Slashdot Mirror


Startup Testing Mobile Farmbots

An anonymous reader writes "Wired reports on Harvest Automation, a Massachusetts company developing small robots that can perform basic agricultural labor. The ones currently being tested in greenhouses and plant nurseries are 'knee-high, wheeled machines.' 'Each robot has a gripper for grasping pots, a deck for carrying pots, and an array of sensors to keep track of where it is and what's around it. Teams of robots zip around nursery fields, single-mindedly spacing and grouping plants. Key to making the robots flexible and cost-effective is designing them to work only with information provided by their sensors. They don't construct a global map of their environment, and they don't use GPS. The robots have sensors that detect boundary markers, a laser range finder to detect objects in front of them, and a gyroscope for navigating by dead reckoning. The robots determine how far they've traveled by keeping track of wheel rotations.'"

243 comments

  1. This would solve... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    ...a whole lot of U.S. immigration problems.

    1. Re:This would solve... by wanzeo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, something like this can't really take off precisely because of cheap labor. Cheap bots will only be capable of limited tasks while requiring close supervision, and expensive ones will cost much more than a minimum wage laborer.

      Not too long ago I was looking into what it would cost to build a (nearly) fully automated greenhouse. The problem is, no matter how efficient or clever your system is, you simply cannot compete with the cost of human labor at the very bottom of the skills spectrum.

      It is frustrating, because it seems like we should automate the more basic and repetitive tasks first, but in a market based economy, is simply isn't, well, economical.

    2. Re:This would solve... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wetbacks are cheaper

    3. Re:This would solve... by xmorg · · Score: 1

      DER took ERE JERRB1!!!!!

    4. Re:This would solve... by benjamindees · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is, no matter how efficient or clever your system is, you simply cannot compete with the cost of human labor at the very bottom of the skills spectrum.

      Completely true. When the "cost" of a human is perhaps a few hundred dollars, beneficial technologies wither on the vine as our living standards fall trying to "compete". That is exactly what we are witnessing right now -- a race to the bottom.

      in a market based economy, is simply isn't, well, economical.

      A market economy can't exist without sensible government regulation of negative externalities. Immigrants are a negative externality. The US government has completely failed to regulate it.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    5. Re:This would solve... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not everyone who does that work hates it. put them in office work or standing on their feet all day not moving around, and dealing with customerbots and managerdroids...not good. it can be hard, tedious. but so is spreading tar on roofs, flosting cement, or working in a slaughter house. I know what I'd pick before those jobs...

    6. Re:This would solve... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Depends on the farm. A smaller farm owned by a family might be best off with some bots like this, assuming a reasonable price. Hiring people is expensive. Employee theft, insurance needed for lawsuits, payroll taxes, hiring supervisors, dealing with unemployment claims, etc. Large farms have the infrastructure for this. Smaller family farms are better served by dealing with getting something mechanical/electronic working that can do a basic job well.

      I've been seeing this with some crops. An acquaintance has a tractor that is completely automated when it comes to tilling, planting, and harvesting. He sets GPS beacons, fills the tractor up with fuel, and at the right schedule the thing moves around the farm, stopping when the wheat hopper is full for manual dumping, and when that is done, the tractor continues where it left off.

      There is no shame in automating these cheap jobs. This means that migrant kids actually might get to go to school instead of going to age 18 with not even a completed elementary school education because they are in the fields.

      China is doing this too... they know that the US has the ability to stop food shipments at any time, so have been developing technologies to make arable land in the Sahel and other parts of Africa to feed their population, and part of that is automated tilling/planting/irrigation/harvesting.

    7. Re:This would solve... by FooAtWFU · · Score: 0

      But humanity has so many things we could be doing! It's not an efficient use of society's capital to build robots when cheap farm labor is readily available. As long as this cheap labor is available, we should use it, and deploy our intellectual and financial resources elsewhere. Ideally this would eventually include investments which would make those people more prosperous, and once they have better opportunities, then see about investing our capital in robots. Regrettably, billions who might otherwise have these opportunities have been deprived - in no small part due to political problems, such as oppressive governments, corruption, and violence.

      Immigrants (and migrants) are people, not externalities. Walling them out of the land of prosperity (and recession notwithstanding, the US is a land of prosperity) doesn't leave them or the land of prosperity any more prosperous.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    8. Re:This would solve... by benjamindees · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Humans consume resources. If you're concerned about limited resources, you should be concerned with limiting human population growth. Hiring immigrants does exactly the opposite -- it subsidizes population growth and provides a "relief valve" for failed governments.

      I'll repeat that for you in case you missed it. Welcoming immigrants simply perpetuates the poverty and the oppressive governments you seem to be so concerned about.

      Walling most of them out would absolutely make us more prosperous, because we have more resources per capita than anywhere on Earth. In the long run it would make them more prosperous as well.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    9. Re:This would solve... by Fnord666 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not too long ago I was looking into what it would cost to build a (nearly) fully automated greenhouse. The problem is, no matter how efficient or clever your system is, you simply cannot compete with the cost of human labor at the very bottom of the skills spectrum.

      That's easy enough to fix. Just have the workers unionize. That will triple the cost of your human labor right there and then your robots become cost effective.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    10. Re:This would solve... by gregor-e · · Score: 2

      Let's look at some numbers, then. Assuming these bots have a relatively low cost of operation, (big if, I know), and they each cost $30K, and you need at least a 100% in three-year return, then you'd have to generate $10K/year of utility. The minimum cost for people is $7.50/hour minimum wage (a grossly under-accurate simplification). Assuming the robots can be kept busy, and assuming their time must be worth $10K/year, their hourly cost becomes 10000 / (365 * 24) or $1.14 / hour. In the video, they don't appear to meed much supervision. At least, just for the task of shuffling pots back and forth between defined areas. It sounds as though you had a capacity utilization problem. Did your automation sit idle most of the day?

    11. Re:This would solve... by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      More likely it was a "cost of capital" problem. As in, the artificial cost of capital is manipulated by the US central bank in order to prevent small-scale automation. Not knowing this is a surefire way to invest in a dishwashing robot right before the borders are opened, a war is started, and interest rates lowered in order to consolidate the control of productive capital in the hands of the central bankers. Good luck paying off your business loan when Mexicans willing to work for $2/hr are knocking down your door looking for work and all the trained Americans are either dying in some third world dirt farm or making twice as much doing nothing on Wall St.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    12. Re:This would solve... by rossdee · · Score: 1

      "expensive ones will cost much more than a minimum wage laborer."

      And of course the whole point of illegals is you don't have to pay them minimum wage.

    13. Re:This would solve... by soundguy · · Score: 2

      This is square peg/ round hole stuff. It's generally not cost effective to force machinery into a role that was defined by the task itself to be done by human labor. "Farming", as it has existed for thousands of years, is the problem here. The solution is to throw away the entire process and build it from scratch to be handled entirely by machinery. Then it's simply not necessary to worry about "humanoid" machinery and its inherent problems and weaknesses.

      Build hydroponic beds in layers a hundred feet high. Make infrastructure weigh tons if that's more efficient and resilient. Machinery and hydraulics are orders of magnitude faster and more powerful than mere humans. Use those strengths to redefine the entire food and organic materials production industries the way it redefined the heavy industries of the 20th century. Ever watch a robot stuff tiny components into a machine-made PC board? Ever watch a wave-soldering machine? The electronics we are all using right now to participate in this forum wouldn't even be possible if millions of our devices had to be built by hand using microscopes and tweezers, regardless of how little the workers were paid. The entire modern electronic age was built with machines. It's time for the production of our food to be automated too.

      --
      Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
    14. Re:This would solve... by wanzeo · · Score: 1

      Assuming the robots can be kept busy, and assuming their time must be worth $10K/year, their hourly cost becomes 10000 / (365 * 24) or $1.14 / hour. In the video, they don't appear to meed much supervision. At least, just for the task of shuffling pots back and forth between defined areas. It sounds as though you had a capacity utilization problem. Did your automation sit idle most of the day?

      That is the big issue, in a greenhouse, yes, it must sit idle most of the time. Plants are slow. Also, a productive automation system needs to do a lot more than shuffle pots. There are some other factors involved in a complete automation setup.

      For instance, say you want to automate the greenhouse for month long intervals (or longer) between visits because you don't live where you bought the land/warehouse space. There is a lot that can go wrong during a month, so everything has to work. You need to monitor water, air, light, and nutrient quality, and adjust it accordingly. Plants must be transplanted, harvested, and packaged at intervals (really complicated), not to mention that there would be different procedures for different plant varieties. Something has to monitor the plants for bugs or disease, which I honestly haven't figured out. On top of the complexity, there is a lot of power required to run all of that, especially the lights required in high latitudes near me. Definitely more than some hundred watt droids.

      I would love to do it, for sure, but at this point it just makes more economic sense to do it with humans, outside, at low latitudes.

    15. Re:This would solve... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For instance, say you want to automate the greenhouse for month long intervals (or longer) between visits because you don't live where you bought the land/warehouse space. There is a lot that can go wrong during a month, so everything has to work. You need to monitor water, air, light, and nutrient quality, and adjust it accordingly. Plants must be transplanted, harvested, and packaged at intervals (really complicated), not to mention that there would be different procedures for different plant varieties. Something has to monitor the plants for bugs or disease, which I honestly haven't figured out. On top of the complexity, there is a lot of power required to run all of that, especially the lights required in high latitudes near me. Definitely more than some hundred watt droids.

      emphasis added to strengthen my (hopefully humorous) point

      It looks to me like you've got a grow somewhere in southern California....

    16. Re:This would solve... by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      Agreed, these bot farm workers _need_ an electrified fence.

    17. Re:This would solve... by wanzeo · · Score: 1

      Hahaha, yes, I do find that emphasis hilarious. But no, nothing so pedestrian. I'm talking coffee, tea, and tropical fruit above 45 degrees North. A steep order I know.

    18. Re:This would solve... by somersault · · Score: 1

      How about doing the disease monitoring yourself in the first incarnation? A high quality webcam mounted on one of the bots would do the trick wouldn't it? You could just take a look once a week to ensure that nothing has gone disastrously wrong. I've never tried doing robotic vision processing before, but looking for certain colours of disease spots or green flies or whatever shouldn't be that hard either. Also you could have the bots notify you when things look drastically different to the previous day/6 hours/whatever.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    19. Re:This would solve... by h5inz · · Score: 1
      AC:

      China is doing this too... they know that the US has the ability to stop food shipments at any time, so have been developing technologies to make arable land in the Sahel and other parts of Africa to feed their population, and part of that is automated tilling/planting/irrigation/harvesting.

      WHAT?

      1. Sahel is a part of the Sahara desert with probably the worst famine problem in the world. Part of the problem is that the land is being over used and then turns into desert.

      Over-farming, over-grazing, and over-population of marginal lands and natural soil erosion have caused serious desertification of the region.

      -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahel

      2. Now, are we aware that Eurasia and Africa aren't one little island west of USA? The closest land route between China and Sahel would be something like 4500km and it would go over the hills, (other) deserts and through countries with not so friendly governments, bandits and areas with no roads. The sea transport would take months.

      3. In EU the overproduced wheat (side effect of the EU's agricultural market stabilization measures) is being burnt because it would be too expensive to ship it to .. Sahel for example.

      4. I am probably answering to a troll, again. I am not going to delete the post this time.

    20. Re:This would solve... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I think that you err, in your assumptions about the job market. The automotive industry managed to replace tens of thousands of workers with dumb-bots, decades ago. And, these bots don't sound especially "smart". Face it - it doesn't take much processing power to evaluate a cucumber's readiness for harvest, or the myriad of other tasks involved in agriculture.

      The sensors, software, and hardware are so cheap today, that even a pretty poor person can construct a bot to perform such simple tasks. Once the industry matures a little bit, the bots can probably be left running 24/7/365. The bots can even be programmed to return to a charging station when they run out of power. Self diagnostics can inform the bot when it's worn or damaged, at which time it would (attempt to) return to a repair station. While they may not be competitive with cheap labor today, I expect that at some time in the near future, they can and will be. The margin is obviously close enough today, that some people are willing to experiment with them.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    21. Re:This would solve... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      The average person, world wide, does little more than consume food and pursue sexual relations. Some take another route, consuming food and pursuing drug induced highs. Humanity isn't going to do anything more valuable with their time than they are already doing. In fact, picking produce would be a step up for a large number of Americans. Take a tour of your nearest housing project. I don't much care whether you live in a large city with ghettos, or if you live out here in Outback, Nowhere. Our county jail is overpopulated with good for nothings who haven't earned enough honest money in their lifetimes to pay for their incarceration.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    22. Re:This would solve... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I always seem to have mod points - but not today. Benjamin certainly deserves some mod points. Unfortunately - some fool or another will probably mod him (and me) down, because they believe us to be xenophobic, and/or prejudiced. Phhht.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    23. Re:This would solve... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      A little secret about those GPS tractors that you didn't hit on:

      They work out the most efficient plowing, planting, and harvesting routes, as well. If you or I climbed on a tractor, we would just drive from end to end of the field, only varying our course for a tree or something. The GPS guided tractor maps out every single pass, before it ever starts. The result is a modest increase in crop yield. I emphasize "modest" - but if a farmer realizes a 3% increase in crop yield, with the very same investment, he has more money to spend on - uhhh - more robots?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    24. Re:This would solve... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Actually, something like this can't really take off precisely because of cheap labor."

      Boot the cheap labor back to its countries of origin and that can kickstart the process. Agricultural labor is a job for machines, and if the machines aren't quite there yet that doesn't mean they won't be.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    25. Re:This would solve... by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 1

      Your post is modded funny, but it's true. And it's the reason that unions are dying. The nature of unions is inherently to make labor more expensive. The employer has to pay significant costs for negotiators, then pay for whatever increase in benefits the union negotiates for the employees. There is no real opportunity for savings; it's pretty much a zero-sum game.

      So the union comes in, the labor costs go up, then the employer realizes that with the new, higher labor costs, the cost of moving the operation to China is now substantially less than the wage differential between US union employees and Chinese sweatshop workers. Naturally the same calculus applies comparing union labor to automation, with the additional advantage that you don't need to move your factory away from where your consumers are.

      Even where the employer has no opportunity for automation or off-shoring, if the employer has competitors with non-union labor then over time the non-union competitor will have more profits to use for expansion, will be able to undercut the union employer's prices, etc., with the result that companies without union employees grow and companies with union employees shrink.

      The exception is government employees' unions. When those unions get more concessions, it allows them to charge higher dues without the employees feeling the pinch, which allows them to spend more money lobbying for more union contracts and union benefits, creating (depending on whether you're a government union employee or a taxpayer) a virtuous or vicious cycle of ever more tax dollars going to government union employees.

    26. Re:This would solve... by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 1

      Right, because the central bank has an interest in preventing small-scale automation. How does that help them, exactly?

    27. Re:This would solve... by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 1

      There is a cheaper way to do this. You subsidize the machines. Make them cheaper than cheap labor. Then you immediately have huge demand that builds economies of scale, which allows you to phase out the subsidy over time once economies of scale have made the automation cost lower than the cheap labor cost.

    28. Re:This would solve... by cusco · · Score: 1

      Actually, in most industries the point of illegals is that you don't have to pay workmen's comp. Tyson didn't get caught three times paying truckers $200/head to bring mojados to its Arkansas chicken processing plants because they were having trouble finding rednecks willing to work for minimum wage. They wanted them because when the worker gets hurt or suffers from repetitive stress injuries a simple call to La Migra and they don't have to worry about their insurance going up.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    29. Re:This would solve... by Garybaldy · · Score: 1

      That is part of the problem. Some people still love manual labor. Keeps me in great shape. And i don't have to waste money at a gym. The part i don't like, is how manual labor gets very little respect in the US anymore. If your not a desk jockey you are shit. Which is sad many other countries still have great respect for those that do manual labor. Part of the reasoning i know we get so little respect is most manual labor jobs have not seen in increase in wage in almost two decades. So if you do that kind of job even if you are paid well. Most look at you as below them.

    30. Re:This would solve... by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Sorry I wasn't more clear. The central bank has an interest in controlling capital. They do so by, basically, money printing. Centralization is really just a side effect.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    31. Re:This would solve... by mangu · · Score: 1

      many other countries still have great respect for those that do manual labor.

      Name one.

      most manual labor jobs have not seen in increase in wage in almost two decades

      Because those jobs will never show an improvement in productivity. There's a limit on how big a wheelbarrow a man can push, beyond that you need a truck and then it ceases being manual labor.

      I have no doubt many people love doing manual labor, but as a hobby, not as a job. You may be willing to take up gardening instead of paying to use a gym, but you wouldn't pay another guy for the right to dig his garden.

    32. Re:This would solve... by Jurily · · Score: 1

      > Humans consume resources. If you're concerned about limited resources,

      I don't like this tiny little box you think in. What about colonizing space? What about economic systems of the machine age where people don't have to work to live at a decent standard?

      It's because of fear like yours that I don't have my flying car yet.

    33. Re:This would solve... by Garybaldy · · Score: 1

      So tell me how a a paper pusher has increased how much they can do as well. Your counter falls flat on its face.

    34. Re:This would solve... by mangu · · Score: 1

      Computers. Office jobs are much fewer but better paying than 30 years ago.

    35. Re:This would solve... by pburghdoom · · Score: 1

      Something has to monitor the plants for bugs or disease, which I honestly haven't figured out.

      I work at a company that produces data loggers and sensors, some of our lines are made for soil temperature/moisture and ambient temperature. We can set real time alarms for various parameters and you would be surprised how many disease/pest vectors can be determined by soil conditions and ambient temperatures only. Set real time alarms for conditions that are statistically linked to the vectors and when the alarms are triggered the farm bots can take action in accordance (pesticides, fungicides, etc...)

    36. Re:This would solve... by Garybaldy · · Score: 1

      The reason that falls on its face. Is you are saying that tools have improved the productivity of white collar workers but tools have done nothing to improve blue collar workers productivity. If you think tools have done nothing to improve our productivity. You really should not be commenting on something that you know little about.

    37. Re:This would solve... by ResidentSourcerer · · Score: 1

      Automation costs. Big time. It is precisely the small guy who can't afford it.

      A non-robotic example. I grow trees in containers. So every year I plant about 5000 seedlings into styroblocks. The ones that don't sell after two years move to 2 gallon pots. About 3000 of them. The ones that dont sell as 2 gallon trees move to 10 gallon pots. About 1000 of them.. So every year I transplant about 8000 trees. I use about 3 dump truck loads of potting soil per year.

      At present I do this by hand. One scoup or shovel full at a time. The smallest ones take 15 s each, the 2 gallon ones take 30 s each. The 10 gallon ones take 3 min each.

      There is a machine out there that can provide a recirculating 'water fall' of soil. It's noisy. It's dusty. And it costs $30,000. It would cost me another 10,000 to provide power to it. This has the potential to cut my time by about 50% not counting breakdowns and maintenance.

      A fully automated machine is about 80,000 and requires 4 people to run it, and another crew of 6 to haul the potted plants away. It has to be reset and adjusted every time the soil moisture changes, every time the pot changes, every time the tree being planted changes. It's a great way to work, if you are doing 100,000 poinsettias for the Christmas trade.

      Now this is simple stuff. Motor, links, pnuematic/hydraulic acatuators. Everything that moves has very limited degrees of freedom, and few require feedback or sensors.

      I don't think that wheel rotation is sufficient for a farmbot, unless the farm is kept perfectly flat. Pocket gopher hill? divot in the sod? Mud puddle? Wet grass? Clump of bunch grass? Area missed by the mower? Wheelbarrow left in the way? Basket of chip mulch? A fence post left where it fell off the truck?

      How about weeding? Can a farmbot recognize a weed? No? There goes 25% of my use. Can it walk (roll) an irrigation line, and spot clogged drip emmiters, or replace a broken one? Can it poke a finger into the soil and decide if this block of trees needs watering? And then go and set the water, keeping track of how many places water is currently running so as to not overload the capacity of the system. Can it operate my lawnmower? Run a weed eater, spot a leaking pipe while on the way to do something else. Can it deal with 60 different kinds and sizes of pots, and 80 species of trees?

      I have a high school kid who works with me after school. He and I working together set up a new irrigation block. This requires:
      * Drilling 4 holes with a dirt auger.
      * Setting 4 fence posts.
      * Screwing two 12 foot 2x4's to the posts.
      * Drilling 5 holes for .725 plastic tubing.
      * Stringing 1240 feet of tubing.
      * Punching a 0.120 hole every 3 feet in that tubing.
      * Inserting a dripper into that hole.
      * Connecting the source ends into a manifold.
      * Pressuring the system and checking for leaks.

      He and I working together did it in about 5 hours. The next week, I marked out where the next one would go, and told him, 'your project'.

      The only help he needed was with the auger. The soil was dry there, and it needed both of us leaning on it to get enough down pressure to get the bit to bite.

      Automating your income taxes is easy compared to automating a farm worker.

      --
      Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.
    38. Re:This would solve... by mangu · · Score: 1

      A 1.5 ton pickup truck today carries the same cargo as a 1.5 ton truck did in 1981. A desktop computer today is more powerful than the biggest supercomputer they had in 1981.

      Yes, the relative evolution of machinery has improved the productivity of some workers more than others.

  2. Visions by NEDHead · · Score: 4, Interesting

    of Silent Running come to mind

    1. Re:Visions by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Yes I suppose the time will come when people who need surgery will just download the appropriate software into their gardener and press start.

    2. Re:Visions by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      If only they spoke six million forms of binary

    3. Re:Visions by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      of Silent Running come to mind

      Robot suits powered by midget actors?

    4. Re:Visions by Sebastopol · · Score: 1

      Damn! Beat me to it! lol.

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  3. Hook it up to Facebook by grantek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you need a bit better pattern recognition or control there's thousands of people willing to do farming from their PCs for free.

    1. Re:Hook it up to Facebook by BenJCarter · · Score: 1

      Very interesting idea! Might be tough on the veggies while folks learn though. Maybe a mandatory training course?

      --
      For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
    2. Re:Hook it up to Facebook by Fnord666 · · Score: 2

      Very interesting idea! Might be tough on the veggies while folks learn though. Maybe a mandatory training course?

      The first few levels are virtual, but at some point the user's proficiency reaches a threshold, and they start moving actual plants. No need to tell them that though.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    3. Re:Hook it up to Facebook by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 2

      Speaking of pattern recognition, did anyone else read "fembots"?

      --
      All rites reversed 2010
    4. Re:Hook it up to Facebook by Lemming+Mark · · Score: 1

      Yeah, me too, then I came in here to see if I wasn't the only one!

    5. Re:Hook it up to Facebook by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      If you need a bit better pattern recognition or control there's thousands of people willing to do farming from their PCs for free.

      Farmville?

    6. Re:Hook it up to Facebook by CrankinOut · · Score: 1

      An interesting parallel to Orson Scott Card's "Ender's Game"

    7. Re:Hook it up to Facebook by Mr.+Lwanga · · Score: 2

      I also admit that I saw "fembot" .

    8. Re:Hook it up to Facebook by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      Hello! I am, er, 'George Washington'. I am your farm technical support worker. So, you have a problem with your crop? Have you tried rebooting your corn?

      On your other problems, WTF is 'okra' and what are 'collard greens'?

  4. This is obviously the future by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The efficiency of farming (yield value per area+inputs) is going to have to grow a lot as global population increases and gets richer. This is obviously one step in that direction. Sure, this robot is laughably primitive compared to Google's self-driving car, but future generations will do better. I think that in 20 years, we'll be able to intersperse multiple simultaneous crops in the same field, which is good for the soil, reduces the need for fertilizer and pesticide, and generates a more value.

    The most important reason why we don't see this sort of farming on a large scale is because it requires much more fine-motor work and is incompatible with the machines we use today. But once those machines get substantially cheaper and more dexterous than people, I think we'll make this transition. Our food will be better for it, and there will be more of it. I don't think that this is very far off in the future.

    1. Re:This is obviously the future by MrQuacker · · Score: 2

      I envision a design more akin to those cargo-container gantry cranes they use at ports. With multiple arms hanging below the chassis to tend to tasks. That way the bulk of the robot can be above the plants, with the slim supports/wheels being able to navigate in-between rows of plants.

    2. Re:This is obviously the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most important reason why we don't see this sort of farming on a large scale is because it requires much more fine-motor work and is incompatible with the machines we use today. But once those machines get substantially cheaper and more dexterous than people, I think we'll make this transition. Our food will be better for it, and there will be more of it. I don't think that this is very far off in the future.

      At some point, I can see a herd of mini-transfarmers scouring a field 24/7, plucking anything that is not crop or beneficial insect. Organic farming with the equivalent yield and protection of current pesticide solutions. Awesome stuff.

    3. Re:This is obviously the future by DigiShaman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm a bit concerned about all of this advancement to support extended population growth. My gut feeling is that we are just setting up ourselves for a big fall the more we detach ourselves from nature. Like a house of cards. It can only go so high before the entire system collapses. It's just a matter of when. For example, a high-altitude nuclear warhead my never cause bodily harm. But the EMP it releases is enough to shutdown entire nations with all microchips fried. That means no transportation and running water. Within weeks, people start dieing and bodies decomposing where they last crawled for survival. Truly scary stuff.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:This is obviously the future by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Eventually, global warming will open up the tundra for farming. As the planet keeps warming up, it can sustain more life, which is fine until the next cooling cycle starts in 10,000 years or so.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    5. Re:This is obviously the future by msobkow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      we'll be able to intersperse multiple simultaneous crops in the same field...

      The most important reason why we don't see this sort of farming on a large scale is because it requires much more fine-motor work...

      Soil degrades if you don't mix your crops over time, but it's not a process that would "leach" from one small plot to it's neighbour. As long as crops are rotated annually, you're good to go. Bigger machines are more efficient at harvesting. Having multiple crop types also means needing multiple machine types, adding to expense.

      As far as I know, small plots were only used for family produce by the old family farms, but the bulk of the land was turned over quarter by quarter to specific crops. Things may be different in vegetable or fruit farms/orchards, but we don't really have those in Saskatchewan.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    6. Re:This is obviously the future by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what automatic grape harvesters look like, but I don't think it's the most economical design. Land is cheap. Good wine land is unbelievably expensive. When you're replacing the most expensive part of the production process, human labor, you can afford to spread out a little.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    7. Re:This is obviously the future by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      I'm a bit concerned about all of this advancement to support extended population growth.

      Then you should be building these and using them yourself, and making them open source, instead of letting places like MIT perfect them only to throw them down the memory hole in sacrifice to the risk-aggregating monster that is the Federal Reserve system.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    8. Re:This is obviously the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Commercial agg in ornamentals is not very good with space utilization. It's all about getting to the market a good enough looking plant to make more attractive. In a pot of those sizes the tops (depending) on the species requires large space. The spacing they mention is moving the pots further as they grow. That spacing requires a lot of man power and larger nurseries can't hire enough people legal or illegal for those tasks. Willoway is a gigantic wholesale nursery which is why that company is testing with them and other larger nurseries.

    9. Re:This is obviously the future by LordLucless · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The efficiency of farming (yield value per area+inputs) is going to have to grow a lot as global population increases and gets richer

      Not necessarily. Using the most modern farming techniques, we produce far more food than the population that grows it actually requires. The problem is, the areas that have the largest (and most quickly growing) populations, are the areas that use the least effective farming techniques.

      Apart from stopping the wars that suck up their manpower, and pillage their crops, getting modern farming in widespread use in the third world is the big step to combating world hunger. And if the pattern is anything like what we've seen, once their standard of living is raised, they stop having as many children, and population will taper off. Much of the western world (US and Australia I know for sure) is currently at below-replacement levels of reproduction.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    10. Re:This is obviously the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also need to solar powered.

    11. Re:This is obviously the future by Fnord666 · · Score: 3

      I'm a bit concerned about all of this advancement to support extended population growth. My gut feeling is that we are just setting up ourselves for a big fall the more we detach ourselves from nature. Like a house of cards. It can only go so high before the entire system collapses. It's just a matter of when. For example, a high-altitude nuclear warhead my never cause bodily harm. But the EMP it releases is enough to shutdown entire nations with all microchips fried. That means no transportation and running water. Within weeks, people start dieing and bodies decomposing where they last crawled for survival. Truly scary stuff.

      I hate to be the one to break it to you, but we are way past that point already. Modern farm equipment has more electronics than your car does. These would just be a bit of icing on the cake.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    12. Re:This is obviously the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate to break it to you, but we're ALREADY supposed to be in a cooling cycle. We should have already been in an ice age. One theory is the domestication of cattle increased the methane in the atmosphere.

    13. Re:This is obviously the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good news: your gut feeling performs worse than random.

    14. Re:This is obviously the future by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Look dude, I feel the same way. I'm less than 10 miles from NYC and if any bad shit did happen, my hometown would probably get caught in the blast. I'm also very keenly aware of how easily our infrastructure could go to shit on a local, statewide, national, or global scale.

      The best defense against this is knowledge. You're posting on a website dedicating to nerds - people who implicitly have a love for knowledge. When you have a concern that something bad is going to happen, you prepare for it. We back up our hard drives in case they die. We have UPSes in case our power goes out. So where's your backup if civilization has a major segfault?

      Learn how to shoot, hunt, farm, and survive in general and you'll feel a lot less stressed. Stockpile a little bit of the essentials (including rad meds, food, and potable water). If things ever really do go south, you'll either get killed instantly (so nothing to worry about there!) or you'll be able to get to a much more rural area and survive - even thrive.

      Knowledge is always the best peace of mind.

    15. Re:This is obviously the future by Splab · · Score: 1

      Why is it laughable primitive?

      I'll bet you any amount that the google car would be unable to do what that robot does; doesn't that make the google robot laughable primitive at farming?

    16. Re:This is obviously the future by znerk · · Score: 2

      Utilizing solar power for the plant-tending machinery sounds like a good idea, at first... then you realize that plants themselves are solar powered, and therefore every square meter you are devoting to powering the machinery is a reduction of the potential plant-matter production. A possible semi-alternative might be to make the roofs of all homes into solar arrays, thus providing shelter and power simultaneously - of course, the occupants of those dwellings may not want to give up the electricity this would generate.

      LFTR-based energy solutions come immediately to mind as a cheap, plentiful, and safe solution to our power needs.

      Thorium is fairly plentiful, is produced as a "waste" by-product of conventional mineral-extraction processes, and the US has a stockpile of it large enough to run the entire country (and then some) for nearly a decade. The process of extracting energy from it results in an incredibly small mass of waste, orders of magnitude less than our current plants produce.

      To top it all off, it's impossible for a LFTR plant to "melt down", and the startup/shutdown process takes a matter of hours, rather than weeks or months. As a matter of fact, there was a research group who made a reactor in the 50s who simply turned it off for the weekend on Friday, then turned it on again on Monday - they just shut it down for two days, then brought it back up.

      As another indication of safety, the US government funded a research group in the 1950s who very nearly put a thorium reactor in an airplane. They stopped not because of safety concerns, but because fission-powered aircraft were not as cheap and expendable as the newly-developed intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) technology as a delivery system. Missiles don't require a crew to ride them into enemy airspace.

      Speaking of the military aspects of cheap power, one interesting "benefit" of LFTR technology is that weapons-grade fissionable material is not a waste product of the process. This may have something to do with the huge number of fast-breeder nuclear reactors in the US; their main product (other than energy) is weapons-grade plutonium.

      Yet another indicator of safety: This is a pdf from the Thorium Energy Alliance that has, on its front page, a picture of enough thorium to satisfy a person's lifetime energy needs being held in a bare hand. You see, thorium isn't nearly as "radioactive" as other nuclear materials - it's not fissile, it's merely fertile.

      If the US isn't careful, they're going to lose any ability to utilize this technology; Both China and India are working on thorium-based reactors currently, with China's expressed goal being to monopolize the IP rights - yet another reason to abolish the current Intellectual Property system?

      More information on thorium and thorium-based technologies can be found here.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    17. Re:This is obviously the future by he-sk · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. Using the most modern farming techniques, we produce far more food than the population that grows it actually requires. The problem is, the areas that have the largest (and most quickly growing) populations, are the areas that use the least effective farming techniques.

      The problem is waste in the developed world. We already produce more than enough food to feed everybody on the planet. But half of what is produced for Europe and the US is thrown out before it even reaches the consumer. Meanwhile our food is still so cheap that the sustenance farmer in Africa cannot compete. It's not that his farming techniques are not effective enough, it's that our industrialized food production is much cheaper and he can't sell his crop. He loses his livelihood and now the nation is dependent on foreign inports.

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    18. Re:This is obviously the future by EdZ · · Score: 1

      I wonder how expensive EMP-hardening consumer electronics actually is? Is wrapping all the sensitive gubbins in a Faraday cage with all I/O optically isolated not sufficient?

    19. Re:This is obviously the future by YouDieAtTheEnd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If a country that possesses nuclear warheads and ICBMs is pissed off enough to launch one at you, you've got a lot more to worry about than whether your tractor has a microcontroller in it or not. In other words, an atmospheric EMP pulse is only going to be set off in preparation for a full scale ground assault so your ass will be drafted in about 24 hours flat. Look on the bright side though, the military's got lots of K rations.

    20. Re:This is obviously the future by YouDieAtTheEnd · · Score: 1

      When they say intersperse I don't think they mean 'make a checkerboard of small plots'. What they are referring to is high density planting where you find ways to mix planted crops together so that they mutually benefit each other (making use of inter-cropping and companion planting). It's never used on a large scale because it is so labour intensive but many people with postage stamp yards make good use of it to grow their own food.

    21. Re:This is obviously the future by couchslug · · Score: 1

      A remarkable amount of equipment doesn't use microchips or can have delicate controls bypassed, though it would make good sense to have a "combat bypass" control option (and spare boxes) just in case.

      EMP creates surges by passing fields over POWER LINES. That won't do squat to disconnected spare parts.

      EMP is not guaranteed to knock out all circuitry, and much equipment such as diesels with mechanical controls will still be running. Points ignitions and simple electronic ignitions will run, so millions of engines and generators will run and can produce power to assist recovery.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    22. Re:This is obviously the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm hoping one day that the handling of dangerous chemicals by humans would be illegal on farms, and that stuff would be handled by robots from now on.

    23. Re:This is obviously the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I do not really see there an increase in detachment. Today, East-Europeans and in the US most likely Mexicans do the labor on the fields. They do it because we a consumers want the cheapest price which means that Joe Sixpack, our neighbor, is definitely too expensive for that task. So someone else is doing it, while he is feeling unimportant and useless. In future, we are able to make the Mexican feel worthless too. Nevertheless you and me stay detached from nature in the same way as before. There is no difference for us if the job is done by a human laborer or a mechanical laborer (robot).

      While I see this as a technological advancement, I also see the potential destructive properties for society. People need something to do.

    24. Re:This is obviously the future by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1
      I don't think you're right. I think it's cities that will save us, so I'm all for getting people off the land and into dense cities. Here is a sampling of some of the good stuff this does:
      • Prosperity grows. There are more opportunities in cities to make use of every talent.
      • Literacy and educational achievement grows.
      • The gender gap shrinks; women become more empowered when they move off the land into cities.
      • Fertility decreases dramatically, largely as a result of the previously mentioned items. If you're worried about population growth, you don't need to. Many of the world's largest countries are already reproducing at below replacement value, which is to say that they'd be shrinking without immigration. The rest of the world is catching up. It's more likely that we'll have to worry about underpopulation.
      • Urban dwellers use less energy, despite being richer. In the US, the district with the lowest energy use per capita is Manhattan, and it's not because Manhattenites are penny pinchers.
      • Basically everything that drives modern economies happens in cities.

      It's for these reasons and many more why I think that we should get almost every person into cities and leave the lands as close to wild as possible. Of course we'll need to use the land to grow food, but with good automation we can avoid the dangerously artificial monocultures that we see on farms today. And no matter what the population is, I'm for using as little land as possible for agriculture, leaving the rest wild (for recreation, and because wild lands are good in themselves).

      About your fear regarding hostile EMPs knocking out our automated farming: There are much easier and straightforward ways to destroy civilizations. And even if you were a terrorist who could only do EMPs and nothing else, you'd still do a lot more damage if you did them in cities rather than just taking out some farming bots. If there's one thing I'm sure about, it's that humanity won't succumb to rural EMPs (unless they're caused by nukes).

    25. Re:This is obviously the future by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      The Saskatchewan fruit industry http://www.saskfruit.com/ would benefit greatly by this.

      List of fruit grown in Saskatchewan http://www.saskfruit.com/modules.php?name=Sections&sop=viewarticle&artid=16

      Now I need to find some Saskatoon berries. Which are grown in the area. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelanchier_alnifolia

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    26. Re:This is obviously the future by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      I'm a bit concerned about all of this advancement to support extended population growth. My gut feeling is that we are just setting up ourselves for a big fall the more we detach ourselves from nature. Like a house of cards. It can only go so high before the entire system collapses.

      Newsflash: if you live in an urban area, pretty much anywhere on the planet, your house of cards is at least 100 years high (meaning, how long it would take to rebuild after a collapse.)

      There are some pretty scary stats on how long the food would last in Manhattan if you sealed all the bridges and tunnels... something less than 24 hours IIRC.

    27. Re:This is obviously the future by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Bigger machines are more efficient at harvesting

      ....monocultures. If we would invest more in small diverse systems that would grow diverse crops in a somewhat more natural mixed up way, we could put a huge crimp in the pest problem - one that the pests couldn't evolve resistance to every 10 years, unlike pesticides, which have ramped back up to "requiring" persistence in order to be effective.

      I went to school in the late '70s / early '80s, shortly enough after the whole DDT backlash to be taught that we would "never" resort to persistent pesticides again. Yeah, well, that lasted about 20 years... and it will probably be 20 more before we figure out all the various side effects we are getting from the current round of experimental pest killing chemicals we are bathing ourselves with.

    28. Re:This is obviously the future by msobkow · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but when I think of "Orchard", I don't think of monoculture of Strawberries or Saskatoons. Most orchards in BC and Ontario/Quebec have a mix of fruits that harvest at different times, keeping a steady employment stream going.

      What is big around here is the "pick your own" berry farm. They're so busy you have to book appointments a couple weeks or more ahead of your visit nowadays.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    29. Re:This is obviously the future by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 2

      The problem the OP points out is not going to be solved by knowing how to hunt and fish.

      The problem is that you can cripple our ability to feed 7 billion people without at all reducing the number of people. You can go into the woods and hunt a deer, but so can a million other people, which means that in two weeks after the stores run out of food there won't be any deer left to hunt.

      But there are obvious government-level solutions to problems like this. You just create a "strategic food reserve" of nonperishable food (i.e. food that would last five years in storage), and that contains enough food to feed the nation for a year. You can rotate the stock every year, selling the 1-year-old food on the world market and replacing it with freshly canned food. Then we have a year to fix whatever problem impaired our ability to grow new food, so problem solved.

    30. Re:This is obviously the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apart from stopping the wars that suck up their manpower, and pillage their crops, getting modern farming in widespread use in the third world is the big step to combating world hunger. And if the pattern is anything like what we've seen, once their standard of living is raised, they stop having as many children, and population will taper off. Much of the western world (US and Australia I know for sure) is currently at below-replacement levels of reproduction.

      This assumes that fossil fuel production will increase to accompany demand. Saudi Arabia, with 25% of the world's reserves, is already at peak production. We've already past the peak-oil "tip" and are on the downward slope. The problem is not agriculture, but rather, the 10 calories of fossil fuel consumed for the 1 calorie of food that it produces on your plate.

      Robots will do one thing only: replace inexpensive human labor. In doing so, living conditions for those people will go from miserable to truly horrific; you're saying "we're firing the lot of you, you can stop living in horrible conditions go away", but there is no-where else to go.

      When I decided to have a career in computing, I did so knowing fully well that computers would be replacing human beings, and that the only job you could ultimately have is the person who works with/services the computers themselves. That was 1984, and I could clearly understand that back then. Look at what we have today. Do you see more jobs because of computers, or fewer? Mostly, I see more lower-paying, low-quality McJobs.

      That's the dirty secret of business computer use. Computers increase efficiency by eliminating human overhead, pure and simple. Anyone with a computer job employed by a business that can't figure this out usually doesn't last long.

    31. Re:This is obviously the future by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      Pick your own places are marvelous. I've had blueberries from Michigan farms that do pick your own and locally blackberries. Nothing from stores compares. I still want some Saskatoons. :)

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    32. Re:This is obviously the future by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      I personally am worried of the fact that a lot of the modern agriculture depends on fertilizers that are byproducts of oil production and that the high CO2 level favors plant growth and high yields. When both of these things go down, so will the crop yield, and we do not have the margin to deal with a 40% drop in area efficiency.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    33. Re:This is obviously the future by kent_eh · · Score: 1

      Do you see more jobs because of computers, or fewer? Mostly, I see more lower-paying, low-quality McJobs.

      That's the same problem that Henry Ford identified.
      "If no one pays people do do stuff, who is going to be my customer."
      Ford's solution was to pay his employees enough so they could afford to buy his product.

      So, given that even the lowest paying jobs are being automated out of existence, who is getting paid enough to buy the stuff that all these "newly profitable" companies are producing with their human-free factories and farms?

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
    34. Re:This is obviously the future by cusco · · Score: 1

      Quite expensive. Put your electronics in a Faraday Cage if you want, but they still need power and the pulse will come down the power feed. Feed it with a battery, but you'll needs some inputs and outputs to make it useful, and the pulse will come in those as well. An EMP will essentially kill everything more complex than your toaster.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    35. Re:This is obviously the future by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Unless the OP is someone who directly can influence governmental policy or has the time to invest in starting up a massive project to accomplish a goal of reducing population growth, then it's really not relevant to him. It seems to me that it is not just genuine concern for the health of the planet but a realization that we're so dependent on our infrastructure that a big, world-changing disaster will truly fuck the majority of us in a most unpleasant way. That say, having the knowledge to survive such a disaster is probably one of the most comforting ways to deal with it.

    36. Re:This is obviously the future by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      True. But at least America is more fortunate than all over nations combined. You do realize how many guns Americans own right? Our citizens are the 2nd class army in standby. Actually, I would be more worries about America falling into another civil war fighting for resources. Essentially a breakdown into warlordism. No nation on Earth can divide and conquer that shit. But they can attempt to walk the gauntlet that is the meat grinder if they wish.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    37. Re:This is obviously the future by hedpe2003 · · Score: 1

      Marcin Jakubowski has an excellent TED talk on helping this exact issue: Open Source hardware called the Global Village Construction Kit.

      --
      Comprehensive solutions via a competition of ideas like no other.
    38. Re:This is obviously the future by YouDieAtTheEnd · · Score: 1

      So which is it? An EMP will destroy a nation utterly or they'll come out fighting 'cause they're packing heat? Aside from that, I didn't once mention the U.S. so what's up with all the jingoism?

  5. Runaway by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

    And visions of Tom Selleck shooting our garden tending overlords appear in my mind....

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    1. Re:Runaway by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Will they run on 8086 CPUs?

  6. If these have the impact of the "cotton gin"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... vast social changes will ensue.

    From my hazy recollection of American history, the cotton (en)gin(e), made it possible to process cotton with a lot less labor making slaves less necessary(?) and set the stage for the civil war. Or something like that.

    So if these machines (or their descendants) fundamentally change the labor equation in the farm fields of America, we'll see its impact on the immigration debate. Sort of how UAVs are changing aerial warfare and how things like "Big Dog" will eventually change ground combat.

    Kudos to the previous poster and his reference to Huey, Dewey and Louie. (Anybody remember which one survived?)

    1. Re:If these have the impact of the "cotton gin"... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Informative

      From my hazy recollection of American history, the cotton (en)gin(e), made it possible to process cotton with a lot less labor making slaves less necessary(?) and set the stage for the civil war. Or something like that.

      The general idea of your post may be correct, but I think it's the opposite. The cotton gin made slaves more necessary to the south (or at least so they believed) because it made seed-heavy cotton varieties into a viable crop. This cotton would grow well where other crops didn't. Without the gin, the plant wouldn't have been economical and slavery would have continued to gradually fade. Some of this is conjecture, it's hard to speculate accurately on possible alternative paths of history, but slavery was supposedly declining before the cotton gin was made available.

    2. Re:If these have the impact of the "cotton gin"... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      ... the cotton (en)gin(e), made it possible to process cotton with a lot less labor making slaves less necessary(?)

      Nope. By reducing the necessary labor, the cotton gin made the cotton business far more profitable, thus increasing the demand for slaves to grow and harvest the cotton.

      Agricultural robots may have a similar effect. By making labor intensive crops (strawberries, fruit, vegetables, etc.) more profitable, production will shift in that direction instead of crops like grain that require little labor. But since not all tasks can be easily automated, the demand for human farm labor may go up instead of down.

    3. Re:If these have the impact of the "cotton gin"... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      This is actually one of the major arguments for automation, besides technological advancement. The jobs go elsewhere, to where purchases made with gained profits and increased wages direct them. And here I was thinking that CISC 497 would never teach me anything I didn't already know.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    4. Re:If these have the impact of the "cotton gin"... by jlar · · Score: 1

      "Agricultural robots may have a similar effect. By making labor intensive crops (strawberries, fruit, vegetables, etc.) more profitable, production will shift in that direction instead of crops like grain that require little labor. But since not all tasks can be easily automated, the demand for human farm labor may go up instead of down."

      There is also a health benefit of using more robots for harvesting fruits: No E. coli in the harvested crops. Robots don't have to go to the toilet. And sometimes human labour don't wash their hands afterwards. And people actually get very sick and some die from E. coli infections. So I for one welcome our new robotic servants.

  7. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by Nutria · · Score: 0

    there is such a huge pool of underutilised labour in the developing world that would jump at the chance to do such work.

    Except that there's already a huge pool of underutilized labor in the US. They'd, though, rather demand a government check for doing nothing.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  8. Derk er by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Dey derk er jebs!

  9. Silent Running by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    huey dewey and louie

    1. Re:Silent Running by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more Neil Young

  10. Picture with their handler by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is a picture of the agro robots. It's OK, there are no goats around.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    1. Re:Picture with their handler by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      What, you don't want an automated orange juice bot? You don't know what you're missing,

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:Picture with their handler by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Worst... Movie... Ever...

      We got that from Netflix just before we moved from Texas to Florida, I think we held it for 6 weeks... wonder if that made Netflix mark it as something we really liked a lot.

    3. Re:Picture with their handler by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      Matter of taste. When it came out I think it was a pretty cool movie with some very interesting concepts. It hasn't aged as well as other though, I admit. When it came out 2001 A Space Odyssey was still fairly new (I think the director of Silent Running was the special effects director of 2001), and scifi was being used to examine more ideas other than Buck Rogers and giant ants. I think 2001 moved people to try to intellectualize scifi somewhat, and Silent Running fell in there. I think it was one of those that ultimately did help promote a different better vein of the genre, even if it hasn't aged well. And I'll admit, I found it pretty dry the last time I looked at it. But when I first saw it in the late 70's (I think it was on TV), I thought it was excellent. Go figure. How they got the 'droids in Silent Running is pretty interesting though: they used double amputees that they put in the suits, and they walked on their hands (the legs of the 'droids were the actors arms). Hah!

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    4. Re:Picture with their handler by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Wow- didn't know about the droids, that's giving opportunity where you can...

      The "concept" of Silent Running was great, that's why I rented it... but the execution, when viewed for the first time in 2006, well...

      Add to that the fact that I ended up watching it 2.5 times, and it only got worse on repetition...

      Of course, I get offended at the scene in Star Wars where R2D2 and C3PO are being sold by the Jawas to Luke & Uncle Ben, after "the red one" motors away and goes poof, they cut to a scene showing R2D2 with "the red one" beside him again... Silent Running is full of "continuity" errors like that. Not to mention being utterly dull, even compared to 2001.

      Great concept though. Wish there were more concepts like that, executed at least as well as the M.Night Shyalalan stuff....

  11. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by TheReaperD · · Score: 2

    Like slavery, society is growing less tolerant of the current situation of illegal labor. Though different people have different reasons for it, a large number of people will not tolerate the situation continuing as is. Some people are feeling this desire for change and are looking for other answers and these type of robots might be one of them. Either way, we're in the beginning of a new era where there are far more people to do labor than there is need for labor. Our next great challenge will be how we address all the people who are jobless due to their labor not being needed anymore. Though there is a lot of talk of retraining for higher skilled jobs, it will not be long until robots can replace doctors, engineers, scientists, programmers and other high skilled jobs and not all of the people will be able to make that leap in the first place. Right now, things are not looking so good for us as a society.

    --
    "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
  12. Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are several companies that have been selling robots that milk cows for about 10 years.

    1. Re:Old News by mbstone · · Score: 1

      See, this is the problem. A human can milk a cow within about 15 minutes.

      After 9 1/2 years or so of being robo-milked, a typical cow is udderly exhausted.

    2. Re:Old News by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      15 minutes, twice a day, for nine years, is 100,000 hours of human labor. How long do you think it takes to birth a new cow?

      That isn't the problem. The problem is that our goddamn government and banking system SUBSIDIZES HUMANS SO THAT THEY CAN DO SHITTY JOBS FOR SLAVE WAGES.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  13. by keeping track of wheel rotations by Lumos4idea · · Score: 1

    What are the chances of the wheel not getting stuck in one location...still rotating like it happens with our normal wheels? Wouldn't that also count as "movement" by this principle?

  14. Much room for farm bots by flyingfsck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Pruning and harvesting trees is a difficult problem to solve, but mathematically very interesting. After all, what is the best way to prune an apple tree or a vine? Ask two farm workers how to prune the same tree and you will get a long discussion with no definite answer, but there certainly is method in the madness, which could be reduced to a tree algorithm. This is the 21st century evolution of the the 20th century automatic harvesters for simple grain/grass crops.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Much room for farm bots by znerk · · Score: 2

      Interestingly enough, apples (and I assume other fruits) have been harvested using machinery for decades, at least. I recall a trip to an apple orchard when I was in elementary school (nearly 30 years ago) where they showed us the equipment - in essence, they slung a tarp beneath the tree, and a big motor with a giant rubber band wrapped around itself and the tree shook the tree to make the apples fall.

      Sounds like something out of a cartoon, when I describe it like that...

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    2. Re:Much room for farm bots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or possibly a vine algorithm

    3. Re:Much room for farm bots by Inda · · Score: 1

      Late to the game but here goes anyway.

      Apple trees are easy to prune. Any branches growing towards the centre of the tree are pruned. Any branches touching another branch also go.

      Pruning for growth and prung for crop methods are also well established.

      Twice a year.

      Job done.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    4. Re:Much room for farm bots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I visited an apple orchard a couple of years ago, and most trees there are actually pretty small. Overall it looks more like a number of parallel hedges. Apparently it gives more apples of better quality that way compared to having real trees. And the apples were picked by hand. I don't think your assumption is right.

    5. Re:Much room for farm bots by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      EXACTLY. And harvesting is also easy.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  15. This idea is not new. by bejiitas_wrath · · Score: 1

    I saw this idea in a book from my school library in the 80's along with many other fantastic ideas such as hosting the 2000 Olympics on the Moon and a transatlantic tunnel. I believed that by the year 2000, we would have such fantastic technology and be freed of the burden of hard manual labour by robots and be free to pursue other endeavours. But roll on 2011 and now we are only just testing this technology.

    But I guess the future is taking longer than I thought to become a reality. But then again if robots were doing everything for us then what would we do? We would find something I guess, you would have more time for many other pursuits if you had a team of agricultural robots taking care of all the harvesting, sowing and herding the sheep in to be shorn. And even baling the wool for you. There would still be jobs to maintain those robots and program them. Unless they learn to program and repair/manufacture themselves...

    --
    liberare massarum ex ignorantia, clausa descendit molestie.
    1. Re:This idea is not new. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Kids Whole Future Catalog was an odd book. It even had a version of leet speek.

    2. Re:This idea is not new. by Beardydog · · Score: 1

      "The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots."

    3. Re:This idea is not new. by znerk · · Score: 1

      Where's my flying car? No, this one doesn't count.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
  16. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by MrQuacker · · Score: 1

    We were told we need to go to school and get our degrees in order to avoid ending in a dead end job mowing lawns or flipping burgers. Now we're out of school, with degrees, with no jobs for us, and we're berated and jeered at because we refuse to flip burgers and mow lawns.

  17. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by BenJCarter · · Score: 1

    Why mod this down? It sounds like a valid immigration question. Or are there some secret code words we can't use on /. that I don't know about? I personally like the idea of making it easy to come to America and be productive. I would vastly prefer a simple, regulated system, to the cluster f^%k of conflicting rules that make up the current immigration morass.

    --
    For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
  18. This is needed like 10 years ago by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    America, in fact the west, has a serious issue with illegals. However, the west, is by far, the worst. We have neo-cons that encourage illegals to be here working for below prevailing wages, while not paying taxes. Then we have dems leaders that push for amnesty and allowing more illegals in, as long as they get amnesty. That is just plain twisted. Now, why do these illegals come to America (and canada, EU, UK, and Australia)? Because even below minimum wage, they still make more money than what they make in their own nations. The problem is that western levels of goods, count on taxes being paid as well as re-investment in the local economy. As such illegals who work in the nation, but then send the money out of the nation, are just as bad as those that outsource to China who manipulates money, dumps monster amounts of pollution on the planet (in 2015, China will dump more than 50% of all CO2; in 2019 +-, they will have accounted for 1/2 of ALL co2 that man has ever emitted, and that assumed a slower growth path then they are on; worse, it does not include their SO2, mercury, lead, chemical pollutions, etc, etc, etc that are dumped in the Sea of China, The pacific ocean, and in our shared airs). Basically, Illegals are not cheap enough to warrent keeping them here, and the real costs is the damage to western society. Those libs that back giving jobs to illegals because they deserve it are about as stupid as as the neo-cons: they will destroy the west and esp. America, due to lack of thought.

    The only real way to save the west, and ultimately, the world, is to automate. In particular, food should be automated. Right now, less than 2% of American labor goes into Ag. One of the bigger issues is that we now import a lot of food. But we increasingly import shrimp from farms in South America and Asia. How bad are these? HORRIBLE. Both use loads of anti-biotics. IN addition, they do it not in isolated ponds, but along the shoreline. THis is some of the most important areas on the earth, and it is being destroyed to send sickly shrimp to the west. Insane.
    Likewise, we get loads of food from China. Hell, Nestle is now producing candy in China. SICK. At this time, upper middle class Chinese buy food from USA, Canada, Australia, and EU. Why? Because they know that the good that is coming from China is loaded with mercury, lead, and many other pollutants. And this is happening again, because China is cheating, and companies like Nestle are greedy as all hell.

    Ever been on a Chinese commercial fishing boat? I have talked to a fishery person that was working on one to make certain that China was not stealing or mis-labelling. She was telling afterwards that she no longer eats fish unless it is from USA, Canada, EU, UK, or Japan. She tells me that China was the worst. Disgusting conditions.

    Robotics will solve a lot of these issues. We can grow our own shrimp here cheaper than importing them. Likewise, the same is true of veggies, fish, etc.

    It is time for America, and the west, to take a stand and say enough is enough. We need to quit backing those that pollute and destroy our planet. Time to put a tax on all goods based on pollution from where they come from.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:This is needed like 10 years ago by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Now, why do these illegals come to America (and canada, EU, UK, and Australia)?

      Hardly at all in Australia because our border is pretty much impossible to cross. If there was a land bridge to Indonesia it would be a different story. Though I should point out that I know this guy, a civil engineer, from Malaysia who moved here recently and got a job inspecting tilt up concrete slabs. Workers are paid below the legal minimum and don't seem to get their benefits. Many of them may not have work visas. So there is a grey labor market here but its not not as overt as it is in the US. My one time there I stayed with friends in New York city. Every household in that building seemed to have a Mexican woman doing their laundry and looking after their kids.

    2. Re:This is needed like 10 years ago by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      You folks have a much bigger illegal issue than you realize. The problem is that your unemployment is low, so your gov. is ignoring it. The only reason for low unemployment is that China is buying your resources. They have started with their real estate bubble popping. It is expected that concrete and iron bubbles will pop in about 3 months. Once they do, they will quit importing iron and Calcium Silicate (cement). They are about to slow down their buying. And where have they imported the majority from for the last 20 years? Exactly. Once that happens, your unemployment will likely shift from the current 5 to over 10. At that time, you will find out that you have LOADS of illegals. They are ppl that came on a visa, but the visa expired, however, they stayed. And I suspect that once that happens, your citizens will scream to end illegals. BTW, other than Latin Americans, the vast majority of illegals here are on expired visas. Illegal Latin Americans doing labor represents over 85% of illegals. But about 10% which are Indians, Chinese, Europeans, Canadians, Australians, etc. are the expired visa's doing upper end jobs.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:This is needed like 10 years ago by pbjones · · Score: 1

      lots of illegals in Australia, but we only care about those that come by boat, the backpackers and students that over stay visas and work on farms are tolerated, wtf?

      --
      There was an unknown error in the submission.
    4. Re:This is needed like 10 years ago by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      lots of illegals in Australia, but we only care about those that come by boat, the backpackers and students that over stay visas and work on farms are tolerated, wtf?

      Illegals in Australia are small in number because of our oceanic border. Its not that they are tolerated, just that there aren't many of them.

    5. Re:This is needed like 10 years ago by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      That resources boom is pushing up the value of the aussie dollar and threatening to move my engineering job to Europe. Ending it would give me job security.

    6. Re:This is needed like 10 years ago by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      There you go. Of course, the company may lose so many sales that they have to let you go. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    7. Re:This is needed like 10 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is time for the rest of the World to take a stand and say enough is enough. We need to quit living in poverty to suppor the west, and start eating fatty americans. On nom nom

    8. Re:This is needed like 10 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Robotics will solve a lot of these issues.

      No, they won't. Adding robots to a task results in automation, not improvement. If humans do the work poorly, cheaply, or unsafely, then robots will do it poorly, cheaply, and unsafely, but faster and more efficiently. The money that would be saved by using robots will simply go to bigger profit margins.

      And please, tone down the scaremongering. It detracts from whatever you're talking about and tends to put people off.

    9. Re:This is needed like 10 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Illegal" isn't a noun.

      How about you rewrite your post using the term "economic migrant working hard to make a better life for his/her family" ?

    10. Re:This is needed like 10 years ago by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      The problem is that western levels of goods, count on taxes being paid as well as re-investment in the local economy. As such illegals who work in the nation, but then send the money out of the nation, are just as bad as those that outsource to China [...]

      What makes you think illegal immigrants don't pay taxes?
      If they're being paid above the table, the IRS takes its bite of their paycheck before they ever touch it.
      And illegals generally don't collect social security, disability, worker's comp, or anything else that's deducted from their checks.

      Good or bad, our agricultural system is built on having a steady influx of (il)legal immigrants from South America do our dirty work.
      The States that pushed out immigrants found themselves fucked when their crops started rotting in the fields.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    11. Re:This is needed like 10 years ago by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      now that's a new, illegals paying taxes. as someone from finland I just assumed that they didn't, because uh, you need to be legal to pay taxes, have social security number and all that.
      I just assumed they were paid under the table, but this way the employer doesn't need to care about that they're illegals?

      around here there's this bigger problem of outsourcing manual labor to out of country companies(company a buys construction from company b, company b then buys the construction from company c which is a polish construction company paying polish wages, then ships the people over. the reason why it's a problem is simple: the polish guys can't live a decent life while they're over here - never mind the companies which ship over russians, they can barely afford to eat here with their salary). I wonder why they don't do that in cali?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    12. Re:This is needed like 10 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To sum your post up. It will help society when more people are unemployed? People come to western Nations, because we transport an image around the world how nice it is over here. The truth is, it is no longer that nice over here, but it is still worse in Africa or Latin-America. And as long our economy produces losers and loser countries, this will not end.

      BTW: We are doomed too, as our lifestyle is not sustainable. Farmbots will not help this issue.

    13. Re:This is needed like 10 years ago by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      First off, I know then a few illegals. I know of one situation in which an illegal married an American (made it look like he was still living in Mexico) , then built up a company that is doing loads of work in Chicago suburbs, using illegals. Now, he is getting divorced because his American wife found out about his Mexican wife. During the investigation, they found out that his declared 70K in profits was over 750K yearly since 2001. And the illegals that he employed? MOST PAID NO TAXES. The thing is that had the gov. looked into this, they would have found that his production level was IMPOSSIBLE. And that is just ONE of a number of illegals that I know.

      Our ag system is NOT built on illegals. It has only become that way over the last 10-20 years. Prior to that, ppl like me worked in the fields. And yes, I did. What is needed is not more illegals, not 'legal' illegals, but automation. And the fact is, that states that went along with the old ways, are the ones that lost out. You lower your labor costs in one of 2 ways: lower wages (which is what illegal do), or lower the hours (automation). The issue with lower wages, is that illegals come here because the pay is STILL above what they pay in other nations. IOW, illegals are turning America into looking like Central America. NO THANKS.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    14. Re:This is needed like 10 years ago by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      How about 'thieves that are stealing from others families illegally'? Does that work for you?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    15. Re:This is needed like 10 years ago by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Odd. This same approach of automating has worked for centuries in helping America, while pushing manual labor has destroyed other nations. And yet, we have to suffer through cowards that have nothing intelligent to say.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    16. Re:This is needed like 10 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America is falling because of its international policies and its focus on helping the rich get richer. Your American CEO's are the ones investing in China and pulling "real" money out of the U.S. in order to gain more profits. The amount of money that undocumented workers send over pales in comparison to the foreign investment by U.S. firms. The only thing that will happen when those workers are replaced with robots is the companies that employ them will continue to profit and invest in other growing markets.

      Your a fool if you believe removing these workers from the equation will somehow lead to more money in the U.S. Once these jobs are automated the companies will look towards mass production and guess where they will not be mass producing them? Think that's funny, while eventually like every other civilization does now and before it, other nations like China will create their own similar technology to compete. But guess what? The complaints by the U.S. worker against other nations instead of its own will continue.

      Now for arguments sake, lets say all the undocumented workers from the south flee the U.S. and end up in their home countries. You do realize how impoverished their home countries are correct? You realize that their home countries have failed in large part due to U.S. foreign policy and intervention? You do see what is happening right now in Mexico correct? What do you think will happen when millions more, and not the bad criminal millions, but the millions who are actually willing to risk their lives to work very difficult jobs are suddenly back in poverty? What do you think will happen when they go where the best opportunities are working for drug dealers?

      The day the U.S. deports everyone is the day the U.S. better stop all its wars and send every troop it has to its borders and streets and isolates itself. The U.S. does not exist in a world by itself, for millions upon millions of years, people have migrated, culture has spread and problems and in areas have and will continue to spread.

    17. Re:This is needed like 10 years ago by evilviper · · Score: 1

      We have neo-cons that encourage illegals to be here working for below prevailing wages, while not paying taxes. Then we have dems leaders that push for amnesty and allowing more illegals in

      Republicans want Mexicans off the books so they can keep on getting paid slave wages, and have no rights. That's why their choice is a work program, so we can drive them across the border, lock them up in an isolated spot, make them work, pay them a pittance, and truck them back across the border again.

      Democrats want to allow legal immigration, so those Mexicans are regular workers, with rights. They'd have to get paid minimum wage & pay taxes, since they can take their employers to the police or the courts just like the rest of us.

      The problem is that its a toxic issues, that neither side has enough capital to force it to go one way or the other, and the status quo is getting worse, so states and individuals are coming up with their own crazy unconstitutional crap.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    18. Re:This is needed like 10 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      white people hate brown people? No, it's more complex. Lower-middle class people hate competiition. Even if it's competition for jobs they won't actually take. As long as they have jobs that they want, it's okay. It's much more a class war than we want to admit.

    19. Re:This is needed like 10 years ago by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Which helps prove my point, if this works. The way that shrimp farming works in Asia and South America is HORRIBLE to the water and to the shrimp. If we quit importing their shrimp, we will see this destructive approach plummet.

      Now what is needed for this shrimp waste is to feed it to another system that can make good use of it and change it from a waste water into a profit center.
      We need automation to solve a lot of our issues. We used to be the MOST automated nation in the world. Then between unions and executives that did not want to spend the money, we lost ground.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    20. Re:This is needed like 10 years ago by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      oops. Just noticed that Joules Unlimited's test system is in the same areas as that shrimp farms. My guess is that Joules and Royal Caridea are working together.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    21. Re:This is needed like 10 years ago by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      know what's needed is to make those illegals legal. Then they get all the work benefits a legal citizen receives, the expense of hiring them goes up, and suddenly those farmers hiring illegals will hire people like you again. The main problem is that illegals work for such low wages (because they're illegal) that they crowd out everyone else. When one state forces farmers to stop hiring illegals or gets rid of their illegals the reason their crops begin to rot is because they can't compete with other states that hire illegals at below minimum wage. So it's obvious the solution is to give amnesty to all of these illegals.

    22. Re:This is needed like 10 years ago by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Your assesment of the neo-cons was right on.

      However,, if you look at the top dems, they want to give total amnesty to the illegals that are here, while the polls of dems show that more than 75% prefer that we boot them all. That would be not just be wrong, it would be a NIGHTMARE. Many of these ppl are well aware of how to get around the system. They have loads of ways to escape paying taxes since they have been doing it for ages. Worse, it rewards those that break the laws.

      But what amazes me is that few think about the fact that if these ppl were given legal status, they would quit doing the same jobs that we say that we need them for. In addition, one of the criteria used for them, the contributing to SSN, medicare, etc for free, would fail BADLY. These illegals would sue to gain all of the money that they put in, AND since it was not enough, they would be given billions more. IOW, illegals would not only fail to do the work that so many say that they would do, they would take even more from an already strained system.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    23. Re:This is needed like 10 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a load of idiotic racist propaganda.

    24. Re:This is needed like 10 years ago by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      What was racist? Not a thing, coward.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    25. Re:This is needed like 10 years ago by cusco · · Score: 1

      If a company pays illegals under the table they can't mark down the expense and deduct it from their taxes. Most illegals in the US **do** pay taxes, social security, etc, using fraudulent documents. That's money they'll never get back, unlike the citizens and legal immigrants, which just goes to effectively lower their pay even further.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    26. Re:This is needed like 10 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear the ACLU and the various LaRaza groups gearing up for a lawsuit against "fam-bots". "Hey essay, we doan need no stinkin' FarmBots! Besides, FarmBaots don't vote like the illegals do just about everywhere out on the Left Coast.

  19. From the title by Megahard · · Score: 1

    I thought it was a mobile app for automated gold farming.

    --
    I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
  20. Cost efficient with lasers but no gps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't get this bit, the robots have laser rangefinders but no GPS, when a GPS chip is 10$ if mass purchased? And an xbee module would be 10$ more, so you can mass control them... Something doesn't add up here...

    1. Re:Cost efficient with lasers but no gps by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      I don't get this bit, the robots have laser rangefinders but no GPS, when a GPS chip is 10$ if mass purchased? And an xbee module would be 10$ more, so you can mass control them... Something doesn't add up here...

      and cameras on the roof of the greenhouse 20bucks a piece, blinking serial indicators to show which bot is which 2 bucks per robot.

      I guess the cost efficiency comes from not needing server software. maybe they got quotes from some expensive warehouse monitoring company on how much that costs..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  21. Bye bye jobs... by DMJC · · Score: 1

    and so it begins... the complete elimination of human labor by the upper classes. So once agriculture and mining are completely automated (and they will be, just wait until we have robots to haul off broken/malfunctioning ones for recycle/repair.) and they've automated all manufacturing (see Foxconn in China) How long will it take for people to get fedup with 1% of the population controlling all the resources leaving everyone else with nothing? If food, mineral and energy production can all be automated why should any of us have to work to live? I'm sure someone will come up with some religious/moral BS as to why we should work. There needs to be a societal overhaul if these technologies do end up being viable. Communism didn't work when you had to wait 5 years to get a car, but if that same car can be built in 30 mins by robots, using resources mined by robots, should anyone really have to go without a car?

    1. Re:Bye bye jobs... by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      if that same car can be built in 30 mins by robots, using resources mined by robots, should anyone really have to go without a car?

      Depends. Did you help to build that robot, or did you join a union and vote for "progressive" taxes and have five kids and do all the things that the most ignorant class in America enjoys doing in order to thwart true progress?

      Do you realize that resources are finite, but that human population grows exponentially? Do you recognize the coming clusterfuck we will have to deal with as a civilization when medical technology doubles our effective lifespan and old people still own 99% of the Earth while the young can't find jobs?

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    2. Re:Bye bye jobs... by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

      Ah, I guess you like Ayn Rand.

      If we get to half or more of the population being unemployed due to efficient automation, people will be unable to contribute at all. Even though there will be the same wealth in general, it will be concentrated into those few who built the robots and those who own the robots. That is an untenable position (think civil war style untenable, not Occupy).

      If you're building a society in which labor is scarce, you have to think about how to support people who would be laborers, and who will therefore be unable to work.

    3. Re:Bye bye jobs... by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Over half of the population doesn't work already. Most people, even those with jobs, contribute little or nothing. The unemployment statistics are so cooked it takes a degree in economics just to understand. The "labor force" only includes people who are actively looking for work. That's only half the population. Wikipedia:

      People not counted include students, retired people, stay-at-home parents, people in prisons or similar institutions... as well as discouraged workers who cannot find work.

      When you consider that most of those people are state-subsidized, then we reached the point of "untenable position" a long time ago. In fact, probably it was around the time that Ayn Rand was pointing this out. And even within the limited "labor force", there's still 10% unemployment. Sorry buddy, but "first they came for the child workers". There's simply no one left to speak up for the manual laborers. If anything, now they're even coming for the robot builders. I personally could care less, because I'm not trapped in an archaic 16th century economic paradigm like those pleading for more ditch-digging jobs.

      That is an untenable position (think civil war style untenable, not Occupy).

      If the robots have guns, it will be untenable not to own one.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    4. Re:Bye bye jobs... by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      And, on top of all that, I even forgot my most important point: the entire fake economy is subsidized by government money printing. The Federal Reserve's inflation target is nothing more than forced wealth redistribution.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    5. Re:Bye bye jobs... by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

      Wow, you're coherent.

      Agreed, on the cooked statistics. Same in my country (the Netherlands). In a country of 16 million people, the labor force is about 4-5 million. That means people who work or are looking for work. A few million live on government welfare of various sorts, a million or so work *for* government, etc. These numbers are worse for us because we spend a LOT of money on social security. That said, I'm all for subsidizing students and retired people. Stay-at-home parents could be encouraged depending on your political views. And we do not have the proportionally massive prison population you do in the States.

      I like to approach these positions from an extreme, much in the same way Rand did, but realizing that we're not at that extreme. If all manual labor jobs have been taken and we've achieved national welfare that can sustain all citizens in comfort, then you need to either abolish money, or give everyone a government grant, because noone can contribute enough to live. So it seems logical to me that, as low-skilled labor dries up due to increasing technology and wealth, we will have more and more people receiving part of that wealth without doing anything in return.

      The discussion, then, is how can we keep people contributing as much as possible, without sacrificing that increase in wealth. People who contribute are happier than those who are parasitical.

      Also I, for one, welcome our gun-wielding robot overlords.

  22. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by benjamindees · · Score: 1

    No, it wouldn't be cheaper. When they come here, they don't leave. They vote illegally in our fraudulent elections. They take jobs building unnecessary houses stolen from middle-class savers by the Federal Reserve's inflation tax. They send all of their earnings back to their home countries. They have five kids who are educated for free in our public schools. And they get all of their medical care from emergency rooms.

    It's not fucking cheaper at all.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  23. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    No. Only an idiot would think that. The fact that somebody comes to the west to work says that even below minimum wages, they are making more than they make in other nations. So, that means that costs of goods is STILL TOO EXPENSIVE. To lower the costs, you have to automate. Simply outsourcing will only serve to destroy the west and turn it into looking like Central America or Northern Africa (poor and uneducated).

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  24. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by benjamindees · · Score: 1

    Oh and I forgot the most important part -- our criminal government uses them as an excuse to turn the US into an Orwellian nightmare.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  25. Green Acres 2011 remake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eddie Albert: "The chores!"

    Eva Gabor: "The stores!"

    Steve Wozniak: "The cores!"

  26. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    BS. I know LOADS of kids around my area that will be HAPPY to flip burgers and mow lawns. The problem is that many of the fast foods are owned by foreigners and hired loads of hispanics that can not speak any english, and who obviously do not live in this area. IOW, they are racists, so the local kids suffer.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  27. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Poppycock. If we send back all of the illegals, then our unemployment will be around 5%. Then we move forward on automation. That is what we did from the mid 1800-1980. Starting in 1980, our nation was gutted by 2 presidents. They encouraged the outsourcing of manufacturing, as well as bringing loads of illegals. Heck, one of the 2 idiots gave amnesty to all of the illegals, but then did NOTHING to prevent future illegals.

    We need to modify HR2885 to be a bit stronger, as well as add a modified dream act to it (treat the victims differently from the criminals). Those that were raised here, speak english (i.e. culturally are Americans), are in school, or have a GED or better, and have no legal issues (other than being illegal) and have ZERO association with gangs, should be allowed to earn citizenship after completing all of the previous and doing service for America. HR2885 requires e-verify. Not a total solution, but far far better than what we have. In addition, once all businesses are required to use it, it is VERY effective.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  28. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    BS. America can not afford to outsource everything. It is destroying us. Far far better to automate the low end jobs. As it is, even the illegals are not working those. Less than 5% of all illegals work in Ag. The majority work in Service (restaurants, janitorial, etc) and CONSTRUCTION. How good of pay is in Construction? Well, many of these illegals are under paid at 60K/year. How do they make 60/year? They do not pay taxes. Far better to automate the Ag portions (easier to do than you can believe), much of the service, and even parts of construction. Then not only will we have much lower unemployment (send back all illegals except for those that qualify for dream act; that would give us about 5% unemployment), but we would have less drains on gov. and improved tax collections.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  29. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by Nutria · · Score: 1

    we're out of school, with degrees, with no jobs for us

    What kind of degrees?

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  30. in the past worker jammed up the works in the new by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    and so it begins... the complete elimination of human labor by the upper classes. So once agriculture and mining are completely automated (and they will be, just wait until we have robots to haul off broken/malfunctioning ones for recycle/repair.) and they've automated all manufacturing (see Foxconn in China) How long will it take for people to get fedup with 1% of the population controlling all the resources leaving everyone else with nothing? If food, mineral and energy production can all be automated why should any of us have to work to live? I'm sure someone will come up with some religious/moral BS as to why we should work. There needs to be a societal overhaul if these technologies do end up being viable. Communism didn't work when you had to wait 5 years to get a car, but if that same car can be built in 30 mins by robots, using resources mined by robots, should anyone really have to go without a car?

    in the past workers jammed up the works in the new Machines and hackers will be a big risk.

  31. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by Jeremi · · Score: 1

    They'd, though, rather demand a government check for doing nothing.

    Citation badly needed.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  32. Of course . . . by StefanJ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    . . . while the tundra is warming (and turning into swamps, not arable farmland), the vast subtropical regions where most of the world's population lives will be subject to desertification and/or devastating storms.

    Harsh winters are GOOD for agriculture. They stir up the soil and kill off insects and weeds. We'll be getting fewer of those hard winters as things warm up.

    Robot farmhands are nice for societies with lots of excess wealth. Don't expect them to save our asses.

    1. Re:Of course . . . by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Right, it's little comfort to me as I watch fifty years of topsoil dry up and blow away as a plague of locusts and beetles devour my crops, knowing that somewhere in Canada, timberland with no roads or civilization within 100 miles is now suitable for human food production.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    2. Re:Of course . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saskatchewan's Provincial Tree is located in downtown Regina, thank you very much. Manitoba's died from the cold years ago.

    3. Re:Of course . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, harsh winters are indeed good for agriculture. As I enjoy my cheap-as-dirt produce shivering here in Florida, and as I keep a sharp ear out for wolves howling in the ice-bound distance, I silently thank God for the arctic winters that give us our citrus fruit and stir up our soil and kill off our insects and weeds. Indeed, Florida, even more so than the rest of the American south, would hardly be the agricultural paradise that it is without harsh winters that chill to the bone and leave the flamingos encased in blocks of pink ice.

    4. Re:Of course . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way to reduce resource usage, is to reduce the population. Since no disease will ever achieve the same effects as the bubonic plague, the only other option is a very large scale war, which will use up even more resources. The other, even more unlikely option, is aggressive birth control, to reduce population growth.

      So, what we have to do, is this. Move forward as fast as possible to stay ahead of disaster.

      What these people are doing, is a very good thing, but surprisingly weak effort considering the tech advances in the past few decades.

  33. About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've been running version 1.0, a.k.a. "exploiting illegal immigrants" for too long.

  34. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by ewieling · · Score: 1

    Alabama recently passed a "tough new immigration law". It has not helped the unemployment rate. Americans don't WANT tough, dirty, low paying farm work.

    <URL:http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-alabamas-immigration-law-is-crippling-its-farms/2011/11/01/gIQAg0JvjM_story.html>

    <URL:http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec11/makingsense_10-28.html>

    <URL:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/21/after-alabama-immigration-law-few-americans-taking-immigrants-work_n_1023635.html>

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44981872/ns/us_news-life/t/few-americans-take-immigrants-jobs-alabama/

    --
    I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
  35. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by Reziac · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And it wasn't that long ago (just a generation or two) that our kids did all the same work that illegals do today. Every kid had a summer job, on the farm or in some related capacity.

    I've sometimes thought that a required period of such labour (perhaps earning college money in escrow) would put a different perspective into the heads of today's youth.

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  36. All I Can Say Is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shit.

  37. Huey, Dewie, and Louie by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    I'm just throwing this out there for the other five people that have seen this movie and know what I am talking about.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Huey, Dewie, and Louie by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Not the young ones obviously. But I think the more obvious reference is star wars. I imagine C3PO roaming an Australian cattle station ambushing cows and annoying them into going in for muster.

    2. Re:Huey, Dewie, and Louie by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      I'll post it again... Worst... Movie... Ever... we rented it from Netflix, and on some strange twist of fate ended up holding the disc for 6 weeks, sorry to the other 4 fans who might have been waiting on it.

    3. Re:Huey, Dewie, and Louie by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

      That's ok man it's not a film for everybody.

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
    4. Re:Huey, Dewie, and Louie by Reziac · · Score: 1

      LOL!! So I'm not the only weirdo who thought of that old movie after all :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  38. Agricultural robots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clifford Simak would have been pleased.

    1. Re:Agricultural robots... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      An example? Most if the farmers I recall in his stories were real human people.

  39. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    While I object to what Alabama had in there, and the fact that it was not that effective (does not go after all of the illegals), but it did just go in and it IS having the desired and positive effect.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  40. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by wanzeo · · Score: 2

    Now we're out of school, with degrees, with no jobs for us, and we're berated and jeered at because we refuse to flip burgers and mow lawns.

    I will refer you to this , which I saw on reddit the other day. It is interesting.

    Also, I attribute the economic pain we are feeling now on the effects of the world slowly approaches an "average" standard of living. So as the very large third world get a slightly bit richer, the very small first world must get a LOT poorer.

    So the "I did everything I was told, I have a college degree, and I demand to stay at my childhood standard of living" argument is valid, but simply not going to happen. In a world of limited resources, "fair" counts for absolutely nothing.

  41. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by benjamindees · · Score: 1

    I tend to think required death panels would put a different perspective in the heads of the geezers...

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  42. Probably better for a more controlled environment. by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 1

    You can almost certainly do this on a standard farm but likely it's going to be much much easier to do this with a hydroponics setup with side rails allowing robots to move quickly up and down the rows to place and tend the plants.

    The big thing in this type of scenario I think that would still require the "human touch" so to speak would be harvesting. You could probably handle that with video recognition and soft grippers but there's still a chance of damaging the plant while picking the fruit/vegetable.

    And harvesting vined plants would be problematic to say the least. Large melons and squash that are ground fruit would be particularly difficult.

    I don't see "farmbas" doing harvesting any time soon. Not cheaply at least.

    --

    "Bah!" - Dogbert
  43. Hank said it. by koan · · Score: 1

    "“I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I have not lived.”"
    -Henry David Thoreau

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  44. Make it a facebook game by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 0

    You won't have to do AI programming on the bots if you just have people operating them like waldos. What could possibly go wrong?

  45. Don't buy those robots! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'll involve you in a big galactic conflict, get your aunt and uncle killed, and turns you into a mass murderer who blows up a battle station full of service personell and cleaners.

    Just fix those damned water evaporators yourself!

  46. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by Reziac · · Score: 1

    That too :/

    Doesn't Israel still have a requirement for national service?

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  47. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by znerk · · Score: 1

    Simply outsourcing will only serve to destroy the west

    Sadly enough, I'm considering moving to India so I can get a job in the IT field in the US market.

    I wish I were joking.

    --
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
  48. Vertical gardens by nr · · Score: 1

    That is nice, but I like the idea of vertical farming, a good solution for countries in the northern hemisphere where you can't grow anything outdoors between October to May. With vertical gardens you can grow inside hangars or even in standard size containers during cold period.

  49. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by Nutria · · Score: 1

    I and members of my family *see* families who have been on welfare since the 1980s, and who's large front yard barbecues indicate a distinct lack of physical and mental disability.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  50. Farms are already automated. by znerk · · Score: 1

    A lot of harvesting is already largely automated; this article's "new thing" is pre-harvest agricultural automation - specifically, using 'bots to plant stuff (or at least place seedlings and potted plants). Perhaps the foodstuffs you're describing won't be able to be automated (yet), but if it comes right down to it, we can grow our own tomatoes, melons, and squash to supplement the mass-produced (read: automated) foodstuffs like grains and tree-borne fruit. If bots can plant seeds, other bots can water/fertilize those seeds, and yet other bots can harvest the product, it'll be a revolution in the agricultural industry. The price still needs to come down, since they're targeting the "$25,000 to $50,000 per unit" price range, but all it will take is someone realizing they can still make a profit selling nearly the exact same thing for 10% of the price, making up the difference in volume - Selling an item for 10% of the profit will likely generate 20x the sales, thus actually generating twice the profit - something the music/movie industries might do well to learn.

    The biggest issue with agriculture, as I see it, is that we're mass-producing corn (a product with dubious nutritional value) on most of our arable land, and then turning around and producing fuel with it. That land could be put to much better use with an actual nutritionally viable crop, or even as hemp (the productive qualities of industrial hemp are too many to list in a single post, but I'll throw some basics out for general consumption, and trust google to provide more information for those who are interested: paper, textiles (clothing, fabric, rope), biofuels, construction materials (mortar, fiberboard/particleboard, cardboard), oxygen (more than trees!)... the list goes on and on and on).

    --
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    1. Re:Farms are already automated. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The price still needs to come down, since they're targeting the "$25,000 to $50,000 per unit" price range, but all it will take is someone realizing they can still make a profit selling nearly the exact same thing for 10% of the price, making up the difference in volume - Selling an item for 10% of the profit will likely generate 20x the sales, thus actually generating twice the profit - something the music/movie industries might do well to learn.

      It should, perhaps, be noted that "10% of price" is NOT the same as "10% of profit".

      It should also be noted that the music/movie industry has already pretty much saturated the market.

      You're not going to get ten times as many people buying DVD's by lowering the price by a factor of ten, since pretty much everyone who wants the DVD is already willing to pay the trivial price for it (I can buy multiple DVDs for the price of an evening out with the wife)...

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Farms are already automated. by znerk · · Score: 1

      I can buy multiple DVDs for the price of an evening out with the wife

      Either "an evening out with your wife" is extremely expensive, or we're not thinking of the same DVDs, or both. I was thinking of new-release DVDs, typically approximately $20 each.

      Also, considering the likely cost of manufacturing a DVD, I must take offense at your "10% of the price is 10% of the profit".

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
  51. I should contact them. by Scholasticus · · Score: 1

    What I really need is one that understands the binary language of moisture vaporators. I wonder if they have any plans to make one.

  52. Not farmbots by drgould · · Score: 1

    They're barely nurserybots.

    They only move nursery pots from one place to another... that's it.

    Which I admit is cool to watch and I'm sure saves a lot of repetitive back-breaking labor in greenhouses and nurseries, but they're a loooong way from "farmbots".

  53. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by chromas · · Score: 1

    Fahrenheits, but most jobs require Celsiuses now.

  54. Hoe-bots, not ro-bots... by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

    The article misses the long term point. One day a small team of farmbots can and will replace both herbicide and insecticide and, to some extent, fertilizer. Powered by the sun, they will spend all daylight hours simply moving up and down the rows of desired plants, distinguishing them from non-desired plants by AI, and using very simple tools to remove/kill those plants. They will similarly be able to identify and kill or spot treat various undesireable "bugs" and other parasites or diseases. They will be able to do things such as loosen the soil above the root masses of the plants to permit optimal penetration of water, precisely mulch and/or fertilize each plant, replant seedlings as they die in the early going so that the field is optimally productive, and quite possibly will be able to deliver just enough water to plants to keep them healthy during at least moderate droughts.

    A farmbot capable of all of these things, powered by solar cells, shouldn't cost more than $1000 in a production (not research) environment. The computer guts for it are all cheap by now. It's little more than a Roomba repurposed to "vacuum" down the rows of a field (and hardened against the elements). The hard part is just writing the software, and that's all one time capital investment. A single month's worth of work from one would likely pay for it in reduced labor and chemical costs, not to mention the price premium for "organic" food as more and more people recognize that dumping chlorinated hydrocarbons and neurotoxins onto our food year after year is probably not a really stellar idea.

    This may not happen this year, or even this decade, but I think that it is very likely to be coming. Perhaps this startup won't make it. Perhaps it will, using modest success with this very humble precursor to fund gradual improvements until they achieve it. But humans haven't the patience to do the kind of work that a farmbot will do, not at any price, neither domesticated nor imported. Tireless, working from sunup to sundown, processing order of meters of row per minute it will be able to keep one or more acre of planted crop "perfectly" productive without the use of chemicals or far more expensive human time.

    Oh, it may not be configured LIKE a roomba as a single crawler -- it may be more effective to build it as (for example) a single brain in a larger, more expensive chassis that can process ten or twenty rows at a time (plenty of cycles to accomplish this in a single central computer, especially with multiple cores). But it's coming.

    rgb

    --
    Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    1. Re:Hoe-bots, not ro-bots... by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      I totally agree. I like the name and the roomba analogy. I suspect that $1000 is an underestimate by an order of magnitude, and also that it won't be practical to make these things self-powering. It's much better to let them run on rechargeable batteries, like the roomba. That way they can also work at night. But yes, I really hope that this is the future of agriculture - and the near future, as near as possible!

    2. Re:Hoe-bots, not ro-bots... by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      Well, perhaps $1000 per row -- as I noted at the end, it might be better to build a large hoebot capable of doing 20 rows at once with a single brain. The issue of batteries vs solar (or some mix of the two) would have to be worked out on a cost-benefit basis. Assuming 20 rows 1 meter wide (each), one could cover the entire unit with 10KW worth of cells fairly simply, which gives you more than enough energy to move forward at a steady crawl and perform both the computational and cultivational tasks. That's half the budget of a $20K machine. You're right, even $1000/row might be an underestimate, but it's all capital investment with a potentially long amortization and substantial cost savings (no need to buy expensive chemicals and expensive machinery to safely dispense those chemicals). Those aren't cheap either, and they are an annual expense that leaves you at the mercy of the big agrichemical companies and the manufacturers of farm equipment and various inspectors and the risk that one day somebody will discover that the insecticide you are using causes birth defects or the like and force you completely alter your farming methodology and repurchase capital equipment and shift to yet another chemical (that is without doubt going to be more expensive). Also, mass production should improve economy of scale.

      I really don't think it will cost $200K for a production hoebot capable of doing 20 row swatches at a rate of a few meters a minute -- that's more what I would expect to spend building a prototype by hand out of over the counter materials. $10-20K for solar cells and battery backup. Some hefty electric motors for primary motion. Over the counter "robot arms" with a small rotary cultivator on the end and a cheap USB CCD binocular camera. A simple, lightweight PVC "trestle" to connect the brain to the per-row wheels and cultivator units, provide channels for the control wiring, and support the solar array. I actually think it would be pretty bone simple to build a prototype for a hardware budget of $250K (plus whatever sweat-equity in a startup is worth for labor, testing, and coding). I could be wrong, though.

      With a prototype in hand, it would then be straightforward to redesign it to be cheap and mass-producible, which ought to cut costs by quite a bit...

      A fun idea to play with, anyway.

      rgb

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    3. Re:Hoe-bots, not ro-bots... by radtea · · Score: 1

      I read the title as "Ho-bot" and was thinking you were making an argument that, err... "household" robots were going to be more important to our near future than farming robots...

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    4. Re:Hoe-bots, not ro-bots... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      The big challenge is in the vision, sort of like DARPA's Grand Challenge, but without the speed requirement. If you've got a (big enough) grant, I'm ready to work on it.

    5. Re:Hoe-bots, not ro-bots... by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, I did think about that possibility as well, especially robots with certain useful, ummm, "attachments". Or features. Or whatever. But really, ho-bots are not news; they have been readily available for decades at least with every bit as much intelligence as the real thing.

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
  55. Ditch the AI entirely by madeye+the+younger · · Score: 1

    Why do these robots have to be autonomous? How about instead, the robots get to do the back-breaking part of the job under the direct control of a seasoned farm hand? Sheesh, would controlling a robot to weed a garden be all that much different than Farmville?

    1. Re:Ditch the AI entirely by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      This is a good point, but still, some AI would be useful. You don't want the human to sweat the details of every move the thing makes. And honestly (no disrespect to field workers), I can't think of a single piece of labor done in the fields that present-day AI couldn't handle. Remember, AI is a Moore's Law phenomenon - it will soon be trivially cheap. We're already clever enough to make electronic noses which can sniff the ripeness of a piece of fruit. The mechanics of harvesting, pulling weeds, pruning branches, applying fertilizer, and everything else I can think of, are at least as algorithmic as driving safely in traffic. And we've solved the latter with AI. The problem is that farm workers are too cheap to make it economical to build these robots. However, this will change within a couple of decades.

  56. Re:It will never be cheaper by MinistryOfTruthiness · · Score: 1

    That may be true, but then, Mexicans get paid more than 2 bucks a day. Fortunately for everyone, businesses sitting down to do the math eliminate such ridiculous hyperbole from the word "Go."

    --
    "I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
  57. Be Careful What You Ask For by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Agricultural robots, what a concept -- no dealings with La Migra or needing to work on one's Spanish. Or is it? There are a lot of crappy, dangerous jobs around -- and while it is hard to not admire those with the courage and determination to earn a living this way it should be an afront to human dignity that this is necessary. But as robots (and outsourcing) displace people who may not have either the opportunity or ability or inclination to be knowledge workers with advanced degrees -- what happens to them? I doubt that they will not just quietly and obligingly go away. Reality shows and government handouts? Soylent Green? I suspect one thing is true -- if these redundant people are not repurposed in some socially beneficial way they will remind us of their presence. I am thinking Russian revolution myself but there are probably other ways -- 'Occupy' is just the start. While we are waiting for the self-drive car to take us home we better hope it is not through a countryside being ravaged by gangs of the displaced.

    1. Re:Be Careful What You Ask For by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if we're getting lots of healthy food grown by robots, why don't we just give some of this to all the displaced workers? Remember, this technology will make us richer, so we'll have more wealth to share. So why not actually do it? Compared to other things we pay for, this kind of welfare spending would actually not be so expensive, even if it were dramatically increased. And our focus should be on the kids of these low-skilled workers - on making sure they grow up to be high-skilled workers who don't need welfare. There is nothing natural or inevitable about every generation having a "toiling" class. That's exactly the attitude we need to get over.

      If our new automated economy produces all the goods we want without everyone being employed, how is that a bad thing? What's your problem with leisure? And we're working on automating education as well, so I suspect that lots of people will spend many years of edu-leisure, working through advanced degree programs a couple of days a week and goofing off the rest of the time. And I think this is awesome, and they should be subsidized by the "real" workers in their lifestyles (those real workers being largely robots, of course). And who knows what these people might accomplish once the spirit moves them?

    2. Re:Be Careful What You Ask For by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

      You'd *have* to dole out food and goods and housing. The problem is, this gives you power over them, and that will be abused. To say nothing of the big-L Libertarians (or worse) who'd posit that since these people no longer contribute, they're getting what they deserve. Or just simply greedy people.

      You think leisure, which is fine, but moneyless leisure time sucks ass.

  58. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by couchslug · · Score: 2

    No, and one advantage is keeping "Third World" workers OUT of modern countries.

    Like it or not, exclusivity protects economic advantage.

    Get rid of the need for cheap labor (which exclusively comes from "less accomplished" humans) and you can keep such humans from burdening your society.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  59. fembots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I initially read farmbots as fembots :(

  60. Economics of migrant farm workers... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

    ...will cost much more than a minimum wage laborer.

    Minimum wage is for people who work within the law, since many farms hire illegal immigrants to pick their crops, they get their labor for less than minimum wage. That sad fact alone put me off the idea of owning and operating an orange grove.

  61. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

    Poppycock. If we send back all of the illegals, then our unemployment will be around 5%.

    Unemployment stats come from people seeking work who cannot find it. Do you think any of the current unemployment benefit collectors will step up and do farm work out in the sun for minimum wage? Do you think the farmers are ready to pay minimum wage to their workers?

  62. Record deportations under the Obama Administration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your solution to too many undocumented workers is to eliminate the job? I would suggest putting more thought in this. Yes, it might keep that money in our local economy, assuming those new machines are somehow built in America and not Taiwan, but it doesn't solve the underlying problem. If agriculture were entirely automated tomorrow, illegal immigration from Mexico would not end. All that would change is what those workers try to do. I imagine more in construction, childcare, the sex trade, etc.

    When reacting to illegal immigration we Americans tend to forget that it is a difficult decision to leave your country. Most people, regardless of where they are born, don't want to leave. So when it comes down to it, the underlying problem is not why they come, but why they left where they were. The problem is the condition of Mexico. We can help them. We can help them so long as if we can forget the "it's not our responsibility" mentality and recognize that by helping Mexico, we ultimately aid our self interest.

    One good first step would be legalizing marijuana. If marijuana was grown here, the FDA could check it for safety and quality, ending additive fatalities. It could be taxed. The price of marijuana would drop like a rock. Those addicted could get their fix for much less, likely reducing petty crime. And it would undercut the funding of the drug cartels in Mexico. I don't like that people use the stuff, or alcohol or tobacco for that matter, but that is hardly a good enough reason for the policies we have.

    What ideas do you have for step two?

    * Don't get me wrong, I think we should also crucify employers of undocumented workers in addition to helping Mexico.

  63. Re:This is obviously the future (NOT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a bit concerned about all of this advancement to support extended population growth. My gut feeling is that we are just setting up ourselves for a big fall the more we detach ourselves from nature. Like a house of cards. It can only go so high before the entire system collapses. It's just a matter of when. For example, a high-altitude nuclear warhead my never cause bodily harm. But the EMP it releases is enough to shutdown entire nations with all microchips fried. That means no transportation and running water. Within weeks, people start dieing and bodies decomposing where they last crawled for survival. Truly scary stuff.

    Agreed. Only recently did I become aware (2006) of how fragile the entire "system" is, how dependent we are on fossil fuels and oil for food, and how decrepit our infrastructure has become from negelect. There is no redundancy of critical infrastructure, no checks-and-balance on system resources, nothing. The number of humans existing today are already extended waaay past the carry capacity of the planet, and we're looking to push even further. We've created this house of cards, instead of a garden of paradise. The fall will be hard, it will happen in our lifetime (as we are already seeing/feeling the first phase of resource contention) and our children and grandchildren will pay for our wanton foolishness.

    Yes, there will be people, survivors, that will carry on...presuming that the handful of idiot superpowers that exist didn't build "spoilers" (aka hardended systems that were designed to auto-retaliate against a nuclear first strike). There's already evidence that the former Soviets had built such a system and had nearly activated it several times. If we can get past these stoooopid slate-wipers that we decided to build because of our primate-driven political posturing to each other, then, yeah, an agrarian society might emerge from the ashes, although it will be much poorer for our petty sins against ourselves.

    But these dark clouds are not all without a silver lining. First and foremost, educate yourself in the "old ways" of living, learn how to do things with handtools and muscle power, learn about basic intensive agriculture in your backyard (or if in a flat/apartment/condo, set up a small table-based greenhouse on your deck or window), etc. Education, you know, that thing that we keep cutting and neglecting in the United States every year, will go a long ways toward mitigating disaster for yourself. Once you achieve a basic proficiency with a given project, begin a new one and learn something, while teaching any close family members that are willing to listen.

    The time to do this is growing short. The current economic meltdown is not the same as the one from the 1930's; back then we had fewer people, more natural resources, and not nearly the stupidity of today. Even if the US manages to crawl out of the hole it's created, it won't last for long, as peak resource production has already occurred for oil, and many resources are due to be depleted right around the "several decades it will take to get out of this".

    In other words, this is the tip of the iceburg. The time to act is now, not tomorrow.

  64. "Ender's Farm" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > The first few levels are virtual, but at some point the user's proficiency reaches a threshold, and they start moving actual plants. No need to tell them that though.

    "Ender's Farm" ?

  65. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Do you think any of the current unemployment benefit collectors will step up and do farm work out in the sun for minimum wage? Do you think the farmers are ready to pay minimum wage to their workers?

    No. To both. But then again, neither do the illegals. Illegal immigrants work in many sectors of the U.S. economy. According to National Public Radio in 2005, about 3 percent work in agriculture; 33 percent have jobs in service industries; and substantial numbers can be found in construction and related occupations (16 percent), and in production, installation, and repair (17 percent).[5] According to USA Today in 2006, about 4 percent work in farming; 21 percent have jobs in service industries; and substantial numbers can be found in construction and related occupations (19 percent), and in production, installation, and repair (15 percent), with 12% in sales, 10% in management, and 8% in transportation.[6] Illegal immigrants have lower incomes than both legal immigrants and native-born Americans, but earnings do increase somewhat the longer an individual is in the country.[5]

    A percentage of illegal immigrants do not remain indefinitely but do return to their country of origin; they are often referred to as “sojourners: they come to the United States for several years but eventually return to their home country."[7]
    And those numbers are what we KNOW about. It is very likely that the numbers are very skewed. The chances are the that the illegals occupy far more in the non-ag sector. So, these robots will simply not take away that many jobs, but will keep an industry locals.

    The ag argument for illegals is nonsense. Total and 100% pure nonsense. The fact that they chose to come here proves that they make more money here doing that work, then doing it at their home nation. After all, if they made more there, they would stay there. So, the ONLY way to lower our costs, is to automate it.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  66. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

    All I know, from personal experience, was that in the '80s and early '90s, you never saw an "immigrant" face in town in central Florida orange picking country. At that time, they slept in the fields, kept out of sight. Somewhere in the late '90s, the whole amnesty thing finally started gaining trust in the community, all of a sudden there were lines 20 people deep waiting to talk on a payphone, huge groups (like 20 and 30 people) would pool their money and rent a trailer together, buy a big old heap of a car and load 9 and 10 at a time into it - blast down the highway having the thrill of a lifetime I'm sure...

    Over the last 10 years, they have started to integrate into the communities a little better, but there are still massive drug problems that spill over into the "non immigrant" population, not that the drug problems weren't there in the non immigrants before, but now the immigrants are clearly having as much problem with crack as the native Americans have had with alcohol for the last 100 years.

    My point, if there is one, is that census and survey based statistics about this population are shaky at best, most likely twisted to the pre-determined views of the statistic gatherer.

    I'm all for automation of farming, especially orange grove maintenance and harvesting... but, it will be a long long time before the machines are cheaper to build and maintain than a (pardon the prejudices) trailer dwelling family of crackheads. For one thing, the hidden costs of the family are spread onto social services, supported by the taxpayers instead of the employers.

  67. Re:Record deportations under the Obama Administrat by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

    individualism in America has worked selfish greed. I don't think these people understand that helping Mexicans would help themselves.in some ways you can understand why they might not like the illegals, but even if you show them evidence that integrating these people into normal society would be beneficial to everyone these people will still have some hatred. they're just too darn selfish. it's a common problem among the baby boomers and it won't go away until that generation finally dies off.

  68. MO or Wall-E anyone? by Julz · · Score: 2

    I'd love to see a few MO and Wall-E style bots around in the garden centres. That would make my morning coffee so much more entertaining :)

    --
    When shit hits the fan get some of these https://youtu.be/pY-GncsZ-UE
  69. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by cusco · · Score: 1

    I keep hearing about these people, but have yet to meet one. They must stay carefully hidden, like the Cadillac-driving welfare queens, and the illegal aliens who live on welfare and vote. How do you penetrate the invisibility screen?

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  70. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by Nutria · · Score: 1

    Know someone in the Post Office who delivers their monthly checks.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  71. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by cusco · · Score: 1

    have ZERO association with gangs

    Then you're going to exclude everyone who lives in a poor neighborhood, I take it? In fairness, you probably haven't lived anywhere that the gangs were more visible/powerful than the local police, but many of those people who do are the illegals. They don't have any choice about whether they deal with the gangs or not.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  72. I've seen this one! by muirnin · · Score: 1
  73. Never say never by mangu · · Score: 1

    If you think of raw energy, let's say running an electric generator connected to a treadmill, humans are way too expensive.

    A human can produce, roughly, one kilowatt-hour per day of work. Check your electricity bill to see how much it costs. Now find someone who's willing to work a full day for that pay.

    No matter how harshly you treat them, even a slave would cost several orders of magnitude more.

  74. I've been thinking about our agreement... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And if these new droids do work out, I wanna transmit my application to the Academy THIS year.

  75. Re:Record deportations under the Obama Administrat by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    I have always disliked our trade with China. The problem is that China is not just cheating, the gov. is in a cold war with the west. Basically, they are out to grab Taiwan soon and then continue the expansion esp. into areas that have traditionally belonged to others, but now have resources. The sprately islands is just one example.
    Mexico is already in a civil war. That is in no small part due to America. We have large drug demands and Mexican drug lords supply it. Some because they want the money (i.e. businessmen), but for others, it is because they are terrorist and seek to inflict harm on America (zetas).

    I think that we need to legalize drugs here, but regulate heavily and allow ZERO imports/exports. That will starve the many beasts in Mexico, and they will die. I would like to see closer work with Mexican universities. We can and should improve that.
    We REALLY screwed up NAFTA, and all trade acts for that matter. It should have been used to not just allow trade, but it should have required top environmental conditions (I would accept American as a MINIMUM, but prefer Canada's), and Labor Laws as well (prefer a more streamline version of ours) as well as requiring money be freely traded.

    Fianlly, we need to start enforcing these. China was required to change a number of things, and instead, they have gotten much worse. W/neo-cons screwed up America with that BS. We need to start enforcing the FTA with China (they honor NONE of their promises) and work towards improving all the other ones.

    And this is not just Mexico, but all of Latin America that needs the help. However, bringing illegals to America and turning America into a 3rd world nation will NOT solve these other nation's issues.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  76. Re:Record deportations under the Obama Administrat by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    And you would be wrong. Based on what I have seen, integrating illegals will never happen. We did that once and it caused more issues, not solved things. Sadly, fools like yourself will continue to cause issues because you do not look at history or try for new innovations.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  77. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    You are correct that I know nothing about gangs. However, I do know illegals personally. And none of them live around gangs.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  78. Re:Record deportations under the Obama Administrat by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    BTW, legalizing pot would do little to stop druglords. The truth is that few of them make their money in pot. Zetas, who are the worst, do not bother with it, so legalizing pot would do NOTHING to stop them.

    It has to be ALL drugs that are legalized, heavily regulated to prevent ANY drug lords/gang sourcing (and ideally stop any major drug company from getting into it as well; this would re-build our pharmaceutical and chemical companies). In addition, you have to stop the imports and exports of it.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  79. Re:Let 3rd world workers do it instead by cusco · · Score: 1

    They're comparatively lucky, then. A couple of my nephews grew up in the slums of Lima, Peru, and when one of them was here he worked with a number of Latinos who grew up in East LA, Houston, Miami, etc. They all echoed the reality that when one lives in a neighborhood dominated by gang bangers you have no choices beyond 1) be friendly with them, or 2) be victimized daily by them. Any idea of protection by the police as they do their twice-daily drive through the neighborhood in their patrol cars is a joke.

    In response to the almost-inevitable question of 'why do they live there', the simple reply is where else are they going to live when they arrive with no money, no job, and no family, and when they do get a job how are they going to build up enough assets to move to a 'better' neighborhood when they send a quarter or more of their pitifully-small paycheck back home to support their families?

    Welcome to their world.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin