Sunshine@piefed.ca to Canada@lemmy.caEnglish · 4 days agoFood too expensive? It’s time for public grocery storesbriarpatchmagazine.comexternal-linkmessage-square64fedilinkarrow-up1290arrow-down13
arrow-up1287arrow-down1external-linkFood too expensive? It’s time for public grocery storesbriarpatchmagazine.comSunshine@piefed.ca to Canada@lemmy.caEnglish · 4 days agomessage-square64fedilink
minus-squareCanaconda@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down4·4 days agohttps://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.
minus-squareBlameThePeacock@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6arrow-down2·4 days agoYour 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.
minus-squareCanaconda@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down5·edit-24 days agoYou’re the one inserting the assumption that this has to become the only source of food for people. I said: or source through a local network. If you can’t read those words and comprehend them than why would I consider anything you have to say?
minus-squareBlameThePeacock@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7arrow-down3·4 days agoWhat 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.
minus-squaregrindemup@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up5arrow-down1·4 days agoYou seem to be assuming that this idea would have to solve all food consumed by everyone. No one is making that assumption except for you.
minus-squareCanaconda@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down1·3 days agoThank you. I’m literally just trying to fix food banks not having enough food and a handful of people are insisting I’ve suggested this will replace Loblaws.
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.
You seem to be assuming that this idea would have to solve all food consumed by everyone. No one is making that assumption except for you.
Thank you. I’m literally just trying to fix food banks not having enough food and a handful of people are insisting I’ve suggested this will replace Loblaws.