+
“A balm for the soul”
  review on Goodreads
GOOD PEOPLE Book
upworthy

Eddie Geller

Heroes

This is who we're feeding with our extra food. And you'll spit out your corn as soon as you know.

True
Whole Foods Market

This article originally appeared on 12.17.14


Here's something you may not have known: In 2008, we grew enough food for 11 billion people.

(Reminder: There are just over 7 billion humans here on Earth.)

But half of that food went to feeding animals (you know, so we could eat them). And a great deal also went to fueling cars.

Clearly, we're not hurting when it comes to our ability to grow food. But how we grow that food matters. In the industrial system that feeds much of the globe, it takes 10 calories of fuel to produce one calorie of food.

Which, let's be honest, is not the most efficient process. That's why so many people are keen on growing food organically — by which Wikipedia tells me means:

In other words, organic farming involves growing food more naturally with fewer resources. But here's a good question: Can organic food feed the world?

Allow me to quote noted food expert Michael Pollan:

"In industrial areas, organic [farming] achieves 92% of the yield of industrial [farming]. But you go to the developing world, and it produces 182% of current yield."

Not too shabby, eh? Maybe there's some hope for our food system after all.

For the full talk (don't worry, it's short), check out the clip below.

More

A smart dude takes on racism with facts. Not wild accusations. Facts. And I'm begging you to listen.

Outrageous.

Don't think racism in the United States is an issue? Then, I'm sure John Green will make you think again:

<span class="redactor-invisible-space"></span>

Let's talk about just a few of the examples Green mentions, starting with the criminal justice system. First off, most white people don't even think there's a problem.

But black people serve longer sentences than whites when convicted of the same crime.

They are also punished more harshly when it comes to drugs.

In the job market, black people are discriminated against just on the basis of their name.

And unsurprisingly, minorities get worse health care.

I could go on (and Green does), but the bottom line here is that claims of systemic racism are clearly backed up by data.

However, it's not just the numbers we should be concerned about. We have to listen and honor the voices of those who have stories to tell.

Well said, John Green. Well said.

He's Obsessed With Data, And He Found Something Really Shocking

This is definitely not good for society.

Question: Why are you not more worried about capital?

Maybe you're not so worried because you don't know what the heck I'm talking about. Let's start with a definition: Capital is stuff you own and can make money off of. For example, your house in the hills, your 10 acres of beachfront property, or the 20,000 shares of Google stock you own (I'm an optimist). OK, perhaps you don't have any of those things, but there's a small group of wealthy folks who do. They're the ones holding most of the capital.

And capital should concern you because of a man named Thomas Piketty. Piketty wrote a book called "Capital in the 21st Century" in which he collected a whole lot of data.

We won't go through all that data, but instead, let's just look at a few graphs.

Back in the day (18th and 19th centuries), the value of capital grew faster than the economy. It grew so much that by 1900, wealth in the U.K. was 700% more valuable than the national output. In other words, it was much more lucrative to just have lots of capital than to create goods and services for the economy.

Which meant — big surprise — rich folks benefited from this situation, and wealth inequality got real bad.

However, things got a little more equal in the 20th century. World wars and decolonization either blew up the wealth of those rich folks or forced them to give back some of their stuff.

And as the economy began to grow again after World War II, your average Joe (or Jane) started to gain some traction on the rich.

But here's where the upsetting part comes in: Piketty and his data suggest that since 1980, things are going backward. Capital (remember that thing?) is, once again, starting to grow faster than the economy, and rich folks are pulling away.

That means, according to Piketty, we're headed back to the (not so) good ol' days where the rich pretty much just own all the things. Plus top hats and monocles.

Check out the BBC's explainer of Piketty's "Capital" and find out what he thinks the solution is.

<span class="redactor-invisible-space"></span>
More

An interviewer doesn't know how to handle his guest because he got something quite unexpected.

A great idea from someone you wouldn't expect.

In a 1968 interview, William F. Buckley Jr. sat down with the legendary conservative economist Milton Friedman to talk about something called the negative income tax.

What is a negative income tax, you ask?

Friedman's negative income tax proposed that we eliminate poverty with one fell swoop by providing everyone with a livable income, no matter what their employment status is.

Wow, right?

Before we move forward, let's acknowledge that there's something not quite perfect about an old white guy coming in to save the "helpless poor people" (see The White Savior Industrial Complex). But Friedman's idea of a negative income tax is worth discussing not because he's such a nice guy; it's worth discussing because it's a valuable policy idea.

A variation of Friedman's plan is often referred to as a guaranteed basic income. Here's how the blog io9 describes it:

"The idea of a guaranteed basic income, also referred to as unconditional or universal basic income, is starting to gain traction in many parts of the world, both in developed and developing nations. It's actually a very simple idea: Everyone in society receives a single basic income to provide for a comfortable living whether they choose to work or not. Importantly, it's only intended to be enough for a person to survive on. The money for this social welfare scheme could come from the government or some other public institution, in addition to funds or income received from other sources. It could be taxable, or non-taxable, and divvyed (sic) up on a continual basis, monthly, or annually."

Perhaps the biggest red flag might be that when we just give people money, it could destroy their incentive to work. But as Vox explains, the effects would probably not be as detrimental as some might fear:

"As noted above, a real basic income has never been implemented across a whole country, which makes macroeconomic effects hard to predict. But we do have some experimental evidence on the question of work effort, drawn from the negative income tax experiments in the US and Canada in the 1970s. Those studies found that work effort declined when a negative income tax was imposed, as predicted, but that the effect was quite small. Moreover, most of the reduction in work effort appeared to come from people taking longer stints of unemployment. That can be a bad thing, but it can also mean that people aren't settling for second-best jobs and holding out for ones that are better fits for them. That'd actually be good, economically. Additionally, the work effect reduction for young people appeared to come entirely from increased school attendance— also a desirable outcome."

Now, Friedman was probably not predicting driverless cars, 3D printing, or a whole host of other technological advances that will increasingly replace humans in the workplace, but let's face it: We need a plan for when the robots take over everything. Again, io9:

"Advocates argue that a basic income is essential to a comprehensive strategy for reducing poverty because it offers extra income with no strings attached. But looking ahead to the future, we may have little choice but to implement it. Given the ever-increasing concentration of wealth and the frightening prospect of technological unemployment, it will be required to prevent complete social and economic collapse. It's not a question of if, but how soon."

Hard to argue with eliminating poverty and saving the world from collapse, right? I mean, you could argue with that, but I would just listen to Friedman instead.

<span class="redactor-invisible-space"></span>

P.S. William F. Buckley Jr. says a few things (sigh, stereotypes) that will make you facepalm — apologies in advance.

Trending Stories