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

81–89 of 89 posts

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

#81

Post by djrogers »

ucaetano wrote: post #58
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...

> obsolete and wasteful supply chains

Well, that and outright theft by warlords with AK47s and thugs riding around in trucks...

[1]http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44147002/ns/world_news-africa/t/so...

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

#82

Post by thatcat »

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?

Locally, definitely. If urban heat island effects are a problem then co2 displacement would be beneficial. There is also the future possibility of processing waste streams locally and using that.

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

#83

Post by thatcat »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #74
vanattab wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Assuming you're not converting some dense residential zoned area into a garden and no one moves away due to their dislike of hydroponics, I don't think it's going to tangibly effect traffic rates which are show to fluctuate based on availability. Ie. after reaching a certain point of urban density; if you increase the availability of the road (by widening it for example), you'll increase the number of people driving such that the availability is reduced again.

If you want to reduce traffic and co2 further while increasing livable, walkable space in dense urban areas - then that can be accomplished by reducing the width of the roads.

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

#84

Post by rexpop »

rexpop wrote: post #69
at-fates-hands wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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 fro…

> what's to stop you from being in that 1%? You wrote this like it were a rhetorical question, but let's talk about social mobility. Wikipedia[1] will tell you that it's "movement of individuals... between social strata." Surely you'll agree that "the 1%" is a prime example of a social stratum, and that becoming a member of that stratum is a clear movement. Obstacles lie between them. To overcome these obstacles one…

https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-14...

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

#85

Post by aaron695 »

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…

Yes, and the carbon footprint is huge (An even longer commute to drive past farms in the middle of the city)

But if it makes people happy, it might be worth it.

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

#86

Post by lostlogin »

AJ007 wrote: post #73
adrianN wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Given that 21% ish of the population is under 16, that leaves a total of just under half the population doing any paid work. This seems surprisingly low to me.

https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf

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

#87

Post by Inthenameofmine »

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…

On empty plots, yes it makes no sense. On rooftops with greenhouses it adds the benefit of additional insulation. That alone is already enough to make it worth it.

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

#88

Post by Inthenameofmine »

dragonwriter wrote: post #78
gyrgtyn wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

US style lawns definitely don't make economic sense. That stuff only happened because of cheap energy, which in term is artificially cheaper/subsidized due to not including negative externalities. In Europe lawns don;t make sense, Asia neither.

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

#89

Post by pavel_lishin »

thatcat wrote: post #83
pavel_lishin wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Assuming you're not converting some dense residential zoned area into a garden and no one moves away due to their dislike of hydroponics, I don't think it's going to tangibly effect traffic rates which are show to fluctuate based on availability. Ie. after reaching a certain point of urban density; if you increase the availability of the road (by widening it for example), you'll increase the number of people driving…

The idea is that everything comes with an opportunity cost - do you build a garden, or do you build more apartments?

The traffic comes from the fact that every family not living in the city, but living near it, ends up commuting there anyway.

Post reply on HN