you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

It's a nice utopian idea, but it just doesn't do anything. The aquaponics and greenhouse are just a bad utilization of such prime real estate space, the amount of food produced would be so low as to be a rounding error for the food they would still need to import and you could use that same floor space to house hundreds of more people.

Go look at my comment from a few minutes ago showing the production math for 5 stories of hydroponics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    https://www.edengreen.com/blog-collection/vertical-farming-crop-yield-per-acre

    We're talking about 2 different things. I have zero interest in debunking all your strawmans and assumptions about a completely different concept.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Your article says it's 40:1 instead of the 10:1 I assumed, but that's still far too little to matter.

    Your two floors of farming would still feed less than a hundred people full time, even if they hit those lofty idea targets.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    You're the one inserting the assumption that this has to become the only source of food for people.

    I said:

    or source through a local network.

    If you can't read those words and comprehend them than why would I consider anything you have to say?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    What the fuck does local mean? I just showed you the math that even Los Angeles alone consumes more food than you can possibly grow in California.

    You're the one fucking around with "I want a greenhouse above my grocery store" with no real proof that it would matter or be a good use of space.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments