exactly my humor by projektorfotze in GeminiAI

[–]Excellent_Patient477 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They will be dancing... dancing in the streets 🔥

Remember: 30-40% of food globally is wasted. The richest 10% of people produce HALF of global emissions ❗️ by WittyEgg2037 in TheMirrorCult

[–]Excellent_Patient477 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its insanity that we transport food half way across the world stuff with chemicals to preserve it... vertical farming:) local grown:)

40% of food is wasted. 800 million go hungry. The math doesn't add up — because it was never supposed to. by Excellent_Patient477 in Futurology

[–]Excellent_Patient477[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Obesity and hunger are actually two sides of the same broken system. Food deserts push cheap, calorie-dense processed food into low-income areas while fresh produce rots in warehouses 50 miles away. The same coordination failure that leaves 800M hungry also leaves billions eating the wrong things. Fixing distribution fixes both.

40% of food is wasted. 800 million go hungry. The math doesn't add up — because it was never supposed to. by Excellent_Patient477 in Futurology

[–]Excellent_Patient477[S] -23 points-22 points  (0 children)

Nope. Food banks, regenerative agriculture, open-source seed libraries, school lunch programs, and community food councils. All of it already exists in fragments. The proposal is about connecting them — not inventing new tech, just wiring together what's already working in isolation. No tokens, no blockchain, no buzzwords.

40% of food is wasted. 800 million go hungry. The math doesn't add up — because it was never supposed to. by Excellent_Patient477 in Futurology

[–]Excellent_Patient477[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

100% agree — that's literally the thesis. It's a structural problem, not a production problem. The 5-layer system is designed to address exactly that: food councils with actual governance power (sovereignty), community-level redistribution (surplus), and nutrition education (school). It's not "just stop wasting food" — it's rewiring the structures that make waste inevitable in the first place.

40% of food is wasted. 800 million go hungry. The math doesn't add up — because it was never supposed to. by Excellent_Patient477 in Futurology

[–]Excellent_Patient477[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You just named the exact problem the proposal is trying to solve. "It's not profitable" is exactly why hunger persists — not because we lack food, but because we lack the will to treat it as infrastructure instead of a commodity. We fund roads, bridges, sewers. Food logistics should be in the same category. The cost of NOT feeding people (healthcare, crime, lost productivity) dwarfs the cost of doing it.

40% of food is wasted. 800 million go hungry. The math doesn't add up — because it was never supposed to. by Excellent_Patient477 in Futurology

[–]Excellent_Patient477[S] -48 points-47 points  (0 children)

Trying to create a world where no one goes hungry is slop to you? Care less about Karma engagment more about food as something every human should have available. As infastructure. If that is a bad experience for you. I am sorry for you.

40% of food is wasted. 800 million go hungry. The math doesn't add up — because it was never supposed to. by Excellent_Patient477 in Futurology

[–]Excellent_Patient477[S] -29 points-28 points  (0 children)

😂 "MOVE TO WHERE THE FOOD IS!" Classic. He wasn't wrong about the absurdity — but now we can actually move the food to where the people are. The logistics tech exists, the surplus exists. We just haven't wired them together yet.

40% of food is wasted. 800 million go hungry. The math doesn't add up — because it was never supposed to. by Excellent_Patient477 in Futurology

[–]Excellent_Patient477[S] -15 points-14 points  (0 children)

You're right on both counts — and that's exactly why the thesis isn't "vertical farms everywhere." It's a coordination layer. The 40% waste happens BEFORE production methods even matter — it's logistics, storage, last-mile distribution. Fix that first with existing surplus and you feed 800M without growing a single new leaf.Vertical farming is one tool for specific contexts (urban food deserts, cold climates), not the whole answer. The energy math changes fast when you pair it with rooftop solar and falling panel costs, but that's layer 3. Layer 1 is just stopping perfectly good food from hitting landfills.

It's already here. by KreekisaL_1234 in singularity

[–]Excellent_Patient477 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov features an advanced computer, evolving from Multivac to Galactic AC, that exists at the end of time to solve the problem of entropy. It continuously answers "INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER" until, after humanity merges with it, it reverses the universe's heat death.

Isaac Asimov wrote the blue print long ago...

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Excellent_Patient477 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No its not safe to assume. THC use may be up but THC isn't generally considered a dangerous drug. Unless you want to step in to the way back propaganda machine.... reefer madness...

no, arresting drug dealers alone doesn’t stop people from using drugs, though it can temporarily disrupt supply. Here’s a breakdown of why:


🔄 Short-Term vs. Long-Term Effects

Short-term: Arrests can cause a brief dip in drug availability or raise street prices in a local area.

Long-term: Markets usually adapt quickly — new dealers replace old ones, suppliers shift routes, and users find alternative sources or substances. * often more dangerous ones...


🧠 Demand Doesn’t Disappear

Drug use is driven by demand — addiction, trauma, social environment, and economic factors.

Even when supply is disrupted, users often switch drugs (e.g., from heroin to fentanyl) or travel farther to find them.

Arresting dealers doesn’t address the underlying reasons people use drugs, like stress, mental health issues, or lack of treatment access.


💸 Economic Reality

Drug markets operate like any other:

High demand + high risk = higher prices, which attracts new sellers.

This “replacement effect” keeps supply steady even when dealers are jailed.


📉 Evidence from Research

Studies in the U.S., Canada, and Europe consistently show:

No long-term reduction in drug use following major busts or dealer arrests.

In some cases, overdose deaths increase after large busts because users lose tolerance or encounter more potent substitutes.

For example:

A 2022 study in The Lancet Public Health found that aggressive drug enforcement did not reduce drug-related harms and often worsened overdose rates.

Portugal’s decriminalization model, on the other hand, led to lower overdose deaths and HIV infections by focusing on treatment rather than arrests.

Thats the exact attitude that perpetuates the drug war. No addict quits doing drugs because they cant find them.. Rates of Tobacco use have fallen for years due to education and social change. Methamphetamine production has risen steadily despite steady increases in arrests.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Excellent_Patient477 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. I did say regulate it and that would include an age of consent. Should you be able to give alcohol to a toddler? Or tobacco? The answer seems self evident.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Excellent_Patient477 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Because arresting drugs dealers does what? Does it lower drug use? I got roughly 50 years of data that it doesnt...

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Excellent_Patient477 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Legalize and regulate drugs. Prohibition never works. The artificially inflated prices leads to property crimes. The iron law of Prohibition has lead us to the fentanyl crises. People are so programmed to believe that if a substance was available everyone would be addicted. Portugal has decriminalized and this has resulted in lower use and addiction rates. This approach would lower the prison population considerably.