The Future of Food

In a previous post I presented a fictional interview that supported the idea of consolidating population in vertical construction.  My personal support of this idea is founded on three main principles: first, vertical construction leaves more land intact.  This means that more forest can be enjoyed, more water can flow, and more wildlife can roam.  Second, studies show that cities are more efficient than suburban sprawl or small towns.  Finally, I prefer the aesthetics of a skyline with a natural backdrop to the view of single family homes spread to the horizon.

Studies have shown a population movement towards urban cores over the past decade which shows a growing trend of a preference for living near where you work and shop, a system as old as the city itself.  As technology and ideas have developed to support a dense urban core, Vertical Farming has been proposed to process waste and to provide food for urbanites.  Though this technology has yet to be truly attempted, a new proposal takes it to its most feasible level yet.  Check out this article by Lloyd Alter on the Tree Hugger site about the latest developments in vertical farming.  And then do some more research on your own.  Learn about the most recent ideas for rejuvenating city centers around the world and how we can change the human landscape to make society more efficient and responsible.

Feel free to share what you find in the comments below.

This entry was posted in Economy, Energy, Environment, Infrastructure, United States. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The Future of Food

  1. Absolutely moving towards urban living in cities shows efficacy for resource and environmental conservation. At the present moment, taking early initiatives to implicate agendas working for resource expenditure reduction and recycling common goods is essential to mitigate large and widespread economic catastrophe. These are important moves to make, but another side of the coin shows much higher rates of crime and inequality in modern urban areas (link at bottom). I however to agree that just because we are not currently doing it right in many ways, does not mean that it can’t be done correctly. It may not be for everyone either, for a large degree of urban animal farming has been linked to much higher rates of disease and is plainly not very aesthetically pleasing in an urban area. The demand for meats and dairy, which as industries could at best be moved to adjacent areas around urban sprawls is massive in the West and growing in the East. This will have to be addressed for the move towards more urban living situations, unless we continue to keep animal stock imprisoned in CAFO’s and the synonymous terms for large concentrated feed operations for each industrialized animal. By altering the inequalities present in subsidies given to large industrial farmers and small family farmers, perhaps the great plains can once again be used for cattle farming more efficiently. Though it’s not local for everybody, it’s not Honduras. It’s not Rainforest. It’s American. The abandonment of the great plains is a pressing issue for poverty in the societies which reside there, which are fleeing to large urban systems. What is to be done with them, and the problems of turning once thriving agrarian societies into ghost towns?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s