Quote Originally Posted by Xondoure View Post
The problem is when we have to grow more crops to harvest the amount of meat we bring in. No one is suggesting agriculture doesn't have drawbacks. The point I am making is that more agriculture is needed with the way the meat industry works in large parts of the globe.
But we already grow quite a bit more than what we need to feed the global population and then some on just grains alone, nevermind everything else we grow. I don't see this as perhaps as large a concern as you might think, but it is a concern in the event that we went for a 'cold turkey' switch.

Quote Originally Posted by Ravens_cry View Post
3D farming can only go so far as there is only so much energy from sunlight.
www.omegagarden.com
The technology scales very well, it can be augmented by sunlight or run without it. Bear in mind that plants only need 17 hours of light a day, it's actually beneficial to run with darkness, so you only need to ensure that much light and light exposure. Plants can also be cycled from the inner areas towards the outer edges to ensure they get more actual sunlight rather than just artificial.
Also, research indicates that the light from a dual red-blue LED is actually as good or better than sunlight. LED's are cheap, and very efficient in terms of power consumption.

Quote Originally Posted by Emperor Ing View Post
Now pardon me for my ignorance of the concept, but it occurs to me that sunlight travels in a linear direction from the sun. If farming were to truly be 3D as I see it, some plants will have light at the expense of others.
You are not ignorant, you are correct. However, a rotational system takes care of this concern, and artificial lighting can fill in any gaps as needed. The system doesn't need reliance on one or the other. In fact a system which does rely on one source isn't a good idea due to standard risk factors.

Quote Originally Posted by Emperor Ing View Post
I see, but I think the real biggest problem is that our current level of technology wouldn't let such a thing be cost-effective. Think about it: You need the electricity to power what amounts to hundreds of sun-lamps, and that's in addition to the costs of building/maintaining a skyscraper which alone would be prohibitively expensive.
www.omegagarden.com
It's been cost effective for quite some time. Check out the site, they've already done the math, the systems have been tested extensively. Combine that high level technology with the natural concepts and organization from www.growingpower.org and it only gets better.

However, I would also like to point out that something the size and scale of a modern skyscraper would likely be a centralized system. It would be best if there was a harmony between any centralized systems (big skyscraper full of 3D farming systems), and smaller decentralized systems (community owned and operated greenhouse full of such systems, an omega garden in every home, etc), to smooth out the supply and demand as well as resource usage.

Just a quick point I want to make. Treating any such systems as mutually exclusive ("We can only build X or Y") isn't as efficient as treating them as blended and integrated. Not that I'm seeing anyone do so, but I just thought it would be prudant to point out that no one is suggesting a singular approach to any such problem solving. Especially relevant considering that my suggestion of 3D farming with systems such as Omegagarden only really apply to mostly the leafy green veggies, herbs, and some fruits such as tomatoes and a select few crops. It may not necessarily apply to grains or corn. Hence why a singular approach will not fix everything. It can still fix quite a few things though.