Futurology

1776 readers

189 users here now

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

voidx@futurology.today

Lugh@futurology.today

Espiritdescali@futurology.today

AwesomeLowlander@futurology.today

With 'electro-agriculture,' plants can produce food in the dark and with 94% less land, bioengineers say. (www.sciencedaily.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by Lugh@futurology.today to c/futurology@futurology.today

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Lugh@futurology.today 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Some people's reaction to this proposal might be to wonder why bother? We already have a functional agriculture system using sunlight that's been working for several thousand years. But there is a lot to be said for improving on it.

This approach could grow many foods where they can't currently be grown. Thus we could localize food production, and decentralize it. This could vastly reduce the waste of food transport. Furthermore, pollution from pesticides could be vastly reduced. It also allows us to think about rewilding huge swathes of our environments. Finally, this is an approach amenable to full automation. Ultimately that will reduce the price of food and its availability. Who knows, several decades from now, the standard way to produce food may be via indoor methods tended to by robot farmers.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

You missed the big one, which they empasise themselves: plants are really power-inefficient. They've already quadrupled it with their acetate-producing reaction from 1% to 4%. Meanwhile, solar cells can be 30-40% efficient. That means you can feed a lot more people with a lot less resources.

In a way, it's like the agricultural revolution happening all over again - we go down another trophic level, and now humans are the autotrophs. Apparently they've already gotten this method to work with mushrooms.

[–] Lugh@futurology.today 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes, I also forgot to mention this tech is a safeguard against supply-side shocks. like with wheat after Russia attacked Ukraine.

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Perhaps it can be scaled down easily to something that fits in a home. It could be a fridge sized machine that's hooked up to power and water and keeps producing fresh food. That'll cut out the middlemen.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 weeks ago

That would be dope, especially in places like where I live that are difficult to supply fresh produce to. Right now I just have to settle for a basement greenhouse.

I feel the need to point out this is way more expensive upfront than a patch of dirt, though, so we're not going to make the switch overnight even if it's earns itself back easily in the long run.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

A field costs next to nothing to use. Setting up and maintaining a vertical farming setup already is not competitive. Add another layer of complexity with DNA engineering etc. and how exactly is it suddenly supposed to be competitive?

The nonsense 94 % number can go right down the toilet. If I plant my stuff on the side of a building it needs no space at all. If I put the vertical farming flat on the ground it's a bit less. If I put it in the highest possible building or underground it's essentially zero again. The number is useless because it is arbitrary.