1

With top notch existing technology (need not be currently industrially used, existing research application sufficient) and no regard for (external) ecology, economics or politics, we'll build a structure on Earth that houses the sustainable (sustainable not in the woo woo 'don't hurt Gaia' sense, but meaning any means that can be sustained for an unlimited amount of time) means of human foodproduction. Not -distribution (apart from 'out'), though.

Assume readily available electric energy. Global veganism if need be.

Scale as required (if full or part synthesis is possible, go for it). Structure needs to not be scattered, but can be any topology and form engineerable. Structure can float, be underground, anything. Thermal regulation needs to be taken into account.

Hydro- and other -ponics essentially go from N2 and CO2 to sugars, fats and protein via biochemistry driven by photosynthesis. There might be a way to create some of that in bulk via industrial synthesis, bypassing the volume -inefficient flora.

How many cubic meters of structure per person, minimally?

bukwyrm
  • 5,859
  • 14
  • 27
  • 1
    @ Ash i am going for volume, not acreage of farmland. – bukwyrm Jun 19 '19 at 15:48
  • Duplicates are judged on content of the answers not the wording of the question, take a look at the accepted answer and you'll see what I mean. – Ash Jun 19 '19 at 15:49
  • @Ash part of the answer is in part relevant to my question, but possible synthetic ways of food production are never discussed. – bukwyrm Jun 19 '19 at 15:52
  • 1
    "no regard for (external) ecology, economics or politics" yet "sustainable"? – L.Dutch Jun 19 '19 at 15:52
  • You're going to have to define and delineate your idea of "synthetic" since aeroponics is anything but natural. – Ash Jun 19 '19 at 15:54
  • I'm voting to close the question as too broad, as you have not specified how the nutritional requirements of your population are to be supplied. A vast acreage of farmland stacked on another, as compared with a high tech facility using cutting edge techniques to produce nutrients with algae, bacteria and yeast - these would have vastly different answers. Please be specific about your requirements, so that you can [edit] your question to make a best answer identifiable. – Escaped dental patient. Jun 19 '19 at 16:09
  • If the duplicate @Ash linked isn't sufficient, then this question is "unclear." How are we supposed to know the answer when no reasonable technology exists yet and you haven't described (within reason) a base technology (e.g., "rule") in your world? Is taking the answers in the linked question, or researching the volume of hydroponically-grown foods, not sufficient? Then you need to provide us with a lot of missing information. – JBH Jun 19 '19 at 16:23
  • @Ash Would you care to justify "Duplicates are judged on content of the answers not the wording of the question", this is not a challenge to the statement just a query for clarification as to if this is written in stone. A little meta, but the implications would be broad and devastating, by that reasoning: If a question had not received good answers, then "duplicate" should not be invoked,, whereas, if an answer had been given to a different (unrelated) question, that in a member's opinion fits, then that's a can of worms which could devour the whole site's contents in opinion-based bickering. – Escaped dental patient. Jun 19 '19 at 17:03
  • @DonQualm One of the first questions I asked was a duplicate, I had read the question that it was picked as a double up of when I first starting writing it up but thought I was in sufficiently different territory and I almost was but it was pointed out to me that the accepted answer covered my question quite neatly even with the dissimilarities so that's the benchmark I've used since then; whether the answers for the existing question cover the new question is of primary importance not the differences that exist between the askings. – Ash Jun 19 '19 at 17:03
  • @Ash I'm not certain where to place my benchmarks as things seem to change fast and be inconstant. If you read my most recent comment edit, you'll perhaps agree this issue needs raising in meta. – Escaped dental patient. Jun 19 '19 at 17:09
  • @DonQualm It's actually on my hot meta posts feed at the moment the discussion is here I'll look in on it and see if I should be changing what I'm doing next week when I have more time. – Ash Jun 19 '19 at 17:12
  • 1
    edited. please provide further input as to how this Q can be improved. – bukwyrm Jun 19 '19 at 17:49
  • @bukwyrm Ok, we would get how maybe "volume-inefficient flora" maybe refers to spinach or kale or grass (undefined). Your edit doesn't help either narrow down the question nor differentiate it from it's duplicate. When I voted to put on-hold,, i did so because the way the question was put seemed to indicate a lack of research into what is necessary to support (human) life, in turn this lead to a lack of regard for previously asked questions on the subject. Care to review the "duplicate" question and it's answers then get back to us all? (You need to call us by @ then our names). – Escaped dental patient. Jun 20 '19 at 00:17
  • @bukwyrm Isaac Arthur seems to think a volume the size of a "living room" (so 100 cubic meters max?) using 10kw of power would be enough to feed 1 person. (end of the Fusion power episode) – SurpriseDog Jun 24 '19 at 01:47

0 Answers0