Slashdot Mirror


New Autonomous Farm Wants To Produce Food Without Human Workers (technologyreview.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from MIT Technology Review: Iron Ox isn't like most robotics companies. Instead of trying to flog you its technology, it wants to sell you food. As the firm's cofounder Brandon Alexander puts it: "We are a farm and will always be a farm." But it's no ordinary farm. For starters, the company's 15 human employees share their work space with robots who quietly go about the business of tending rows and rows of leafy greens. Today Iron Ox is opening its first production facility in San Carlos, near San Francisco. The 8,000-square-foot indoor hydroponic facility -- which is attached to the startup's offices -- will be producing leafy greens at a rate of roughly 26,000 heads a year. That's the production level of a typical outdoor farm that might be five times bigger. The opening is the next big step toward fulfilling the company's grand vision: a fully autonomous farm where software and robotics fill the place of human agricultural workers, which are currently in short supply. Iron Ox uses software, dubbed "The Brain," to watch over the farm and monitor nitrogen levels, temperature, and robot location. Alexander hopes to automative every process of the farm, but human workers are currently needed to help with seeding and processing the crops. He cites the shortage of agricultural workers and the distances that fresh product currently has to be shipped for reasons why we need automated farming.

"The problem with the indoor [farm] is the initial investment in the system," says Yiannis Ampatzidis, an assistant professor of agricultural engineering at the University of Florida. "You have to invest a lot up front. A lot of small growers can't do that." Currently, Iron Ox is sending the food it produces to a local food bank and to the company salad bar.

92 comments

  1. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    These eggheads think they know everything. Oh look, a robot that will feed us! Give me my startup millions, now!

    1. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " producing leafy greens at a rate of roughly 26,000 heads a year. That's the production level of a typical outdoor farm that might be five times bigger. " Your move, country retards.

    2. Re: LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you go hungry, city boy, you will demand human farmers again. Or blame them that you YOU must resort to cannibalism. Bon apetit.

    3. Re:LOL by js290 · · Score: 1

      " producing leafy greens at a rate of roughly 26,000 heads a year. That's the production level of a typical outdoor farm that might be five times bigger. " Your move, country retards.

      liver vs broccoli vs apple http://bit.ly/1KspCuW

      --
      "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    4. Re: LOL by js290 · · Score: 1

      When you go hungry, city boy, you will demand human farmers again. Or blame them that you YOU must resort to cannibalism. Bon apetit.

      "permaculture yard not enough" @RestorationAgD http://bit.ly/1mjR6rt

      --
      "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    5. Re:LOL by ISayWeOnlyToBePolite · · Score: 1

      With 15 employees, admittedly huge startup costs and an output of 500 heads of leafy greens a week, ripping of investors seems like their business model of choice.

    6. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not a country retard, still, is efficiency of land usage somehow a limiting factor? There seem to be plenty of land. The important part is how much it costs to produce "heads of green" and how it compares with country retards' cost. You seem to be excited about nothing.

    7. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed.

      A head of green in a supermarket goes for 2 to 2.50$ ow which the store takes its cut, the distributor takes its cut, etc etc
      and finally the farmer self gets maybe 50-75cents per head.

      250 to 375$ per week in revenue? Jeez I hope the 15 employees like to eat ramen, or that their investors have other, better, investments in their portfolio.

    8. Re: LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you go hungry, city boy, you will demand human farmers again.

      Or more likely, you'll demand your farmbots back, who got replaced by humans by law because so many voters think of jobs as a good thing that government should make more of, instead of a bad thing that increases expenses and therefore reduces overall economic performance.

      "So what if farmbots can produce more food than humans?" they'll say, "Nobody cares about food." But when it runs low, we'll care then.

    9. Re:LOL by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      How much of that land is arable, and how much of it is unsuitable for crops?

    10. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are making a claim that there is not enough arable suitable land, feel free to present your numbers. I can't prove negative.

      If they make land usage 5 times more "efficient" by spending 30 times more money, there is nothing to see here.

    11. Re:LOL by retchdog · · Score: 1

      it's not true that there's nothing to see. local efficiency aside, it changes the economics of comparative advantage. that is, you might put up with trading with those barbarian savages for $foo over there because you're making so much more money producing $bar than $foo, that you don't produce $foo at all. however, if the startup cost of $foo is suddenly reduced by 4x (from 120 times to 30 times the cost of the barbarians' production), you might decide to take the economic hit for political advantage (starting or perpetuating a war to secure a vote has been around since humanity began) in belligerence.

      sure, in mythical economic "long run", it all works out for the best, but you may not be surprised to hear that some people have shorter-term interests than that.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  2. Deja Vu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Today: "All we have to do to make more food is make it indoors!"

    Chairman Mao: "All we have to do to make more food is plant things closer together and plow deeply!"

    1. Re:Deja Vu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Today: Obese obnoxious retarded white male abuses everyone around them, calls themselves the "real victim"

      Chairman Mao, time travelling gnome: "Wow, you fucking idiots elected THAT fraud? Holy shit I should be taking notes. Side wow, Trump is a fucking traitor"

  3. Profit-based, or non-criminal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does the wealth go to everyone who actually worked to achieve this, or is it just stolen (aka profit) and put into the pockets of those who do not work (aka managers, board, stock traders, banks, imaginary properly Mafia) (only value-adding work, done by lifeforms counts)?

    1. Re:Profit-based, or non-criminal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the wealth go to everyone who actually worked to achieve this, or is it just stolen (aka profit) and put into the pockets of those who do not work (aka managers, board, stock traders, banks, imaginary properly Mafia) (only value-adding work, done by lifeforms counts)?

      Holy fucking shit! Really dude?

      That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

      Hey Einstein, where the fuck do you think the money to loan to those who start new enterprises to create and produce the things you buy and you eat to get so fucking fat comes from?

      Are you even capable of thinking logically past more than a step or two out in any direction? That's the fucking average cognitive level of a dog, FFS!

      Stop being lazy and allowing yourself to be led around on an intellectual leash, Fido!

    2. Re:Profit-based, or non-criminal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's how I know you're a troll and not really a communist:

      Profit is not "stolen", not even in communism.

    3. Re:Profit-based, or non-criminal? by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Who taught you economics, a fish?

  4. I've always wondered if robots could patrol for weeds and bugs on a farm ... no idea how it works out (or not) economically though.

    1. Re:huh by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Well there was a company making these little things for $200. Looks like they just started shipping them, but I'm sure an industrial version could be made too

    2. Re:huh by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've always wondered if robots could patrol for weeds and bugs on a farm

      There are a few small weed-bots for home gardens.

      There are also a few commercial products for farms.

      There are many research projects at universities. I saw one in action at UC Davis last year. It seemed to work very well, and I have no idea why they aren't commercializing it.

      Some of the weed-bots pull or zap the weeds. Others use piezoelectric sprays, like in your inkjet printer, to dispense small amounts to glyphosate directly onto the leaves of the weeds, getting none on the crop or ground, and reducing usage by 95%.

    3. Re:huh by White+Yeti · · Score: 1

      Along the bug line, I wondered how they get along without pollinators, until I remembered this is only for "leafy greens". No tomatoes or zucchini here.

    4. Re:huh by flink · · Score: 2

      There was an article on this site several years ago about a robot that hunted for and "ate" slugs. It had a bio-reactor that produced energy from the fermenting the slug bodies. Ok, found it - by "several years ago" I guess I mean 2 decades, when did I get so old?

  5. baby steps by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While this isn't going to replace industrial farming, it's a small step in the direction of autonomous crop management. However, what we should pushing to build robots to support outdoor horticulture farms. Monoculture is a weakness requiring heavy use of pesticides and herbicides which is harmful and unsustainable.

    I for one would like to welcome our robotic farm overlords.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:baby steps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://farm.bot/

    2. Re:baby steps by s4080326 · · Score: 1

      If you remove the need for human labor you could theoretically operate as a sealed system and not require any pesticides or herbicides, since there would be no access path for weeds or bugs.

    3. Re:baby steps by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      If you remove the need for human labor you could theoretically operate as a sealed system and not require any pesticides or herbicides, since there would be no access path for weeds or bugs.

      Sure but it's a tiny farm. Real farms that feed people are measured in square miles. The price of sealed farms would far exceed their value and that doesn't even include maintenance costs for the building/structure. It's not a realistic plan.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    4. Re:baby steps by coofercat · · Score: 1

      Can we have a shed sized version of this? I mean, I know nothing about anything horticultural. I'm even having trouble getting some grass seed that says "guaranteed to grow" on the box to actually grow.

      However, I'd love to have a little greenhouse/shed that did a bit of growing for me, which I only need visit every couple of weeks to pull out the ripened veg. What I'd pay for such a thing is another matter though - but as a geek, I'd quite like the challenge of building it and making it work.

    5. Re:baby steps by atrex · · Score: 2

      I think most of these farms are proof of concept installations. There's still a lot of R&D to be done developing robotics and AI control software. Once completely automated from planting to harvesting, they'll probably start looking at increasing production density inside the space. I believe another goal of these installations is supposed to be less environmental impact than their traditional counterparts, both in water consumption and carbon footprint.

    6. Re:baby steps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea with these is to build UP not OUT. These are small now, but imagine a sky-scraper in a large city center that incorporates 200 floors sharing crop production, office space, and living space.

    7. Re:baby steps by kyjo · · Score: 0

      That's a terrible idea. Who wants to live next to a production facility?

    8. Re:baby steps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're willing to handle the harvesting yourself, and are planning to keep it inside so you don't really need to worry about pests, you can do that with hydroponics (and maybe some grow lights). The off-the-shelf systems are fairly expensive, but if you like building things, you can make one yourself for a lot less. You can find guides online, and there's a pretty good book a friend got out from the library called "DIY Hydroponic Gardens". You need to check in on it to make sure the water is still running and to add new nutrient solution every 1-2 weeks, but other than that you can leave it alone.

      If you want to geek out, I even saw over-engineered systems online that automatically added nutrients, but it seems like overkill for a small system.

  6. You're not on 4Chan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Take it back to /pol/. None of us here cares about your autistic screeching.

  7. Yet people will still claim automation is harmless by skam240 · · Score: 0

    Yet people will still claim modern automation has no potential downfalls. What happens to a world when one of the most significant employers of unskilled human labor (the food industry) goes all automated? Will an increasingly automated skilled work force replace it? I seriously doubt it.

    Now, I'm not arguing that we should forbid mass automation of unskilled labor because even if we don't allow it here some country with no regards to human rights (China maybe?) will happily allow it to our determent. What I am saying is that we need a game plan for a very probable scenario.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  8. "short supply" of labor.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    you mean where there's plenty of people who want to work.. but employers are too cheap to increase wages and benefits to attract them? that "short supply"? there is no labor shortage.. call it a 'wage shortage'.. an 'insurance shortage'.. whatever... but there is definitely not a 'labor shortage'.. the world.. the u.s., even if you want to narrow it down to the country tfa is about, has not 'run out' of people to work. that's complete and total bullshit.

    1. Re:"short supply" of labor.. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      you mean where there's plenty of people who want to work.. but employers are too cheap to increase wages and benefits to attract them?

      Do you really believe that there is a vast pool of idle agricultural works sitting at home watching soap operas while they wait for wages to go up?

    2. Re:"short supply" of labor.. by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      If they're paying $100 per hour instead of $10, I'd grab a pitchfork myself.

    3. Re:"short supply" of labor.. by mentil · · Score: 1

      The potential agricultural workers are working in a different sector for better money, and won't consider an agricultural job because the pay is too low and work is too intense. The agricultural companies are wringing their hands saying "we can't find any Americans who want to do this work!!11one" because they want more visas and laxer immigration so they can hire cheap immigrants at wage-slavery pay levels. Agribusiness is competitive enough that those who raise wages to the point that actual American citizens will do it, go out of business (with some exceptions for Organic and boutique crops). The typical solution to this problem is some form of regulation, or to look the other way and let immigrants do it while labor and/or immigration laws are violated. Considering how many massive government handouts are given to the corn belt, the latter is likely to continue until robots are cheaper than migrant workers.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    4. Re:"short supply" of labor.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of "idle agricultural worker" call them hipsters. World of Warcraft players. Stoners. Lazy. See how your demands for their actions changes with the amount of scorn in the label you put on them.

    5. Re:"short supply" of labor.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As would I. But then there's that sliding worth of the dollar: when a load of bread is $100 and a monthly apartment rent $7,000, no $100 per hour will save you. Same as with every currency crash, from Valenzuela to Prussia. And not even counting The Company Store scam. The minimum wage in 1970 America was what, $2 an hour? In 1900 $2 a month? The people who are trying to earn a living that won't kill them before the check arrives are not in control of the worth of the dollar.

    6. Re: "short supply" of labor.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But many wow-pkayers are farming, and earning lots of gold!

    7. Re:"short supply" of labor.. by sabbede · · Score: 1
      So?

      And doesn't that make this exactly the sort of thing automation is for?

  9. Better farms by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    No need to find workers as robots are always ready for work.
    Robots do not push up wages.

    Advanced computer sorting of what is farmed.
    Great new jobs looking after the robots.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  10. Tesla wanted to produce an autonomous factory.... by Proudrooster · · Score: 1

    Tesla wanted to produce an autonomous car factory.

    How did that end up?

    The abandonment of expensive robots and tents setup in the parking lot with a lot of humans busy building cars.

    While I applaud the effort, don't oversell the abilities of autonomous anything.

  11. more inputs by js290 · · Score: 1

    "Annual agriculture is all about living through our concepts... our idea we've imposed on reality & when reality doesn't behave according to our idea, what do we do? We input... we can never input enough to make our false concept correct." @RestorationAgD http://bit.ly/1GnbtAA

    --
    "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
  12. Idiocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this how humanity survived in Idiocracy? The robots did the important stuff.

  13. huh-Farming in an Arcology. by Ostracus · · Score: 1

    Well it's indoors so that's a big bonus.* Weeds and insects easier to control. Vertical farming better use of land. This will also fit when we go into space, or underground. Also with developments like fogponics, and aquaponics, easier and more diverse foodstuffs. CRISPr makes things more interesting.

    *Greenhouses, or cheap solar powering LEDs.

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
  14. pfft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    5 * 8000 = 40,000 sq. ft. = 1 acre. Thats a pretty small farm. Real farms nowdays can produce much more food than such indoor facilities.

  15. "flog you its technology"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does that mean? Is there a missing or extra word? Maybe "flaunt its technology" or "flog you with its technology"? ...Honestly I'm curious what the author meant to say.

    1. Re:"flog you its technology"? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      "Flog" can mean "sell or offer for sale". It is an informal usage, and is more commonly used in Britain than in America.

  16. A Good Path by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    I can understand that the high cost of start-up of indoor food production discourages many owners. So why not build smaller modules and do both indoor and outdoor crop production and gradually build more automated units so that the income flow is steady while the modernization takes place. Also, we can hope that an automated, indoor farm will be able to contain any chemical pollution instead of letting it run off and contaminate waterways etc..

  17. Muh "they do jobs Americans don't want!" tho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think of all the unemployed Mexicans!

  18. Re:Yet people will still claim automation is harml by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What happens to a world when one of the most significant employers of unskilled human labor (the food industry) goes all automated?

    This has ALREADY HAPPENED in much of the world. 150 years ago, 70% of Americans worked on farms. Today 2% do. The world didn't end.

    Will an increasingly automated skilled work force replace it? I seriously doubt it.

    Why do you doubt it? It has ALREADY HAPPENED to over a billion people ... who have become the richest billion.

    What I am saying is that we need a game plan for a very probable scenario.

    You should start by reading a history book. For the last two centuries, moving a country's labor force off the farm and into the cities has be the key to prosperity, economic development, and higher living standards. It happened in the developed world long ago, and it is happening in China now.

    Believing that agricultural automation somehow causes poverty, is astoundingly ignorant.

  19. What's the deal with leafy greens? by jtara · · Score: 1

    Why does every farming automation/urban/indoor/shipping container/etc./etc. project grow leafy greens?

    Is there really a huge demand or profit in that?

    How about:

    - orange and purple cauliflower
    - asparagus
    - berries (out of season)
    - morel mushrooms
    - dragonfruit
    - avocados

    In other words, the expensive shit?

    1. Re:What's the deal with leafy greens? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Leafy greens are easy and fast to grow. Like 8x as many harvests a year fast and pretty easy to grow. Also, there's not a lot of lost biomass (e.g. with a tree for avocados or a bush for berries) that needs to be preserved year over year.

      You start with easy and many iterations, and move to the hard stuff later.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:What's the deal with leafy greens? by thesupraman · · Score: 1

      They are trivial. This is an indoor hydroponics conveyor. In skinny there are any actual robots involved (they themselves mention humans to plant and harvest).

      It's just spin on yet another high intensity and expensive indoor grow operation. Yawn.

      Call me when they can automated grow and pick strawberries, potatoes, and broccoli, all of which have much MUCH more involved processes.

      I also suspect they plan to make money by selling the tech and VC.. not from the crop, and the capex payback period would be huge.

    3. Re:What's the deal with leafy greens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All those take a lot longer to grow.

      That is why they grow leafy greens, they grow quick.
      Problem is that leafy greens are very cheap to buy from safeway, even shipped across continent.

      They are probably looking at 250$ or less per week in raw revenues based on their numbers.
      That can not even pay for a single unskilled minimum wage farmhand.

      I feel sorry for the investors that gave them their money. But hey, we got venture capital so lets go buy nerf guns for everyone.

    4. Re:What's the deal with leafy greens? by Daralantan · · Score: 1

      Dragonfruit

      One of the most disappointing things I've eaten. It looks so awesome... and is just sort of a slightly sweet taste. Kind of like a weak watermelon. I agree with the post, though. Definitely would look forward more to a variety of veggies and fruit than just leafy greens (that being said, anything making it easier to eat those daily is a good thing)

    5. Re:What's the deal with leafy greens? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Why does every farming automation/urban/indoor/shipping container/etc./etc. project grow leafy greens?
      Is there really a huge demand or profit in that?
      How about:
      [...]
      In other words, the expensive shit?

      The preprocessed salad mix industry in America began in the eighties in Washington. A mix of some 30 different greens would go for twenty dollars a pound at the Pike Street Market. Tell us again how there's not a huge profit in that. Even just spinach at your local supermarket is up around eight bucks for a plastic tub, and spinach is relatively hardy and thus cheap to process.

      Pound for pound, leafy greens are great earners. Possibly the best.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  20. Backwards from wheat by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    Amazingly, they said seeding was a human intensive thing. When planting wheat, those John Deere planters use GPS and microchips to decide where precisely to put each seed (programmed taking into account changing soil type, etc.). While driving over a many acre farm.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
    1. Re:Backwards from wheat by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind this is a startup, they probably haven't figured out how to do that yet, but will likely do so in the future. It's not like they can just take John Deere's tech and run with it.

    2. Re:Backwards from wheat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That and start-ups have a bad habit of reinventing the wheel.

  21. Re: Yet people will still claim automation is harm by lazarus · · Score: 1

    Indeed. It probably began with Jethro Tull.

    --
    I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
  22. Re:Tesla wanted to produce an autonomous factory.. by djinn6 · · Score: 1

    That says more about Tesla than automation. There are plenty of fully automated factories out there, if Modern Marvels episodes are to be believed.

  23. Walk Away from Corporate Tyranny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Free Software developers of the world, open your eyes! Our communities are being raped, our work pillaged.

    Detestable villains - mean spirited, belligerent, racist, unprincipled - are using underhanded tricks to force hypocritical "Codes of Conduct" on the projects we built.

    The only purpose of these CoCs is to allow so-called "Progressives", who have contributed nothing to the project, to conduct witch hunts against anyone who opposes them. Thereby they plan to steal our work for their shadowy corporate paymasters.

    You can readily tell these CoCs are not about "just being nice" - because they are ALWAYS supported by the very LEAST NICE, most aggressively mean, hate-filled, and shamelessly bigoted people you can imagine.

    If a project to which you contribute has been raped by CoC-mongers there is a simple solution: WALK AWAY. Never contribute again. If you have a patch almost ready, count the time you spent on it as a loss and throw it away. If you see a security issue, remain silent and do nothing. IT'S NO LONGER YOUR PROJECT. YOU ARE NOT WELCOME THERE.

    If you are evaluating new software, don't even consider any projects burdened under the tyranny of a CoC. Their technical attributes do not matter - just don't consider them. Never be openly political, always make up a technical reason for rejecting CoCed projects.

    Don't argue in public about the CoC. Doing so only exposes you to needless risk. You might be dis-employed, blackballed, and even set up for a #MeToo purge. Just stay far away.

    Comrades: Individually we are powerless, and easily crushed beneath the iron boot of Corporate Social Just-Us. But together in solidarity we are millions and we are strong. The Internet itself depends on our collective labor. If we stop working, the internet stops working.

    Free Software developers, save yourselves and save your communities! Just WALK AWAY from any project with a CoC. Without our labor they are nothing.

  24. First step Earth, next step space. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what sort of problems will crop up on a project like this? How do you repair a worn-out guide-rail? How do you clean the berry pincers? Are there wi-fi problems? What about condensation on the lenses? This is a system that will have a lot of potential use in the future. If it can work on a farm, then it can work on sailing cargo ships growing potatoes. Or on space ships, presumably. Automated food shipments grown, and frozen, on a slow boat to Mars.

    1. Re:First step Earth, next step space. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would someone want it on sailing cargo ship? There probably will not be anyone around to eat this stuff. And space ship - very unlikely. You know, the "no gravity" thing.

      > Automated food shipments grown, and frozen, on a slow boat to Mars.

      Well, this is just ridiculous. "Slow boat to Mars" is a closed system, 1 kg of vegetables you grown means 1.5 kg of mass you have to lift from Earth plus lots of additional work from seeding to freezing with potential life-threatening malfunctions. Sublimate and freeze it before the launch - it likely will be orders of magnitude cheaper.

  25. If they can just find some e.coli-free water.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're getting somewhere.

  26. Coal to Carrots by Logger · · Score: 2

    Indoor farming has to replace free and clean solar energy with grid energy ( ie. mostly coal ). Using solar power electricity in this instance would be very inefficient. Convert sun to electricity (loss), transmit over grid (loss), run grow lights (loss), is a horribly lossy system. Maybe 10% or less efficient system? So you replace 10 acres of lettuce farms with 2 acres of lettuce buildings. But you still need 10 acres worth of solar energy and you have to account for the loss. So you replace 10 acres of lettuce with 102 acres of solar and lettuce, but you didn't have to pay any lettuce pickers!

    Nuclear is taboo, so it's going to be coal. It's not necessarily all bad though. If this uses less energy versus planting, weeding, and shipping to market, which are also fossil fuel based, then it would be a net improvement. However, it's very hard to capture all the externalities of the two approaches to get an accurate comparison. A grad student is probably writing their thesis on this topic right now.

    1. Re:Coal to Carrots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indoor farming has to replace free and clean solar energy with grid energy ( ie. mostly coal ).

      Nope. Transparent roofs can collect that free solar energy. Other energy is only needed if you want to grow stuff out of season.

    2. Re:Coal to Carrots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indoor farming has to replace free and clean solar energy with grid energy ( ie. mostly coal ). Using solar power electricity in this instance would be very inefficient. .

      All economic activities have all sort of trade off. "Free" sunlight is one thing, but the rest of the controlling factor is never free. That's how "green revolution" occur, with the use of fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide, etc, those are not free from energy input.
      Open air farming also susceptible to bad weather, a drought can simply wipe out, how are you going to fix such problem? Do you mean destruction of crops doesn't waste energy?

  27. Can You Box That For Me? by cstacy · · Score: 1

    Meat, and Fish, and Protein from the sea!

    1. Re:Can You Box That For Me? by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

      Mmmm...Jenny Aguter.

    2. Re:Can You Box That For Me? by flink · · Score: 1

      It's all here, fresh as harvest day!

  28. There are already machines that can do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't new. There are 'container' hydroponic boxes the size of semi trucks that can do this. So what. Lettuce is easy, not like the AI needed to find the fruit of the plant, then determine if it's ripe and then pick it, pack it and ship it. No one has been able to do that. It also seems to be a long way off before that is even possible.

  29. Re:Yet people will still claim automation is harml by Kiuas · · Score: 2

    This has ALREADY HAPPENED in much of the world. 150 years ago, 70% of Americans worked on farms. Today 2% do. The world didn't end.

    This is true, but look a where those people went: the people freed up from agricultural work found new jobs in factories, warehouses, offices and the like. Now, even those fields are being automated at a fast pace. You're correct when you say:

    You should start by reading a history book. For the last two centuries, moving a country's labor force off the farm and into the cities has be the key to prosperity, economic development, and higher living standards. It happened in the developed world long ago, and it is happening in China now.

    Believing that agricultural automation somehow causes poverty, is astoundingly ignorant.

    But the problem scenario we're facing is different. Automation as its currently being developed takes jobs away not just from agriculture, but from the people who've moved to the cities as well. China is automating production at a rapid pace, replacing massive factories of hundreds of people working in assembly-lines and warehouses with semi-automated facilities staffed by few dozen engineers and programmers. In 20-30 years it's likely for example that nearly all warehouses will be almost completely automated, as will most production, this change has already begun. There are obviously new job description that have and will be created by this, but the general problem is that those positions generally require high education, and are not as abundant as the current low-skill jobs in manufacturing or logistics.

    Cities have been the driving force of an increasing standard of living for the last century throughout the world as you pointed out. Here in Finland we were still heavily an agricultural society post WWII, after which we stared a rapid catch-up as people started flocking to the cities fast, as the rebuilding effort after the war created a lot of demand for labor in all kinds of industries. It was possible for someone from the countryside with very little existing education to move to a city and and find a job that, albeit monotonous, paid better than work in the countryside and allowed fast upward mobility, moving people from poverty or near-poverty to the lower middle-class.

    We currently have about 200 000 more unemployed (mostly educated as we have a universal education system) people than open positions, because we've experienced a radical shift in the economy during the late 90s and 2000s: we stopped being an industrialized society and moved to a post-industrialized service and knowledge economy. Heavy industry is mostly gonei to countries with cheaper labor and what remains of it is highly automated and doesn't provide nearly as many jobs as it used to. The fall of Nokia was massive shock to the entire economy because its significance as an employer and a driver of growth was immense, even though most of the phones weren't even manufactured here. So we know have plenty of unemployed former industrial workers, engineers and so on that have had their jobs eliminated by the changes that have occurred.

    The economy is not doing too bad though, we've got new companies mostly in software, like games companies (think Rovio (Angry birds etc) and Supercell (Clash of Clans)) and others that have done well and benefited the economy a lot, but the kicker is here: these companies employ nowhere near the amount of people that industrial positions used to offer, and competition for those positions is fierce. Even on the office side automation is cutting into many tasks like data entry that still employs a lot of people, but that is already changing. Programming and related fields are in high demand, naturally, but for the people whose jobs have disappeared, it's not feasible for all of them to retrain themselves as programmers, especially as even the ones who do will end up competing with a high number of younger people who're often more experienced in the field tha

    --
    "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
  30. Looks like the editor bots are at it again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Alexander hopes to automative every process of the farm"

    Who writes this crap?

  31. Re:Yet people will still claim automation is harml by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Funny

    What happens to a world when one of the most significant employers of unskilled human labor (the food industry) goes all automated?

    Unskilled human labor will be used to produce Soyent Green.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  32. Re: Yet people will still claim automation is harm by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    That's too many words. You should have just said, "I'm worried because I don't learn from history and I like to worry." It would have been clearer.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  33. Didn't we learn from runaway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Runaway starts out with the farm machines going crazy. They don't say whether those machines were manipulated by the terrorist or simply decided to go off on their own, but can we take a chance?

  34. Yeah, I've been to Greygarden by shatteredsilicon · · Score: 1

    ^^That's the first thing that came to mind

    1. Re:Yeah, I've been to Greygarden by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Nice.

  35. Plenty of competition by spinitch · · Score: 1

    Plenty backed by SoftBank among competition. These can help supplement traditional farming and less exposure to extreme environmental impacts so welcome diversity to food supply options.

  36. Re:Yet people will still claim automation is harml by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

    Without a well paid middle-class consumption will come down which will start hurting all companies: companies are able to prosper because of consumers with high amounts of disposable income, and since less and less people will be able to get money from their labor, economies globally will be facing large scale issues unless we put serious time and effort into solving the demand-side challenge created by increased and improved across the board automation.

    I completely agree with your conclusion. What's more, even the top 1% need to have that consumption base, because they also want the things that the middle class wants. They want gas and roads and airports and movies and food and a financial system that benefits them.

    Those things largely exist because of the consumption of the middle class. And yes, while you can hire people to create your own boutique versions of some of those, if the farmer in France can't afford to force-feed his ducks, you don't get pate. And if there's not enough goods to export, that cashmire sweater you paid $500 for isn't going to come across on the boat. Unless you're king-level rich, you just can't own enough land and hire enough people to get all the things you want. At some point, even a billionaire balks at the thought of paying hundreds or thousands of times more for something than it used to be worth.

    The robust economy that makes the ultra-rich rich requires the consumption of the middle class. I'm a little blown away that they don't realize that, and continue to squeeze it. At least Warren Buffet gets it. I just wish more did.

    --
    Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  37. Re:Yet people will still claim automation is harml by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    What happens to a world when one of the most significant employers of unskilled human labor (the food industry) goes all automated?

    The illegal alien mexicans go home?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  38. Re:Yet people will still claim automation is harml by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happens to a world when one of the most significant employers of unskilled human labor (the food industry) goes all automated?

    Food gets cheaper, and one of humanity's most ancient enemies (famine) is finally defeated.

    we need a game plan for a very probable scenario.

    We have one. The game plan is to continue enjoying the benefits of technological progress.

    Yet people will still claim modern automation has no potential downfalls.

    Maybe because nobody has thought of a downside yet. Obviously people should be cautious about everything, but that doesn't mean paralysis is the right move either. People have had over a century (actually, people have had several millennia) to find some kind of downside increased farming efficiency. If someone eventually comes up with an idea, I'm not saying don't think about it! Go ahead and think about it. Go ahead and try to think up problems that might emerge down the road. But after so many people have tried so hard to find a downside and they all failed, the reasonable default assumption is that there simply aren't any downsides. But you're right, it's just an assumption.

    We haven't found an exception to relativity or evolution either, but ask any scientist and they'll tell you maybe it could happen.

  39. Re: Tesla wanted to produce an autonomous factory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tesla just isn't at the volume where fully automated is the right solution I think. They produce an expensive luxury car in small amounts, human labour is a good option. Even in a high wage country.

  40. County Conservatives vs City Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CP: We're going to put you county bumpkins out of business with farms that are FIVE times more productive and require no human labor!
    CC: Change bad! Me no like change! My Granddad changed his haircut once and died in a thresher accident!
    CP: We can build it better, faster, stronger!
    CC: So where was that new farm you were talking about?
    CP: The founder is in jail, turned out to be a ponzi scheme to bilk investors.
    CC: Oh you city folk!

  41. What's old is new again by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    In the 1940's, my grandfather had a device for his farm tractor that would allow him to plow one furrow around a field. The device then took over, guiding the tractor in tighter and tighter circles until the field was completely plowed. People would stop by the side of the road just to gawk. Somehow, it never really caught on! I wonder if these new-fangled robots will do any better.

  42. "agricultural workers are in short supply" by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

    That's because not that many people are willing to work for $3 an hour, except for illegal immigrants whom Trump has forced out.

  43. Re:Yet people will still claim automation is harml by skam240 · · Score: 1

    Astounding ignorance is believing that such a major disruption in such a massive employer in the third world ( https://data.worldbank.org/ind... ) and yet one that needs to make truly massive efficiency gains to feed everyone ( https://www.cnbc.com/2014/10/1... ) will be compensated for by "progress".

    Western agriculture is already massively automated and using up most of the available land it has for agriculture which means the real gains in food production will necessitate the sudden adoption of ultra modern tech in third world agriculture. When all these third worlder's suddenly become unemployed what are they going to do? These are people from countries that can't afford to properly educate their own people, there's no way the vast majority of them will just magically "adapt" and create the needed economic growth to employ themselves in other industries.

    Meanwhile, white collar jobs are being increasingly automated which in the past is where manual laborers went when they were displaced by technology.

    Sorry, but believing in historic pasterns in the face of overwhelming contrary data is what is astoundingly ignorant. In other words it's really astounding ignorant to think that society will always be able to keep up with Moore's Law. Society needs to start planning for this shit.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.