this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
252 points (98.5% liked)

Futurology

1813 readers
63 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Teppichbrand@feddit.org 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Here is a great reply from the Low-Tech Magazin.

[–] CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (3 children)

They’re great thoughts though I’d like to point out that most human made structures do no make use of the sun and so their complaint about having solar panels take up the same space is somewhat dubious.

The other comment I’d make is that they chose to highlight an experiment utilizing wheat. Mostly because we use a lot of it. However, humans could modify their diets to consume less wheat if we wanted to. There is nothing mandatory about consuming wheat and so we could focus on plants that need less light to grow.

I’d also like to note that the vertical farming stuff has very little innovation going on in the space because there is no demand for it at all currently. If there were demand, you may see alternative technologies taken up.

Alternative technologies like using mirrors to harvest the UV light and transport it without electrical costs and losses in reproducing it. Or mutating the plants in some ways. Or making better use of UV light by only targeting the leaves or such. Plenty could be done to innovate.

That all being said, I think vertical farming has absolutely no future. Mostly because the alternatives are so good. We could redo an entire farming setup. Or we could cut down on food waste. And cut down on meat consumption. And invest in lab grown meats. Lab grown meats that have a large potential to turn food waste into usable food. All of those are far better tech and this is a dead end concept I’m afraid.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Currently, i see no alternative that doesn't devastate ecosystems. I see a future in vertical farming, as knowledge and consciousness of that problem grows.

[–] CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

In the eventual future, sure. But that may be a century away. There are many other solutions that should be implemented before vertical farming that would actually protect ecosystems. The main thing would be pesticides. That’s what I’m far more concerned about than this mere concept.

[–] el_abuelo@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Wheat is an amazing "invention" because it is so calorie dense compared to other crops, I would imagine (just guessing, no expertise in the area) that plants that grow with less sun don't get to be as calorie dense because they have lower input energy - and ultimately the conservation of mass/energy is a physical law.

Maybe I'm miles off with this guess - so don't take it as fact.

[–] CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

I don’t necessarily view the limiting factor as being the ultimate nutrient density per unit UV light.

Some compounding factors if you’d like to think about this more: UV light is not a monolith and so if you’re using artificial light you may be able to select for plants that still have high calorie yields but can accept a lower wavelength of UV that would lower power costs.

The same goes for water costs and just the general suitability for these vertical towers as well as what fertilizers work best for them.

The amount of optimization is one of the reasons I’m not hopeful for this type of project. There’s a ton of variables, you’re essentially making an entirely new form of farming and it’s a harder version of it. Meaning that it won’t experience the explosion of industry around it probably.

[–] Teppichbrand@feddit.org 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Great repy!
I don't get lab grown meat, though. It is still super expensive, after years and years of research. Plant based alternatives are on the marked for years and already frighteningly close to meat made from animal tissue. These plant protein alternatives are great for the planet, water soil, co2, pretty healthy and don't need stem cells or sterile labs to grow. To me, lab grown meat feels like an excuse for people to keep eating animal meat, because the real alternative is not there yet. But it is, just stop making excuses and adapt your accustomed taste a tiny bit.

[–] CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Your criticisms of the tech are good. I agree with them which is why I said current alternatives are already taking off because you’re right, plant based proteins are doing well.

That being said, there are downsides to plant based alternatives depending on what your design constraints are. Notably some difficulties farming specific plants, crop rotations still need to happen, etc. Also the land consumption is still a concern. And despite criticisms it’s not like lab grown meat has gone nowhere, even recently.

However I’d agree that both this vertical farming technique and lab grown meat are long future technologies and I expect neither to mature fully in the next decade or two maybe. So in that case, we can cut down on meat consumption. Make meat only for special occasions or something. Then we cut down on the land area of meat.

I deal with this situation the same as with our power needs. Implement the things best available to us now and stop waiting for future tech. But as far as future tech goes, vertical farming has a ton of challenges and lab grown meat has more potential in my mind. Especially since lab meat is already being sold and consumed whereas vertical farming seems to exist still in the conceptual phase. Just my two cents though.

[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

already frighteningly close to meat made from animal tissue

Eh, it depends. Plant-based burgers can be excellent, but I haven't had a convincing plant-based steak yet.

[–] Teppichbrand@feddit.org 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I agree, steak is not there yet. On the other hand, eating beef is a very destructive thing to do. So how close does it need to be to make you switch? How important is a particular personal taste?

[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So how close does it need to be to make you switch? How important is a particular personal taste?

Eh, I've already mostly switched away from beef in favour of more chicken, fish, beans, lentils, etc. I probably eat beef only a couple times a month, maybe less. But if lab-grown or plant-based steaks were convincing enough, I'd never have the desire to eat slaughtered beef ever again.

[–] Teppichbrand@feddit.org 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

This frustrates me, because after I learned about the environmental damage and the unspeakable horrors we do to our fellow animals by the billions, I just fucking quit. It was a long time ago and it wasn't a problem at all, because now I was aware of the incredible price we pay for this food. Now, a desire to eat meat from an animal that does not want to die is the same as a desire to have sex with someone who doesn't want to. It's not an option. We learned that one as well.
I pull my hair over all the excuses. It's so easy to just stop if you look at the facts and take responsibility for your actions. But people don't want to. So they wait for lab meat, and when it's there, in a couple decades, it's too expensive, or the taste, texture, whatever isn't quite right because it's some ungodly blob made from fucking stem cells, what are we thinking!? So they still don't switch and they start arguing, as always, and get angry at the government because the planet is falling apart and politics have now decided to prohibit animal tissue meat because people just won't stop by themselves. Sorry this became a rant.

[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sorry this became a rant.

No worries, I hear your frustration.

Hypothetical question: If you could snap your fingers and convert one new vegetarian (who never eats meat again), or ten new flexitarians (who decrease their meat consumption by 50%), which would you choose, and why?

[–] Teppichbrand@feddit.org 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I'll take the flexis, alright. But only if they consume less animals than the one hardcore vegan. :)
Do you know how you stop smoking? You realize you are addicted to it and it's killing you and that's when you quit. Noone smokes less and less until it's over. I feel the same mindset with many people who call themselves flexitarian. To them, meat is still a great tasting food they have to restrain themselves from. That takes effort. They talk about it, they excuse themselves for it, it's a big topic for them. Because deep down they know as much as I, that it's a bad habit that needs to go. But they are afraid to lose something they like so much.
I was like that. But after I decided to go vegan, I broke free from this habit and the guilt and all the excuses. It's way easier to quit, I eat healthy and tasty and I'm honestly never going back. If I could snap my fingers and give that experience to other people I absolutely would.

[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I’ll take the flexis, alright. But only if they consume less animals than the one hardcore vegan. :)

That's not quite the stipulations of the hypothetical question :)

Suppose there are ten average omnivores in front of you. You can:

  • A: Convert one of the ten to a vegetarian who never eats meat again.
  • B: Convert all of the ten into flexitarians who each eat 50% less meat than the average omnivore.

Which would you choose?