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

The rise of the robot farmer

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 187 posts

Re: The rise of the robot farmer

#51

Post by nradov »

neuromantik8086 wrote: post #22
wolfram74 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the one person in the state would get two senators and a representative, so that's one thing to consider.

That's why I'd be in favor of making vertical farming more prevalent- by making farmers physically closer to the coastal cities they serve the rural areas will be starved economically. At this point in time, it's my conviction that retribution for the present tyranny of the minority will best come through technological means rather than warfare or politics.

Vertical farming is a pipe dream for everything but specialized high-margin produce. There's just not enough space to grow staple crops in coastal cities. Those volume crops will always be grown in large open areas and then hauled in to population centers. And no, improvements in solar cell efficiency or whatever won't change that equation.

Re: The rise of the robot farmer

#52

Post by boomboomsubban »

knieveltech wrote: post #24
clarkmoody wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In theory. In practice, this has lead to collapse of rural economies, rampant poverty, and epidemic drug usage amongst rural populations. As to driving food costs down, that's trivially disprovable. Loaf of bread in 1950: 12 cents. Adjusted for inflation that's $1.26 currently. A cheap loaf of white bread costs substantially more than $1.26. Edit: of course this gets downvoted, because econ gibberish is certainly mor…

Your observed reality knows the price of bread in 1950, the price adjusted for inflation, but not the current price.

Re: The rise of the robot farmer

#53

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

tdb7893 wrote: post #21
kevmo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How do you link machines to bondage? If you look at slavery from Sparta to the American South it's often had a large component of agricultural labor. Even things like serfdom where the serfs were nominally free but tied to working the land it they were doing agricultural work.

You're not wrong. But, human history goes back roughly 200,000 years. Slavery can only be dated back to 1860 BCE.

One could argue that the "bondage curve" -- if there is one -- is parabolic. I.E. human bondage peeked sometime during the Atlantic Slave Trade and has been going down ever since.

One could also argue that -- before modern machinery -- humans existed for nearly 200,000 years with no documented form of bondage.

I'm assuming (I don't know) the OP is referring to what some people call "modern slavery" -- in that the majority of the workforce has 0 social mobility. I think it's pretty absurd when people compare this to slavery during the Atlantic Slave Trade, but it happens.

Re: The rise of the robot farmer

#54

Post by nradov »

otakucode wrote: post #44

I eagerly await the introduction of fully automated farming. Not, however, on farms. In my own garage. I see no reason I should simply let a "farmer" purchase the automation gear and then collect profit after wasting tons of energy in transportation. There's dirt, water, and sun at my house. There's no reason a robotic farming situation couldn't be shrunk down and made into something private individuals or small fami…

There's nothing stopping you from planting a garden today. It's not a huge amount of work, and any robots that become available in the next few years will only marginally reduce that labor.

Re: The rise of the robot farmer

#55

Post by philipkglass »

thruflo22 wrote: post #34

I’m co-founder of the “space bots with lasers” company. Happy to answer any questions.

What precautions do you need to maintain eye safety around these bots?

Can lasers kill weeds at the root, or do you just keep them "mowed" down to size with repeated applications?

Re: The rise of the robot farmer

#57

Post by dbcurtis »

ergothus wrote: post #23
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.

I joined an AgTech firm 3 years ago - this is my commentary, not the view of my company or anyone else there. > I actually assume farmers are very welcoming of technology. The answer (at least in my experience) is a bit more complicated. > Usually technology makes them more efficient and more money. ...because this sentence isn't really true. Yes, farmers are hard workers and if they aren't adequate at business they…

Spot on.

It's very simple. Farming is a business with very high capital requirements and very thin margins. If you can move the needle on margins, it is a huge win, and farmers will be all over it. All you have to do is prove that you move the needle on margins. Any person managing such a business is going to ask for very solid proof that your new technology pencils out.

Re: The rise of the robot farmer

#58

Post by anigbrowl »

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

But what if they don't want to? Yay for consumers but throwing people into economic limbo is a Bad Thing. That's like looking for the next record-breaking swimmer by randomly throwing kids into swimming pools.

Re: The rise of the robot farmer

#59

Post by nathan_long »

bluGill wrote: post #38
tda wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

managing giant monocultures with a few giant machines (that may or may not be human controlled) is not what this article is about; it is about the huge potential that smallish robots have for farming. More diverse crops, less pesticides, less damage to soil, less energy use, mixed instead of mono cultures. Really exciting if this takes off, such a win for the environment, the landscape, and ultimately for everyone of…

Unlike what you would expect, small robots do more damage to the soil not less. Damage to soil is not linear with mass, A massive robot will do twice as much damage where it touches the ground (wheel tracks most likely, but there are other choices), but it will touch 10 times less ground to do the same work so the total averaged over all the land is much better. For the same reason, tracks generally end up doing more…

I don't understand your comment. Suppose the robot is the size of a person or smaller. Does a person damage the ground by walking across a field?

Re: The rise of the robot farmer

#60

Post by deepnotderp »

knieveltech wrote: post #24
clarkmoody wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In theory. In practice, this has lead to collapse of rural economies, rampant poverty, and epidemic drug usage amongst rural populations. As to driving food costs down, that's trivially disprovable. Loaf of bread in 1950: 12 cents. Adjusted for inflation that's $1.26 currently. A cheap loaf of white bread costs substantially more than $1.26. Edit: of course this gets downvoted, because econ gibberish is certainly mor…

He actually seems to have something of a point:

https://seekingalpha.com/article/92689-over-the-past-100-yea...

Note in figure 3 the gains since 1950 have been a lot less than from 1920 to 1950. 1950s and afterwards the gains have been a lot less.

Post reply on HN