Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

First Urban ‘Agrihood’ in America Feeds 2,000 Households for Free

intelligentnow.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 89 posts

Re: First Urban ‘Agrihood’ in America Feeds 2,000 Households for Free

#41

Post by pavel_lishin »

hacknat wrote: post #18
pavel_lishin wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of humans have very few natural predators, and to even be exposed to animals like bears, mountain lions and sharks usually requires a bit of effort. (What's going to eat me in a city? Maybe my cat, if I die in my apartment.) And while there are more people that starve to death that should, and more people who cannot get affordable health care, I would still much rather live in the modern world than head…

How about rolling the dice now and ending up in a backwater of SE Asia or the DRC? I don't disagree that this is probably the best time to be alive on average, but the standard deviation is pretty enormous, and I would argue that it might not be the best time to be alive in all places.

> How about rolling the dice now and ending up in a backwater of SE Asia or the DRC?

Still statistically better than a random human being in 3,000 BC.

And of course, we don't live in the best possible universe; but on average, a random human's odds of being eaten by a figurative grue monotonically increase as you go backwards in time.

Re: First Urban ‘Agrihood’ in America Feeds 2,000 Households for Free

#42

Post by [deleted] »

djrogers wrote: post #30
toomuchtodo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Raw materials may be abundant and "free", but labor, investment, and capital are not. They're they product of blood, sweat, and tears. Hardly free. Renewable energy and automation are free once bootstrapped. Its the initial investment that requires concessions to give it away. Given enough of both, I don't need your labor nor capital.

Ever heard of maintenance?

[deleted]

Re: First Urban ‘Agrihood’ in America Feeds 2,000 Households for Free

#43

Post by rojobuffalo »

This looks like a commendable project. But why do we need a buzzword like "Agrihood"; can't we just call it a garden? It just seems like the language throughout is over-reaching.

Regardless, any time more food is grown close to where it will be eaten, this is a good thing. I just put up a new site this week focused on sustainable food systems: https://terra.farm. I'm adding content to the wiki atm, so if anyone has suggestions on stuff that might fit, lmk.

Re: First Urban ‘Agrihood’ in America Feeds 2,000 Households for Free

#44

Post by carleverett »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #36
carleverett wrote: post #26

Urban farming is one of those things that "feels" good, but doesn't make any economic sense. Why would you move farms, which are currently on the cheapest land available, into cities, where the most expensive land is? I agree that more vegetation in cities is a good thing, but the allure of an "urban farm" is misguided. If these people are serious about providing food for as low a price as possible, they should move…

Carbon food print. Less storage and transport and middle men. Green lungs for the city. Many urban farms have minimal fossil fuel needs. There is a case to be made here.

In the short term maybe, but once our transportation is electric (and our electricity isn't coming from coal or gas), the difference in environmental impact is negligible. Some trees and a nice garden would provide the same environmental benefit to a city, and look nicer too.

There's no case to be made that there is any economic benefit to farming in the city. By all measures, it's much more expensive.

Re: First Urban ‘Agrihood’ in America Feeds 2,000 Households for Free

#45

Post by TeMPOraL »

djrogers wrote: post #30
toomuchtodo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Raw materials may be abundant and "free", but labor, investment, and capital are not. They're they product of blood, sweat, and tears. Hardly free. Renewable energy and automation are free once bootstrapped. Its the initial investment that requires concessions to give it away. Given enough of both, I don't need your labor nor capital.

Ever heard of maintenance?

This. I think it's actually an important issue that's not being talked about - to actually create the automated future of surplus, we need to significantly reduce the effort that goes into maintaining things. We need to start creating self-maintaining systems.

Re: First Urban ‘Agrihood’ in America Feeds 2,000 Households for Free

#46

Post by chrisper »

panglott wrote: post #29
chrisper wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought we are paying for convenience and not to live on the planet. Like, I could do it all by hand for free, but I am choosing to pay so I don't have to.

Where are you going to sleep and store your tools?

In my hand-crafted artisan shed that has hand-crafted (from rare wood) tool boxes!

Jokes aside, but I think this idea applied like many centuries ago. I think I might read it in some philosophical text. So today you would not be able to do that obviously, since you need to purchase land etc. and the whole society is based on purchasing to satisfy your needs.

Re: First Urban ‘Agrihood’ in America Feeds 2,000 Households for Free

#47

Post by [deleted] »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #45
djrogers wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever heard of maintenance?

This. I think it's actually an important issue that's not being talked about - to actually create the automated future of surplus, we need to significantly reduce the effort that goes into maintaining things. We need to start creating self-maintaining systems.

[deleted]

Re: First Urban ‘Agrihood’ in America Feeds 2,000 Households for Free

#48

Post by stuckagain »

biounit wrote: post #40
jelliclesfarm wrote: post #31

Farming is a business. Industrial farming is a giant business. Even urban farming like this project requires inputs, labour, seeds, water and most importantly land. Food isn't free. I can't even...argh. Anyways...1. Even for-profit small farm in 3-5 acres can barely break even because farmers don't pay themselves. They usually cannot survive without a second job. Farming goals are out of the window if they want to st…

There are some small-farm techniques that are successful - from a profit standpoint - when optimized. http://modernfarmer.com/2016/10/jm-fortier/

Yes, but a 5-acre farm will sustain maybe half a dozen people, not thousands of people. The article is simply absurd.

Re: First Urban ‘Agrihood’ in America Feeds 2,000 Households for Free

#49

Post by jerf »

adrianN wrote: post #6
pavel_lishin wrote: post #4

> Have you ever contemplated the fact that humans are the only species on Earth that pays to live on the planet? This sounds vaguely profound, until you realize that other species are also predated on, starve to death, and die from trivially preventable issues.

It's also wrong. Aphids for example pay ants in honeydew for their protection.

It isn't that hard to analyze ecology in economic terms. "Money" doesn't particularly exist due to (almost!) none of the participants being cognitively capable of processing it, but you do have some barter, and a whole lot of supply/demand curves based on differential valuations, as well as a lot of things that can be or are even best analyzed as cost/benefits analyses. Predation, for instance, has a big cost/benefit analysis on the cost of the energy input plus the risk of being injured vs. what the predation may produce. It isn't the same as a human economic analysis but it's another useful lens to look at the natural world.

Re: First Urban ‘Agrihood’ in America Feeds 2,000 Households for Free

#50

Post by lostlogin »

DougN7 wrote: post #15
pavel_lishin wrote: post #4

> Have you ever contemplated the fact that humans are the only species on Earth that pays to live on the planet? This sounds vaguely profound, until you realize that other species are also predated on, starve to death, and die from trivially preventable issues.

Humans don't have to work. We can sleep in the rain and hunt and gather to survive like the animals. Although I would argue hunting and foraging is work, so most animals don't get out of it either.

We wouldn't have to work as much if automation is done right. However it sure looks like we are going to use automation to further concerntrate wealth.
Post reply on HN