3 ms·

We should focus our attention on taking humans out of the food industry altogether. Here's a model I've been thinking about that should make it possible to crea

We should focus our attention on taking humans out of the food industry altogether. Here's a model I've been thinking about that should make it possible to create a free food society: http://i.stack.imgur.com/KfGtn.png http://i.stack.imgur.com/KfGtn.png Not just free as in no cost, but free also as in liberty. Imagine not having to work for food. Food weaves a recursive economic penalty into all facets of society. What's especially amazing about 3D vertical ocean farms is that they can provide nutrient inputs to the model illustrated above. Harvested, transported, and delivered automatically, with power from renewable resources. If people want to grow their own food, that's fine. The point is, we have the technological prowess to create a society where we needn't spend time nor money on food out of necessity. Trading our productive years for food is a huge driving force behind capitalism, which has not proven itself to be the most environmentally-friendly regime (in terms of greenhouse gas emissions). Think about this. By the time viable nuclear fusion comes along (50 years?), we could have a self-maintaining, open source, free food infrastructure to solve one problem common to every living human: hunger. The energy consumption required to power the infrastructure could be switched from limited renewable sources to fusion sources to help support the global population (with power left over for some growth). See also: http://www.ted.com/talks/caleb_harper_this_computer_will_grow_your_food_in_the_future http://www.ted.com/talks/caleb_harper_this_computer_will_gro... http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/01/japanese-firm-to-open-worlds-first-robot-run-farm http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/01/japanese-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_mining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_mining

strictfp 11y ago
If you solve hunger for the existing population, will it not just expand until scarcity increases again?
- riffraff 11y ago
  No, population has stopped growing in western society (where the vast majority of population has access to food) a long time ago, and the number of children per family have consistently decreased from "many" to ~2 as wealth, food and healthcare has reached developing countries.
  - jakub_h 11y ago
    The notion r/K selection always comes to my mind, regardless of whether or not this is correct and/or a fair analogy (since humans are generally considered clear K-strategists in general). Still, when a human society develops, it's almost like switching from a "slightly-more-r-ish" strategy to a "slightly-more-K-ish" one, given the higher survival chances of children and also the corresponding higher expenditure of time and resources necessary to prepare then to succeed in their environment.
maxerickson 11y ago
You don't need to plan out the details of a system that is (reliably and actually) self maintaining and relies on (cheap and clean) fusion. Both things would be such economic boons that they will be adopted essentially instantly.
adwn 11y ago
> [...] fusion [...] free food [...] Fusion is by no means cheap. To quote myself from a different thread: Even if/when we get commercially viable fusion, there's no reason why it should be significantly cheaper than energy from nuclear fission – you'll still need extremely complicated, high-precision, high-technology machines, generators, cooling towers, buildings, skilled workers, some amount of regulation, and disposal of nuclear waste. Oh, and if your fusion design is a tokamak, it might easily be more expensive than energy from fission reactors. If you want electrical energy that's some orders of magnitude cheaper, you'll need a break-through in fundamental physics.
- thangalin 11y ago
  > there's no reason why it should be significantly cheaper than energy According to Lockheed Martin, compact fusion has the potential to produce (modular?) 10MW reactors about the size of a semi-trailer truck. This reactor size reduction comes with a corresponding cost reduction without depending on new physics. http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/us/products/compact-fusion.html http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/us/products/compact-fusion.html Note: I'm not a nuclear physicist.
  - adwn 11y ago
    Lockheed Martin has yet to produce any evidence that they have achieved break-even power under laboratory conditions, not to mention a device that scales to MW levels or delivers cheap energy. I wouldn't hold my breath.
    - thangalin 11y ago
      My point wasn't about Lockheed Martin per se. With ICF, MCF, and MTF, and many instances of those classes of fusion machines being constructed and tested globally, there is a path and plan to make nuclear fusion viable in the future. Doesn't matter that the first machine costs billions, the price will come down at each every subsequent iteration, even if it takes 100 years (or the discovery of room-temperature superconductors). Back in February the Chinese EAST project (only $37 million USD) confined a plasma pulse of 50 million K for 102 seconds. Progress is slow, yes, but my point remains. When fusion is finally viable, we should strive to have an open infrastructure that liberates humanity from growing, harvesting, and distributing food. (Japan is well on the way, FWIW.) Time and money are two compelling reasons. Another is climate change. Some estimates predict a decrease in certain crop yields (such as maize in South Africa) by up to 30%. OTOH, some crops will thrive with a higher CO2 concentration, while others will not tolerate the heat and coming droughts. Indoor farming eliminates global climate as a factor to growth.

strictfp 11y ago

If you solve hunger for the existing population, will it not just expand until scarcity increases again?

riffraff 11y ago
No, population has stopped growing in western society (where the vast majority of population has access to food) a long time ago, and the number of children per family have consistently decreased from "many" to ~2 as wealth, food and healthcare has reached developing countries.
- jakub_h 11y ago
  The notion r/K selection always comes to my mind, regardless of whether or not this is correct and/or a fair analogy (since humans are generally considered clear K-strategists in general). Still, when a human society develops, it's almost like switching from a "slightly-more-r-ish" strategy to a "slightly-more-K-ish" one, given the higher survival chances of children and also the corresponding higher expenditure of time and resources necessary to prepare then to succeed in their environment.

maxerickson 11y ago

You don't need to plan out the details of a system that is (reliably and actually) self maintaining and relies on (cheap and clean) fusion. Both things would be such economic boons that they will be adopted essentially instantly.

adwn 11y ago

> [...] fusion [...] free food [...] Fusion is by no means cheap. To quote myself from a different thread: Even if/when we get commercially viable fusion, there's no reason why it should be significantly cheaper than energy from nuclear fission – you'll still need extremely complicated, high-precision, high-technology machines, generators, cooling towers, buildings, skilled workers, some amount of regulation, and disposal of nuclear waste. Oh, and if your fusion design is a tokamak, it might easily be more expensive than energy from fission reactors. If you want electrical energy that's some orders of magnitude cheaper, you'll need a break-through in fundamental physics.

thangalin 11y ago
> there's no reason why it should be significantly cheaper than energy According to Lockheed Martin, compact fusion has the potential to produce (modular?) 10MW reactors about the size of a semi-trailer truck. This reactor size reduction comes with a corresponding cost reduction without depending on new physics. http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/us/products/compact-fusion.html http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/us/products/compact-fusion.html Note: I'm not a nuclear physicist.
- adwn 11y ago
  Lockheed Martin has yet to produce any evidence that they have achieved break-even power under laboratory conditions, not to mention a device that scales to MW levels or delivers cheap energy. I wouldn't hold my breath.
  - thangalin 11y ago
    My point wasn't about Lockheed Martin per se. With ICF, MCF, and MTF, and many instances of those classes of fusion machines being constructed and tested globally, there is a path and plan to make nuclear fusion viable in the future. Doesn't matter that the first machine costs billions, the price will come down at each every subsequent iteration, even if it takes 100 years (or the discovery of room-temperature superconductors). Back in February the Chinese EAST project (only $37 million USD) confined a plasma pulse of 50 million K for 102 seconds. Progress is slow, yes, but my point remains. When fusion is finally viable, we should strive to have an open infrastructure that liberates humanity from growing, harvesting, and distributing food. (Japan is well on the way, FWIW.) Time and money are two compelling reasons. Another is climate change. Some estimates predict a decrease in certain crop yields (such as maize in South Africa) by up to 30%. OTOH, some crops will thrive with a higher CO2 concentration, while others will not tolerate the heat and coming droughts. Indoor farming eliminates global climate as a factor to growth.