Sorry, we’d rather keep paving over farmland to make unaffordable mcmansions because our leaders cannot fathom a country that is self sufficient where values aren’t constantly increasing
It is a solution in search of a problem. And it would create far more expensive problems than it proposes to solve. The Soviets already did this kind of thing–the same Soviets who deliberately starved millions to death with manufactured food shortages.
Is there a name for the fallacy that something is doomed to fail just because some quasi-communist state tried to implement something similar at some point?
The fallacy is failing to understand the authoritarian spirit behind purported ‘humanitarian’ causes, especially those that involve using the deadly force of the state for funding. People who worship the idol of political power are generally lacking awareness of their own desire to boss others around. Failing to learn from history is part and parcel of the matter. Giving government ubiquitous control over the food supply has one result, and history has proved it a hundred times over. Complain all you want about greed in the market–government is near infinitely greedier.
Alright friend, OP certainly never implied “giving government ubiquitous control over the food supply” by any means, so at least this is clearly a simple case of strawman fallacy.
edit: like if you think about it for literally more than two seconds, you’ll realize that OP’s idea involved building capacity amongst the general population for horticulture, something which fundamentally opposes the idea of giving government ubiquitous control.
The school cafeterias could remain open 24/7 for everyone. Sure, taxes would go up about 50% or so, but free sloppy joes would be well worth it, amirite?
A) is just rediculous, the space required to feed even a suburban block is orders of magnitude more than a greenhouse onsite could provide. It may be able to grow enough herbs, but that’s about it.
I just replied to your other comment, but even a local network can’t feed a city. Let’s do some more math.
Los Angeles has about 18 million people, and on average they take about 2 acres of land to feed (it can be less for vegetarians, but lets assume they are just normal people here)
That’s 36 million acres needed, which is about 56,000 square miles, which is an area of 280 miles by 200 miles of nothing but farmland.
You quite literally can’t even feed Los Angles with a 100 mile diet, even if it was surrounded by nothing but farms (which it isn’t)
In fact, California only has about 25 million acres of farmland in total (8 million irrigated, and the rest for animal grazing)
Source local food sounds good, but we import food for a reason. Cities require a ridiculous amount of farm land to feed.
You could have 5 floors, and it still wouldn’t be enough. You could have 30 floors and it wouldn’t be enough.
I don’t think you understand the scale of farming to human. Even if you’re entirely vegetarian it’s on the order of 0.5-1 acre per person to grow the required food. That’s 20,000-40,000 square feet. Even if hydroponics were involved and cut that by a factor of 10, you’d still be at 2000 square feet per person. A typical grocery store is 25-50,000 square feet, so let’s go with the most generous and say 5 floors of 50,000 square feet you could produce enough food for… 125 people.
The math doesn’t math. No reasonable amount of food growth is ever going to be possible inside a city.
No I have an idea to fix food bank shortages, while creating jobs and teaching practical skills. The shortage that occurred collectively in your brains I have nothing for.
Look, I’m all for making the world a better place. So here’s my 2c, from somebody who’s tried and done it in a small manner. You’ll need allies, partners. You’ll face a lot of doubt and questions. If you meet it all with outright hostility, you’re never going to get very far. Sure, we’re all online randos, but if you can’t muster a decent argument with all the time in the world, you’re going to have a hard time persuading anybody in the real world.
It’s a nice utopian idea, but it just doesn’t do anything. The aquaponics and greenhouse are just a bad utilization of such prime real estate space, the amount of food produced would be so low as to be a rounding error for the food they would still need to import and you could use that same floor space to house hundreds of more people.
Go look at my comment from a few minutes ago showing the production math for 5 stories of hydroponics.
Aquaponics also has an issue with nutrient density so you would need more volume than traditional soil growing methods to create the same volume of nutrition.
IMO every city should have public cafeterias that:
A) Grow / process ingredients onsite (greenhouse), or source through a local network.
B) Provide nutritional food free of charge
C) Create entry level jobs that teach practical skills such as cooking and horticulture.
D) Increase food security. Global agriculture supply chains are about to be completely disrupted by climate change.
Sorry, we’d rather keep paving over farmland to make unaffordable mcmansions because our leaders cannot fathom a country that is self sufficient where values aren’t constantly increasing
Or allowing our wealthiest to buy up all the farmland so they have complete control of everything…like a feudal king.
B-bbut where will we put all the over priced shoeboxes for better offs from out of town to party in?
@Sunshine@piefed.ca
What you propose has existed for decades. See the link:
https://www.fns.usda.gov/summer/sitefinder
Only available for children in the summer… I don’t think this isn’t the solution being proposed.
It is a solution in search of a problem. And it would create far more expensive problems than it proposes to solve. The Soviets already did this kind of thing–the same Soviets who deliberately starved millions to death with manufactured food shortages.
Is there a name for the fallacy that something is doomed to fail just because some quasi-communist state tried to implement something similar at some point?
The fallacy is failing to understand the authoritarian spirit behind purported ‘humanitarian’ causes, especially those that involve using the deadly force of the state for funding. People who worship the idol of political power are generally lacking awareness of their own desire to boss others around. Failing to learn from history is part and parcel of the matter. Giving government ubiquitous control over the food supply has one result, and history has proved it a hundred times over. Complain all you want about greed in the market–government is near infinitely greedier.
Alright friend, OP certainly never implied “giving government ubiquitous control over the food supply” by any means, so at least this is clearly a simple case of strawman fallacy.
edit: like if you think about it for literally more than two seconds, you’ll realize that OP’s idea involved building capacity amongst the general population for horticulture, something which fundamentally opposes the idea of giving government ubiquitous control.
Our local school opened up one of these programs during the pandemic. It’s a blessing but it only is for kids and only lasts 8 weeks during the summer
Lol. Welcome to ‘growing seasons’
@TORFdot0@lemmy.world
The school cafeterias could remain open 24/7 for everyone. Sure, taxes would go up about 50% or so, but free sloppy joes would be well worth it, amirite?
Our society lacks sufficient trust to have something work like this.
Also, there certainly going to be negative externalities when mixing kids with the poor.
I doubt anyone would sign on this security wise. Schools are already border line prison conditions in the US.
A) is just rediculous, the space required to feed even a suburban block is orders of magnitude more than a greenhouse onsite could provide. It may be able to grow enough herbs, but that’s about it.
I’m fine with the rest of the idea.
I just replied to your other comment, but even a local network can’t feed a city. Let’s do some more math.
Los Angeles has about 18 million people, and on average they take about 2 acres of land to feed (it can be less for vegetarians, but lets assume they are just normal people here)
That’s 36 million acres needed, which is about 56,000 square miles, which is an area of 280 miles by 200 miles of nothing but farmland.
You quite literally can’t even feed Los Angles with a 100 mile diet, even if it was surrounded by nothing but farms (which it isn’t)
In fact, California only has about 25 million acres of farmland in total (8 million irrigated, and the rest for animal grazing)
Source local food sounds good, but we import food for a reason. Cities require a ridiculous amount of farm land to feed.
What you said:
What I said:
We’re not talking about the same thing. You’re arguing with yourself.
I’ve never been to a cafeteria with a bigger footprint than the average grocery store.
Ground floor is the community grocery, and the next 3-5 floors are a hydroponics farm. It’s really not that ridiculous.
You could have 5 floors, and it still wouldn’t be enough. You could have 30 floors and it wouldn’t be enough.
I don’t think you understand the scale of farming to human. Even if you’re entirely vegetarian it’s on the order of 0.5-1 acre per person to grow the required food. That’s 20,000-40,000 square feet. Even if hydroponics were involved and cut that by a factor of 10, you’d still be at 2000 square feet per person. A typical grocery store is 25-50,000 square feet, so let’s go with the most generous and say 5 floors of 50,000 square feet you could produce enough food for… 125 people.
The math doesn’t math. No reasonable amount of food growth is ever going to be possible inside a city.
What you said:
What I said:
We’re not talking about the same thing. You’re arguing with yourself.
Replace grocery store with cafeteria, do you have an actual argument or are you just nitpicking?
No I have an idea to fix food bank shortages, while creating jobs and teaching practical skills. The shortage that occurred collectively in your brains I have nothing for.
Look, I’m all for making the world a better place. So here’s my 2c, from somebody who’s tried and done it in a small manner. You’ll need allies, partners. You’ll face a lot of doubt and questions. If you meet it all with outright hostility, you’re never going to get very far. Sure, we’re all online randos, but if you can’t muster a decent argument with all the time in the world, you’re going to have a hard time persuading anybody in the real world.
And what part of that comment was indented to make me an ally or not perceive you as outrightly hostile?
Cute adhominim at the end there. Couldn’t resist could you? Ya hypocrite.
My vision is
Ground floor: Cafeteria / service kitchen
2nd Floor: Production Kitchen / food packaging
3rd Floor : Aquaponics & fertigation
4+ : greenhouse.
It’s a nice utopian idea, but it just doesn’t do anything. The aquaponics and greenhouse are just a bad utilization of such prime real estate space, the amount of food produced would be so low as to be a rounding error for the food they would still need to import and you could use that same floor space to house hundreds of more people.
Go look at my comment from a few minutes ago showing the production math for 5 stories of hydroponics.
Aquaponics also has an issue with nutrient density so you would need more volume than traditional soil growing methods to create the same volume of nutrition.
https://www.edengreen.com/blog-collection/vertical-farming-crop-yield-per-acre
We’re talking about 2 different things. I have zero interest in debunking all your strawmans and assumptions about a completely different concept.
Your article says it’s 40:1 instead of the 10:1 I assumed, but that’s still far too little to matter.
Your two floors of farming would still feed less than a hundred people full time, even if they hit those lofty idea targets.
You’re the one inserting the assumption that this has to become the only source of food for people.
I said:
If you can’t read those words and comprehend them than why would I consider anything you have to say?
What the fuck does local mean? I just showed you the math that even Los Angeles alone consumes more food than you can possibly grow in California.
You’re the one fucking around with “I want a greenhouse above my grocery store” with no real proof that it would matter or be a good use of space.