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

My Experience as a Rice Farmer

xd009642.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–226 of 226 posts

Re: My Experience as a Rice Farmer

#221

Post by kubanczyk »

fer wrote: post #111
kubanczyk wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reasoning behind Gentan was that a landless peasantry was more likely to revolt. So, it was an anti-revolutionary policy. Which at that time of history worked as well as an anti-communist policy. > Unsurprisingly the Soviet Union killed the kulak model and moved to collective farming[0], which was arguably actually communistic. Soviet Union, whatever it had preached, implemented state capitalism - concentration…

>Soviet Union, whatever it had preached, implemented state capitalism - concentration of the means of production under a single owner. Lenin preached for state capitalism as a transitory state towards socialism. It's an integral part of the communist ideas, part of the direction even if not part of the ideal final state.

Sure. Historically, at times people had free trade. At times we had no monopolies at all. At times there were really few laws. We had democracy and free speech and more. Various components of "The West" had been tried before.

All these did not compare with the sheer effect of capitalism: let's concentrate the production, let's scale it so big that every worker will become a hyper-narrow specialist. You bet it's unsexy take today, but it was universally understood in Lenin's times that it's a path not possible/feasible to withdraw from. That's the one magic ingredient that seems absolutely required.

Re: My Experience as a Rice Farmer

#222

Post by Johanx64 »

somenameforme wrote: post #218
Johanx64 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think your intuition of 140m x 140m being a small parcel of land is rather odd. I actually went into google maps/satellite of some very familiar places to me, and drew out a 140m x 140m meter squares just to get a feel how much it is. It's very much a small plot of land. I rounded up, the actual plot of land given 8.3bil pop is closer to 134m x 134m. Mind you, 134m x 134m per person IF you include all land area (…

I don't think you're discussing this in good faith. 134m^2 is well over 4 acres of land for a single person ! That's larger than a typical small suburban subdivision for a single person. A minimal immediate family size for a sustainable society is 4 people. That's 16+ acres for every single family, which is just massive. And the overwhelming majority of the Earth's land is perfectly acceptable for habitation. I suspe…

> I don't think you're discussing this in good faith. 134m^2 is well over 4 acres of land for a single person!

134m is a distance you can walk in a minute and a half. And you're already in somebody elses land. The only way you can present this as some sort of large plot of land is if you take some already overpopulated suburban area as a reference point where houses are lined up like boxes right next to another. And that's your only point of reference and you can't even fathom anything else.

Subtracting the uninhabitable land from it, you basically get less than a mere hectare.

Accusing others of acting in bad faith is game everyone can play.

And it's very easy to do so since you're arguing how easily deserts, oceans or permafrost are habitable "if you really want to" (its just basic technology!) - when in truth it's achieved by pissing away one-time generational oil money to make it rain in the middle of the desert - no less.

Party which will most likely wrap up with mass starvation (globally) when the pumps run dry (47 more years of this! give or take!)

No sane person arguing in good faith would make arguments like this:

"Well, planet isn't overpopulated, there's still a lot of room in the desert! oh, you can inhabit the oceans and permafrsot too! You could live on top of the Himalayas (you don't, but you could!) Oh, the sky is the limit! Oh, yes!"

You aren't actually interested in truth, you're simply really, really want to and are programmed to multiply, and are working backwards (rationalizing) how actually planet isn't at all overpopulated or resource constrained, etc. That's what's actually happening. It's textbook.

Re: My Experience as a Rice Farmer

#223

Post by somenameforme »

Johanx64 wrote: post #222
somenameforme wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you're discussing this in good faith. 134m^2 is well over 4 acres of land for a single person ! That's larger than a typical small suburban subdivision for a single person. A minimal immediate family size for a sustainable society is 4 people. That's 16+ acres for every single family, which is just massive. And the overwhelming majority of the Earth's land is perfectly acceptable for habitation. I suspe…

> I don't think you're discussing this in good faith. 134m^2 is well over 4 acres of land for a single person! 134m is a distance you can walk in a minute and a half. And you're already in somebody elses land. The only way you can present this as some sort of large plot of land is if you take some already overpopulated suburban area as a reference point where houses are lined up like boxes right next to another. And…

Your ever-widening definition of "uninhabitable" includes vast areas of the world that are already habitated by millions, if not billions, of people. That is arguing in bad faith. And you're trying to argue that having more than a football field squared, for every person to live in - all by their selves, is a 'small parcel.' That is arguing in bad faith. And now you're adding child-like strawmen on top, which is once again - arguing in bad faith.

And I still have no idea why you think oil running out has any role in your argument at all. I completely agree it'll run out eventually, possibly within our lifetimes. It's unlikely to lead to anything particularly catastrophic as once reserves do start declining (keep in mind proven reserves have been increasing faster than production for decades), the price of oil will steadily rise, and it'll create some solid economic incentives to comfortably transition to other energy sources.

Re: My Experience as a Rice Farmer

#224

Post by lukan »

troupo wrote: post #220
lukan wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Today are way more cars on the streets than in the 90s in a former east block state.

1. The people actually obey rules (e.g. they actually let people pass at pedestrian crossings, something unheard of all the way into the 2000s). In general road accidents are decreasing. 2. Still doesn't support your "Most of those opportunities involve getting hit by a car."

Would you let a small kid run around where cars drive?

Re: My Experience as a Rice Farmer

#225

Post by Johanx64 »

somenameforme wrote: post #223
Johanx64 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think you're discussing this in good faith. 134m^2 is well over 4 acres of land for a single person! 134m is a distance you can walk in a minute and a half. And you're already in somebody elses land. The only way you can present this as some sort of large plot of land is if you take some already overpopulated suburban area as a reference point where houses are lined up like boxes right next to another. And…

Your ever-widening definition of "uninhabitable" includes vast areas of the world that are already habitated by millions, if not billions, of people. That is arguing in bad faith. And you're trying to argue that having more than a football field squared, for every person to live in - all by their selves, is a 'small parcel.' That is arguing in bad faith. And now you're adding child-like strawmen on top, which is once…

Should Antarctica be counted as habitable then?

It constitutes something to the tune of 9% of Earths land mass.

And it's already inhabited by millions if not billions of people? Really? Is Sahara-Desert habitable also?

Not the tiny parcels next to an Oasis, not people that live next to Nile.

But actual-effin-desert habitable? And billions live there - right chock in the middle of desert?

Interesting, very interesting indeed!

> And I still have no idea why you think oil running out has any role in your argument at all.

Oddly enough, your argument that earth isn't overpopulated, because there's still "a lot of room left in the desert, look at Saudis, UAE, Quatar!" hinges on Oil!

Your proof that deserts are habitable is basically - taking Saudis, UAE, Qatar - as an example.

Which is true, if you have infinite-money-hack, you abso-effin-lutely can man make it rain in the middle of desert (or middle of the ocean on a megayacht), ACs, green-patios, lambos, pools, artificial islands, giga-turbo-mega-towers and the most opulent displays of wealth!

Except it's not infinite money hack at all. It's very much 47years of partying left type of finite.

> And now you're adding child-like strawmen on top, which is once again - arguing in bad faith.

Dude, your whole opening statement was how few people on earth there are or how large the earth is by comparing it to a mass grave.

Your whole argumentation is childish-wishfull thinking or an indoctrinated adult who just isn't very bright, saying you're arguing in bad faith would be putting it very kindly.

That being said, this conversation is obviously over.

Re: My Experience as a Rice Farmer

#226

Post by somenameforme »

Johanx64 wrote: post #225
somenameforme wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your ever-widening definition of "uninhabitable" includes vast areas of the world that are already habitated by millions, if not billions, of people. That is arguing in bad faith. And you're trying to argue that having more than a football field squared, for every person to live in - all by their selves, is a 'small parcel.' That is arguing in bad faith. And now you're adding child-like strawmen on top, which is once…

Should Antarctica be counted as habitable then? It constitutes something to the tune of 9% of Earths land mass. And it's already inhabited by millions if not billions of people? Really? Is Sahara-Desert habitable also? Not the tiny parcels next to an Oasis, not people that live next to Nile. But actual-effin-desert habitable? And billions live there - right chock in the middle of desert? Interesting, very interesting…

"Yet more than one billion people, one-sixth of the Earth's population, live in desert regions." [1] Add in the extreme drylands and you're up to more than 2 billion. This was just as true prior to oil, and will be just as true afterwards.

You've yet to manage to compose anything like an argument and are left trying to reduce multiple football fields of space for every person on this planet down to something that might be considered small. But the reality is you can't, because it's fundamentally false. If we started this discussion without the context of what has already transpired and I asked you what you thought a 'small' lot of land would be for each person, it's obviously not going to be 4 acres, nor anywhere even remotely close to that size.

So all you're left with is bad faith arguments, child like ad hominem, strawmen, and essentially an ongoing displays of argumentative fallacies, which is what people resort to when they have an argument they want to make, but are unable to do so on a factual or logical basis.

[1] - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/deser...

Post reply on HN