The Aquaculture stuff is most interesting. We need to tap into marine nutrients more.
Lets put all this tech together, and come up with a video on robotic agriculture without a comment section, where people out their own ignorance.
Some of these comments come all the way back from 2008. In spirit, at least.
Also, I fully support full automation of agriculture. Weather or not predictions on human population are accurate.
Notice, nothing is being said about curbing human population, particularly in third world regions, where people are having enough kids to field their own softball team, for some reason.
This is intensive way of harvesting isnt the fututre, its whats going to kill the soil and then us
Agroecology is THE solution !
During minute 8 of the video, Mark Post suggests that we will look back and evaluate the slaughter of animals for meat as barbaric. What does he suggest we do with the 60% of all current grazing land in the USA that is usable ONLY for grazing? Should we just stop grazing--converting wild vegetation into protein? What a wast of resources that would be, and we would have a huge overabundance of vegetation as fuel for wildfires--wildfires that will be increasingly difficult to put out. Livestock has far less impact on GHG than is portrayed in the media. If you really want the truth from modern science-based research, follow the research of University of California, Davis's Dr. Frank Mitloehner (@GHGGuru) on Twitter. I challenge you to do your homework before publishing questionable opinions.
Make more food but kill more people with under researched GMO cancer causing agents like Glyphosate.
We must introduce a global law to a child policy before it becomes too late...
Many thanks for sharing
Why not ppl feed they self grow food where you live
Blue Revolution - @ , Turns infertile ground around using microbes.
By the year 2050 we will 10 bln people which means, we need to double the food we produce.
OR it means that 2019 going forward we need to stop to procreate on more than a 2:2 ratio. Even 2:1 would not hurt planet, countries and people in light of economics, technological and environmental trends.
Also: We already see how high tech farming has two major drawbacks that need to be considered:
1) as that tech is effectively not available to all countries and least smaller farmers, that market tends to be owned by fewer larger farmers and make it only harder for poorer countries to compete even in their home market, impeding them from building up their own "sustainable" systems.
2) no matter how high-tech your methods, the ground still needs to give: today's only solution: ever more fertilizer - with all its known consequences. Even as those new high tech methods are designed to waste less fertilizer, that by itself is no answer yet to requiring twice the amount of nutrients to grow twice the amount of food, twice the amount of space OR twice as fast.
3. Seeing how much food is consumed without need and how much of all food is thrown away, producing more may neither be necessary nor a solution.
i dont understand why we need to farm? it's all a lie people, we don't really need to eat!! seriously i haven't eaten in 3 years! no one believes me! i weigh 83kgs!
God is watching