrocarbons aren't the only source of energy into the future.

Okay, so name a production-ready source of energy or combination of sources that broadly matches oil's density, portability, fungibility and diversity of uses.

We don't have decades to come up with something else: oil is already at its maximum production rate. As soon as this recession ends and demand for oil starts growing, we'll see triple-digit price spikes again and more economic volatility.

Your blithe mantra about "technology" ignores the crucial fact that the technology that powers our society runs on massive and ever-growing inputs of energy. Our one-time allotment of cheap, abundant energy is already more than half-consumed, and the awkward fact is that we're absolutely not ready to transition our economy over to something else.

Re: "The greatest human being who ever lived" has died

#46

Post by JabavuAdams »

billswift wrote: post #42
ardit33 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why so negative? It seems that Europe's population is actually declining, so is japan's, and a lot of advanced countries. If they keep feed themselves right now, they should be so even 100 years from now, given the same condition (unless we have some drastic global climatic change). it is the poor countries, whose economies are based in subsistence agriculture, that are having a huge population increase. So, the othe…

The problem is that the declining population is temporary. Every area with declining population, except perhaps Japan which I don't know enough about to say, has sub-populations with higher growth. Eventually, those populations are going to become large enough that the population as a whole will start growing again, and will continue increasing until it reaches the rate of the high-growth formerly-sub population. It'…

Scarcity of resources is also a temporary (but serious) problem.

So, pushing back the date of catastrophe far enough is exactly what's needed. Conditions are not static. Often buying more time is all that's necessary.

How do you live for ever? Don't die.

Re: "The greatest human being who ever lived" has died

#47

Post by JabavuAdams »

clistctrl wrote: post #39
petercooper wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't need to as long as technology keeps scaling. Pointing out that groundwater and soil aren't going to scale reminds me of the people who freaked out over the scalability of x86 in the mid 90s - we're an ingenious bunch, we find solutions. Genetically modified meat grown in vats, compact nutrition rich superfoods/tablets.. there are all sorts of technologically possible creations around the corner.

I LOVE technology (i'm a super geek) but if theres anything I love more then it, it would be food actually it would be eating food. If surviving in the future means i need a tablet to provide all my nutrition... then surviving hardly seems worth it.

Well, you can decide that for yourself, but you'd be wrong to force that suicidal preference on others.

Re: "The greatest human being who ever lived" has died

#48

Post by chez17 »

petercooper wrote: post #24

This guy isn't famous because people who complain about GM food, the environment (or whatever ) are louder and harder to ignore than scientists quietly solving those problems. Science and technology have provided most of the solutions to our most pressing problems, typically quietly, over a long period of time, and with little fanfare. This noble work will go on even if "eco-warriors" or anti-GM activists only want t…

Did you care about this guy before he died? Or are you just using his death to grandstand on some anti-environmentalist rant?

Re: "The greatest human being who ever lived" has died

#49

Post by clistctrl »

JabavuAdams wrote: post #47
clistctrl wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I LOVE technology (i'm a super geek) but if theres anything I love more then it, it would be food actually it would be eating food. If surviving in the future means i need a tablet to provide all my nutrition... then surviving hardly seems worth it.

Well, you can decide that for yourself, but you'd be wrong to force that suicidal preference on others.

where did I say I was forcing it on anyone?

Re: "The greatest human being who ever lived" has died

#50

Post by ramidarigaz »

ghshephard wrote: post #40
ramidarigaz wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation?

Citation: http://nue.okstate.edu/crop_information/The_Story_of_Wheat.h... In particular: "Demographers, who had been watching the exponential rise with alarm, now forecast that the population will peak below ten billion—ten gigapeople—not long after 2050. Such a low forecast would have been unthinkable just two decades ago. Already, in developing countries, the number of children born per woman has fallen from six to…

Thanks. I was a bit skeptical, but thats an interesting read.
Post reply on HN