4 ms·

If farmland is as scarce as Monbiot proposes then vertical farms could work. Most of the value of a $1000 a month apartment is in consumer surplus. Yes, a verti

by fleitz 16y ago

If farmland is as scarce as Monbiot proposes then vertical farms could work. Most of the value of a $1000 a month apartment is in consumer surplus. Yes, a vertical farm in manhattan will probably never work, but one on some existing farm land in New Jersey probably will. Vertical farms currently won't work but any real scarcity in farmland will drive up prices until it becomes economical as the price of food is highly elastic.

hugh3 16y ago
Farmland isn't actually scarce, though. Right now the world has plenty of farmland for all its people, which is why food is so cheap and why we can afford to consume massively space-wasting crops. People may be starving in Africa, but it's for political reasons which have nothing to do with the amount of arable land there (significantly more than China or India which have similar populations to Africa). If the world's population ever does increase to the point where farmland is scarce, there's a lot of other things which become economical before skyscraper farms do... even if fusion energy comes along to solve the lighting problem. Switching to land-efficient crops is one thing. Irrigating the world's deserts is another. Even farms on barges out in the ocean make a lot more economic sense than skyscraper farms.
- alex_stoddard 16y ago
  I am genuinely interested in references for available arable land in Africa vs China & India.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
dalke 16y ago
Maine once provided food for the northeast. Once the rails went through the Appalachians to the plains, it was no longer profitable. The countryside turned back into forest. If farmland ever gets that scarce, then we'll start seeing farms in Maine again, and farmers would be buying back the suburbs of Chicago. Farmland simply is not that scarce, and it's hard to imagine how it would be that scarce. Supposing (for argument's sake, rather than reality) that it was feasible - wouldn't it be better to build vertical farms out in the countryside, away from expensive urban centers?

by fleitz 16y ago

hugh3 16y ago

Farmland isn't actually scarce, though. Right now the world has plenty of farmland for all its people, which is why food is so cheap and why we can afford to consume massively space-wasting crops. People may be starving in Africa, but it's for political reasons which have nothing to do with the amount of arable land there (significantly more than China or India which have similar populations to Africa). If the world's population ever does increase to the point where farmland is scarce, there's a lot of other things which become economical before skyscraper farms do... even if fusion energy comes along to solve the lighting problem. Switching to land-efficient crops is one thing. Irrigating the world's deserts is another. Even farms on barges out in the ocean make a lot more economic sense than skyscraper farms.

alex_stoddard 16y ago
I am genuinely interested in references for available arable land in Africa vs China & India.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

dalke 16y ago

Maine once provided food for the northeast. Once the rails went through the Appalachians to the plains, it was no longer profitable. The countryside turned back into forest. If farmland ever gets that scarce, then we'll start seeing farms in Maine again, and farmers would be buying back the suburbs of Chicago. Farmland simply is not that scarce, and it's hard to imagine how it would be that scarce. Supposing (for argument's sake, rather than reality) that it was feasible - wouldn't it be better to build vertical farms out in the countryside, away from expensive urban centers?