I've been ruminating (ha, new cow owner here) on this topic of annuals versus perennials today. Why DID humans move to annuals? Let's examine some

Team perennial like Mark Shepard and The Land Institute argue it was basically just a bad choice to move to annuals as tilling degrades soil and the land base civilizations need to thrive.
@csmaje on the other hand says it seems implausible that so many civilizations would choose to rely on grains just because they're...making a stupid choice? There must be something else at play. He goes deep into plant characteristics and yields.
My go to author on these topics, Morris Berman, argues it's really the distinction between immediate return economies (hunter gatherers) and delayed return economies (which require storage) that explains this shift. "Quantity precipitates a shift in...
But why they made this shift is still unclear. Classic chicken and the egg...
Berman argues it was population presure and lack of ability to escape ecological limits through mobility that lead to sedentism, and the search for more calories per land area.
Berman: "under stressful env. conditions...a certain aggressive subgroup comes forward to take power, and this pushes the rest of the group into a prisoner's dilemma situation: get on the bandwagon or get left behind."
There are a lot of implications to this. How our form of agriculture either builds or destroys nature (soil) is also what it does to our societies. What we do to nature we do to ourselves.
What that means for us moving forward isn't abundantly clear. We've grown into a highly hierarchical complex species and there's no easy return. I like the idea of pulling from different ways of doing ag, guided by the goal to regenerate ecosystems.
Maybe if we can get to a point where we are living amongst forest gardens teeming with cattle and chickens (or wild game) we will be able to let go of the insecure feeling we get with the uncertainty of food supply.
Maybe then we will be able to internalize this security to be able to make genuine, mutually reinforcing social attachments.
Or maybe I'm having a mushroom flashback lol

More from Life

1/ Some initial thoughts on personal moats:

Like company moats, your personal moat should be a competitive advantage that is not only durable—it should also compound over time.

Characteristics of a personal moat below:


2/ Like a company moat, you want to build career capital while you sleep.

As Andrew Chen noted:


3/ You don’t want to build a competitive advantage that is fleeting or that will get commoditized

Things that might get commoditized over time (some longer than


4/ Before the arrival of recorded music, what used to be scarce was the actual music itself — required an in-person artist.

After recorded music, the music itself became abundant and what became scarce was curation, distribution, and self space.

5/ Similarly, in careers, what used to be (more) scarce were things like ideas, money, and exclusive relationships.

In the internet economy, what has become scarce are things like specific knowledge, rare & valuable skills, and great reputations.

You May Also Like

1/ Here’s a list of conversational frameworks I’ve picked up that have been helpful.

Please add your own.

2/ The Magic Question: "What would need to be true for you


3/ On evaluating where someone’s head is at regarding a topic they are being wishy-washy about or delaying.

“Gun to the head—what would you decide now?”

“Fast forward 6 months after your sabbatical--how would you decide: what criteria is most important to you?”

4/ Other Q’s re: decisions:

“Putting aside a list of pros/cons, what’s the *one* reason you’re doing this?” “Why is that the most important reason?”

“What’s end-game here?”

“What does success look like in a world where you pick that path?”

5/ When listening, after empathizing, and wanting to help them make their own decisions without imposing your world view:

“What would the best version of yourself do”?
Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇

It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details):
https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha

I've read it so you needn't!

Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.

The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.

Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.