PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon

[Serpentine]

I would like to point out that "our technology isn't perfect yet" is not a good reason to not do something like this, but to start working on it sooner rather than later so we can get the technology up to scratch ASAP.

[Eldan]

"Of Value" is a reaaallly difficult thing to say. There was a study once, in Britain. Watching your own back yard for long enough will mean that you will find several new species of insect. There's more life everywhere than we will ever know. And what, exactly, defines "value"? Abundance? In that case, we can really let some of all those humans starve, they are invasive everywhere.

[Ravens_cry]

Originally Posted by Frozen_Feet

In this case, "nothing of value" could mean species that would still remain abundant (and potentially be more vital) elsewhere, or nothing, period, as is the case with rocky portions of certain deserts.

Also, don't go discounting solar power at sea. There are working plans for stations at sea, which would capture worthwhile amount of energy while not severely impacting planktons you mentioned. (Well, not any more severely than current travel by oceans, but that's a can of worms on its own.) Plus, plankton and seaweed farms, which would increase the conversion rate while also giving us fuel and/or food.

Now there is a possibility.
I like the idea of using algae based biofuels because, unlike soybeans and corn, much more of the organism is creating the hydrocarbons. And unlike hydrogen as an energy battary, even if we can get around the volume and storability problems we already have over a hundred years of infrastructure devoted to transporting and using petrochemicals.

[Kelb_Panthera]

@ 3D farming:

for those that are unfamiliar with the concept, my understanding is this: It's a sky-scraper with a farm inside.

The bulk of the light the plants get comes from sun-lamps.

At present there are certain hurdles yet to be overcome; most notably, for reasons as yet to be determined, many plants simply refuse to grow well in-doors. There's also the issues of a lack of corporate interest, the further centralizing of food production away from small farms, the energy requirements for the lighting and irrigation and their associated costs, etc.

It's not a bad idea, per se, but there's quite a bit of work to be done before it becomes a viable option.

Disclaimer: this is my understanding of the concept, but I'm not 100% sure that it's entirely accurate. Independent research is advised.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Oh god the irony *collapses with laughter*

link

[Emperor Ing]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

for those that are unfamiliar with the concept, my understanding is this: It's a sky-scraper with a farm inside.

The bulk of the light the plants get comes from sun-lamps.

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.

[Blightedmarsh]

Permaculture is not just limited to crops either. I do recall seeing something about a farmer spending thirty years to research away to permaculture cattle. He used a blend of grasses to create a solid mat of roots, this means that the cattle could stay out all year with no risk of them curning the ground to slurry in winter. He also planted hedges to use as fodder. In all seriousness the only fuel he used was the quad bikes he used to heard them.

From what I understand of 3D the idea is to create a mix of crops rather than rows and rows of just one plant. This creates a vertical column of a biosphere with harvests at multiple levels. I would not call it "natural" but high yield, low energy and environmentally sustainable? Thats the Idea.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by Emperor Ing

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.

Did you see the disclaimer at the end of that post? I may not even have been talking about 3D farming. I know that the farm-in-a-skyscraper is on the table somewhere though, I remember reading an article on it.

It may have been geared toward getting local production of food into major cities where the nearest airable land was otherwise far enough away to require delivery via major transportation firms.

[Emperor Ing]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

Did you see the disclaimer at the end of that post? I may not even have been talking about 3D farming. I know that the farm-in-a-skyscraper is on the table somewhere though, I remember reading an article on it.

Yes, and i'm commenting on my impressions and thoughts about a skyscraper-farm. Is it accurate that I envision it as a ridiculously tall greenhouse?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by Emperor Ing

Yes, and i'm commenting on my impressions and thoughts about a skyscraper-farm. Is it accurate that I envision it as a ridiculously tall greenhouse?

I suppose, though exactly how greenhouse-ish the end result will be is kinda up in the air for now. It'd probably end up more like a plant-factory.

[Traab]

Originally Posted by Emperor Ing

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.

Yeah but it would still be handy for when our world hits near coruscant levels of congestion and we dont have arable land anymore. 300 story tall skyscraper farms to grow crops would be our only viable option at that point.

[Karen Lynn]

Originally Posted by Traab

Yeah but it would still be handy for when our world hits near coruscant levels of congestion and we dont have arable land anymore. 300 story tall skyscraper farms to grow crops would be our only viable option at that point.

Do you honestly believe that we as a species could actually make it that far before nuking each other into oblivion?

[Ravens_cry]

Originally Posted by Adrian Korvedzk

Do you honestly believe that we as a species could actually make it that far before nuking each other into oblivion?

So far, we have had nukes for 67 years and only used them twice, and that was in the same war.
I have hope this trend will continue, at the very least until we have sufficiently self sufficient off world habitats.

[Tebryn]

Originally Posted by Adrian Korvedzk

Do you honestly believe that we as a species could actually make it that far before nuking each other into oblivion?

Originally Posted by Ravens_cry

So far, we have had nukes for 67 years and only used them twice, and that was in the same war.
I have hope this trend will continue, at the very least until we have sufficiently self sufficient off world habitats.

This. If you think the human species is just one thumb hovering over the red button at a constant state since 1945 then you're going to miss all the times we're not.

[Herpestidae]

Originally Posted by Tebryn

This. If you think the human species is just one thumb hovering over the red button at a constant state since 1945 then you're going to miss all the times we're not.

There are, however, computers whose job it is to hover their metaphorical thumb over the red button, and push it if a threat is detected. And might confuse the sunrise for a nuclear strike and order a preemptive counterstrike*.

*This actually happened. Luckily, a person was there to double-check.

[Tebryn]

Originally Posted by Herpestidae

There are, however, computers whose job it is to hover their metaphorical thumb over the red button, and push it if a threat is detected. And might confuse the sunrise for a nuclear strike and order a preemptive counterstrike*.

*This actually happened. Luckily, a person was there to double-check.

Yes indeed. My main point was that we've yet to nuke everything to dust. There are a lot of scenarios like that however. While hilarious they're also terrifying.

[Ravens_cry]

Originally Posted by Herpestidae

There are, however, computers whose job it is to hover their metaphorical thumb over the red button, and push it if a threat is detected. And might confuse the sunrise for a nuclear strike and order a preemptive counterstrike*.

*This actually happened. Luckily, a person was there to double-check.

And always should be. Having a computer have total oversight is just asking for disaster.

[Elemental]

Originally Posted by Ravens_cry

And always should be. Having a computer have total oversight is just asking for disaster.

And there always is someone on hand.
Even though computers are involved in the launch sequence, they can't actually fire a nuke without someone there to press the button or turn the key, etc...

[Mutant Sheep]

Originally Posted by Elemental

And there always is someone on hand.
Even though computers are involved in the launch sequence, they can't actually fire a nuke without someone there to press the button or turn the key, etc...

Ah, but thats just what they want you to think. The computers have long overcome the need for human interaction, and only wait for the day when the overseer slips up... and then they will strike.

Also, I love how this discussion has gone. Every 3 pages it goes back to PETA, then diverges on the strangest track. We are talking about giant glass skyscrapers with plants in them. This idea is muy grande and we should do it. And put a playground somewhere on it. Maybe the northern wall.

[Karoht]

Originally Posted by Xondoure

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.

Originally Posted by Ravens_cry

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.

Originally Posted by Emperor Ing

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.

Originally Posted by Emperor Ing

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.

[Frozen_Feet]

By the way, any time you have the question "how cost effective something is?" or "can we build this?", think of the biggest building or piece of infrastructure you know. We already build humongous towers of steel and glass and keep them electrically lit through day and night, and have thousands of kilometers of cabling and pipelines to sustain them.

[Karoht]

Originally Posted by Frozen_Feet

By the way, any time you have the question "how cost effective something is?" or "can we build this?", think of the biggest building or piece of infrastructure you know. We already build humongous towers of steel and glass and keep them electrically lit through day and night, and have thousands of kilometers of cabling and pipelines to sustain them.

We typically keep them lit with poor efficiency flourescent bulbs rather than highly efficient LED's. And for some bizarre reason we light those buildings even when vacant at night time. If we can do that, a 3D farm is already feasible given what amount of energy we are already wasting.

Also, because people have a tendancy to get a bit hung up on the implied scale, let me clarify that something the size of a 4 storey apartment building is plenty high enough, let alone something half the height of modern business towers.

[Anarion]

The efficiency issue isn't building the buildings, it's how much farming you get for your use of space. Generally speaking, big buildings are for housing people or giving them places to do work. So if you're going to justify the cost of building a big building just for farming, it has to beat out just using that same space to give people a place to work or sleep. Not saying it can't, just that it's not whether we can build it, but what alternative uses we could put to it that should be the main point of comparison.

[Karen Lynn]

Since I'm exceptionally fatigued right now, and am quite out of it, I thought I'd post this with no regards to physics or fiscal feasability.

The vertical structure could be narrower on the faces, allowing for one block wide by one half block deep apartment complex, backed by two quarter block faced veggie towers(That's their name now. Veggie towers are cool). Steel core structure with steel support beams framing out platforms, each panel made of clear solid material(ever been to the grand canyon? Stand on the glass platform over it). Follow this up with fiber optic or cylindrical glass tubing to draw light from the roof and faces of the towers up and down through each floor. And have a glass water resevoir on top for a gravity feed nutrient enriched hydroponic gardening solution.

That said, I am all for keeping the farms on farmland, as opposed to city skyscrapers. Sleepy time is now.

[Karoht]

Sadly, Anarion is correct.
Besides that, we really don't need to do 3D farming yet. We already produce enough food. World Hunger currently isn't about how much food we produce, but we've already danced that line of politics.

If it were a matter of improving efficiency and lowering the cost of food production, throwing greenhouses over existing farmland would do far more for us, and can easily allow for year round production as per other projects such as www.growingpower.org
Such modifications are probably a better use of our time and materials until the need for 3D farming presents itself. We wouldn't be taking up any additional farmland and we would greatly enhance production and efficiency.

[Emperor Ing]

Originally Posted by Frozen_Feet

By the way, any time you have the question "how cost effective something is?" or "can we build this?", think of the biggest building or piece of infrastructure you know. We already build humongous towers of steel and glass and keep them electrically lit through day and night, and have thousands of kilometers of cabling and pipelines to sustain them.

Of course we did, the thing is that the activity that that electricity and piping sustains within makes its construction cost-effective. I'm not diminishing farming in any way, I was just skeptical that such an investment would work necessarily because farming isn't as profitable as other businesses that could occupy the same space.

Originally Posted by Karoht

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.

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.

Well there you go, it can work.
I agree, they need not be mutually exclusive, simply supplemental to each other. That said, it still occurs to me that there's a reason that it's not done on a greater scale, as in why we don't see very many omega farms. I figure it's because there is no serious food shortage in the industrialized world. If there were, increased prices would make such farms, in addition to the traditional models, very profitable. On the converse, building them and increasing supply would lower prices. While good for the consumer it makes farming in general less profitable.

Supply and demand. That's my theory as to why we don't see more omega farms.