I often read that gold is superior to fiat currency, but how would any kind of currency or precious commodity make a difference in this case, since demand is outstripping supply of finite tangible goods.
It wouldn't. Don't believe what you read on the internet about money. The goldbugs are a vocal minority, not taken seriously in real economics discussions.
Theoretically, gold has more robust ties to reality, so it would have value elsewhere; this is in contrast to the Venezuelan currency, which I expect (though don't know for sure) is inflated like crazy. If that's true, then it could mean that some enterprising Colombians (or someone else nearby) might find it worth their while to smuggle food in for the gold or gold-backed currency, which should be exchangeable at a predictable and stable rate.
Having said that, it's an absurd notion. Maintaining a gold-backed currency in that shitshow, even if someone were so inclined, would be like carefully setting the tables for dinner on a sinking cruise ship: it's cool that you're enthusiastic about doing your job well, but there are some pretty important people screwing up in really important ways, and your efforts aren't going to get you anywhere.
Depends on the problem. If the general human consensus believes the sun revolves around the earth, you're going to have a hard time working with multiple minds. Problems which require radical shifts in ideology are more than likely going to be tackled alone. It would come down to the maximum power principle. You would waste a significant amount of energy pulling someone psychologically one step in your direction, whereas independently, you could be three steps closer to proving your thesis. Not to mention, social cohesion, or whatever you want to call it, encourages group think and naturally ostracises outsiders as a primitive form of bonding or fitting in with one another.
Really hard problems fight monocultures of 'obvious truth' in the bonds of multiple minds.
Okay in the sense that we won't immediately die because we can make up for it (although it won't be nearly as good). Losing honeybees is still easily one of the most pressing issues.
> Long term, it is the most economically sustainable business from the perspective of the business owner
That's true, but not for the reasons stated. Once the population bubble bursts, the majority of human beings will become farmers if they want to survive. The negative stigma associated with farming for a living will quickly evaporate.
According to historian Dr. Joseph Tainter's book 'The Collapse of Complex Societies', if you exclude isolated groups such as tribes, there have been 23 distinct civilizations throughout the course of human history and 22 have failed. Hypercomplexity and specialization tend to be common characteristics, as well as, misuse of resources.
