3 ms·

Closed-system farming, where basically everything is recycled - nutrients, water, biomass (except what goes onto people's tables) - is theoretically possible an

Closed-system farming, where basically everything is recycled - nutrients, water, biomass (except what goes onto people's tables) - is theoretically possible and this article describes what looks like a successful system. This is also the kind of thing you'd need on a large spaceship or Martian colony (where human feces/urine would also need to be recycled). However, the increase in labor needed shouldn't be underestimated. Some automation is likely possible with advanced robots, but this would mean a much larger fraction of the population would be involved in agriculture, perhaps as much as 10X as are currently employed. In the cited example in the article, apparently one worker has managed 7 hectares using a closed-system model, if we take 'single-handedly' at face value. In contrast, according to wikipedia, in the USA on average one worker can manage 100 hectares (1 square km) with industrial methods (lots of water and fertilizer wastage). This would be a pretty radical social restructuring, probably not what most people have in mind when they talk about 'postindustrial society'.

black_knight 5y ago
You mean… “This will create a lot of new jobs – hooray!”
floren 5y ago
I think about farming a lot these days, especially when I'm reading about startups on HN. Our culture has spent decades putting down agriculture as the lowest work, worse than waiting tables or running a cash register. Hell, I grew up on a farm and I still looked down on it. When I compare it to building CRUD apps because a VC wants another unicorn, though, it seems pretty attractive. The work is hard, but the results are tangible, and you're fulfilling the most basic human need. Which is more worthwhile: actually growing potatoes, or programming Farmville? I would love a future in which a much bigger percentage of the American population lived in clusters of small farms, growing food to feed themselves and to send to market. A community of 10-acre plots (why 10 acres? see https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48753 https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48753), with a co-op organization that gathers up people's produce and hauls it to the nearest city for sale. > where basically everything is recycled - nutrients, water, biomass (except what goes onto people's tables) The parenthetical is an interesting problem... the current agricultural system seems to be a machine for pulling nutrients out of the soil, shipping them to cities, and then flushing them out to sea. Then we attack farmers for putting fertilizer into the soil.
- algoatecorn 5y ago
  On the upside, new farming techniques may provide higher-skill and comfortable jobs in the field. Vertical farming will offer a ton of comfortable jobs (in the AC as opposed to outside in the sun). There will also be more expertise required in the ag industry moving forward, meaning higher-paying jobs. The downside is that food will, and probably should cost more. Our percentage of income spent on food is incredibly low and many don't realize how lucky that is. But a more sustainable system will likely mean more expensive food. That will be a tough pill to swallow.
- hetspookjee 5y ago
  The ecological field is in high need of people with coding skills, so to some extend you can do both! I also believe there are unicorn apps waiting to happen in the field of agriculture as the current approach is just horrible outdated and continues to fight a uphill battle.
carapace 5y ago
> However, the increase in labor needed shouldn't be underestimated. Some automation is likely possible with advanced robots, but this would mean a much larger fraction of the population would be involved in agriculture, perhaps as much as 10X as are currently employed. I don't think it would be so radical. For one thing, only about 1% of us work in agriculture now, so even if it takes 10x that's still only 10%.
- nyokodo 5y ago
  > so even if it takes 10x that's still only 10% “Only 10%?” That is a massive shift in labor allocation that would be enormously disruptive if it were feasible which it likely isn’t at least in the medium term.
  - carapace 5y ago
    Personally, I doubt it would take as much as that. IANAEconomist but I would guess that it won't take more than 3%, if that. Even if it was a massive shift, it's not happening in a vacuum, we're already in the midst of a great reconfiguration of the (global) economy, automation taking jobs, etc. Also, there are soil-respecting forms of agriculture that are just like modern conventional agriculture except they incorporate ecological knowledge into their methods. (I like to remind people that Ecology is a science and its applications are technology!) Folks like Gabe Brown up there in North Dakota. ( https://soilhealthacademy.org/team/gabe-brown/ https://soilhealthacademy.org/team/gabe-brown/ ) He doesn't work any harder than his (conventional non-regenerative) neighbors, probably a bit less, yet he makes more profit while improving (rather than degrading) his land (in other words, his primary asset is appreciating.) As much as I personally love the idea of a nation of smallholdings, where people tend their food forests and live in harmony with nature like some kind of elves or something, that's just my personal taste, eh? I recognize that, pragmatically, we could keep the status quo except for the part where we are destroying the health of the soil, which is the basis of our own health and happiness after all. It would give us time to work out all our other problems, eh?

black_knight 5y ago

You mean… “This will create a lot of new jobs – hooray!”

floren 5y ago

I think about farming a lot these days, especially when I'm reading about startups on HN. Our culture has spent decades putting down agriculture as the lowest work, worse than waiting tables or running a cash register. Hell, I grew up on a farm and I still looked down on it. When I compare it to building CRUD apps because a VC wants another unicorn, though, it seems pretty attractive. The work is hard, but the results are tangible, and you're fulfilling the most basic human need. Which is more worthwhile: actually growing potatoes, or programming Farmville? I would love a future in which a much bigger percentage of the American population lived in clusters of small farms, growing food to feed themselves and to send to market. A community of 10-acre plots (why 10 acres? see https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48753 https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48753), with a co-op organization that gathers up people's produce and hauls it to the nearest city for sale. > where basically everything is recycled - nutrients, water, biomass (except what goes onto people's tables) The parenthetical is an interesting problem... the current agricultural system seems to be a machine for pulling nutrients out of the soil, shipping them to cities, and then flushing them out to sea. Then we attack farmers for putting fertilizer into the soil.

algoatecorn 5y ago
On the upside, new farming techniques may provide higher-skill and comfortable jobs in the field. Vertical farming will offer a ton of comfortable jobs (in the AC as opposed to outside in the sun). There will also be more expertise required in the ag industry moving forward, meaning higher-paying jobs. The downside is that food will, and probably should cost more. Our percentage of income spent on food is incredibly low and many don't realize how lucky that is. But a more sustainable system will likely mean more expensive food. That will be a tough pill to swallow.
hetspookjee 5y ago
The ecological field is in high need of people with coding skills, so to some extend you can do both! I also believe there are unicorn apps waiting to happen in the field of agriculture as the current approach is just horrible outdated and continues to fight a uphill battle.

carapace 5y ago

> However, the increase in labor needed shouldn't be underestimated. Some automation is likely possible with advanced robots, but this would mean a much larger fraction of the population would be involved in agriculture, perhaps as much as 10X as are currently employed. I don't think it would be so radical. For one thing, only about 1% of us work in agriculture now, so even if it takes 10x that's still only 10%.

nyokodo 5y ago
> so even if it takes 10x that's still only 10% “Only 10%?” That is a massive shift in labor allocation that would be enormously disruptive if it were feasible which it likely isn’t at least in the medium term.
- carapace 5y ago
  Personally, I doubt it would take as much as that. IANAEconomist but I would guess that it won't take more than 3%, if that. Even if it was a massive shift, it's not happening in a vacuum, we're already in the midst of a great reconfiguration of the (global) economy, automation taking jobs, etc. Also, there are soil-respecting forms of agriculture that are just like modern conventional agriculture except they incorporate ecological knowledge into their methods. (I like to remind people that Ecology is a science and its applications are technology!) Folks like Gabe Brown up there in North Dakota. ( https://soilhealthacademy.org/team/gabe-brown/ https://soilhealthacademy.org/team/gabe-brown/ ) He doesn't work any harder than his (conventional non-regenerative) neighbors, probably a bit less, yet he makes more profit while improving (rather than degrading) his land (in other words, his primary asset is appreciating.) As much as I personally love the idea of a nation of smallholdings, where people tend their food forests and live in harmony with nature like some kind of elves or something, that's just my personal taste, eh? I recognize that, pragmatically, we could keep the status quo except for the part where we are destroying the health of the soil, which is the basis of our own health and happiness after all. It would give us time to work out all our other problems, eh?