Comment by eminent101
20 hours ago
I have to say that this thread is very frustrating to read. I see @lazide is engaging with you in good faith and providing high effort, thoughtful answers. There's a lot of statistics and factors involved in a discussion like this. So I won't say @lazide's analysis is correct or flawed. But this is a good topic where a good discussion can be had and @lazide is holding up their end of the bargain.
But every response of yours is dismissive. And this makes this thread frustrating to read. You answer every reply with more questions and a tone of dismissal. If you know so much about this area, why don't you begin sharing some facts and enlighten us? Dismissing your co-commenter and answering their replies with more questions is not educating anyone of anything!
It would help if instead of answering a comment with questions, you share what you know. So how much is the cost of wiring, installation, programming and making greenhouses in the span of a year? How much copper is needed per capita? What do you know? Tell us!
> It would help if instead of answering a comment with questions, you share what you know. So how much is the cost of wiring, installation, programming and making greenhouses in the span of a year? How much copper is needed per capita? What do you know? Tell us!basic led grow lights for agriculture
[Trivial googling shows you $750K to $1.25 million Euros per hectare](https://www.floraldaily.com/article/9574650/half-fewer-order...). At 400 square meters of greenhouse to feed a single human being (a reasonable estimate, lower bound being 300 under super intensive conditions with experienced growers), that's at least $30K _per person_ under the existing constraints of the industry just for an industry-standard greenhouse. You could of course lower construction costs and do the bare minimum, at the cost of a dramatic decrease in yield.
That of course assumes materials and fabrication is abundantly available and wouldn't see an impossibly high rise in materials and service costs if suddenly the entire world were to demand greenhouse construction with the attending demands in electricity distribution, power generation, and the sudden need to turn most of society into a sort of high-tech agrarian population, something that just doesn't happen in a year.
This took me 5 minutes to Google.
> Trivial googling shows you ...
> This took me 5 minutes to Google.
If this is how you get your information, I doubt what you say can be taken seriously. Not to mention that the reference you quote seems like a random website nobody has ever heard of!
This was a very interesting topic and a serious discussion about this topic would at least include references to bonafide surveys or well established trustworthy sources. To find them takes much more than 5 minutes of Googling. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do that, so I requested that if you know something, you share it here with us.
Clearly you do not have the time to do your research either since all you have to present us is "5 minutes of Googling" that turns up a random source!
So you’re saying that if everyone would flat out starve to death, they would not, or could not, spend that amount of time/money/energy to not starve to death?
I’m not saying it would be pretty, or that people wouldn’t die.
I’m just saying that actually doesn’t sound impossible.
Far more effort than that was expended per person in WW2, and that wasn’t nearly as severe of an existential threat.
Hell, in this case it would be an obvious/visible, sudden, external, non-human existential threat, so would be ideal for uniting humanity on somewhat common grounds.
I doubt there is any point in debating a complex topic with someone whose only responses are dismissive questions and "5 minutes of Googling"! I appreciate your thoughtful comments in this thread though!