4 ms·
We could raise consumption while expanding the area of protected wetlands by building more nuclear power plants to power vertical farms, and expanding industry
by ETH_start 3y ago
We could raise consumption while expanding the area of protected wetlands by building more nuclear power plants to power vertical farms, and expanding industry and energy harvesting outside of Earth.
This avoids having to convince people to deny themselves their preferred foods, and arguably, reduce their quality of life, to protect natural habitats. It's a better strategy for both humanity and nature.
- vegetablepotpie 3y agoSomeone posted a research paper [1] a few months ago that says that due to energy consumption, the use of vertical farming doesn’t provide a net space savings for caloric dense foods. I’m curious what you think of that paper and what it would change about your suggested solution. [1] https://raghavan.usc.edu/papers/smartfarm-limits21.pdf https://raghavan.usc.edu/papers/smartfarm-limits21.pdf
- ETH_start 3y agoIt seems that paper is based on the assumption that energy costs the same as it does now. I'm assuming we can make energy much more abundant with nuclear power.
- martin_a 3y agoThis is, by far, the strangest way to promote nuclear power.
- woodruffw 3y agoThis response bewilders me: the GP presents something with immense political and practical challenges, and the response is to ask us to consider an even harder set of political and practical problems?
- ETH_start 3y agoMass-producing nuclear power plants is very difficult, but a much more viable plan than limiting human consumption.
- myshpa 3y agoWe would need add 20000+ of them, give or take.
- ETH_start 3y agoA few trillion dollars and some standardization around components should do it. At civilizational-scales, it's doable.
- myshpa 3y ago> At civilizational-scales, it's doable So is abolishment of animal agriculture subsidies and large scale afforestation projects. In the end nothing will get done.
- ETH_start 3y agoAbolishing agriculture subsidies won't cause a reduction in meat consumption, as the demand for meat is huge, and can continue to grow without the subsidies. As for convincing governments to protect more forests: that be will be vastly easier if abundant energy and a multitude of vertical farms makes horizontal farms less competitive in the market, and results in a situation where protecting forests won't come at the expense of the income/purchasing-power of citizens.
- myshpa 3y ago> Abolishing agriculture subsidies won't cause a reduction in meat consumption ... can continue to grow without the subsidies Without subsidies animal ag is deeply unprofitable. Removing them and taxing the negative externalities "properly" would mean the price of such products would be a multiple of what it's now, so it would be out of reach for most of the population. > that be will be vastly easier if abundant energy Yes, it would. But we don't have it at the moment, and it will require a lot of fossil fuels and time to get there. At the same time EROI of fossil fuels is falling down. It's at 5 IIRC, down from more that 100+ at the start of the previous century - meaning that previously for every 1 barrel of oil invested into extraction you'd get 100-150 barrels back, now it's about 5 barrels. Soon it could become unprofitable to extract more oil, as it would cost more energy to get it out of the ground that what would be gained, no matter how much is still in the ground. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_energy_gain#Examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_energy_gain#Examples https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WPB2u8EzL8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WPB2u8EzL8
- myshpa 3y ago> nuclear power plants to power vertical farms You mean vertical farms like this one (or soon two)? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/25/chinas-26-storey-pig-skyscraper-ready-to-produce-1-million-pigs-a-year https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/25/chinas-2... > We could raise consumption while expanding the area of protected wetlands There are many more problems with animal ag, not just the area. Climate change, resource depletion, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, pollution, overpopulation, soil erosion, and overfishing are all symptoms of ecological overshoot. Agriculture is a key culprit in 5 out of 7 of those symptoms, and animal ag accounts for 80% of all agriculture. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 Feeding 10 billion people by 2050 within planetary limits may be achievable A global shift towards healthy and more plant-based diets, halving food loss and waste, and improving farming practices and technologies are required to feed 10 billion people sustainably by 2050, a new study finds.
- ETH_start 3y ago>>Climate change, resource depletion, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, pollution, overpopulation, soil erosion, and overfishing are all symptoms of ecological overshoot. Agriculture is a key culprit in 5 out of 7 of those symptoms, and animal ag accounts for 80% of all agriculture. Most of those are area-related. If we didn't need to cover so much of the planet with crops grown to be feedstock for farm animals, those problems would vanish.