3 ms·

It doesn't scale (and that's a good thing). Valencia's responsibility is to feed Valencia, not the world. Every locale should be responsible for its own food s

It doesn't scale (and that's a good thing). Valencia's responsibility is to feed Valencia, not the world. Every locale should be responsible for its own food security. As each locale is different, there is no universal solution. Each locale will need to be resourceful and adapt according to its own climate and what resources are available in its vicinity. Sadly, some locales are unprepared for food self-sustainability, and the denizens of these places will have to find a way to adapt eventually, whether by will or climatic/geo-political event. Better sooner than too late.

franciscop 5y ago
I see there's a huge omissions here. Valencia is famous for its oranges, which are produced at scale, transported and sold to the rest of Spain and other European countries. Meanwhile at many local supermarkets we often get cheaper, lower quality Morocco oranges, which is a shame (they are not subject to the same quality standards): https://www.eldiario.es/economia/afronta-empresas-alimentos-marruecos-espanoles_1_1146798.html https://www.eldiario.es/economia/afronta-empresas-alimentos-...
- zdragnar 5y ago
  Not to mention the impracticality of urban areas feeding themselves. NYC houses what, 8 million people? With a population density of 27,000 people per square mile, you aren't going to be able to feed everyone without importing utterly massive amounts of food. Even if everyone were strictly vegetarian or vegan, the water consumption alone would still require a massive desalination effort, plus a plan to deal with the leftover brine... not to mention the electric bills from all the light needed to feed so many crops in skyscrapers. 8 million people eat a lot of food on a daily basis. Much better to farm elsewhere and transport the food, imho.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Generally agree. The part that I find interesting to think about is the relationship between the areas. We require intensive farming to sustain the current lifestyle of people, yet most are very disconnected from the source of their food. If we grew more food locally (impractical given the current setup) then people would witness the impacts of intensive agriculture. This might also help constrain population levels closer to sustainable numbers because people see how finite the resources are. I've seen a variety of estimates of how many people the world can support. But I haven't seen any that estimate how many the world can sustainably support. If we aren't thinking longterm, then we're just trudging towards bigger problems with many of the smaller ones we solve. For example, use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer from non-renewable sources, or biosecurity threats from fast international travel and trade, or overfishing, etc. Pretty much all due to demand for food and the modern lifestyle.

franciscop 5y ago

I see there's a huge omissions here. Valencia is famous for its oranges, which are produced at scale, transported and sold to the rest of Spain and other European countries. Meanwhile at many local supermarkets we often get cheaper, lower quality Morocco oranges, which is a shame (they are not subject to the same quality standards): https://www.eldiario.es/economia/afronta-empresas-alimentos-marruecos-espanoles_1_1146798.html https://www.eldiario.es/economia/afronta-empresas-alimentos-...

zdragnar 5y ago
Not to mention the impracticality of urban areas feeding themselves. NYC houses what, 8 million people? With a population density of 27,000 people per square mile, you aren't going to be able to feed everyone without importing utterly massive amounts of food. Even if everyone were strictly vegetarian or vegan, the water consumption alone would still require a massive desalination effort, plus a plan to deal with the leftover brine... not to mention the electric bills from all the light needed to feed so many crops in skyscrapers. 8 million people eat a lot of food on a daily basis. Much better to farm elsewhere and transport the food, imho.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Generally agree. The part that I find interesting to think about is the relationship between the areas. We require intensive farming to sustain the current lifestyle of people, yet most are very disconnected from the source of their food. If we grew more food locally (impractical given the current setup) then people would witness the impacts of intensive agriculture. This might also help constrain population levels closer to sustainable numbers because people see how finite the resources are. I've seen a variety of estimates of how many people the world can support. But I haven't seen any that estimate how many the world can sustainably support. If we aren't thinking longterm, then we're just trudging towards bigger problems with many of the smaller ones we solve. For example, use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer from non-renewable sources, or biosecurity threats from fast international travel and trade, or overfishing, etc. Pretty much all due to demand for food and the modern lifestyle.