georgehayduke

This is a really interesting area and problem. When you factor in the extra food we need to produce to feed a population expected to hit 9bn people AND the increased demand for a more western diet from a growing middle class in places like China and India, we need some serious innovation in agriculture.

Another interesting area not covered in the article is genetic engineering bacteria in soil to fix nitrogen, reducing the need for chemical fertilizers: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/11/20/can-genetic-en...

Did you read the entire article? The final paragraphs seem to suggest that on balance, the author believes that the benefits of travel by the wider population outweigh the risks of over-tourism:

"These phenomena inevitably mean more complaints from locals, and more damage and lines and selfies and bad behavior. But they also mean more cross-cultural exposure, more investment, more global connection, more democratization of travel, and perhaps more awe and wonder. Even overtourism has its upsides."

"Evidence of the cheap herbicide’s danger to biological functions and the environment continues to mount. Why are U.S. regulators not listening?"

Why are regulators not listening is a great question. Perhaps they are listening, just to well paid lobbyists on Bayer's side.

I am amazed at the bravery of the medical staff, health professionals and volunteers who are trying to contain Ebola in the DRC.

Not only are they potentially exposed to the deadly disease, they have to content with violent attacks from the population they're trying to help.

It sounds incredibly complex - a mix of political mistrust, lack of education and difficult terrain making containment difficult.

While spreading to populous areas would be a major concern, I imagine that nations blessed with more resources may be in a better position to quarantine, contain and prevent the spread of Ebola.

This has been a long slow process. I thought there would be some business model innovation before now, but it apart from subscriptions it doesn't seem like anyone has cracked it.

Subscriptions are a solid business model, and I think it's important for fund serious newspapers / investigative journalism. However, by putting them behind a paywall, these important stories may no longer have the impact they once did.

As someone outside the U.S. I find this whole pharma-complex absolutely mind-boggling.

There's a reason we get so many of our great ideas in the shower - our 'diffuse brain' is going to work, forging new paths and making connections.

I think the biggest danger of these products is that they are optimized to co-opt our attention, reducing the time available for this genuinely deep thinking.

Anything that takes more than a couple of hours should be compensated. This includes "training days".

Pretty amazing dedication isn't it?