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

51–60 of 89 posts

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

#51

Post by lostlogin »

carleverett wrote: post #44
jelliclesfarm wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To add a slight positive to urban farming - where I live used to be the agricultural heart of the region. It was settled partly because of this and the volcanic soil is very good. Move 100-150 years forward and urban sprawl has completely swallowed the good soil and we mainly farm further out on worse land.

The same can be said of other places I'd have thought?

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

#52

Post by 67726e »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #8
67726e wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds profound until you realize we are too.

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…

There are more ways to be predated on that do not involve being eaten.

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

#53

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

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.

Nope: Anti-vagrancy laws, hunting laws, trespassing laws for private land, usage laws for public land.

We are an industrialized, domesticated species, whether we like it or not.

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

#55

Post by protomyth »

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.

..and didn't have specialized professions that allow for all the wonders we get to experience - I like my cancer and heart specialists and would rather not go back to the tipi and chase buffalo up and down the plains[1].

1) Dad's side, farming I guess for Mom's side

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

#56

Post by athenot »

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…

There's also enjoyement and quality. Some of us enjoy gardening, just like others enjoy tinkering on their cars, their computers, their open-source software... It's a manual activity like any other.

And then there is the quality aspect. Mass-produced food in the US does not taste good. The varieties you can buy in the store are optimized for 3 things: high yield, long shelf life / tolerance to travel & warehousing and appearance. When you grow your own food, you can optimize for taste. You can have a tomato that is actually sweet, not something that tastes like a cucumber. You can grow varieties that won't do well in transit (ie. fragile or easily bruised) because you're handling the vegetable from the garden to the kitchen.

Most of the time, it is impossible to even buy produce with high quality characteristics. When it is, it is often very expensive. This increases the value proposition of a personal/urban garden.

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

#57

Post by at-fates-hands »

lostlogin wrote: post #50
DougN7 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>> However it sure looks like we are going to use automation to further concerntrate wealth.

The only problem I have this statement is if you do not believe in the notion of freewill, then yes this is accurate.

If you believe in the notion of freewill, then you would think instead of seeing what's happening and think that all the wealth is being concentrated into the top 1% of society unfairly, what's to stop you from being in that 1%?

Nearly every obstacle you will list, I can name several people who have overcome those impediments to be successful. When you stop thinking the deck is stacked against you, it frees your mind to think of what your capable of, not of the greater odds that stacked against that will prevent you from achieving what you want to.

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

#58

Post by ucaetano »

djrogers wrote: post #34

> enough food is produced around the world to feed 10 billion people. However, because 70% of the mono crops which are grown are feed livestock intended for slaughter, a distribution problem exists. No, the distribution problem is largely political - in fact modern famine and starvation is almost always a problem with local government, or the warlords that pass for it.

Exactly, and this is exacerbated by obsolete and wasteful supply chains with an excessive number of intermediaries.

This article from The Economist gives a good overview: http://www.economist.com/news/business/21591650-walmart-carr...

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

#59

Post by agumonkey »

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.

I think the natural competition has just shifted up into social structures. But yeah life isn't "free" even in the jungle.

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

#60

Post by jly »

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…

Urban farming is in early days so ideas are still be attempted that may not make sense for the long term. That may change.

There are many things we do in our worldwide agriculture system precisely because they make economic sense. That doesn't mean they are a good idea. We are going to pay the price for that lack of judgement. I am excited to see anything that bucks that trend.

Post reply on HN