Jandila comments on Counterfactual resiliency test for non-causal models - Less Wrong

21 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 30 August 2012 05:30PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (78)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 September 2012 09:39:36PM 2 points [-]

On the other hand, if we reach a point where stockpiling human urine to supply phosphorous for agriculture (as opposed to merely conserving it locally) is economically viable, that implies some pretty scary things about the general availability of food and knock-on effects for general social stability. I'm not sure how much of it we're (literally) pissing into the sewers and whatnot, but I'd be surprised if agricultural runoff weren't a much greater percentage of the total.

Comment author: Ford 13 September 2012 05:17:57PM 1 point [-]

Yes, we should start with the low-hanging fruit. For example, nutrients in human waste are a small fraction of what's in animal waste, and the latter should be easier to capture. Even so, much of the manure still gets applied at pollution-causing rates near barns and feedlots, rather than paying the cost of transport to where it is most needed.

But your point about food availability and social stability is more important. Recycling urine seems like a good idea. But a society that needs to recycle urine will be a society where many people are spending most of their income on food and others are going hungry, as was the case for the societies mentioned above.

Comment author: shminux 11 September 2012 09:56:16PM 0 points [-]

stockpiling human urine to supply phosphorous for agriculture (as opposed to merely conserving it locally) is economically viable, that implies some pretty scary things about the general availability of food

Well, something like this has already been fake-newsed.