4 ms·

The question is moot, because most humans have decided they're going to watch TV and not garden. There are hundreds of millions (at least) of people living in

The question is moot, because most humans have decided they're going to watch TV and not garden. There are hundreds of millions (at least) of people living in urban and suburban areas who could be gardening today, indoors or outdoors or both, with far less investment and expense than this method entails. Very few do. There's no reason to think that you're going to convince those who are not to start by adding the further requirements that they (a) dedicate a room to it, (b) buy a bunch of expensive shelving, (c) buy a bunch of expensive LED lights, (d) triple their electricity bill (at least), and (e) double their water bill (at least). Maybe if food prices are 50x what they are today this starts to seem interesting. Like Victory Gardens. Of course, if that happened, then electricity and urban (potable!) water prices would immediately become unaffordable as well and we would simply end up at a new equilibrium with higher urban water and electricity prices, slightly lower food prices, and a few extra indoor gardeners making up those margins. And don't tell me that solar-generated electricity is the answer here. A PV module is about 16% efficient; absorbing sunlight directly is 100% efficient (in both cases, photosynthesis itself is then about 45% efficient). So you would need 6x as much land dedicated to PV modules as you would need to dedicate to outdoor, rooftop, or windowbox gardens to get the same output. This is a problem of physics; even a 100% efficient PV module would be only marginally useful, in that it would allow capturing energy on land that is not itself suited for agriculture. No free lunches, and that's before we're talking about wholesale changes in human behavior.

codingdave 11y ago
I agree, which is why I said I was overly idealistic. But we are at (or approaching) a point where wholesale changes in human behavior are needed. We've spent the last 100 years getting more and more obsessed with TV, movies, and pop culture. It is time to swing our culture back the other way. And to start those changes, you need to ask questions and build up new (or old) ideas.. So I ask the question. Thinking about making large societal changes is a first step towards actually making a change.
- fredkbloggs 11y ago
  If the predicate is wholesale changes in human behavior, there are plenty of less costly ways people could, and can, produce their own food. Imposing a moral judgment on people obsessed with things you don't happen to like is orthogonal to that. People will change their behaviors when the market dictates that they change them, and when that happens they will change them in the direction dictated by the market. Your personal preferences for how others should spend their time will not factor.
  - codingdave 11y ago
    Clearly, you and I are not going to see eye to eye. "The market" is a societal construct to begin with. Money is a societal construct. "Less costly" is a concept based on top of those things. In my mind, humans starving to death is a pretty high cost, no matter how much cash a solution would require.
    - fredkbloggs 11y ago
      > Clearly, you and I are not going to see eye to eye. For sure. The market is not a social construct at all; beings that want to reproduce (i.e., everyone) are going to adopt the lowest-cost means of doing so. Growing plants indoors will always be a higher-cost solution. "Money" has nothing to do with it. What you're really saying is that you want huge numbers of less-fit humans to survive and reproduce. That's a profound statement that deserves its own article and a tremendous depth of thought to evaluate. As you probably imagine, I don't share your goal.
      - codingdave 11y ago
        "You want huge numbers of less-fit humans to survive and reproduce." Yes, I really do. I believe wars have been fought over people putting fitness requirements on survival and reproduction.

codingdave 11y ago

I agree, which is why I said I was overly idealistic. But we are at (or approaching) a point where wholesale changes in human behavior are needed. We've spent the last 100 years getting more and more obsessed with TV, movies, and pop culture. It is time to swing our culture back the other way. And to start those changes, you need to ask questions and build up new (or old) ideas.. So I ask the question. Thinking about making large societal changes is a first step towards actually making a change.

fredkbloggs 11y ago
If the predicate is wholesale changes in human behavior, there are plenty of less costly ways people could, and can, produce their own food. Imposing a moral judgment on people obsessed with things you don't happen to like is orthogonal to that. People will change their behaviors when the market dictates that they change them, and when that happens they will change them in the direction dictated by the market. Your personal preferences for how others should spend their time will not factor.
- codingdave 11y ago
  Clearly, you and I are not going to see eye to eye. "The market" is a societal construct to begin with. Money is a societal construct. "Less costly" is a concept based on top of those things. In my mind, humans starving to death is a pretty high cost, no matter how much cash a solution would require.
  - fredkbloggs 11y ago
    > Clearly, you and I are not going to see eye to eye. For sure. The market is not a social construct at all; beings that want to reproduce (i.e., everyone) are going to adopt the lowest-cost means of doing so. Growing plants indoors will always be a higher-cost solution. "Money" has nothing to do with it. What you're really saying is that you want huge numbers of less-fit humans to survive and reproduce. That's a profound statement that deserves its own article and a tremendous depth of thought to evaluate. As you probably imagine, I don't share your goal.
    - codingdave 11y ago
      "You want huge numbers of less-fit humans to survive and reproduce." Yes, I really do. I believe wars have been fought over people putting fitness requirements on survival and reproduction.