The rise of the robot farmer • Hacker News Board

Re: The rise of the robot farmer

#11

Post by tomatotomato37 » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:45 PM UTC

pwaivers wrote: post #6

> This is the one note of darkness that enters an otherwise optimistic conversation. “This technology could be used in a completely different way,” he says. “You could have entire states in America with no people in them. The potential for what we’re doing to be used in the wrong way is there.” What is inherently wrong or evil about this? If we could automate a state-size farm to feed everyone, isn't that a good thin…

There's nothing morally wrong with it, but our current government systems aren't built for a few corporate entites (because there's no way this is downscalable to small family farms) essentially owning both entire states and the majority of the nation's food production. That's one merecenary army away from corporate nation-states

Re: The rise of the robot farmer

#12

Post by clarkmoody » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:46 PM UTC

rmason wrote: post #9

In Michigan we've already got family farms with a man, two sons and a single employee handling 10,000 acres. Robots driving tractors, trucks and combines would allow that to expand 5-6X. In turn that would lead to a reduction in farmers of up to 80%. This is a trend that has been running for close to a hundred years. Remember at one time a quarter of America's population were farmers and now it's under 2%.

The immense productivity gains in agriculture have driven down food costs, which improves the standard of living of everyone. It also frees up those who would have worked farm jobs to do higher-valued labor in the economy.

Re: The rise of the robot farmer

#13

Post by kevmo » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:48 PM UTC

pwaivers wrote: post #6

> This is the one note of darkness that enters an otherwise optimistic conversation. “This technology could be used in a completely different way,” he says. “You could have entire states in America with no people in them. The potential for what we’re doing to be used in the wrong way is there.” What is inherently wrong or evil about this? If we could automate a state-size farm to feed everyone, isn't that a good thin…

Feeding everyone is, of course, a good thing.

But to have a state with no people in it implies that people would not be allowed to enter it, i.e. it would represent huge swathes of natural resources wherein some smaller group of people would be keeping the general public out by virtue of it being private property. Forcing people off of land and into cities, thus forcing them to buy food with labor, is one of the primary means by humanity has been subverted from achieving its real potential. Empirically, the rise of more efficient machines has often been deeply linked to human bondage.

Re: The rise of the robot farmer

#14

Post by ska » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:50 PM UTC

pwaivers wrote: post #5

> “I expected farmers to be quite luddite about the adoption of new technology,” he [Ben Scott-Robinson] says, as he packs Rachel away. I actually assume farmers are very welcoming of technology. They are hard workers and good business men. Usually technology makes them more efficient and more money.

   Usually technology makes them more efficient and more money.

Efficient, yes (and often they will fail as businesses if they don't do this). And someone makes more money, sure - but it isn't always the farmer.

Re: The rise of the robot farmer

#15

Post by dang » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:52 PM UTC

ihuman wrote: post #2

OP's link goes to a comment. Here is a fixed link: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/20/space-ro...

Fixed now. Thanks!

The comment was https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/20/space-ro... if anyone's curious.

Re: The rise of the robot farmer

#16

Post by geow » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:55 PM UTC

pwaivers wrote: post #6

> This is the one note of darkness that enters an otherwise optimistic conversation. “This technology could be used in a completely different way,” he says. “You could have entire states in America with no people in them. The potential for what we’re doing to be used in the wrong way is there.” What is inherently wrong or evil about this? If we could automate a state-size farm to feed everyone, isn't that a good thin…

The problem is that "we" would eventually be "Amazon Monsanto Corporation". People can accept inequality when it is somewhat plausible that it is necessary, but transitioning to what would essentially be a kingdom would be a challenge for a lot of countries.

Re: The rise of the robot farmer

#17

Post by radiorental » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:56 PM UTC

clarkmoody wrote: post #12

rmason wrote: post #9

In Michigan we've already got family farms with a man, two sons and a single employee handling 10,000 acres. Robots driving tractors, trucks and combines would allow that to expand 5-6X. In turn that would lead to a reduction in farmers of up to 80%. This is a trend that has been running for close to a hundred years. Remember at one time a quarter of America's population were farmers and now it's under 2%.

The immense productivity gains in agriculture have driven down food costs, which improves the standard of living of everyone. It also frees up those who would have worked farm jobs to do higher-valued labor in the economy.

> frees up those who would have worked farm jobs to do higher-valued labor in the economy

That's the ideal, in reality too many of these people live in areas where there are no other opportunities. They are also often fed the line that the job can be brought back.

Put simply, we've observed generational shifts to higher-valued jobs in urban areas. A farmer, coal miner , etc who loses their job today is unlikely to re-skill & move to other industries

Re: The rise of the robot farmer

#18

Post by ChuckMcM » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:57 PM UTC

pwaivers wrote: post #6

> This is the one note of darkness that enters an otherwise optimistic conversation. “This technology could be used in a completely different way,” he says. “You could have entire states in America with no people in them. The potential for what we’re doing to be used in the wrong way is there.” What is inherently wrong or evil about this? If we could automate a state-size farm to feed everyone, isn't that a good thin…

It is an interesting exercise to imagine a state sized "farm state". Essentially you'd have one city (the capital of the state) consisting of folks who administered the state, people who maintained farm equipment, farm operators, and a police force for patrolling the state to protect the farms from people who might trespass or try to steal crops. "Farmers" would likely be more like DevOps folks who would sit in an office with a few dozen screens showing the equipment status, perhaps views from the various pieces of equipment as it was driving around the various plots, maintenance status, etc.

Efficient, pleasant, and dystopian all that the same time.

Re: The rise of the robot farmer

#19

Post by the-pigeon » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:57 PM UTC

uxhack wrote: post #4

ihuman wrote: post #2

OP's link goes to a comment. Here is a fixed link: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/20/space-ro...

I think op wanted to point out the comment that was saying how impossible picking grapes would be by ai.

Bah. Difficult is the word. When someone says something is impossible is just means they don't know how to solve the problem.

Re: The rise of the robot farmer

#20

Post by trhway » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:57 PM UTC

kevmo wrote: post #13

pwaivers wrote: post #6

> This is the one note of darkness that enters an otherwise optimistic conversation. “This technology could be used in a completely different way,” he says. “You could have entire states in America with no people in them. The potential for what we’re doing to be used in the wrong way is there.” What is inherently wrong or evil about this? If we could automate a state-size farm to feed everyone, isn't that a good thin…

Feeding everyone is, of course, a good thing. But to have a state with no people in it implies that people would not be allowed to enter it, i.e. it would represent huge swathes of natural resources wherein some smaller group of people would be keeping the general public out by virtue of it being private property. Forcing people off of land and into cities, thus forcing them to buy food with labor, is one of the prim…

>Forcing people off of land and into cities, thus forcing them to buy food with labor, is one of the primary means by humanity has been subverted from achieving its real potential.

it is completely opposite. The fact that people can get a food to eat in exchange for the product of their thinking instead of being forced to work in the fields doing manual labor is what has been driving our civilization forward. An ancient/medieval agricultural village would have no use for Einstein whereis the modern city based technology civilization was happy to feed him just for Gedanken experiments.