171–180 of 216 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every* food is processed food the amount of processing varies.
Does that apply to to self-harvested apples and berries, too? Is washing them with water a process which changes their structure and composition of nutrients? Less proteins because of less bugs and worms?
"but there are substantial areas of future work." Well, yes. Most plant mass comes from air and water, not the ground. Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen all come from the atmosphere. This is why farms don't dig themselves into the ground. If air and water can be made from asteroids, that's most of the raw materials problem by quantity. Hydroponics already works. Direct synthesis of food from hydrocarbons has nev…
Reduced organic compounds, like hydrocarbons, are not food for plants, but for fungi or similar organisms, which, like humans, need only dioxygen from the atmosphere.
There already are genetically-modified fungi that can produce the complete proteins required by humans (i.e. whey proteins or egg-white proteins) when fed with cheap carbohydrates and ammonia or a simple amino-acid. There are also fungi that can feed on hydrocarbons.
Creating genetically-modified fungi able to feed on hydrocarbons and produce glucose and proteins for human consumption is not far from the already existing technology. With a serious effort in this direction, this could be solved in a decade or so. The glucose and proteins produced by fungi would be used not only for direct consumption, but also for feeding other microbial cultures that are needed for producing vitamins and essential fatty acids, using the techniques that are already in use today for this purpose.
"but there are substantial areas of future work." Well, yes. Most plant mass comes from air and water, not the ground. Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen all come from the atmosphere. This is why farms don't dig themselves into the ground. If air and water can be made from asteroids, that's most of the raw materials problem by quantity. Hydroponics already works. Direct synthesis of food from hydrocarbons has nev…
> Hydroponics already works. I read something on wired last year on why urban vertical farming never really took off, and one of the reasons was, if I remember, that these kind of environments increase the likelihood of plant disease and the density makes it difficult to arrest any spread. So, I'm not too sure that hydroponics at scale is completely solved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Hydroponics already works. I read something on wired last year on why urban vertical farming never really took off, and one of the reasons was, if I remember, that these kind of environments increase the likelihood of plant disease and the density makes it difficult to arrest any spread. So, I'm not too sure that hydroponics at scale is completely solved.
It's a price problem, not a technical one
Is this a distinction without a difference, or am I missing something?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Hydroponics already works. I read something on wired last year on why urban vertical farming never really took off, and one of the reasons was, if I remember, that these kind of environments increase the likelihood of plant disease and the density makes it difficult to arrest any spread. So, I'm not too sure that hydroponics at scale is completely solved.
It's a price problem, not a technical one
The title is "How we can mine asteroids for space food" not "We can mine asteroids for space food." This seems like a pretty major difference to me on a site that suggests against editorializing titles.
Same with leading numbers, e.g. "10 Ways to Do X" automatically becomes "Ways to Do X".
"but there are substantial areas of future work." Well, yes. Most plant mass comes from air and water, not the ground. Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen all come from the atmosphere. This is why farms don't dig themselves into the ground. If air and water can be made from asteroids, that's most of the raw materials problem by quantity. Hydroponics already works. Direct synthesis of food from hydrocarbons has nev…
> Hydroponics already works. I read something on wired last year on why urban vertical farming never really took off, and one of the reasons was, if I remember, that these kind of environments increase the likelihood of plant disease and the density makes it difficult to arrest any spread. So, I'm not too sure that hydroponics at scale is completely solved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a price problem, not a technical one
Um. Doesn't technological innovation often make things cheaper? Is this a distinction without a difference, or am I missing something?
"cheaper than before" usually yes.
But we are talking about different production methods, maybe hydroponics could never be cheaper than growing stuff in dirt because the production method can be optimized only so much.
An "advanced" (different) production methods is not inherently cheaper than a "traditional" method.
I suppose the next step beyond vegetarianism and veganism will be mineralism: Food using molecules certified never to have been part of any known living organism. I remember there was a fictional advertisement for such a product in a sci-fi story, but not exactly where.
veganism is about reducing suffering to a practical extend. no vegan is ditching transportation or plastic because it may contain by-products of the animal industry... thus if one day we can make food out of minerals, for sure that would be vegan; although i can't see ANY harm done to a fruit tree or a soybean/corn that dries out because of its short life cycle being a 'bad thing' but maybe minerals based food will a…
There is genuine debate around whether plants suffer. The answer seems to be “no,” at least not in a way we’d recognise as suffering. But that ambiguity is more than enough to spawn a movement. Ethically-harvested honey doesn’t harm bees, for instance, and family dairies can blur the line between animal husbandry and petkeeping.