Slashdot Mirror


World's First Robotic Farm To Produce 11 Million Heads of Lettuce Per Year (inhabitat.com)

MikeChino writes: Japanese company SPREAD is preparing to open the world's first robot-controlled farm. The facility is designed to produce 11 million heads of lettuce each year, and it's expected to ship its first crop in Fall 2017. The new 47,300 square feet Vegetable Factory in Kansai Science City will also reduce construction costs by 25 percent and energy demand by 30 percent.

161 comments

  1. I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But I can't wait for spinach, radishes and beets.

    1. Re: I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Lettuce wait and see if this pans out.

    2. Re:I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I welcome the proper use of "its" and "it's" in the summary, maybe due to the new overlords. CAPTCHA idiotic.

    3. Re:I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by sherr · · Score: 1

      So you're griping because the submitter did everything correctly?

    4. Re: I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Hmmm.

      So...if this starts becoming predominant in the US, I wonder how many Mexican workers will return home after being displaced by the robots?

      Or, what will happen with them...with these jobs going away? Serious question if robotics starts replacing manual laborers in a very meaningful manner.....

      Will they return home, or will they become a burden on already stretched social safety net programs ?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re: I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Interesting isn't it that we increase productivity and instead of people becoming richer, the majority get poorer?

    6. Re: I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by ls671 · · Score: 1

      It isn't limited to manual laborers strictly speaking. I can easily see coding monkeys being next too although some might argue that they are manual laborers.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    7. Re: I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Give me a heads-up if you see anything interesting.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    8. Re: I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by slazzy · · Score: 2

      Oil contamination may increase though, they should lube the robots with food safe oil.

      --
      Website Just Down For Me? Find out
    9. Re: I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by lgw · · Score: 2

      So...if this starts becoming predominant in the US, I wonder how many Mexican workers will return home after being displaced by the robots?

      This has already played out in California. The state shifted towards tree nuts years ago because they were easier to automate. Still a bunch of immigration (legal and otherwise), just not agricultural. Plenty of unskilled and semi-skilled jobs not yet automated: hotels, restaurants, construction, and landscaping dominate.

      Eventually all the low-skill jobs will be automated away, but eventually we're all dead.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re:I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't read the OP as a gripe. I read it as more of a "huh, they got it right for once" comment, from someone who is still steeped in cynicism as a result of the prior torrent of wrong they have endured.

      But I can see why you would have assumed it was a gripe, since somewhere around 99.99% of slashdot comments are gripes.

    11. Re: I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by chipschap · · Score: 2

      They will need to turn over a new leaf.

    12. Re:I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not griping. Expressing amazement. --OP (CAPTCHA: euporia)

    13. Re:I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Old Matsumoto had a farm
      One-zero-one-zero-one!

    14. Re: I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by m2shariy · · Score: 1

      Sir, are you aware that you're leaking coolant at an alarming rate?

    15. Re: I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Vegetable oil, or would you prefer an oil and vinegar mix?

    16. Re: I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      How do you know that cayenne8 is a conservative? He may be a flaming liberal.

    17. Re: I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by wyHunter · · Score: 0

      As I've often said, right wingers love illegal immigration so they can have factory workers cheap left wingers love illegal immigration so they can have cheap gardeners and nannys.

    18. Re: I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Interesting? Well... No? I mean, you weren't expecting the results to be different - where you? If you were, why?

      It's not like countless people haven't pontificated, postulated, prophesied, and pointed. That *is* what you're going to get. There's no way to change it unless you get everyone on board and that includes the people who have accumulated all the assets and all the power. They're not going to give up their happiness today so that your children can have a better tomorrow.

      Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger. If I knew the right ways to make things work better, I'd have already told you. I don't. Somehow, we've got to figure it out while still allowing the individual to have liberties and freedom. If we don't have those, we're just existing. Then again, I can afford the luxury of saying that I'd rather be poor than less free. I am not poor.

      I can only submit that there are people smarter than I, quite a few actually, and hopefully they will figure it out. Somewhere between alleviating all of human suffering and complete and total financial freedom is a spot to draw a line. I'd humbly submit, the line should probably be moved - but important questions are in which direction, why, and where. It's a pretty safe bet that the current spot is less than idea, regardless of one's political beliefs.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    19. Re: I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we're quite familiar with his posts - they have his name attached to 'em

    20. Re: I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow, very well said sir.

    21. Re: I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      So...if this starts becoming predominant in the US, I wonder how many Mexican workers will return home after being displaced by the robots?

      None, because if it was viable to remain in Mexico they would not have risked so much coming here in the first place.
      =Smidge=

    22. Re: I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by Flavianoep · · Score: 1

      A huge enough amount of monkeys typing in computers, with no time constraints, will eventually produce all of KDE source code, that will compile on the first run.

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    23. Re: I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A huge enough amount of monkeys typing in computers, with no time constraints, will eventually produce all of KDE source code, that will compile on the first run.

      ...and automatically invoke an "rm -rf /" command as sudo.

    24. Re: I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oil contamination may increase though, they should lube the robots with food safe oil.

      I don't think Bender will approve of this. He endorses Mom's petroleum-based robot oil.

    25. Re: I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      That too.

    26. Re: I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      At least he's honest enough to put his name on his posts, I guess. Having said that, my observation is that I see little difference between conservatives and liberals in their contempt for working class people, either legally or illegally in the country.

    27. Re: I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Having said that, my observation is that I see little difference between conservatives and liberals in their contempt for working class people, either legally or illegally in the country.

      Yeah, slashdot's a horrible place for empathy. Go out into the world and the libs/cons you'll find there are slightly more human.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    28. Re: I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To a liberal hispanics = niggers 2.0.

    29. Re: I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My chassis is 40% robot oil!

    30. Re: I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Only slightly so, unfortunately, but yeah.

  2. Mmmm lettuc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All your lettuce are belong to us.

    1. Re:Mmmm lettuc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Farming with robots is a good first start, I can't wait until we get robots that can go snipe hunting!

    2. Re:Mmmm lettuc by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our new lettuce-harvesting overlords.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  3. environmental impact by Nick · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Great for water and energy conservation, and this technology can be moved into places that are difficult to grow produce. But if this really catches on, wonder what this will do to the industry as a whole, and the people put out of work.

    --
    Fuck Ajit Pai
    1. Re:environmental impact by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      But if this really catches on, wonder what this will do to the industry as a whole, and the people put out of work.

      Then, here in the US, we'll have Mexican robots sneaking into the country ... (sigh) the end is nigh. :-)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:environmental impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same thing as cheap oil. Bad for that industry, better for everyone else.

      http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/08/tanking

    3. Re:environmental impact by psycho12345 · · Score: 2

      The same impact as the last 3 centuries. The US used to be composed of mostly farmers and agricultural workers (slaves), something like 90% of the population

      Today, agriculture employs less then 3% of the populace. Now, in absolute terms, the number of farmers has gone up, but the population they support has gone far higher.

    4. Re:environmental impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The REAL impact is that the rate of consumption of natural resources by 7 BILLION humans has LONG AGO surpassed the ability of the Earth to replenish itself.
      11 million heads of lettuce a YEAR... is that supposed to be something special?... REALLY?... my city probably consumes that many in under a WEEK.
      The Earth will downsize you, it'll be messy, and you won't like it.

    5. Re:environmental impact by hey! · · Score: 1

      The REAL impact is that the rate of consumption of natural resources by 7 BILLION humans has LONG AGO surpassed the ability of the Earth to replenish itself.

      Actually, we're only a quarter of the way to that point, according to PNAS.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:environmental impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's a damn rock you moron.

      Productivity capacity grows exponentially in proportion to human being's ability to utilize and transform resources more efficiently.

      The same. damn. things. were the rhetoric behind the Third Reich's expansion throughout Europe, and also lay behind China's takeover Tibet and Tartarstan.

      There is no problem with consumption of natural resources or "Oh the Dear Lordette Mother Gaia replenishing her po' little self", and every problem with dumfucks who know nothing about real things or how to transform and use them efficiently spouting-off Malthusian nonsense all the while unawares.

    7. Re:environmental impact by barc0001 · · Score: 2

      Agriculture's workforce has been shrinking continuously since the industrial revolution. Even in the late 1800s, 70-80% of the population was involved in agriculture or food production, now that number is less than 2% for first world nations. Not all crops will benefit from this particular innovation so it will remove some people initially, and then as the puzzle is solved for other crops, more and more people. But it won't be a sudden displacement so a lot of the job losses will be in the form of retirement or switching to other agri jobs on other crops.

    8. Re:environmental impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It will put people out of work" is never a good reason to reject adoption of a new technology. The fundamental purpose of such tech is to eliminate human labor. It is supposed to put people out of work, and that is exactly why we pay for it!

      The proper response is to adapt our culture and laws to work well in an economic environment that relies on such tech. If we are afraid that a bunch of poor people will be unable to survive (because of this tech), then we should address that problem through better use of our tech (to meet their needs), and/or better laws and cultural practices.

      If you are unwilling to do this, you might consider joining a nice Amish community, as they always have plenty of work to do! Alternatively, you could try your hand at rejecting all tech and living as a nomad out in a forest, but I am willing to bet you will get pretty fed up with that lifestyle right away.

    9. Re:environmental impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The REAL impact is that the rate of consumption of natural resources by 7 BILLION humans has LONG AGO surpassed the ability of the Earth to replenish itself.

      BS. The Earth isn't a self-replenishing system, at least not until someone disproves entropy.
      The only thing relevant is how well we use up the resources in the couple of hundred million years until the Sun grows large enough to boil away the oceans.

    10. Re:environmental impact by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hunter-gatherer man used to spend 15-20 hours per week per person to collect food. Now 2% of our population are farmers; the rest are busy building information super highways and rocket ships.

      I should start over with this paper. I instead started blogging, as I wanted to study more classical and modern economic theory so as to directly assault the field. One of the biggest problems I'm having is dividing the information: I've got a general theory of economic behavior, covering the growth of wealth, the cycle of (un)employment, scarcity, and population growth and restriction; and then I have things like inflation, supply-and-demand theory (mine explains why high-demand goods are cheaper, while low-demand goods are more expensive--this is what subjective theory of value tried to handwave away), and extension theories all the way out to taxes.

      The description of how reduction of labor per good creates a cycle of unemployment and re-employment leading to the production of more goods per person (and thus a higher general standard of living) is *not* in the same class as an explanation of how taxes on labor affect unemployment. My biggest criticism about modern economics is its pathological focus on store prices and stock markets; the base theories I produce may lead to arguments about store prices and unemployment, but they're not about value. I've rejected value as a valid economic concept.

    11. Re:environmental impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "capacity grows exponentially "

      "with dumfucks who know nothing about real things"

      hmmm!!!

    12. Re:environmental impact by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "But if this really catches on, wonder what this will do to the industry as a whole, and the people put out of work" - in the not long distant past, they said the same for computers....

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    13. Re:environmental impact by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      >> Now 50% of our population are farmers; another 0.5% are busy building information super highways and rocket ships.

      FTFY
      http://www.globalagriculture.o...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      But I'd bet the number of paper-shufflers and bureaucrats is close to double-digits now.

    14. Re:environmental impact by omnichad · · Score: 1

      BS. The Earth isn't a self-replenishing system, at least not until someone disproves entropy.
      The only thing relevant is how well we use up the resources in the couple of hundred million years until the Sun grows large enough to boil away the oceans.

      And we're moving at a scale where we absolutely have to be self-sustaining within the next few hundred years. A couple hundred million years is so far off from where the problems start that it's not even relevant.

    15. Re:environmental impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now 50% of our population are farmers; another 0.5% are busy building information super highways and rocket ships.

      Right, because software engineers are the only people who build information superhighways and rocket ships.

      Fucking idiot.

    16. Re:environmental impact by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Bad for who?
      lets see.
      Gas here is $1.39/gal
      This is great this influences the prices of a very very large number of things.
      This lowers the pricing of shipping:
      usps, ups, fedex, beaver express, ect.
      That lowers the cost of goods bought in store and online.
      Contrary to what panictheskyisfallingmedia would lead you to believe most people's jobs aren't dependent on oil.

      People didn't get paid more when gas was $4.00/gal and they aren't being paid less now that gas is cheaper.

      I read this article the other day that the saudis were having to turn off lights to conserve energy because they couldn't afford the electric now that they weren't making as much on oil.....So somehow now I'm supposed to feel sorry for them?

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    17. Re:environmental impact by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      you could try your hand at rejecting all tech and living as a nomad out in a forest, but I am willing to bet you will get pretty fed up with that lifestyle right away.

      Dude, I'm annoyed just thinking about it!

    18. Re:environmental impact by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      In the United States, we have 2% agricultural workers. We export half our food; and textile and biofuel crop account for more than a third of our agricultural production. We import 17% of our food consumption.

      That means 0.67% of the American population supplies 83% of the food we consume. Our major import sources include Canada (2% population is agricultural production) and Mexico (employs 13.4% of the population as farm workers, as of 2011). Canada has, by itself, 13% of the US food import share--leaving 5% to Europe, China, Mexico, and so forth.

      That means the equivalent of approximately 1.6% of the U.S. population feeds the entire U.S. population. Let's call it 2%, and I'm wrong because it's *smaller* than 2%.

      Here's the important bit, about technology, cut straight from Wikipedia:

      Given the historic structure of ejidos, it employs a considerably high percentage of the work force: 18% in 2003, mostly of which grows basic crops for subsistence, compared to 2–5% in developed nations in which production is highly mechanized.

      Developed nations--you know, the wealthy ones, not the blown-out backwaters what can barely hobble along on feudalism and haven't yet got running water working--are running 2%-5%, whereas less-developed nations use more labor to produce the crops needed to feed themselves.

      You can, of course, lie through your teeth by using global numbers and including all those undeveloped subsistence farmers and low-tech societies to try to dismiss the impact of technology on a society's economic behaviors. It works as well as mixing bile into a pool and then claiming water is brown.

    19. Re:environmental impact by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      And the same thing about paper. Although it's starting to really shift toward paperless, the real reason is that younger generations don't care so much about paper and are already used to read on electronic displays.

    20. Re:environmental impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this technology can be moved into places that are difficult to grow produce

      Next obvious step is underground production. The a sizable portion of the food production capacity must be movable to underground facilities in the case of another Pizza Oven Earth asteroid event, or Super Volcano Now, the opera, with nuclear winter.

    21. Re:environmental impact by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Great for water and energy conservation, and this technology can be moved into places that are difficult to grow produce. But if this really catches on, wonder what this will do to the industry as a whole, and the people put out of work.

      Not too much, at least around here only about 2% work in agriculture and they're only in a vague form doing hands-on farm work. Nobody milks a cow or plant seeds by hand or weed the crops anymore, unless it's to sell a specialty product or for tourists and visitors. You have milking machines and feeding machines and huge tractors that you drive around with various tools to plant and spray and harvest. Not to mention what a chicken farm looks like. It's already run as an industry, the product just happens to be alive. Any resemblance to the romantic, simple life is long lost to everyone doing volume production already.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    22. Re: environmental impact by slazzy · · Score: 1

      I really think the earth can do a pretty good job of supporting 1 billion people well. Too bad we're already at 7 billion and growing fast...

      --
      Website Just Down For Me? Find out
    23. Re:environmental impact by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Actually, anyone that is in a competitive manufacturing job can be hurt by cheap oil, as prices to ship product from overseas drops.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    24. Re:environmental impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no problem with consumption of natural resources

      Really? Oil/Natural gas? Might want to rethink that as you winter in Antartica after using them all.

    25. Re: environmental impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the rate of growth has been dropping from a peak in the 1960s. It peaked at 2.2%. Now it's down to 1.1%.

    26. Re:environmental impact by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And we'll keep moving, and keep getting more efficient - that's called "technology".

      The only thing we really might "run out of" is fossil fuels (it's not like we're going to run out of aluminum or something), and we can always fall back on solar and nuclear. Solar has quite a high ceiling on total available power, it's just currently not the cheapest way (and of course you need something at night). Sometime in the next few hundred years fusion will stop being "just 20 years away" and actually happen, and fossil fuels will be a moot point.

      It's also only a matter of time before heavy industry moves to asteroids - I used to think that wouldn't be this century, but it's mostly a robotics challenge and that field is moving so amazingly fast these days that I think I might live to see the beginnings of the shift. Long term, we don't need to be "self-sufficient" as we'd describe it today, and "next few hundred years" is a long time in terms of technological progress.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    27. Re:environmental impact by Nick · · Score: 1

      I know first hand many people that have been laid off and/or can't find work due to oil prices crashing. Anytime a major industry crashes you're going to have some adjustment periods. The industrial revolution put a lot of people out of work but over time people adapted, but there was some hard times for quite a number of people.

      --
      Fuck Ajit Pai
    28. Re:environmental impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumbfuck eh? You mind telling us where all the Brazilian Rainforest went? Slashed and burnt. All the extinct mammals? Slaughtered. All the clean water and air... polluted at will. And it ain't coming back anytime soon. Specially not while you're busy wrecking more of it.
      Go ahead, pave the planet, it doesn't give a fuck about you.

    29. Re: environmental impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not rate of growth you jackasses, it's the current size far outstrips any hope of recovery.
      You've got a couple generations, maybe a hundred years before the hurt really starts to set in.
      Momma gonna lay a good whippin down on yo ass.

    30. Re: environmental impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Population growth is always self regulating. When the Earth can't sustain more people you will notice.

    31. Re: environmental impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, the Bilderbergers are working on the next depopulation event aka WWIII. Actually probably the only requirement to get to negative growth is a convincing female sexbot or VR.

    32. Re:environmental impact by tbq · · Score: 1

      11 million heads of lettuce a YEAR... is that supposed to be something special?

      The impressive part is that the 11 million heads of lettuce are grown with a footprint of roughly 1 acre. From the photos it appears that the crops are produced on 4 tier grow shelves. If robots are doing most of the work I see no reason why this couldn't be expanded vertically to the point where they are growing 100+ million heads of lettuce per year per acre.

    33. Re:environmental impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Protip, there is also another fuel source we can use, which burns pretty damn well: powdered metals.
      So, in the awful event we somehow run out of fossil fuels, we can use that and biofuels for a while until we finally crack fusion.

      Space mining plays in to that as well since there are a shitload of metal-rich rocks out there.
      Most metals sunk in to the core, but out there, they are fresh for mining.
      Planetary Resources are actually getting on with things pretty well now.
      Never doubt private industry backed by billionaires. They get shit done.

      There is a theory that given a species were to get to the point where all out war ruined society after industrialization that it would leave a survivor-society that cannot kickstart a new industrial society because there is now no useful amounts of fossil fuels.
      But that is so stupidly low, and it would never happen with us.
      Our society has gotten to the point where large numbers of people in every country know how to, at the least, produce some easy fuel sources. (including one regularly drunk for fun)
      And given the threat of war, there will be loads of people around the world that will be safeguarded from a possible nuclear war, which this knowledge plus metal-powder fuels.
      We haven't the nukes to wipe out the developed world, never mind everywhere. We will go on. Nukes aren't like Hollywood nukes, they are stupidly weaker.
      Not only that, everyone is always like "but the radiation!". lol, what radiation? Nuclear fallout from nuclear war is trivial and vanishes almost completely in 5 months time. (5 weeks for the most damaging ones)
      Nuclear fallout from reactor failure is what is dangerous, nukes vaporise most of the matter in them.
      If nukes were that dangerous, all those nuke tests would have wiped us out by now since they have far more enriched cores.

    34. Re:environmental impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We just need to combine that with a 10,000 acre solar concentrator.

    35. Re:environmental impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BS. The Earth isn't a self-replenishing system, at least not until someone disproves entropy.

      Ugh. Spare us from morons spouting off about concepts they don't understand.

    36. Re: environmental impact by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1
      If the Earth could not sustain 7 billion people, then there would not be 7 billion on it.

      It's kinda a tautology. You could fit 7 billion people in the states of Texas, California and Montana with a population density similar to Seattle.

    37. Re:environmental impact by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      11 million heads of lettuce is 8.894x10^8 calories, or enough to sustain (from a calorie perspective) 1,218 people for one year.

    38. Re:environmental impact by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Note, this would require 300,000 acres to supply enough calories for the US, or 40% of Rhode Island.

    39. Re:environmental impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then, here in the US, we'll have Mexican robots sneaking into the country

      Surely just Bending units?

    40. Re:environmental impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really believe what you wrote? If so, that's a tragic failure of ... everything.

    41. Re:environmental impact by Tomster · · Score: 1

      I've rejected value as a valid economic concept.

      Can you expand on what you mean by this? Also, what are your thoughts on the way we measure GDP?

    42. Re:environmental impact by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Read Adam Smith's "On the Wealth of Nations" and you'll see a quick explanation of how value is: A) The amount of labor put into a thing; B) The amount of labor purchasing a thing saves the buyer over making it himself (e.g. the seller is more efficient); and C) the amount the buyer is willing to pay. These aren't the same thing; he uses the term "value" without explaining which, continuously invoking an equivocation fallacy.

      Karl Marx does the same thing, positing the value is the amount of labor put into a thing, somehow concluding we should avoid efficiency because things will have less value (less invested labor), thus we want *more* people laboring to make a thing, instead of *fewer*. He also somehow decided that a tractor made with 1,000 labor-hours has a value of 1,000 labor-hours even after new techniques start making the same damn tractor in 200 labor-hours.

      Eventually, the concept of value posed so many problems that we got the subjective theory of value: diamonds are worth a lot because of belief. People believe it has value, therefor it is invested with inherent value.

      Georgists believe in land value: value comes from the land, and we derive value from the land upon which we produce. There are so many things wrong with this I don't know where to start, and I don't feel like rambling on all the reasons this is *wrong* right now. The most obvious is we keep making more things with less land usage, building more efficient machines or building vertically.

      I believe in *valuation*: Consumers identify a thing as worthy of commanding a certain price. They value (verb) a stock, a diamond, a hunk of gold, or whatever else at a price higher than its cost. That thing does not *have* value (noun); it has *valuation* (noun), the estimate of its worth.

      Because of this, contemporary and classical economics have continuously tried to discuss what the price of goods should be, or how the stock market should work. Wikipedia explains Theory of Value:

      "Theory of value" is a generic term which encompasses all the theories within economics that attempt to explain the exchange value or price of goods and services. Key questions in economic theory include why goods and services are priced as they are, how the value of goods and services comes about, and for normative value theories how to calculate the correct price of goods and services (if such a value exists).

      In other words: Shopkeepers and accountants being shopkeepers and accountants.

      I started writing my own economic theories in which I tried to avoid Drake equation bullshit and focus on economic mechanisms. For example: we expend human labor time to make things; technology is the creation of new techniques to reduce the human labor time per good created. By reducing the human labor time per good, we reduce the portion of a standard-of-living expended to purchase that good; we also increase the amount of human labor we can expend on other things. Instead of spending 50% of our time acquiring food, we spend 2% of our time doing that (using machines and modern farm management techniques), and some of the other 98% goes into building rocket ships and putting men on the moon. That's what I explained above.

      I don't have a good way to measure productivity, and I'm disinclined to make something up. I don't have a good way to measure *production*.

      We currently measure GDP by measuring money: how much money was spent on purchasing all the crap we made? This is a useful metric, with subtle problems. Let's first look at my theories about fiat currency.

      It's obvious that every unit of currency (dollar) spent equates to every good or service produced and sold: what are you spending dollars on, if not some service rendered or some product delivered? Production may be as simple as pulling a rock from a ground, or as

    43. Re:environmental impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not the cheapest way for *many* places on earth at this current time, but solar is the cheapest for some places already. In a few more years time solar + battery will be cheaper than going/staying on the grid for a couple places. Solar is breaking records on low cost all the time, no new fossil fuel plant can be built that won't be more expensive than a solar farm in many places in the world also.

  4. vegetable overlords by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i welcome our new vegetable overlords. yoroshikune.

  5. "Reduce costs" by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    >> The new 47,300 square feet Vegetable Factory will also reduce construction costs by 25 percent and energy demand by 30 percent.

    Over what? Are you comparing this to "constructing" a field of lettuce from cultivatable land or energy from the sun? Or is this compared to other greenhouse operations? Or hydroponics? (TFA is pretty useless - I tried.)

    1. Re:"Reduce costs" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This farm was build in Kansai Science City. From the article "Relying on lessons learned from their first farm in Kameoka"....it's more than likely a comparison to their first firm. The article isn't the best for sure, but I thought it made the comparison fairly clear. The summary on the other hand, does not make that clear.

    2. Re:"Reduce costs" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the statements appear to relative to the company's other indoor farm, which presumably is not robotic, but it's not totally clear.

    3. Re:"Reduce costs" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A piece of land can be harvested once, maybe twice or three times a year depending on the crop. A building, properly setup with hydro can grow much more than any piece of land. They essentially have a 1 acre sized building, which if you were growing out in the sun you'd get 20,000-26,000 heads of lettuce per harvest. So if you're lucky you can get 2 harvests in per year and get maybe 52,000 heads of lettuce.

      Google is better than the article for facts and having a bit of farming knowledge helps too. They are are growing 211 years worth of lettuce per year compared to the same size of land that a traditional farmer would grow and the end product is cleaner and most likely healthier. Hydro grown food is typically more nutrient dense. I'd say the ROI is pretty short at that point.

    4. Re:"Reduce costs" by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      They are growing 211 years worth of lettuce per year compared to the same size of land that a traditional farmer would grow[...]

      Do you have any idea about how I could apply this technology to my pay check?

    5. Re:"Reduce costs" by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Sure thing! Here you go.

  6. Polystyrene by idji · · Score: 1

    Are they recycling/reusing the polystyrene? Is that included in the energy equation?

  7. Yaever wonder what happens to the rest of the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lettuce? All you ever get are the heads.

    1. Re:Yaever wonder what happens to the rest of the by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      Can't tell if joking. Lettuce grows just the head. When it is mature it is chopped away from the roots for harvest. Gardeners at home can pick leaves from the plant, leaving it intact and pretty dramatically extend the productivity of the plant. When it starts to go to seed the leaves become more bitter.

      Lettuce gone to seed is pretty fascinating. It can get 6' tall and makes tons of tiny fragile blossoms. Some plants only open their flowers for a few hours and then hide them back away. The seeds have dandelion-like fluff to help them spread, and they make a truly spectacular number of seeds. I like to let a few go to seed in my garden, then I have wild lettuce growing everywhere next year.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    2. Re:Yaever wonder what happens to the rest of the by skids · · Score: 1

      Asparagus is also a pretty interesting looking adult plant, especially covered in dew.

    3. Re:Yaever wonder what happens to the rest of the by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      Indeed! Have you seen the ones that make red berries in the ferny explosion? Those look like fairy magic

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
  8. Profitable? Really? by DogDude · · Score: 1

    Even considering the savings with LED's, I still have a hard time believing that it's profitable to grow lettuce this way.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  9. Re:Profitable? Really? by gstoddart · · Score: 2

    "Kansai Science City" suggests to me this is as much about investigating it and building the technology as it is about a business model.

    But, I don't think they're ignoring that either:

    Relying on lessons learned from their first farm in Kameoka, SPREAD says their new business model will cut labor costs by 50 percent. The company claims sustainability is at the heart of what they do, and that the new 47,300 square feet Vegetable Factory in Kansai Science City will also reduce construction costs by 25 percent and energy demand by 30 percent.

    I for one welcome our new robotic, lettuce-growing overlords.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  10. Re:Profitable? Really? by ickleberry · · Score: 1

    This would be great for Mars. Astronauts land up after a long hard journey and find 30,000 heads of lettuce waiting for them

  11. Red stone is amazing by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 4, Funny

    People can do all kinds of cool stuff with it.

  12. Have you visited Graygarden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The whole place is run by robots.

    1. Re:Have you visited Graygarden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Was looking for the reference, was not disappointed.

  13. Re:Profitable? Really? by The-Ixian · · Score: 2

    Man.... lettuce for dinner again?

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  14. Square watermelons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one can't wait for the square watermelon farm.

    1. Re:Square watermelons by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      I prefer round watermelons (probably NSFW, unless you live in Japan)

    2. Re:Square watermelons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad she's dead

  15. A picture of our future by Eloking · · Score: 1

    I love news like this one.

    It may look like an economical disaster now, but this if our future. The way humanity grows, we won't be able to feed the world for another century (if I'm wrong, let's say two centuries then, doesn't matter). There's a lot of confusion about the scientific research of the environmental impact of the food production (especially meat production) but it seems far from negligible.

    I've saw a Swiss design a few years ago about a self-sufficient farm skyscraper design that could produce food for 10k people. This sort of tech allows us to grow food without pesticide, without razing forest, use a lot less water and could be used anywhere on earth. Of course, we'll need a better energy source than coal or oil if we eventually want to become completely green.

    Or course, it won't slow much the deforestation and we're likely to raze everything before we start building those type of factory but I won't mind if we start sooner.

    --
    Elok
    1. Re:A picture of our future by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Of course, we'll need a better energy source than coal or oil if we eventually want to become completely green.

      Coal and oil are both incredibly energy dense. To be self-sustaining, you'll need to use less energy more than you need to find a better power source.

    2. Re:A picture of our future by Eloking · · Score: 1

      Of course, we'll need a better energy source than coal or oil if we eventually want to become completely green.

      Coal and oil are both incredibly energy dense. To be self-sustaining, you'll need to use less energy more than you need to find a better power source.

      Human population of growing. So no matter how efficient you become, like recycling you're only delaying the problem.

      Generation IV nuclear fission power plan, nuclear fusion power plant or even space-based solar power are all green alternative that could be available within the century.

      --
      Elok
    3. Re:A picture of our future by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Doesn't really matter. When you hit your supply limits, you can only increase efficiency.

      Fission is going to become the new oil eventually. It's a limited resource. Hydrogen less so, but no guarantee that we'll be able to do that efficiently on a containable scale.

    4. Re:A picture of our future by Eloking · · Score: 1

      Doesn't really matter. When you hit your supply limits, you can only increase efficiency.

      Fission is going to become the new oil eventually. It's a limited resource. Hydrogen less so, but no guarantee that we'll be able to do that efficiently on a containable scale.

      From http://www.ccfe.ac.uk/introduc...

      "Deuterium can be extracted from water and tritium is produced from lithium, which is found in the earth's crust. Fuel supplies will therefore last for millions of years."

      --
      Elok
    5. Re:A picture of our future by Eloking · · Score: 1

      Oh wait, nevermind you were talking about fission, not fusion.

      --
      Elok
    6. Re:A picture of our future by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      You're discussing "The Mote In God's Eye" really. I agree with you.

  16. Will this be allowed outside Japan? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    Since robots could make a large dent in unskilled farm labor opportunity I wonder if this will be allowed outside Japan? I would think that there would be pushback from labor. There is already looming issues from robot driven trucks, and automation in fast food. Both of those trends will displace workers in growing number in the coming years. The demands for $15/hour wages from fast food workers is creating growing incentives to replace workers with automation.

    Computers already execute most Wall Street trades.

    Computer programs write a growing percentage of wills and other legal documents.

    With computers having mastered winning chess, and now Go, when will large scale use of programs writing programs begin?

    If a robot that can do plumbing is invented what will be left for people to do?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    1. Re:Will this be allowed outside Japan? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      If a robot that can do plumbing is invented what will be left for people to do?

      Whatever they want. The machines will take care of their needs. Then they can sit on the front porch, drink iced tea, and talk about the weather, what man was meant to do...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Will this be allowed outside Japan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Filthy welfare queen, sipping tea from the government's teat! You think just because robots perform all unskilled and skilled labor that you can just sit around? You better pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, or benevolent President Trumpbot will feed you to the waste energy harvesters like all the other lazy humans that can't find employment!

    3. Re:Will this be allowed outside Japan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you do mean "allowed"? People are already growing food inside buildings in the US
      http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/24/technology/upstart30-freight-farms/

    4. Re:Will this be allowed outside Japan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they using robots to harvest things? Isn't that clearly the theme there?

    5. Re:Will this be allowed outside Japan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a robot that can do plumbing is invented what will be left for people to do?

      Poop.

    6. Re:Will this be allowed outside Japan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Socialist incomes for the unskilled so they can live out their unproductive lives or get good.

      It is already happening in many countries and "the rich" see it is a far better solution to low-skilled people committing crimes.

      Socialist welfare, universal basic income, guaranteed income, whatever you want to call it, it has been proven in pretty much every recorded instance to improve society for those regions that tried it.
      Crime dropped, overall health improved a bit, work-uptake increased, in-work hours were higher since people were less ill, depressed or whatever other inflictions kept people from work.
      The whole "pfft it will create a lazy society" argument is literally already debunked by every example.
      It improved the number of people in work and the only ones out were usually students and adults taking m/paternity leave. The unemployed for other reasons were minimal.

      Punishing welfare systems push the majority of people to illegal activity, severely ill health and alienation from society. It's fucking disgraceful.
      The state of the UKs welfare system right now is terrible because the Conservative government have cut the budget so hard.
      They've told people they are perfectly fine for work, who have then DIED on the same day, or within a month of it. 4. thousand. people.
      Then they have the cheek to raise members of parliament wages and elect even higher earning positions in the lords (almost all ex-conservatives).
      Every one of them should be took out and shot for the disaster of a government they have run. And I don't even believe in the death penalty!

    7. Re:Will this be allowed outside Japan? by skids · · Score: 1

      I dunno, enjoy each other's company, learn stuff, and deal with emergencies robots don't know how to fix?

  17. Re:Profitable? Really? by powerlord · · Score: 1

    This would be great for Mars. Astronauts land up after a long hard journey and find 30,000 heads of lettuce waiting for them

    All fine and well, but what if one of them is rotten and leads the others in revolt?

    Faster than you can saw "'slaw in a salad", we're talking about a 30,000 head army awaiting out gallant Astronauts.

    Have you considered that? ... I didn't think so!

    --
    This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
  18. GAWD... Minecarfters been doing this for years!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    geez. just search google and you'll see tons: https://www.google.com/search?q=minecraft+auto+farming#safe=off&q=minecraft+automated+farm

    maybe it'll be news when they automate chicken farming. MAYBE.

  19. the new cotton gin by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    this is basically the new cotton gin, the mechanical device that reduced labor on the cotton farm and made events like the abolition movement practical. how will it change america's relationship with the migrant farmworker population, and how does that intersect with all the calls to Build A Wall, etc? What happens when you put millions of low skilled laborers out of work? It will be exciting times!

    1. Re:the new cotton gin by Rob+Lister · · Score: 1

      They'll get jobs as programmers.

  20. Good job, guys! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought that the completion date for the first farm run completely by robots wasn't scheduled until October 2077.

    1. Re:Good job, guys! by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      Hey, you! Get back in your pod!

  21. Re:Profitable? Really? by swb · · Score: 1

    Mark Watney's response to that was to sprinkle his potatoes with crushed vicodin.

    Let me try that with lettuce and get back to you.

  22. Re:Profitable? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do the math and a bit of education. If they are full hydro, they are using upwards of 90% less water. They are also producing about 211 years worth of lettuce per year based on the same amount of land and 56,000 heads of lettuce per acre counting 2 harvests per year for a typical farmer. Oh and solar panels on top can totally power all of the lights.

    Take into account the massive reduction in labor and yea, I'd say it's a lot more profitable than traditional farming and this is the future of farming. Especially when the climate really starts destroying crops in areas that were traditionally great for farming. Not to mention having the food closer to cities. Put a few of these in the middle of New York and stop shipping food 100s or 1000s of miles and feed everyone.

  23. Teal in Japan. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > The facility is designed to produce 11 million heads of lettuce each year

    There should be a farm which grows 39 million leeks each year.

    1. Re:Teal in Japan. by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      As long as you've got 39 million new virtual idols each year...

  24. Re:Profitable? Really? by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

    Conventional farming requires massive amounts of land. This lets them go vertical and grow way more in the same square footage. I imagine that's where much of the profit potential lies.

    They are also able to grow in an optimal environment (LEDs tuned to ideal wavelengths, precisely controlled temperature/humidity, etc) which should produce increased yields compared to regular field farming. They are also able to recycle 98% of their water.

    If you can grow (and sell!) 10x the lettuce in the same area, it's easy to imagine that handily offsetting the energy & water costs they're incurring by growing indoors.

    --
    "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
  25. Re:Profitable? Really? by DogDude · · Score: 1

    I doubt the increased yield can account for the massive infrastructure cost for something like this. Their ROI has to be a few centuries, if ever.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  26. Excellent! by fredrated · · Score: 1

    Before long there won't be one human being left with a fucking job.

    1. Re:Excellent! by blue9steel · · Score: 2

      As long as we fix the social system then that's something to celebrate.

    2. Re:Excellent! by LunaticTippy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe not. >90% of jobs today didn't exist a hundred years ago. I have great faith in humanity finding stupid ways to busy itself for money. Once we figure out how to cleanly make cheap power and robots are taking care of necessities we can all live like kings and do stupid stuff for cash. If things keep progressing faster our culture won't be recognizable in another hundred years. We simply can't imagine what people will be like or do with their time.

      It is truly astonishing to think that there are people alive who remember a time before radio, electricity, computers, antibiotics, etc.

      People worried about the cotton gin and so forth, but nobody can argue that conditions were better back then for anybody.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    3. Re:Excellent! by Atmchicago · · Score: 1

      We simply can't imagine what people will be like or do with their time.

      Watch YouTube videos, reality TV, sports, listen to canned music, eat fast food... the medium might change (air waves vs. internet), but people won't.

      --

      You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.

    4. Re:Excellent! by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Maybe not. >90% of jobs today didn't exist a hundred years ago. I have great faith in humanity finding stupid ways to busy itself for money. Once we figure out how to cleanly make cheap power and robots are taking care of necessities we can all live like kings and do stupid stuff for cash. If things keep progressing faster our culture won't be recognizable in another hundred years. We simply can't imagine what people will be like or do with their time.

      Assuming the reduced costs of living caused by automation exceeds the reduced value of your labor. If you work minimum wage and you're being replaced by a $5/hour robot you lose more than you gain. If you can step up and do something else in demand, great. But if there's an oversupply of burger flippers and taxi drivers who just don't have it in them to become doctors and engineers and automated chefs and self-driving cars are eroding the old jobs you might find yourself cut short.

      Maybe it's easier to see this in a global perspective, why don't we give a bunch of illiterate subsistence farmers in Africa food so they can write software for us? Because it doesn't work, that's why. They need an education before they're able to add value to our economy. Like that, only they're your neighbors and it's not an education they lack. People who are not particular smart, creative, attractive or charming but perfectly capable of a routine job except those have all been automated away.

      I'm sure you've all experienced it in some limited way like the mythical man-month where the person is in total dragging the total performance down and you're better off not having them on the team. Or that there's something wrong with their skills or personality like coders turning good code into junk, intrigue makers ruining the work environment and so on. But those are the exceptions, the theory is that automation can make it the norm. That the automation is constantly getting better and takes more skill to add value on top of.

      The counterargument is essentially that the cheaper it gets, the easier it is to redistribute just enough wealth and spread enough technology to not cause riots or a revolution or anything like that. That they'll spread just enough money on work and welfare programs to keep the population passive, not living like kings at all. Just living well enough that it's not worth doing anything desperate that could disrupt Wall Street and the big money but moderately content wage slaves. The chains are a lot plushier than before.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can work to build communism!

    6. Re:Excellent! by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      Nobody did any of that shit 100 years ago, aside from a tiny fraction of people who watched whatever primitive sports were around back then. Nobody did anything remotely like any of that. Hell, 10 years ago half your list didn't exist.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
  27. Close, but not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I still think we should keep the jobs for the humans.

  28. Lettuce isn't food. by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 2, Funny

    It is simply a crunchy form of mildly flavoured water.

    1. Re:Lettuce isn't food. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think longer-term the plan is to plug a fully automated cow-farm onto the back of this plant.

    2. Re:Lettuce isn't food. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Shredded lettuce. I used to hate that plant until I discovered that it goes well with breaded cutlets (katsu) when shredded.

      In any case, it's still vastly superior to cabbage.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  29. Re:Profitable? Really? by mspohr · · Score: 1

    Ever seen the Imperial Valley? It's where most the lettuce is grown in the US. Flat, fertile fields full of lettuce as far as the eye can see. Warm and sunny most of the year. Lot of Colorado river irrigation water. It's hard to compete with that.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  30. Re:Profitable? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now all you have to do is ship it to Japan before it rots. 100% doable. However, shipping is a non trivial amount of the cost of food.

  31. This is a good start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But it'll be better when they make a robot that can run on lettuce.

  32. Re:Profitable? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet their ROI is somewhere between a few months to a couple of years. When you can increase your yield by over 200 times and reduce labor costs to near zero, yeah, there isn't much overhead here. Just a few higher paid workers for maintaining the equipment and facilities. These are much more skilled jobs than lettuce pickers/planters.

    Get to know a commercial farmer or two, if you buy into the "poor, struggling farmer" facade they've fooled you. Farming is huge bucks.

  33. Re:Profitable? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    easy, build a few 100,000sqft buildings, done. And you're not wasting nearly the amount of water and if you can automate the harvest and a lot of the maintenance of the plants, you'll end the workers shitting in the fields spreading e.coli across the country.

    We are at the beginning of the end of huge tracts of land being used, inefficiently for farming and destroying the land, wasting water and killing the environment with the millions of tons of fertilizer per year that ultimately gets dumped into the oceans. No land farmer in the US reclaims or replaces any water they use, let alone treat it before they let the toxins they put into it seep into the ground. Now to get people to stop eating beef and drinking cow milk. Neither of which our bodies are designed to process well. Cows are a problem to the environment. Smaller animals take less resources to grow, less space and less food and we actually process goat/sheep milk better than cow milk. Not to mention the massive health benefits of drinking goat milk. Cow milk has zero health benefits to humans.

  34. Next From the Anti-GMO Crowd... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "But what about the electromagnetism? We don't know what effect this will have on the lettuce! We need more testing! And the government should label robotic labor!"

    1. Re:Next From the Anti-GMO Crowd... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm slightly anti-GMO just for the pesticides and intellectual property issues. This is just hydroponic lettuce grown by robots, no pesticides needed (probably) and I assume any related patents would be for the robotics rather than the lettuce, which I have no problem with. I actually think it's awesome overall.

  35. Re:Profitable? Really? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Then you don't put this system into Colorado. As the AC mentioned, this is being built in Japan, where shipping costs from the USA to Japan, at speeds necessary for freshness, won't sink them.

    Plus Japan has a real problem with an aging population - especially among it's farmers. A lot of land in Japan is going to end up laying fallow because there just isn't any farmers to replace those that die. It's much easier to get employees to help run a robotic farm in/next to a city thought.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  36. Re:Profitable? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A nuclear reactor and 20 of these around it.

    Nature blows all kinds of ass. It tends to the lowest energy y'know.
    Natural growth isn't even remotely the best the universe can give.

    Aquaponics, aeroponics and hydroponics are so incredibly more efficient on an industrial scale than a local scale.
    Level a few mountains for resources and nutrients to introduce in to the ecosystem and we have a profit of new nutrients for future growth.
    It would easily feed our entire species well in to the double-digit billions if done properly.
    Will it be? Fuck no.
    Instead, traditional barely-functioning retard farmers will complain, it will be blocked, and we will be stuck starving for decades until war.
    Fuck luddites. They already attack farmers that try to do more efficient farming methods like these and just generally using any advanced machinery.

  37. Re:Profitable? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When that vast fertile land turns into a barren waste land because the Colorado has no more water trickling down it and as long as they can harvest and store 90% less water than they use today because hydro / aeroponics uses tremendously less water. They can still grow right there, getting power from solar, wind or nuke or a combination and continue on farming. All while doing something they can't do today, harvest fresh fruits and veggies year round 24/7. Since they control the environment they are no longer subject to the sun and earth cycles. Just need power and water.

  38. Just a little green paint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Do we really want to be training robots to harvest heads?

  39. Re: Profitable? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Water cost go down drastically for hydro. Also depending on the farming a lot of energy is put into it. 1000s of HP in electric pumps to pump water from rivers and even more electricity for running equipment. You ever see a large commercial farm with 100s of circle crops? More electricity to run each of those center pivot irrigation units. You could run 10000s or 100000s of led light setups and still be ahead in savings. Large commercial farms are a blight on the land. They do nothing to condition the soil and only contaminate the planet

  40. Robot farming was inevitable... by Tempest451 · · Score: 2

    Any process that requires repetitive manual labor in a systematic process will and should eventually be replaced by machines. The planting and harvesting of crops is done my human-driven machines already it was inevitable that the human element would be removed all together. Next will be civil and private construction where humans only be involved in the design and coordination phases of the process.

  41. Disagree by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Once we figure out how to cleanly make cheap power and robots are taking care of necessities we can all live like kings and do stupid stuff for cash.

    That would be true except for the real scourge that plagues humanity: Religion.

    They are all cults intent on command and control; codifying and justifying misogyny and genocide, but also the glory of subsistence living (not for the priests and their acolytes though).

    Especially in the West (the US still the clear leader), the quote "It is Work alone that makes man noble" is believed like it was part of the Sermon on the Mount.

    If you don't have a job, you're a bum. The Puritanistic morality police (politicians) will insure the cool Star Trek future of 'work for passion, not for suffering' never, ever comes to pass.

    1. Re:Disagree by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      Think about what the US was like even 50 years ago. Xians ran our culture through and through. You couldn't be black, gay, weird, commie, or even dress bad because Jebus. Things are changing so fast. All it will take for the stupid religious BS to die is something quite possible: alien contact, cheap power leading to the end of scarcity, even microbial life on another planet that clearly evolved separately from our planet, who knows what it will be that will make all that stuff seem irrelevant.

      Humans have a need to believe in something big, and religion has typically filled that irrational need, but there is no reason it has to be religion. It's just been handy. I see a lot of changes so far, and plenty more potential changes.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    2. Re:Disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should get out more. What you think you know about religion and why there is to know are two very different things.

  42. Great... by iq145 · · Score: 1

    Now they can leave those poor whales alone! http://www.newser.com/story/21... http://www.newser.com/story/21...

  43. All organic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the future there will be all organic farms, meaning farms not farmed by robots (inorganic beings). :)