- Create O'Neill cylinders whose only purpose will be farming of food. Ideally automated function with minimal crew which can have complete control over the environment so no pesticides needed by design and can be on the sun 24/7 to achieve maximal efficiency in growing crops.
- Mine minerals from asteroids to avoid gravity wells. This will solve dependency on random dictators controlling resources (Russia), accusation of neocolonialism (Africa) and avoid destruction of untouched nature (Ocean floor, Antarctica)
- Move heavy and polluting industry out of Earth and closer to primary inputs from meteorites. This will resolve out of control emissions which will be growing as population in 3rd world countries will get as rich as Western countries.
- Build a satellite swarm shade in front of Earth to reduce amount of sunrays falling onto the Earth and to prevent runway climate change. This can have also triple use as such shade structure can produce electricity in practically unlimited amount and concentrate this electricity into a beam aimed at a collector on Earth / industrial station on orbit or use it as a weapon by aiming such beam onto a target.
There is a coming agricultural robot revolution.
Already tested are planters and harvesters
that work to eliminate weed seeds, while simultanoiuslty planting "benifitial" plants.
The planters work like dot matrix printers
and each sead is planted in a specific place, for a specific reason.
Harvesting is itself indiscriminate, with
a "waterfall" air jet "ai" powered seed seperator, collecting each type of seed.
This technology, was first pionered, by
Debeers,in the 1950's for seperating diamonds and is in widespead use for many
sorting jobs.
During the growing season, robot weeders
and robot "insect preditors" will take care of infestations, while inproving soil fertility by letting benifitial plants,insects, and animals to thrive.
These types of agricultural practice will scale, down to family acerages, and of course there are many precision computer
controlled devices already imbeded in all of the largest agricultural equipment now.
Pestisides can be largly eliminated,
yields can be increased, labour can be reduced, quality can be improved.
It's interesting I just finished reading an article about a very similar topic on overpopulation that argues that we're past the point where we have enough land to feed the population using organic methods: https://open.substack.com/pub/depopulism/p/in-defense-of-eff...
Wow, this post seems quite distrustful, to say the least.
For instance this shocking paragraph is backed only with YouTube comments on vlogs.
> Setting aside useful modern sex/gender mythologies, it is clear that men are interested in having sex and women are interested in having children. I am often struck by how broody many women are from an evolutionary perspective. Despite the significant risk placed by giving birth to a woman’s life, many of the most neurotically minded women that I know are absolutely obsessed with having children and satiating their craving for cuteness.8 It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective for such a genetic instinct to have been cultivated. How else could women be incentivized to bear the incredible risks of child birth?
You can't claim something this extraordinary without a solid study.
There's also a graph with a line interpolating a fog of points which could not clearly be interpolated like this.
I didn't find the claim you mentioned, searching "organic" didn't find anything. I was interested in knowing if it considered meat consumption. The word meat doesn't seem to appear. I probably wouldn't have trusted anything written there anyway.
The HN submission is about lands and fighting climate change.
My main point was that the post is garbage (in addition to apparently not being related to what the commenter said about it), and my backing point was mainly that the (extraordinary) claims would need to be backed with solid evidence.
But that last point is also true for contradicting statements. Especially the adventure one. I would think it's more related to studies, career and job stability, and not only for the women, but they indeed study more and have more paid jobs than a century ago.
At this point I just won't take any "women want X" claim without strong evidence, too many of them have been stated only backed with intuition, which really doesn't work, because it's easy to introduce sexism (even if well-meaning) in such claims and we know there are strong biases around the topic (and let's be honest, the paragraph I quoted is plain sexism and completely disrespectful to the LGBT community, in addition to everybody else really - this link simply has nothing to do on HN if you ask me).
So basically we need to get into space to
- Create O'Neill cylinders whose only purpose will be farming of food. Ideally automated function with minimal crew which can have complete control over the environment so no pesticides needed by design and can be on the sun 24/7 to achieve maximal efficiency in growing crops.
- Mine minerals from asteroids to avoid gravity wells. This will solve dependency on random dictators controlling resources (Russia), accusation of neocolonialism (Africa) and avoid destruction of untouched nature (Ocean floor, Antarctica)
- Move heavy and polluting industry out of Earth and closer to primary inputs from meteorites. This will resolve out of control emissions which will be growing as population in 3rd world countries will get as rich as Western countries.
- Build a satellite swarm shade in front of Earth to reduce amount of sunrays falling onto the Earth and to prevent runway climate change. This can have also triple use as such shade structure can produce electricity in practically unlimited amount and concentrate this electricity into a beam aimed at a collector on Earth / industrial station on orbit or use it as a weapon by aiming such beam onto a target.
There is a coming agricultural robot revolution. Already tested are planters and harvesters that work to eliminate weed seeds, while simultanoiuslty planting "benifitial" plants. The planters work like dot matrix printers and each sead is planted in a specific place, for a specific reason. Harvesting is itself indiscriminate, with a "waterfall" air jet "ai" powered seed seperator, collecting each type of seed. This technology, was first pionered, by Debeers,in the 1950's for seperating diamonds and is in widespead use for many sorting jobs. During the growing season, robot weeders and robot "insect preditors" will take care of infestations, while inproving soil fertility by letting benifitial plants,insects, and animals to thrive. These types of agricultural practice will scale, down to family acerages, and of course there are many precision computer controlled devices already imbeded in all of the largest agricultural equipment now. Pestisides can be largly eliminated, yields can be increased, labour can be reduced, quality can be improved.
It's interesting I just finished reading an article about a very similar topic on overpopulation that argues that we're past the point where we have enough land to feed the population using organic methods: https://open.substack.com/pub/depopulism/p/in-defense-of-eff...
Wow, this post seems quite distrustful, to say the least.
For instance this shocking paragraph is backed only with YouTube comments on vlogs.
> Setting aside useful modern sex/gender mythologies, it is clear that men are interested in having sex and women are interested in having children. I am often struck by how broody many women are from an evolutionary perspective. Despite the significant risk placed by giving birth to a woman’s life, many of the most neurotically minded women that I know are absolutely obsessed with having children and satiating their craving for cuteness.8 It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective for such a genetic instinct to have been cultivated. How else could women be incentivized to bear the incredible risks of child birth?
You can't claim something this extraordinary without a solid study.
There's also a graph with a line interpolating a fog of points which could not clearly be interpolated like this.
I didn't find the claim you mentioned, searching "organic" didn't find anything. I was interested in knowing if it considered meat consumption. The word meat doesn't seem to appear. I probably wouldn't have trusted anything written there anyway.
There’s a cultural shift. Modern women don’t want kids until it’s too late. They want adventure. How this is going to play out later I don’t know.
The HN submission is about lands and fighting climate change.
My main point was that the post is garbage (in addition to apparently not being related to what the commenter said about it), and my backing point was mainly that the (extraordinary) claims would need to be backed with solid evidence.
But that last point is also true for contradicting statements. Especially the adventure one. I would think it's more related to studies, career and job stability, and not only for the women, but they indeed study more and have more paid jobs than a century ago.
At this point I just won't take any "women want X" claim without strong evidence, too many of them have been stated only backed with intuition, which really doesn't work, because it's easy to introduce sexism (even if well-meaning) in such claims and we know there are strong biases around the topic (and let's be honest, the paragraph I quoted is plain sexism and completely disrespectful to the LGBT community, in addition to everybody else really - this link simply has nothing to do on HN if you ask me).