Vertical Farming......

[CaleyD]

Clicky Clicky

Every now and then I happen upon something that sets me thinking.

Some thoughts.....

- Whilst they look like a great idea in principle, the areas which would benefit most by having them would be the densely populated and already built up parts of the globe.  The areas that are so thick with smog that people can't even get plants in a window box to grow, let alone a 21-story farm full of vegetables etc.

- Fully automated multi-story farms right on your doorstep....how many jobs will they cost?

- Will they diminish the importance placed on existing farm and green areas and pave the way for greedy developers to come in and destroy even larger areas with horrendous buildings?

- Will they be more fashionable and status serving than necessary?

- Would money spent on these be a better investment that the millions paid in subsidies to farmers every year?

- Could the technology be used to improve things in the third world?

- Would the technology be used to improve things in the third world?

I'm all for progress, but I think we sometimes have to look at the reasons/incentives for development.  I found it quite disturbing that in the article they seemed more concerned about reducing the cost of something in a posh deli than looking beyond their own selfish needs to where these things could make a real difference.

[Kingsmills]

There's no doubt that the world has a whole is goung to have to find novel ways of producing more food in a safe and dependable way in the face of changing weather patterns and growing polulation.

[CaleyD]

God forbid they actually make any real effort to fix the problem instead of coming up with excuses and initiatives which allow them to ignore it even more.

[Kingsmills]

You're right, as long as the problem is predominately asian, african or south american the west is unlikely to commit much in the way of resourses unless some private organisations perceive a profit to be made.

It's only if the problem begins to impinge on first world countries that any serious effort will be made.

[absent friend]

Seems a strange subject when we are paying farmers for set aside ( leaving land without a crop being grown)

[Charles Bannerman]

On the grander scheme of things, erections like this are simply f@rting into the wind. It would take an incredibly large number of them at stupendous cost to create even a tiny increase in the planet's total area of cultivable land.

And if there is a shortage of land in relation to the number of people that need fed, how the h?ll are they going to find the space for these much publicised "conscience savers"... the trees which people are meant to feel guilty enough to plant every time they disembark from a plane. Add to this the space needed to grow "biodiesel" and a land shortage soon builds up. Indeed food prices are already beginning to increase, apparently because of a shortage of land since so many green bandwagon drivers are using it to grow biodiesel plants.

A lot of this biodiesel stuff is just a huge con since for that to have any effect you have to assume that there is a limitless supply of land on which to grow more green material - which there isn't.

This whole "carbon" issue is beginning to become just a bit silly with far too many people jumping on the bandwagon to try to make a quick buck or build up a reputation.

Here are one or two suggestions if you want to save the planet.

1) Don't reproduce. The ultimate cause of CO2 emissions is PEOPLE, so the problem really is the fault of folk like Al Gore who has procreated all of FOUR CO2 producing children. The condom will save us!

2) Don't do your garden or cut your grass because doing so reduces the capacity of the planet to photosynthesise.

3) Send the entire management corps of Ryanair back to the building site.