3 ms·

>> would like to see it on a more industrial scale so that it can go into existing large cities This will not happen in our lifetimes. Large cities with millio

>> would like to see it on a more industrial scale so that it can go into existing large cities This will not happen in our lifetimes. Large cities with millions of people will never be self-sustainable. "Industrial scale" and "sustainable" are mutually exclusive concepts.

Broken_Hippo 10y ago
I don't really think they will be self-sustainable, even on a small scale, but I think they can (and will) do much more than they are doing now with high-rise factory farming. Detroit, for example, has some empty places to start with. Also, these sorts of things can be done right outside of a city using smaller amounts of land - until we have more ecological transportation, that's a good start. Once we are able to grow the protein (cuts of beef, chicken, etc) in labs, it wil get much closer. Hopefully that is better for the environment than live animals. But then again, I do not believe people actually want self-sustainability with foodstuffs, nor do I think we should be growing everything in a self-contained community. A lot of folks in Western countries eat a wide variety of foods and spices that aren't best grown in their climates and I think it would take much more energy to grow them where they simply don't thrive. If we get far enough with GMO's, this could be solved.
wallace_f 10y ago
What? That's pessimistic. I can't think of any rule governing the universe that mandates "industrial scale" to be "insustainable." Improvements in science and technology have changed the course of human history, making what seemed previously impossible to be now common place, and taken for granted.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  > making what seemed previously impossible to be now common place, and taken for granted. In lockstep with that progress in science and technology came a commensurate decay in sustainability. Nobody imagined that we could eradicate most of its diversity, burn enough of it to actually drive up its temperature permanently, or create the possibility of exploding and irradiating the entire thing with the press of a button. Now those things are commonplace, and taken for granted. Before improvements in science and technology there was no question that human life as it was lived was sustainable indefinitely; after those improvements, there are very few serious scientists who wouldn't register disgust at hearing that claim made now.
  - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
    I disagree - we never have really thought that we could live indefinitely and sustain ourselves. Overpopulation has been a fear since Plato at least (https://fee.org/articles/overpopulation-the-perennial-myth/ https://fee.org/articles/overpopulation-the-perennial-myth/). We hunted things to extinction and knew it. Plus there were more diseases to worry about, death rates for child-bearing women were high as well as the child death rate. Really, if you weren't worried one way, you were worried another. Different times simply frame problems differently. At least we are more aware of some of the stuff now, even if we haven't scientifically figured it all out nor figured out how to work together enough to solve them.
    - wallace_f 10y ago
      Exactly. Fear of technology, and even industrialization, have also been around, probably as long as technology and industrialization have. Every generation has had these same sentiments and concerns, just framed in a different era.

Broken_Hippo 10y ago

I don't really think they will be self-sustainable, even on a small scale, but I think they can (and will) do much more than they are doing now with high-rise factory farming. Detroit, for example, has some empty places to start with. Also, these sorts of things can be done right outside of a city using smaller amounts of land - until we have more ecological transportation, that's a good start. Once we are able to grow the protein (cuts of beef, chicken, etc) in labs, it wil get much closer. Hopefully that is better for the environment than live animals. But then again, I do not believe people actually want self-sustainability with foodstuffs, nor do I think we should be growing everything in a self-contained community. A lot of folks in Western countries eat a wide variety of foods and spices that aren't best grown in their climates and I think it would take much more energy to grow them where they simply don't thrive. If we get far enough with GMO's, this could be solved.

wallace_f 10y ago

What? That's pessimistic. I can't think of any rule governing the universe that mandates "industrial scale" to be "insustainable." Improvements in science and technology have changed the course of human history, making what seemed previously impossible to be now common place, and taken for granted.

pessimizer 10y ago
> making what seemed previously impossible to be now common place, and taken for granted. In lockstep with that progress in science and technology came a commensurate decay in sustainability. Nobody imagined that we could eradicate most of its diversity, burn enough of it to actually drive up its temperature permanently, or create the possibility of exploding and irradiating the entire thing with the press of a button. Now those things are commonplace, and taken for granted. Before improvements in science and technology there was no question that human life as it was lived was sustainable indefinitely; after those improvements, there are very few serious scientists who wouldn't register disgust at hearing that claim made now.
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  I disagree - we never have really thought that we could live indefinitely and sustain ourselves. Overpopulation has been a fear since Plato at least (https://fee.org/articles/overpopulation-the-perennial-myth/ https://fee.org/articles/overpopulation-the-perennial-myth/). We hunted things to extinction and knew it. Plus there were more diseases to worry about, death rates for child-bearing women were high as well as the child death rate. Really, if you weren't worried one way, you were worried another. Different times simply frame problems differently. At least we are more aware of some of the stuff now, even if we haven't scientifically figured it all out nor figured out how to work together enough to solve them.
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    Exactly. Fear of technology, and even industrialization, have also been around, probably as long as technology and industrialization have. Every generation has had these same sentiments and concerns, just framed in a different era.