Vertical farming?

[Q]

Maybe this fits better in DIY, but I'll put it here for now.

So, I just watched a Dutch documentary (http://www.npo.nl/zembla/25-02-2015/VARA_101372908) regarding gen-tech agriculture. To be honest, I was pretty oblivious to this whole story. As I thought the argument went, GM promises to amend the genetic structure of our crops in order to improve them. However, this is actually not the case at all.

What actually happens is that the genetic structure of said crops is amended in order to make them resistant to a particular poison, created by the same gen-tech companies. The point of this poison, of course, is to kill all other plants besides the genetically modified ones. Now, this creates a world of problems, which I shall not delve into here and which I presume is known to most.

Now, the premise of this all is that weeds actually have a chance to grow. That is, farming happens on the open field. Now, what about farming under conditions we dictate? Like vertical farming, hydroponics and the like? Why haven't we seen a breakthrough in these fields? Sure, there is an initial investment cost, but given the higher production yield (which can be in the order of 10 to 100 times greater than on traditional plots of land), this would surely be cost effective.

Now, I've googled around a little and see some proprietary solutions going around, like TerraSphere (http://terraspheresystems.com/). Now, are there 'open source' initiatives like this as well that a community could build on?

[Creative Destruction]

Now, the premise of this all is that weeds actually have a chance to grow. That is, farming happens on the open field. Now, what about farming under conditions we dictate? Like vertical farming, hydroponics and the like? Why haven't we seen a breakthrough in these fields? Sure, there is an initial investment cost, but given the higher production yield (which can be in the order of 10 to 100 times greater than on traditional plots of land), this would surely be cost effective.

You shouldn't underestimate how much pull farmers have with their governments. They have a pretty strong argument that starts from "We feed the people of the world" and goes on from there. There's a lot of money tied up into land-farm systems. In addition, there's the PR aspect of it, which is that farm life is often idealized and nearly deified in many aspects. Vertical farming is a brazen attempt to destroy that image and those constituencies by urbanizing and modernizing agriculture.

Whether it is cost effective, also, depends on how you go about it. A state-of-the-art hydroponics or aeroponics system, one that can readily produce crops at the capacity that we have now, is worlds away more expensive -- in terms of start up capital -- than buying land, direct sowing and maintaining the crops with the relatively less expensive machinery currently available to us. Consider a multi-story vertical farming system in the city or on the edge of a city, with urban prices being what they are, plus the cost of building or retrofitting a building with all the necessary tools to replace the average farm. One of the points of vertical farming is to be better for the environment, and this includes its energy inputs, as well. Solar panels, while increasing in efficiency, are still only -- iirc -- about 30% efficient at their best and they're wildly expensive at that point. We have not yet solved how to best provide that kind of renewable energy to the biggest hogs of energy usage, which is industry. Trying to scale that, or a wind system, up for an adequate farm system is, itself, a huge task at this point, and is something that someone who is expecting to turn a profit relatively quickly probably wouldn't delve into. That's not even considering the other infrastructure needed to set up a decent hydroponic grow operation. (Weed sellers do it, but mostly as a fringe benefit to not getting caught. I can guarantee most, except the most techy of the bunch, would probably prefer old sun and soil.) It is something that would need a, frankly, endless reserve of funding to accomplish, which would mean you would need to get a government in on the thing.

There's a great deal of politics that plays into this that isn't simple economics, but even if it were purely economics, it's still a prohibitive venture, at least in a capitalist system.


Now, I've googled around a little and see some proprietary solutions going around, like TerraSphere (http://terraspheresystems.com/). Now, are there 'open source' initiatives like this as well that a community could build on?

Well, the principles themselves are fairly simple and have been around for a long time. Those, at least, are open source. The problem is trying to find ways to scale it up to meet demand. That's why these kinds of things are businesses rather than non-profits. It'd be easy to make it "open source" should an organization like that come around, though. You just need the cash.

I personally think the vertical farm idea is great. I can't really find anything impeachable about the concept itself, to be honest. It fits in well with continuing the industrialization of agriculture, and in a way that is suited to least harm the environment.

[John Nada]

Okay I play devil's advocate.

1.The energy requirement for lighting and pumps can be high vs. dirt and direct sun(free).
2.Not all crops grow good hydroponically, though I suppose you could still use dirt in some cases
3.The lighting has to be right. All plants are different. Sun is still best. LED's(potentially the cheapest light source) have specific wavelengths that might not meet a plants needs, so there's need to be a large array of different lighting systems.

Different soils give different terroir. It can be hard to replicate.

For many crops I think it's very much ready. But land can be cheap, so there's not as much reason now to switch.

[Creative Destruction]

Okay I play devil's advocate.

1.The energy requirement for lighting and pumps can be high vs. dirt and direct sun(free).

Part of the design for vertical farms is to include as much direct sun as possible. It also takes into account the different angles the sun is at, at different parts of the season.


2.Not all crops grow good hydroponically, though I suppose you could still use dirt in some cases

The biggest issues here would be with orchards of fruits and vegetable trees that have more complex root systems than simple leafy vegetables. Still, not everything in a vertical farm needs to be hydroponic. You can build soil systems, as well.


3.The lighting has to be right. All plants are different. Sun is still best. LED's(potentially the cheapest light source) have specific wavelengths that might not meet a plants needs, so there's need to be a large array of different lighting systems.

See comment 1. Even assuming a completely closed off, LED-only system (which would be a silly waste of resources in most places), this is just a difficult issue that has mostly to do with scaling. It isn't insurmountable.


Different soils give different terroir. It can be hard to replicate.

It'll take research and experimentation, but not a barrier. Pot growers play around with this kind of thing all the time.

[RedGiantUnion]

Vertical Farming is my expertise. I can say that although corporations are trying to hijack the "Food Revolution", it remains to be our revolution. Agriculture belongs to the people - we must regain control over the industry. I have found a way to do this - I have developed a Non-profit organization, the Red Giant Union, which is building farms for the people, to be run by the people. Check out our revolutionary project by typing "Red Giant Union" into google. It won't let me link it here.

[RedGiantUnion]

You shouldn't underestimate how much pull farmers have with their governments. They have a pretty strong argument that starts from "We feed the people of the world" and goes on from there. There's a lot of money tied up into land-farm systems. In addition, there's the PR aspect of it, which is that farm life is often idealized and nearly deified in many aspects. Vertical farming is a brazen attempt to destroy that image and those constituencies by urbanizing and modernizing agriculture.

Whether it is cost effective, also, depends on how you go about it. A state-of-the-art hydroponics or aeroponics system, one that can readily produce crops at the capacity that we have now, is worlds away more expensive -- in terms of start up capital -- than buying land, direct sowing and maintaining the crops with the relatively less expensive machinery currently available to us. Consider a multi-story vertical farming system in the city or on the edge of a city, with urban prices being what they are, plus the cost of building or retrofitting a building with all the necessary tools to replace the average farm. One of the points of vertical farming is to be better for the environment, and this includes its energy inputs, as well. Solar panels, while increasing in efficiency, are still only -- iirc -- about 30% efficient at their best and they're wildly expensive at that point. We have not yet solved how to best provide that kind of renewable energy to the biggest hogs of energy usage, which is industry. Trying to scale that, or a wind system, up for an adequate farm system is, itself, a huge task at this point, and is something that someone who is expecting to turn a profit relatively quickly probably wouldn't delve into. That's not even considering the other infrastructure needed to set up a decent hydroponic grow operation. (Weed sellers do it, but mostly as a fringe benefit to not getting caught. I can guarantee most, except the most techy of the bunch, would probably prefer old sun and soil.) It is something that would need a, frankly, endless reserve of funding to accomplish, which would mean you would need to get a government in on the thing.

There's a great deal of politics that plays into this that isn't simple economics, but even if it were purely economics, it's still a prohibitive venture, at least in a capitalist system.



Well, the principles themselves are fairly simple and have been around for a long time. Those, at least, are open source. The problem is trying to find ways to scale it up to meet demand. That's why these kinds of things are businesses rather than non-profits. It'd be easy to make it "open source" should an organization like that come around, though. You just need the cash.

I personally think the vertical farm idea is great. I can't really find anything impeachable about the concept itself, to be honest. It fits in well with continuing the industrialization of agriculture, and in a way that is suited to least harm the environment.
I have an answer to all of our problems. I am the Founder and Executive Director of the Red Giant Union, a Union of Network Farmers & Small-food entrepreneurs on a course to resolving the food crisis in the world, and we are returning ownership of the agricultural means of production back to the people. This is not something to be debated - it is a practical solution that has already gained state-wide and local news coverage in Indiana. The Movement is growing, and we are revolutionizing the game of food production. We are building the stepping stones to a worker-owned economy.

Google, "Red Giant Union" as I cannot post a link here. Or private message me for the details.

[Q]

I presume this is the website: http://www.redgiantunion.org/

So, could you tell us more about this endeavour?

[Asero]

Ah shit, RedGiant has moved to the forums.

He spent a few days spamming chatango with his liberal drivel. Then when confronted by the anti-marxist elements and parallels between American agrarian utopian socialism within his program, RedGiant threw insults and accused us as being stupid and close minded.

[Creative Destruction]

I have an answer to all of our problems.

I never trust anyone who says this.

[tuwix]

Maybe this fits better in DIY, but I'll put it here for now.

So, I just watched a Dutch documentary (http://www.npo.nl/zembla/25-02-2015/VARA_101372908) regarding gen-tech agriculture.

The Venus Project strongly advocates that. The Zeitgeist Movement did, but as the had split form each other they don't say anything about it to avoid legal consequences.

[Q]

I never trust anyone who says this.
Yes, I had a similar feeling:

http://www.greatjakes.com/content/uploads/2011/04/snake-oil.jpg


The Venus Project strongly advocates that. The Zeitgeist Movement did, but as the had split form each other they don't say anything about it to avoid legal consequences.
Well, both seemed to have dwindled since that split actually.

[tuwix]

Well, both seemed to have dwindled since that split actually.

Due to lack of another Peter Joseph's movies. But another one is in progress, so we can expect a resurrection. :)

[Q]

Too bade RedGiantUnion no longer replied.

Anyway, the more that I think about it, the more I'm convinced how primitive it really is to farm our foods in the open air. Wikipedia lists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming#Advantages) quite a few advantages:


Several potential advantages of vertical farming have been discussed by Despommier.[23] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming#cite_note-verticalfarm1-23) Many of these benefits are obtained from scaling up hydroponic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroponic) or aeroponic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroponic) growing methods.
Preparation for the future

It is estimated that by the year 2050, close to 80% of the world’s population will live in urban areas and the total population of the world will increase by 3 billion people. A very large amount of land may be required depending on the change in yield per hectare (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hectare). Scientists are concerned that this large amount of required farmland will not be available and that severe damage to the earth will be caused by the added farmland. Vertical farms, if designed properly, may eliminate the need to create additional farmland and help create a cleaner environment.[24] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming#cite_note-24)[25] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming#cite_note-25)[26] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming#cite_note-26)
Increased crop production

Unlike traditional farming in non-tropical areas, indoor farming can produce crops year-round. All-season farming multiplies the productivity of the farmed surface by a factor of 4 to 6 depending on the crop. With some crops, such as strawberries, the factor may be as high as 30.[27] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming#cite_note-27)[28] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming#cite_note-28)


Furthermore, as the crops would be sold in the same infrastructures in which they are grown, they will not need to be transported between production and sale, resulting in less spoilage, infestation, and energy required than conventional farming encounters. Research has shown that 30% of harvested crops are wasted due to spoilage and infestation, though this number is much lower in developed nations.[21] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming#cite_note-sciam-21)


Despommier suggests that, if dwarf versions of certain crops are used (e.g. dwarf wheat developed by NASA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA), which is smaller in size but richer in nutrients[29] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming#cite_note-nasa-29)), year-round crops, and "stacker" plant holders are accounted for, a 30-story building with a base of a building block (5 acres (20,000 m2)) would yield a yearly crop analogous to that of 2,400 acres (9,700,000 m2) of traditional farming.[21] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming#cite_note-sciam-21)
Protection from weather-related problems

Crops grown in traditional outdoor farming suffer from the often suboptimal, and sometimes extreme, nature of geological and meteorological events such as undesirable temperatures or rainfall amounts, monsoons, hailstorms, tornadoes, flooding, wildfires, and severe droughts.[23] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming#cite_note-verticalfarm1-23) The protection of crops from weather is increasingly important as global climate change occurs. “Three recent floods (in 1993, 2007 and 2008) cost the United States billions of dollars in lost crops, with even more devastating losses in topsoil. Changes in rain patterns and temperature could diminish India’s agricultural output by 30 percent by the end of the century.”[30] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming#cite_note-30)
Because vertical plant farming provides a controlled environment, the productivity of vertical farms would be mostly independent of weather and protected from extreme weather events. Although the controlled environment of vertical farming negates most of these factors, earthquakes and tornadoes still pose threats to the proposed infrastructure, although this again depends on the location of the vertical farms.
Conservation of resources

Each unit of area in a vertical farm could allow up to 20 units of area of outdoor farmland to return to its natural state,[31] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming#cite_note-31)[32] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming#cite_note-32) and recover farmlands due to development from original flat farmlands.


Vertical farming would reduce the need for new farmland due to overpopulation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation_%28biology%29), thus saving many natural resources,[21] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming#cite_note-sciam-21) currently threatened by deforestation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation) or pollution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution). Deforestation and desertification (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification) caused by agricultural encroachment on natural biomes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biome) would be avoided. Because vertical farming lets crops be grown closer to consumers, it would substantially reduce the amount of fossil fuels currently used to transport and refrigerate farm produce. Producing food indoors reduces or eliminates conventional plowing, planting, and harvesting by farm machinery, also powered by fossil fuels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuels). Burning less fossil fuel would reduce air pollution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution) and the carbon dioxide emissions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_emissions) that cause climate change (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change), as well as create healthier environments for humans and animals alike.
Organic crops

The controlled growing environment reduces the need for pesticides (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide), namely herbicides (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbicide) and fungicides (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungicide). Advocates claim that producing organic crops in vertical farms is practical and the most likely production
Halting mass extinction

Withdrawing human activity from large areas of the Earth's land surface may be necessary to slow and eventually halt the current anthropogenic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environment) mass extinction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction_event) of land animals.


Traditional agriculture is highly disruptive to wild animal populations that live in and around farmland and some argue it becomes unethical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_eating_meat#Argument_that_plant_consumpt ion_also_kills_animals) when there is a viable alternative. One study showed that wood mouse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_mouse) populations dropped from 25 per hectare to 5 per hectare after harvest, estimating 10 animals killed per hectare each year with conventional farming.[33] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming#cite_note-sldavis-33) In comparison, vertical farming would cause very little harm to wildlife.[33] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming#cite_note-sldavis-33)
Impact on human health

Traditional farming is a hazardous occupation with particular risks that often take their toll on the health of human laborers. Such risks include: exposure to infectious diseases such as malaria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria) and schistosomes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schistosomes), exposure to toxic chemicals commonly used as pesticides and fungicides, confrontations with dangerous wildlife such as venomous snakes, and the severe injuries that can occur when using large industrial farming equipment. Whereas the traditional farming environment inevitably contains these risks (particularly in the farming practice known as “slash and burn”), vertical farming – because the environment is strictly controlled and predictable – reduces some of these dangers.[23] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming#cite_note-verticalfarm1-23) Currently, the American food system makes fast, unhealthy food cheap while fresh produce is less available and more expensive, encouraging poor eating habits. These poor eating habits lead to health problems such as obesity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity), heart disease (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_disease), and diabetes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetes).
Urban growth

Vertical farming, used in conjunction with other technologies and socioeconomic practices, could allow cities to expand while remaining largely self-sufficient food wise. This would allow for large urban centers that could grow without destroying considerably larger areas of forest to provide food for their people. Moreover, the industry of vertical farming will provide employment to these expanding urban centers. This may help displace the unemployment created by the dismantling of traditional farms, as more farm laborers move to cities in search of work.[23] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming#cite_note-verticalfarm1-23) It is highly unlikely that traditional farms will become obsolete, as there are many crops that are not suited for vertical farming, and the production costs are currently much lower.[citation needed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
Energy production

Vertical farms could exploit methane digesters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_digesters) to generate a small portion of its own electrical needs. Methane digesters could be built on site to transform the organic waste generated at the farm into biogas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogas) which is generally composed of 65% methane along with other gases. This biogas could then be burned to generate electricity for the greenhouse.[34] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming#cite_note-34)


And while complexes could be very complicated, they could also be extremely simple, like this vertical farm in Singapore (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nFQOkzEjxQ).

So, it is only to be hoped that it does take off before we have destroyed much more of our planet in order to feed people.

[ckaihatsu]

this vertical farm in Singapore


Then after this, cattle.


= D

[ckaihatsu]

Can't we just put all livestock into The Matrix until slaughter -- ?


x D

[Creative Destruction]

in addition to vertical farming, we should be pouring money into research of in vitro meat:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/lab-grown-beef-taste-test-almost-like-a-burger/2013/08/05/921a5996-fdf4-11e2-96a8-d3b921c0924a_story.html

it's insane to think that the technology is there and accessible but it's being underutilized because of economics.

[John Nada]

in addition to vertical farming, we should be pouring money into research of in vitro meat:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/lab-grown-beef-taste-test-almost-like-a-burger/2013/08/05/921a5996-fdf4-11e2-96a8-d3b921c0924a_story.html

it's insane to think that the technology is there and accessible but it's being underutilized because of economics.From the article:
Post said that creating the meat was just a first step; he would expect to see cultured meats in supermarkets in 10 to 20 years. At first, according to experts, it might be a luxury item, maybe in the form of such exotic treats as snow leopard burgers or rhino sausages, because it would not be much more difficult to make them than to produce beef or pork.Wait, they can grow any kind of meat one would want. What about human bacon?:drool:

[VCrakeV]

All this stuff about vertical farming, hydroponics, and in vitro meat sounds cool and useful, but has anyone on this forum forgotten about Soylent? It's already on the market, and for cheap, so there's no economic barrier. It's healthier than anything you can imagine. It could improve lives by reducing time spent preparing/cooking and eating. I don't understand why it's not getting the same attention that farming is.

[Creative Destruction]

All this stuff about vertical farming, hydroponics, and in vitro meat sounds cool and useful, but has anyone on this forum forgotten about Soylent? It's already on the market, and for cheap, so there's no economic barrier. It's healthier than anything you can imagine. It could improve lives by reducing time spent preparing/cooking and eating. I don't understand why it's not getting the same attention that farming is.

My wife and I are actually doing Soylent right now. And, yeah, it's cheap and useful, but it's a purely capitalist product and you can tell it is. There's no joy in drinking Soylent. Part of the point of cooking food, eating it is that it serves, in part, as a social function. There's also the issue of taste and texture. In a society where resources were communally owned and needs were met, Soylent probably wouldn't have made it out of garage of a tech dude who obsesses over utility.

Soylent is for two people: purely utilitarian robotic beings who don't care about anything but working and are bothered by the time it takes to cook a meal; or people who don't have the time, energy and/or money to cook themselves a meal. With working 40 hours, plus going to school full time, we fall in the latter category. We had a lot of resistance to the idea, but there's simply no other way. We're spending too much money on convenience foods and I get home at 10 - 11pm from school, then go to work at 8am, and her schedule is erratic, plus she has school, as well. There was not much other option.

It shouldn't be a replacement for actual food. It adds a class dimension to food, yet again, where people who can afford (in time and/or money) to actually eat food are given the opportunity to have food; whereas people who don't have those things have to "eat" this, what a friend of mine called, feedsludge. This is a Dickensian expression of privileged people getting the meat and fruits, where poor folks get gruel (it actually looks like gruel...)

[VCrakeV]

My wife and I are actually doing Soylent right now. And, yeah, it's cheap and useful, but it's a purely capitalist product and you can tell it is. There's no joy in drinking Soylent. Part of the point of cooking food, eating it is that it serves, in part, as a social function. There's also the issue of taste and texture. In a society where resources were communally owned and needs were met, Soylent probably wouldn't have made it out of garage of a tech dude who obsesses over utility.

Soylent is for two people: purely utilitarian robotic beings who don't care about anything but working and are bothered by the time it takes to cook a meal; or people who don't have the time, energy and/or money to cook themselves a meal. With working 40 hours, plus going to school full time, we fall in the latter category. We had a lot of resistance to the idea, but there's simply no other way. We're spending too much money on convenience foods and I get home at 10 - 11pm from school, then go to work at 8am, and her schedule is erratic, plus she has school, as well. There was not much other option.

It shouldn't be a replacement for actual food. It adds a class dimension to food, yet again, where people who can afford (in time and/or money) to actually eat food are given the opportunity to have food; whereas people who don't have those things have to "eat" this, what a friend of mine called, feedsludge. This is a Dickensian expression of privileged people getting the meat and fruits, where poor folks get gruel (it actually looks like gruel...)



Has there ever been a need to enjoy nutrition? Sure, we've enjoyed eating since the time of mammoth meat, but it was solely for survival. Most of our enjoyment of food doesn't come from the food we should and need to eat. Most of it comes from fast food, fine dining, candy, soda, and so on. These things are capitalist ideas. I mean, some of these things could be around in a communist society, and I'd like to sip on some soda in a communist society, but it's not where the roots are.



That said, Soylent is a capitalist product, but it doesn't have to be. It's cheap enough to be a widespread good, not just something for those who can afford it. On the topic of cost, why would the rich choose to eat over using Soylent (other than as a treat)? I don't see this creating a divide beyond what already exists.

[Creative Destruction]

Has there ever been a need to enjoy nutrition? Sure, we've enjoyed eating since the time of mammoth meat, but it was solely for survival. Most of our enjoyment of food doesn't come from the food we should and need to eat. Most of it comes from fast food, fine dining, candy, soda, and so on. These things are capitalist ideas. I mean, some of these things could be around in a communist society, and I'd like to sip on some soda in a communist society, but it's not where the roots are.

You've never enjoyed a good plate of pasta, a steak, or a salad, or the act of preparing it with somebody, or sitting around the dining table, bonding over food? None of those things are "fine dining," "fast food," "candy," "soda" or whatever. The idea that our "enjoyment" comes from "fast food, fine dining, candy, soda and on" is complete and unmitigated crap. Food isn't simply something that gives us nutrition -- it also stimulates our senses; smells, flavor, texture, etc.

I never said enjoyment of what you're eating is the "root" of eating. I said it's part of the point of cooking, having a meal, perhaps by yourself or perhaps with friends. It's not a joyless activity that does nothing but give you nutrition. Being that reductive is basically like saying the perfect life should be in a Communist Cafeteria where we all dispense a nutrient sludge out to all.

Human existence isn't broken down into a series of needs. We have actual wants and they might extend aesthetically, and in ways that actually stimulate us and connect us with our surroundings. If we were just a bunch of robots, then we'd all want and have exactly the same clothing, in the same color, the same housing, with everything completely and absolutely the same and like all the other things in the world. Food would be purely a nutritional act, and we would all be completely fine and okay with having Soylent and water and nothing else. That's not how humans work -- it's never how humans worked. We like variety, we like aesthetically pleasing things. Entire human ventures were created just in that name. Having a society where everything is completely the same and there's no variety, no attention paid to aesthetics, no attention to paid to anything else other than being working automatons is a complete hell. That's not the basis of communism, though. The basis of communism is to unleash creativity in all areas of our lives -- to make work something we want to do, rather than what we have to do. To be, as Marx put it, the ability to be a fisherman in the morning, raise cattle in the afternoon and be a critic after dinner. Saying Soylent is any sort of acceptable solution to solving potential food and availability crises is an affront to that basic principle -- indeed, it's a capitalist principle. It's anti-human.


That said, Soylent is a capitalist product, but it doesn't have to be.

It's exactly what it is. It was made for people in mind who were caught up in the capitalist rat race, who didn't have or want to spend the time to actually make a meal for themselves. The social conditions that create this dynamic is exactly what brought Soylent into being.


It's cheap enough to be a widespread good, not just something for those who can afford it. On the topic of cost, why would the rich choose to eat over using Soylent (other than as a treat)?

Already told you why. I'm sure there were rich folks who liked to have boiled milk and flour ever so often, too.


I don't see this creating a divide beyond what already exists.

I didn't say it created a divide. I said it was an added layer and expression of the divide. Pay attention.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Now, what about farming under conditions we dictate? Like vertical farming, hydroponics and the like? Why haven't we seen a breakthrough in these fields? Sure, there is an initial investment cost, but given the higher production yield (which can be in the order of 10 to 100 times greater than on traditional plots of land), this would surely be cost effective.

Comrade, I think we haven't seen a capitalist breakthrough in vertical food production, other than in warehouses, for the same reason we don't see construction of lots of skyscrapers these days, let alone arcologies and the like: how much profitability and when.

These days, the initial investment cost is hard to predict because most projects end up with cost overruns and delays. Most projects aren't delivered on time and on budget. The time factor is even more important, unfortunately, because, lots of CFO types still use the archaic payback period for their capital budgeting! :cursing:

On socialist politics, I don't see how workers' society should allow business models for massive vertical food production other than the publicly owned, publicly paid / "taxpayer-funded," worker-operated model (sovkhozy).

[VCrakeV]

You've never enjoyed a good plate of pasta, a steak, or a salad, or the act of preparing it with somebody, or sitting around the dining table, bonding over food?

Nope.

I never said enjoyment of what you're eating is the "root" of eating. I said it's part of the point of cooking, having a meal, perhaps by yourself or perhaps with friends. It's not a joyless activity that does nothing but give you nutrition. Being that reductive is basically like saying the perfect life should be in a Communist Cafeteria where we all dispense a nutrient sludge out to all.

The only enjoyment I've had with food is from the examples I've provided, usually as a treat, sometimes when I'm high. Breakfest, Lunch, and Dinner are only nutrition to me. I eat meals because I still live with my father, and his cooking is free. By the way, I'd be happy with sludge dispensers. I'd just like some treats every now and then. I just don't think that food should be for nutritional reasons. For the most part, I only find myself able to enjoy the unhealthy side of food.


Human existence isn't broken down into a series of needs. We have actual wants and they might extend aesthetically, and in ways that actually stimulate us and connect us with our surroundings. If we were just a bunch of robots, then we'd all want and have exactly the same clothing, in the same color, the same housing, with everything completely and absolutely the same and like all the other things in the world. Food would be purely a nutritional act, and we would all be completely fine and okay with having Soylent and water and nothing else. That's not how humans work -- it's never how humans worked. We like variety, we like aesthetically pleasing things. Entire human ventures were created just in that name. Having a society where everything is completely the same and there's no variety, no attention paid to aesthetics, no attention to paid to anything else other than being working automatons is a complete hell. That's not the basis of communism, though. The basis of communism is to unleash creativity in all areas of our lives -- to make work something we want to do, rather than what we have to do. To be, as Marx put it, the ability to be a fisherman in the morning, raise cattle in the afternoon and be a critic after dinner. Saying Soylent is any sort of acceptable solution to solving potential food and availability crises is an affront to that basic principle -- indeed, it's a capitalist principle. It's anti-human.

I concur with almost everything here. I enjoy creativity, and art. In fact, I enjoy being different. I think we should all wear whatever expresses ourselves, and paint our rooms our favourite colors. I would also hate a world in which everything is the same. When you're the same as everyone else, where is your sense of self?

Art has a lot of room in our world. For example, I enjoy it through video games. Aesthetically-pleasing worlds, beautiful storylines, and so on. I appreciate visual art, poetry, and even fashion. However, I see no art in food, be it steak, pasta, or whatever you may have for dinner. Al it is is a relatively inefficient form of nutrition.



It's exactly what it is. It was made for people in mind who were caught up in the capitalist rat race, who didn't have or want to spend the time to actually make a meal for themselves. The social conditions that create this dynamic is exactly what brought Soylent into being.

It doesn't matter what it was made for. What matters is what it can be used for.



I didn't say it created a divide. I said it was an added layer and expression of the divide. Pay attention.

I was using the word "divide" metaphorically, just like you used the word "layer". We were both using them to address the same point. If you want to point at people over words, and not their meaning, then please, do us both a favor and take that attitude somewhere more suiting.