- Mar 26, 2011
Ad-Man-Gamer said:The malaria example is fair criticism, and the companies who make the drugs use a similar logic to what I said, "we made the drug, dont we deserve to be paid?" yet, they let people die in order to make that profit.ezaviel said:One thing that I would criticize about money is that it puts restrictions on technology from becoming widely used. Especially in impoverished countries.Ad-Man-Gamer said:But physical resources are actually finite. I mean, yes, if we could duplicate everything for free using techno-magic, then sure, money does become pretty useless. But we are not even close to that.Substitute Troll said:
I mean, there is an actual physical limit to the ammount of any given substance in the world at one time. We cannot create matter.
I am not sure what resources you think we have no physical limit on? Even with renewable resources we have a hard limit equal to the rate at which we can renew that resource.
E.G: If you stacked farms in a vertical building rather than a horizontal landscape. Then you would have 10x more acres of land to play with (assuming that it is a ten story building). Now all you need to do is use hydroponics in order to grow plants and wala! you have the capability to amp up food production by 100% per a floor. The above analogy wood have a production rate of 1000% compared to their just being one field, and this does not take into account that plants can grow faster in this environment dew to rich oxygen and mineral solutions that they feed all the plants.
This is not rocket science. It just makes sense. We have the resources to build such things, and moving this technology to Africa would greatly improve their food supply.
Another example is the fact that we know how to cure and prevent malaria. Yet, millions die because of it. It is not posed as a question of if we have the resources to help them, it is posed as a question that asks if it would be profitable to help them.
As for the 10 stack farms, that idea wouldn't work, not because of money, but because of physical reasons. Firstly, building a hydroponics farm in Africa isn't such a good idea, hydroponics uses a lot of water. Africa does not have enough water to begin with, this would make a bad problem worse, sure they would have more food, but they would be dying of thirst.
Also, I'm fairly certain you can't grow grains hydropnically, this makes it very hard to feed a population using pure hydroponics. You could grow masses of lettuces, or other green vegetables this way, but no grains, and grains are probably the biggest part of the human diet, and we kind of need them.
Ideas like this would only work if we had a global government and could just put our resource centres in the most ideal places, to be shipped whever they were needed. Even then we would still need some standard farms to produce the foods we cant make using hydroponics (or some kind of synthetic/GM grain-replacement). While it is a nice idea, technolgy is not our only barrier.
Even if the world became a global socialist state, we would still have some form of currency, if there was no official on, an un-official currency would develop. People barter, it's what they do. Whatever object is the most desired will just become the currency if there is no imposed artifial currency (like metal coins, or paper/cotton/plastic/polymer notes, or credit chips, or whatever).
Though we have drifted far from the topic of the thread.