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

71–80 of 89 posts

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

#71

Post by oh_sigh »

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…

You're ignoring psychological benefits (or maybe that's what you were getting at with the 'more vegetation in cities is a good thing'). These kinds of operations can have very big impacts on children who are very separated from the natural world in their concrete jungles. I agree though that producing cheap food shouldn't be the goal, but it does help that this farm produces something.

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

#72

Post by vanattab »

thatcat wrote: post #70
flyaway wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty cheap to have soil samples tested, but it winds up just confirming what you expect - our NYC backyard had 18x the upper limit for lead! Definitely raised beds.

Hydroponics is also perfect for polluted urban areas. Generally produces a higher yield per area and absorbs co2 at a higher rate; with the caveat being that there is potentially a higher rate of maintenance.

Does it really absorbe co2 at a higher rate once you factor in the co2 used to create the nutrients and chemicals you feed the plants?

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

#73

Post by AJ007 »

adrianN wrote: post #61
lostlogin wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We wouldn't have to work as much if we didn't want to buy all the gizmos. https://orionmagazine.org/article/the-gospel-of-consumption/

A great deal of (US) income consumption goes toward people bidding against each other just on where to live.

Take out wildly overpriced education, healthcare, and housing, and you can get by with barely working. 40% of Americans over 16 don't work at all, granted they may rely on government transfer payments and other services. https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

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

#74

Post by pavel_lishin »

vanattab wrote: post #72
thatcat wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hydroponics is also perfect for polluted urban areas. Generally produces a higher yield per area and absorbs co2 at a higher rate; with the caveat being that there is potentially a higher rate of maintenance.

Does it really absorbe co2 at a higher rate once you factor in the co2 used to create the nutrients and chemicals you feed the plants?

As well as the fact that for every apartment-size space used by a hydroponic farm, that's a family that likely has to commute into the city?

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

#75

Post by pavel_lishin »

chandler wrote: post #64
pavel_lishin wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>> ...a random human's odds of being eaten by a figurative grue monotonically increase as you go backwards in time. Humans don't live alone in the woods--not now, not 5,000 years ago (nor 45,000 years before that). They band together to modify, control, and tame their environment. Now, you might miss your devices, pastimes, and widespread sanitation...however, from my understanding, humans don't typically worry about…

A grue doesn't have to be malevolent to kill you. A bobcat that bites your neck is hungry, a mis-step that breaks a knee is careless, a tooth infection that spreads into the blood is indifferent, the blood that pours out of a woman giving birth is just following the laws of pressure and gravity.

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

#76

Post by gyrgtyn »

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…

I think it makes sense for fragile veggies like greens.

Potatoes do fine on the truck ride in from the countryside, but baby arugula, not so much. Potatoes are also a lot easier to plant and harvest by machine.

Lawns don't make any economic sense; convert them to leafy greens and fancy perennials that are not economic to grow at a scale. Deliver greens to your neighborhood via bike. They are light. Sell them to fancy restaurants for $15 a pound and not have to pay for trucking them in from 50 miles away.

Then, convert equal amount of farmland being used for green, back into wildish stuff, so birds, bees, etc have room to live and improve (pollinate) the staple crops.

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

#77

Post by gyrgtyn »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #22

This article is really dumb. It's only 3 acres, there's no way that satisfies 2,000 households' caloric needs, it's just a small supplement. Not to mention that it's 'free' because of volunteers. I can also feed myself for close to free by growing my own vegetables...but it's way more efficient to just work and pay for food.

It gives 2000 households fresh greens that they wouldn't otherwise have had access to.

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

#78

Post by dragonwriter »

gyrgtyn wrote: post #76
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…

I think it makes sense for fragile veggies like greens. Potatoes do fine on the truck ride in from the countryside, but baby arugula, not so much. Potatoes are also a lot easier to plant and harvest by machine. Lawns don't make any economic sense; convert them to leafy greens and fancy perennials that are not economic to grow at a scale. Deliver greens to your neighborhood via bike. They are light. Sell them to fancy…

> Lawns don't make any economic sense;

Yes, they do; the fact (if this is the case) that you don't personally gain utility from them doesn't mean they don't make economic sense, neither does.the fact that they generally aren't part of the production chain for a product for sale.

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

#79

Post by maxerickson »

gyrgtyn wrote: post #76
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…

I think it makes sense for fragile veggies like greens. Potatoes do fine on the truck ride in from the countryside, but baby arugula, not so much. Potatoes are also a lot easier to plant and harvest by machine. Lawns don't make any economic sense; convert them to leafy greens and fancy perennials that are not economic to grow at a scale. Deliver greens to your neighborhood via bike. They are light. Sell them to fancy…

Staple crops mostly wind/self pollinate.

(corn, wheat, soy, others)

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

#80

Post by xenihn »

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…

We prey on eachother.
Post reply on HN