150 karma · joined November 11, 2013
We are producing something like 50 billion chickens for slaughter every year. I don't think that estimate includes laying hens or culled males, either. The scale of chicken production is bonkers relative to natural bird populations.
The most abundant wild bird species is on the order of 1.5 billion. They are sparrow-sized and that's not their annual number.
Framed animals dwarf wild mammals and wild birds by mass:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/08/total-biomass-weight-...
Boundlessness means that X could be all domesticated animals, and Y=1 human. Surely that seems like not the right call, given that it would ultimately kill even more humans.
That's still a big deal, but it's far short of the impact-for-everyone promised by some folks in the industry.
165mil isn't as big as it sounds with those factors in mind.
Or from another angle:
Changing your individual vote in an attempt to shift the outcome of an election is extraordinarily unlikely to actually make the difference, so prediction markets most likely punish people (with losses) who try to game it with their own votes. If you and a large group of people plan to do this, that will be priced into the market, preventing you from profiting very much.
Benz made the first car in 1886, which in your analogy means today is 1900.
I will be curious to see how crypto holds up in recession or under monetary crisis.
One of the reasons it was created hasn't really been tested, since the economy in the west hasn't faced a major crisis since its invention.
It seems plausible (if unlikely) that external events could push crypto adoption into more "normal" use cases. E.g. Israel's recent ban on cash transactions points to one way more things may become untenable in traditional finance.
I don't actually have strong opinions on what will happen - I do find your analogy fun to think about though!
Its primary purpose is to get me to build the habit, and so far it's working for that :)
I think exactly the opposite is true. Patents are one of the primary ways that incumbents are able to rent seek on their inventions for decades. These large companies hoard patents, and are legally granted monopoly on a given technology, making direct competition on their invention illegal.
A world without patents would be more enabling to small entrepreneurs, because the amount of things they are allowed to attempt is so much higher than in our current world.
It can be both legal and wrong. No need for a "double standard".
Thankfully it's a one word change :)