I can't speak to the actual problems from chicken bones, but scale may be part of the explanation.
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:
In theory, scale shouldn't be an issue. After all, you need enough farms to produce feed for those animals. It's just a matter of processing those by products into fertilizer and distributing it over the massive area that is used for crop production.
Although industrial farming could be considered an environmental problem, regardless of the chickens.
It seems like suggesting there is _no such threshold_ is even more in need of citation.
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.
There are definitely scenarios where an X big enough to cause broad ecological consequences would encounter little rhetorical friction to overwhelm Y=1.
[Admittedly this is all error-prone hazy recollection, but] From what I understood, the original scenario in question was about a case where X was large, but not of critical strategic consequence to the availability of the animal(s) in question
Videos are short, can be watched many times by 1 viewer, and may be viewed by all the folks that don't speak English as a first language, but speak it a second or third language, or have subtitles available (which are now automated).
165mil isn't as big as it sounds with those factors in mind.
Prediction markets have a built-in incentive for accuracy that's absent from broadcast news. It's useful to have an aggregate answer to things like "how likely is Russia to invade Ukraine" that is to some degree shielded from the normal filters of partisanship.
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!
For the record, I don't think crypto is useless, I just don't think it's hitting that bar for a transformative technology. It's proponents certainly do describe it as potentially transformative or revolutionary.
Yes, I'm aware the dates of invention don't quite align, and the time window is cherry-picked for dramatic effect. But it's food for thought.
Nobody was debating the utility of cars and phones 14 years later. With crypto, it's like we're still looking for something as fundamental as an essential use case.
Yeah.. the hype I think makes it harder to appreciate the main use case, which essentially was already covered by the first cryptocoin, and is still where it sees the most real-world use: resistance to state control. Folks use it to evade capital controls, use darkweb markets, launder money, find radical activism, etc.
That's still a big deal, but it's far short of the impact-for-everyone promised by some folks in the industry.
It is a very high bar. But I believe that the bar matches the claims made about the technology. Few advocates seem to be talking about cryptocurrencies as a useful tool for incremental progress (granted, this could be my bubble talking). Advocates seem to be saying that it will remake the world in extremely fundamental ways.
I built a free service that sends you email prompts to think about gratitude. If you reply to the emails, it collects your responses into a gratitude journal.
