Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nikov]

It isn't really feasible with issues like topsoil recovery, particularly with U.S. crop acreage stable or even slightly declining and forests being reclaimed. I mean, there isn't really a need for new farmland in the U.S. because yields are increasing on those acres faster than the population is growing (tripled yields since 1960, at least). Aside from the niche market I suggested of a sort of vertical climate-controlled truck farm, there's not really an economic gain to be had.

I'd grow non-organic crops in my hypothetical skyscraper if organic crops weren't selling for a far better profit margin.

[olemars]

Neat idea, reminds me of rooftop farming in Singapore.

Rooftop farming:  Very practical for people who really want gardens, but don't have back yards.  Or presumably people who live in apartments I guess.  Worth looking into, if I ever wind up in some dinky little urbanish house.

What I'm referring to was a bit more than just a potted tomato plant on the roof. Some professor wanted to use a percentage of the roofs in Singapore for aeroponic farming, which would be able to supply the entire city with vegetables. There's already a commercial aeroponics farm there now.

[Criptfeind]

I'd grow non-organic crops in my hypothetical skyscraper if organic crops weren't selling for a far better profit margin.

So the hippies ruin it for the rest of us?

[Eagleon]

I'd grow non-organic crops in my hypothetical skyscraper if organic crops weren't selling for a far better profit margin.

So the hippies ruin it for the rest of us?

I seriously want to make a brand of potato chips called Science Chips. Genetically engineered for superior deliciousness, grown in a soup of preservatives, flavorants, artificial colors, irradiated after harvest. They'll use sea salt, but they'll list every horrifying chemical that's in it, per weight.

I think it would sell.

On a related topic, someone seriously needs to get a public service announcement going saying that water is a chemical, that everything has chemicals, and that yes, this has chemicals in it. Other people will tell you it (whatever 'it' is) doesn't have chemicals, but if you believe them it doesn't make you special or "eco-conscious". It just means you're gullible.

(Can you tell I'm getting irritated with hipsters going on about bottled water?)

[Nadaka]

I wonder how much I could charge for organic, eco-concious hydroponic hand-grown urban produce.

I don't know... I don't really like organic food so much. Can you grow some none organic stuff as well?

Yell yes, get me some siliconacious ooze!

[Criptfeind]

Science Chips sound so good.

As long as you test them well and when you irradiated you mean it as a way to keep the micros out.

[DJ]

Is it actually safe to eat produce grown on roof of skyscrapers in a major city? I'd imagine that pollution would be a serious concern.

[Sowelu]

Irradiation...as a way to...

Wait, scientists irradiate things for a REASON?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Ricky]

I say that should try to make verticle chicken farms!

[Levi]

I say that should try to make verticle chicken farms!

I can't think of a reason why the same concept wouldn't work for chickens.  Cow's might not have enough room to wander around but I would think chickens would have plenty of room. 

[woose1]

I say that should try to make verticle chicken farms!

I can't think of a reason why the same concept wouldn't work for chickens.  Cow's might not have enough room to wander around but I would think chickens would have plenty of room.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I think they would have lots of room.

[Nadaka]

I say that should try to make verticle chicken farms!

I can't think of a reason why the same concept wouldn't work for chickens.  Cow's might not have enough room to wander around but I would think chickens would have plenty of room.

There actually are vertical chicken farms with multiple layers of chickens being raised with nothing but wire mesh separating them, pretty gross actually.

[de5me7]

Interesting idea, can't really assess it with out any solid numbers though. The economist makes the comparison with greenhouse farming, which is (as the economist says) very energy inefficient, also currently it produces lots of agricultural effluent, but with hydroponics you wouldnt get this. The numbers we'd need are inputs, outputs and construction costs. You can argue that it may one day become cost effective, but imo only if the construction and energy costs fall, as a higher food price would not be a good thing.

If we are worried out feeding a massive world population there is one very easy and very unpopular way of doing it. Slash world meat production by 50% (possibly less, ive just pulled that stat out of thin air but it makes the point). Meat, in particular beef is the most inefficient form of food production in terms of land, energy etc. Most efficient i think is soya beans, or some other pulses. Wheat and rice are ok. Its also worth saying that food security is less an issue of global production and more an issue of distribution. The world produces numerically enough food currently, and could produce more, most first world countries reduced production through the 1990's. The issue is over production in the 1st world, under production else where. Having said this, i suspect an increase to 15b would exhaust current production by a clear margin. I dont think growth will exceed 10b tbh, im a malthusian, possative feed back will kick in harder sooner or later.

[Soadreqm]

How do you get light on a skyscraper? It's still the same area getting sun exposure it would be if you just had flat farmland.

Anyway, we've had the technology to feed the whole world ever since farming was invented. All you need to do is freeze population at a level where you can support it, with a generous safety margin of overproduction, in case a natural disaster eats all your crops. And that's really the only thing you can do, unless you think you can keep exponentially increasing your food production forever.

[Ampersand]

Well, no. We should be developing farmlands halfway across the globe, like in Africa, because people far away from skyscrapers still need to eat, like in Africa.

Hey, I actually agree with Nikov on something!

On that note, I saw a rather fascinating video on TED that outlined the use of Dune-esque water stills that collects water directly out of the air, as dew, on a specially designed surface that is particularly conducive to dew formation. The water is allowed to gather, and run off, forming small pools which animals come to drink from. Animals bring seeds in their feces, which then goes on to take root in the moistened ground, creating a small, sustained oasis. Over time, using these stills could turn much of the Sahara into arable farmland where it is desperately needed the most.

Back no the topic of Vertical Farming, can't say that I find the idea that relevant today. Sure, it urbanizes farming, but the expense cannot be justified. Yet.

As for how you get sunlight on the interior of a skyscraper; Mirrors, lenses, and Fiberglass cables.