evunveot

From the permaculture/food forest/holistic side, you can certainly vastly beat the economic output of conventional agriculture (e.g. just growing corn) on a $/acre basis when you integrate all the possible enterprises available (meat, eggs, vegetables, herbs, fruit, wood products, flowers, ecotourism, etc.). I'm not sure in terms of marketable calories per acre, i.e. stuff human beings actually want to eat, but I'd think at least within an order of magnitude of corn (eggs go a long way). But you're right, the bottleneck is availability of farmers, since one farmer with machinery can grow hundreds of acres of corn or wheat at millions of calories per acre. I think it's fair to say there's plenty of opportunity for people to become farmers if they want to, though, in that information is more accessible than ever and there's land available.

We do have the example of Gabe Brown [0], who I believe manages 1000+ acres regeneratively with only his family for labor. I don't recall any attempts to calculate his kcal/acre, though. Farmers are understandably more concerned with $/acre.

The author presents this as an avenue for confronting the likelihood that even a perfect understanding/modeling of the physical characteristics of a brain is unlikely to reveal anything about consciousness or subjective experience itself.

Seems plausible to me. Reality tends to make sense, so if it's most likely impossible to make sense of consciousness by studying the brain, there's probably some other way to look at it.

The idea that fundamental particles like electrons have some kind of subjective experience was hard to swallow at first, but then I thought about my cat. It's safe to say that a cat's consciousness is more primitive than a typical human's. You can also say that cats (at least once you get to know them) are a lot more predictable than people and have a smaller set of possible behaviors and reactions. If my cat sees a bug on the wall, she's going to do her weird hiss-snarl thing at it just about 100% of the time, and there's 0% chance she's going to roll up a newspaper and swat it.

If the consciousness of a particular entity can be ranked in comparison to that of other entities — like I would rank my consciousness as "higher" than my cat's — and if entities with "lower consciousnesses" have fewer possible behaviors or reactions to stimuli (like my cat compared to me, or a broccoli plant in my garden compared to my cat), then it's easy to imagine that something as elementary as an electron could be conscious in some way and still obey what appear to be totally deterministic rules. (Electron may have been a bad example since we can't really observe them like we can cats, but the point stands.) Another way to state it would be that as consciousness rises, so does free will (or, at least, scope of behavior).

I'm also reminded of:

John 1:1-3 (NKJV) — "In the beginning was the Word[0], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made."

I don't think that's true. In order to manipulate lots of little people you have to manipulate a few big people first.

Look at the elite levels of nearly any group that comes with some kind of social status (e.g. celebrities, political parties, university faculties, media organizations) and you'll probably see remarkable levels of groupthink and political monoculture. I don't think that's because all the individuals in the elite group are more educated and enlightened and therefore all naturally came to the same correct conclusions about everything. Seems far more likely that most of the individuals are unconsciously or consciously (if they're Machiavellian, which many of them are) trying to "fit in" with whatever they perceive to be the dominant or "correct" ideas and behavior of the elite, so as not to be expelled from their number, and further that outsiders who wish (consciously or unconsciously) to join the elite group will tend to do the same.

The groupthink in itself might be resilient against attempts to manipulate the elite group's culture, and it definitely is when it comes to fast and/or drastic pushes, but you could reasonably hypothesize that groupthink is weak against gradual manipulation because it's ultimately based on consensus rather than any core principle or truth. And elite groups are, by definition, smaller than the overall population, so if your goal is merely to influence the culture of an elite group, there are fewer people you need to target. Vanishingly few, in fact, if you can identify the subset who are actually influential and not just following along.

So in a democracy, especially one with mass media and/or widespread social media, if you can influence the social status elites enough to change their perception of the correct way to "fit in" with each other, votes will tend to flow in the same direction simply because humans are naturally attracted to and desire social status.

By the standards of early 2004 (when Facebook was originally written) this is still mediocre PHP. People who cared about writing good PHP were reading magazines like this (2003):