I don't think that's a fair characterization of vertical farming. Yes, some of the startups in vertical farming say that they can print money right now, and I a

I don't think that's a fair characterization of vertical farming. Yes, some of the startups in vertical farming say that they can print money right now, and I am with you that this is stupid. However I think the actual value proposition is different. Agriculture does have very thin margins. The current approach is only viable by achieving scale through enormous monocultures. Unfortunately this is very bad for the soil and the surrounding eco-system. We try to mitigate this by using fertilizer, but this is a stopgap solution and it won't work forever. One example of this is that there now exists a thriving industry for rentable beehives, because all the bees living in the areas where we grow food that needs to be pollinated are dying. So instead we truck dozens of hives across the country, let them pollinate the fields and then pack them back up for the next one. We are currently forced into ever more complicated counter measures, just to keep the output we have. This will get more expensive until it ultimately just won't work anymore and output shrinks. Meanwhile, vertical farmings biggest expense is electricity, which will get cheaper over time. It uses way less water, does not have to rely on huge amounts of fertilizer, can grow anything year round and can be set up in dense urban spaces so that the output does not have to be shipped all over the place. This isn't better than traditional farming right now (and for some food it probably won't be for a loooong time), but the balance will steadily shift in favor of smaller, more localized agriculture. Eventually, with ever growing citys/urban areas, vertical farming will be more economical. However that day is not this day and the startups that burned through their stacks of vc cash while drinking their own kool-aid deserve to crash and burn.