4 ms·

Agriculture accounts for a third of worldwide carbon emissions. So energy still isn't abundant enough to fuel 10x humans, unless you change the fuel source from

Agriculture accounts for a third of worldwide carbon emissions. So energy still isn't abundant enough to fuel 10x humans, unless you change the fuel source from food to something more efficient.

Houshalter 9y ago
Well a robotic hand probably wouldn't eat food. I don't understand how you came to that number for agriculture though. Growing crops like corn consumes very little energy relative to the amount of food produced. Transportation and processing requires a bit more, but I can't see how it adds up to anywhere near that much.
- dom0 9y ago
  > but I can't see how it adds up to anywhere near that much. Well, it does. Even EPA says it's about one quarter of the CO2 emissions.
  - jack9 9y ago
    https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... 9%?
    - dom0 9y ago
      That's US only. Global EPA number: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data#two https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...
      - jack9 9y ago
        More like 12-13% then since half of the total 24% is from Land Use Change and Forestry (according to the 2014 numbers)
- cannonpr 9y ago
  Nitrogen fixated feltilisers, our agriculture industry at its current scale is only possible due to fertilisers produced at mass from natural gas. There are other side issues that contribute too.
  - loup-vaillant 9y ago
    > our agriculture industry at its current scale is only possible due to fertilisers produced at mass from natural gas. It's a bit more complicated than that. Growing organic food on a healthy soil, will give you a certain amount of yield. Using fertilisers and modern techniques on that soil will give you a tremendous temporary boost. But most such techniques kill the soil in the process, and you eventually run out of natural fertilisers. Using fertilisers and modern techniques on dead soil will have yields similar to organic food on a healthy soil. The only real advantage at this point is the reduced human labour required (organic food is more labour intensive overall). Of course, organic food on dead soil will be crap. We can stop relying on fertilisers, if we have a healthy soil. Fortunately, there are techniques to resurrect dead soils (basically have some wood rot on that soil), and some other things. It takes about 2-3 years, though, and generalising those technique will definitely require more farmers.
    - ant6n 9y ago
      Those organic farmers are probably more easily replaced with robotics than ones arms or brains.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

Agriculture accounts for a third of worldwide carbon emissions. So energy still isn't abundant enough to fuel 10x humans, unless you change the fuel source from food to something more efficient.

Houshalter 9y ago

Well a robotic hand probably wouldn't eat food. I don't understand how you came to that number for agriculture though. Growing crops like corn consumes very little energy relative to the amount of food produced. Transportation and processing requires a bit more, but I can't see how it adds up to anywhere near that much.

dom0 9y ago
> but I can't see how it adds up to anywhere near that much. Well, it does. Even EPA says it's about one quarter of the CO2 emissions.
- jack9 9y ago
  https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... 9%?
  - dom0 9y ago
    That's US only. Global EPA number: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data#two https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...
    - jack9 9y ago
      More like 12-13% then since half of the total 24% is from Land Use Change and Forestry (according to the 2014 numbers)
cannonpr 9y ago
Nitrogen fixated feltilisers, our agriculture industry at its current scale is only possible due to fertilisers produced at mass from natural gas. There are other side issues that contribute too.
- loup-vaillant 9y ago
  > our agriculture industry at its current scale is only possible due to fertilisers produced at mass from natural gas. It's a bit more complicated than that. Growing organic food on a healthy soil, will give you a certain amount of yield. Using fertilisers and modern techniques on that soil will give you a tremendous temporary boost. But most such techniques kill the soil in the process, and you eventually run out of natural fertilisers. Using fertilisers and modern techniques on dead soil will have yields similar to organic food on a healthy soil. The only real advantage at this point is the reduced human labour required (organic food is more labour intensive overall). Of course, organic food on dead soil will be crap. We can stop relying on fertilisers, if we have a healthy soil. Fortunately, there are techniques to resurrect dead soils (basically have some wood rot on that soil), and some other things. It takes about 2-3 years, though, and generalising those technique will definitely require more farmers.
  - ant6n 9y ago
    Those organic farmers are probably more easily replaced with robotics than ones arms or brains.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]