A lot of this is not about increased yield, but healthier more nutritious plants, a healthier soil that binds more carbon, a more diverse farmland supporting a more diverse set of insects and animals and so forth.
The monocropped modern agriculture is not only producing dead soil, farmers that become reliant upon exterior input supplied by global conglomerates (i.e. ther margins don't go to the person doing the farming, but everyone suppling the stuff the farmer needs), and causes a lot of damage to local ecosystems.
One big problem here is that 'organic' as-in certified organic, means something very different from Real Organic (as coined by the Rodale Institute). And among people who try to grow more organically (as in with nature, not the certified mess big-ag created to steal the term) there is a wide variety of ways people do it in a wide variety of places that have a wide variety of history.
It's just an insane amount of money to invest with the long-term effect of you oversaturating the chip market.
Throwing 20B into a chip fab in the EU would be politically a very unpopular move, if it's done as a public company or worse directly state owned, you'll royally piss of Taiwan, South Korea and China and it's likely they'd retaliate by e.g. subsidising their auto industry more in order to give the death blow to the EU auto industry.
The solution to threats to global economic integration is to address the threats to global economic integration. It's not to cannibalise our own full-employment high value economies, by diverting enormous capital and labour into duplicating vast swathes of lower value jobs we don't actually have the work force for anyway, just so we can pay unaffordable prices for the resulting goods.
We probably both agree it's an absurd fantasy, and the people trying to make stuff like this happen are implementing policies that ensure that it won't, such as putting tariffs on the inputs they need to build out this domestic manufacturing capacity in the first place.
Amd it isn't only geopolitical threats we have to worry about. The world's hard disk supply disappeared with a tsunami in Thailand. Taiwan is vulnerable to those and earthquakes. Efficiency and robustness are at odds and we are leaning too far towards efficiency. Even if China hadn't been so large it could absorb the costs of capturing the world's entire manufacturing base with subsidies, centralizing that much has risks completely apart from politics.
The issue with national investment in the EU is that it might be attacked as state sponsored activity where one can complain that public money are used for market moves or if it is EU wide initiative, then the governments will squabble whose economy will get the money. The framework is not mature enough to allow for delegating to someone to solve the problem for everyone and to balance the beneficiaries in the long term.
It shouldn't be a politically unpopular move. Other countries can get pissed off, but those other countries also cannot guarantee that Europe will get chips when times are tough. If you want to build modern drones and missiles you need access to a large amount of computer chips. In a crisis will those still be available to Europe?
Think about leaving your bike unlocked in times square, vs. the top of a 7 000 meter mountain in the himalayas.
Which unlocked (unsecure) bike is more likely to be stolen, and ergo has a lower risk attached?
----
Obscurity does not help you when the thief has already found your bike, nor is obscurity very helpful for keeping your bike safe if you happen to live in times square.
But if you live at the top of a himalayan peak, you can be fairly certain you're not going to have your bike stolen.
the security controls for a bike on a high mountain are not obscurity, they're the lack of oxygen (that kills), the cold (that kills), the height (that kills), and the literal sheer difficulty of getting there.
you could put the bike right on the side of the mountain without any obfuscation and it won't get got because ain't no one gonna die for a bike.
its like how we know where dead people are on Everest but we can't get them down; they serve as landmarks.
Yes, that's correct. There's a mistaken belief that it's the major source of performance improvements. It plays a role, but the bigger gains come from the stack height (limb lengthening effect) and the energy return of the foam. But that leads to very unstable shoes. The carbon gives rigidity to balance this out.
reply