[aristofun]

This is a very dangerous narrative, for some reason popular nowadays — the scarcity mindset, the story of “limited resources”.

If you go back 5000 years ago you’ll see there’s only so many people the planet can feed.

The actual fact is that people _create_ resources when they cooperate (this is why now our planet can afford so many people that ancient would never imagine possible).

It’s not about the technology but about good vs evil beliefs.

Which lead to actions.

Please spread good constructive beliefs, not scary destructive ones.

[ASalazarMX]

Farming produces more food than needed, so you can feed others. Technology just makes farming more efficient, so a smaller percent of the population needs to farm. As long as there's still potential for more farming, population growth means more farmers producing food. If you exhaust the planet's resources for farming, or climate change reduces it, more people won't mean more resources anymore.

[aristofun]

Why do you think farming is a linear game?

What makes you think it’s impossible to get food from other sources that we didn’t invent yet and would probably not even call “farming”?

[ASalazarMX]

I think it's easier for the concept of farming to evolve as technology advances, than the production of food not being called farming anymore. Food made in labs could be considered farming, yeast cultures like the ones in Asimov's Foundation could too.

As the sibling comment mentions, only things like Star Trek's replicator could be considered beyond farming, as you're using the same pool of resources used to other activities besides feeding. In this case, farming and mining would be interchangeable.

[aristofun]

>> I think it's easier for the concept of farming to evolve as technology advances, than the production of food not being called farming anymore

Why are you so sure that your current speculations would have any sense 200 years from now when some agricultural breakthrough happens. The one we can't even dream about today.

And this is the pattern that has been happening all the time through humankind history.

[ASalazarMX]

I'm just speculating that mass production of food will still be considered farming in the future, but you're right, I can't know.

[aristofun]

I bet even the "consumption" or "feeding" itself might undergo some unexpected changes

[cercatrova]

Indeed, it reminds me of lab grown meat, or lab growth anything for that matter. Didn't Star Trek have a machine that could make any food possible just by putting molecules together? That's not farming and yet it could feed people.

[badpun]

> Please spread good constructive beliefs, not scary destructive ones.

What is the objective truth is "scary"? Can I spread it then?

[z3c0]

You found out the objective truth? Please share, the rest of us are eager to know.

[badpun]

2 + 2 = 4

You're welcome.

[themelodyfarm]

It's a waste of time to argue with people who believe there's only subjective truth. The whole of the world and existence reminds one constantly of objective truths--material or otherwise. These people are arguing ideology while ignoring fundamental ways that they (in reality) make decisions.

[z3c0]

I disagree.

2 + 2 = 11

also

2 + 2 = 10

[themelodyfarm]

Go build a bridge with that math, and we'll see if it objectively lasts...

[z3c0]

I love explaining jokes, so I'm glad I thought to look back at this comment.

My statements are sound enough to build bridges on. It's all the same math, just in ternary and quaternary. My point is that there is no such thing as an objective interpretation, because all methods of communication are open to biases. Even math expressions.

https://brilliant.org/wiki/number-base/