Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27
Like Tree14Likes

Thread: The nitty gritty: how many square feet (meters) does a person need to live in

  1. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    210
    Not 100 acre that's for damn sure.

    Rich people are severely distorted and addicted to collecting things, money, houses, cars, lands, people.

    The more the better, even if they cannot ever use them all.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    637
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLamelyNamed View Post
    Rich people are severely distorted and addicted to collecting things, money, houses, cars, lands, people.
    Very true. But a lot of people are raised with the idea that happiness = money. And it's true, until a certain point is reached where you get enough for normal living. After that you only get a short burst of happiness with every increase of capital. So money-people hunt for the short satisfaction of that increase of capital that has to come in increasingly bigger and bigger amounts. Just like an addict needing the next fix.

    Quote Originally Posted by pieter.de.beer View Post
    we've got Sustainable Domes as a rural alternative
    Sustainable Domes - Geodesic Dome - Aquaponics Domes :: Home
    Those aquaponic domes are very interesting. They also claim that you can grow 10 x at much on the same area. Have to try it here.

  3. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    111
    Those aquaponic domes are very interesting. They also claim that you can grow 10 x at much on the same area.
    i attended a presentation by them a few months ago. the claim is "a maximum output figure, assuming constant supervision, polyculture growing and rapid development stimulated by direct nutrient absorbtion through their aquaponics systems, helped along by the domes from an energy conservation standpoint" the domes permit simpler temperature regulation which means reduced energy requirements, so that the whole system's yield in total is the economic equivalent of a monoculture crop (which is already very inefficient) of approximately 10 times the base-size of the dome (12m radius, so it allows for 'vertical' farming on multiple floors).

    i have not seen a fully functional dome myself, but the presentation was really good, and their pitch was at trying to get the domes installed in rural african communities where their sustainability could have the greatest positive impact possible, so i like the company.

    they also cost $95,000 (because of the 'advanced materials', which i wouldn't properly understand anyway) and so were WAY out of my sub-saharan africa budget.... but if you can afford them, i think they are great alternatives as food hubs for communities, allowing efficient localized food production in safe, controlled environments.
    Last edited by pieter.de.beer; 06-07-2013 at 02:00 PM. Reason: clarifiaction
    Abundance and Access Through Anarchism
    http://robcayman.tumblr.com/post/347...get-restraints

  4. #14
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    35
    Vertical farms can take many shapes. Each floor of a vertical farm skyscraper can itself contain multiple levels of crops. a commercial building, for instance, may have a 12 foot high ceiling, lettuce crops never exceed 18" in height so with an NFT growing system and LED lighting for each level of crop one could grow 6 to 9 levels high, multiplying the effective yield per square meter/sq ft. High density growing is also possible with a well-designed hydroponic system (less wasted space between plants and between rows of plants), again multiplying yield.

    Requirements are that the plants each receive the correct amount of nutrients to their roots and optimum amount of light. This ensures the highest yields in a given area.

    In truth, we don't need to farm a single acre of dirt in order to feed the world.

  5. #15
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1
    Something that also needs to be addressed is waste. 50 percent of the food raised(plant and animal) is wasted by allowing it to rot, being contaminated by "food manufacturers", or damaged/distroyed by commercial agriculture, food related businesses, governments(politics) or outright distroyed to keep prices/profits up. I've seen all of this go on. Here in the U.S. they have four steps or more befor a food product makes it to a grocery store. Meat: beef for example: First of course it must be raised, then slaughtered/butchered into cuts, then the trim meat gose to be processed into products with fillers/additives, then it goes on to the food manufactures and is extruded into stuff they call food that really has near zero real food in it, an no telling what else. All along this chain contamination goes on, I've seen tons of food be thrown away at every link of the way they make food now. It gets thrown away because of anything from lead shots in the meat(hurding by helocopter with shotguns), wrong slaughter/butcher practices(manure on/in meat), wrong spices put in product at the processor/food manufacturer and more such things. Even food sent for releif for people starving to death in other countries has been known to set on the dock and rot, while business people in these poor countries argue the donated food will bring prices down. It boogles the mind.
    Ernest likes this.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    784
    Politics/Capitalism should Never have no Real say in how we distribute life's basic needs like Food, Water, Housing etc.. Once the Profit Motive is added to the equation, it Always hurts efficiency levels and causes all sorts of scarcity problems on being able to provide these basic needs. Capitalism Efficiency and the Meeting of Human Needs are in Contradiction to one another so if we choose one, the other will Fail. And we have "chosen" Capitalism and so these problems that we see today are the result of that.
    droneBEE likes this.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,059
    We mustn't forget (or must simply stop accepting) that our world has perpetual LANDLORDS who through speculative capitalist maneuvering, are denying access to land and water (and resources) for billions of people through no fault of their own.....except being born and forced into a life of perpetual poverty/slavery for the benefit of the LANDLORDS.

    There's no shortage of available space for people, nor are there too many people......just too many LANDLORDS denying access to what rightfully belongs to all by birthright.....just saying.

    How did this all happen? What can be done to correct this ancient practice of denial to the masses for individual self enrichment and benefit ?

    SEE; LAND by Martin Adams
    Ernest likes this.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,059
    Quote Originally Posted by Randy View Post
    Something that also needs to be addressed is waste. 50 percent of the food raised(plant and animal) is wasted by allowing it to rot, being contaminated by "food manufacturers", or damaged/distroyed by commercial agriculture, food related businesses, governments(politics) or outright distroyed to keep prices/profits up. I've seen all of this go on. Here in the U.S. they have four steps or more befor a food product makes it to a grocery store. Meat: beef for example: First of course it must be raised, then slaughtered/butchered into cuts, then the trim meat gose to be processed into products with fillers/additives, then it goes on to the food manufactures and is extruded into stuff they call food that really has near zero real food in it, an no telling what else. All along this chain contamination goes on, I've seen tons of food be thrown away at every link of the way they make food now. It gets thrown away because of anything from lead shots in the meat(hurding by helocopter with shotguns), wrong slaughter/butcher practices(manure on/in meat), wrong spices put in product at the processor/food manufacturer and more such things. Even food sent for releif for people starving to death in other countries has been known to set on the dock and rot, while business people in these poor countries argue the donated food will bring prices down. It boogles the mind.
    Waste equals profits.....

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    940
    Something that also needs to be addressed is waste. 50 percent of the food raised(plant and animal) is wasted by allowing it to rot, being contaminated by "food manufacturers", or damaged/distroyed by commercial agriculture, food related businesses, governments(politics) or outright distroyed to keep prices/profits up. I've seen all of this go on. Here in the U.S.
    Not just Food...........>
    Everything Is Possible. Nothing Is True.
    (ψ = Σanψn)
    What do you know when the time is up and the door to the box is opened?
    It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.

  10. #20
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by WorldCitizenUSA View Post
    I've recently seen a couple of "Off the grid town" designs/plans. From what I can see they allocate very little space for each domicile and that got me thinking. How much space does the average person need in order to feel comfortable and stress-free.
    IMO, it depends on your definition of average. A person who has been bought up in a rich family and is used to living in a large mansion will be far more stressed if they had to move to a small apartment, than a person who has grown up in a slum and never had a place of their own. Like many things, it is all down to perspective.

    If you are thinking in more global terms, there are far more people who have never owned a house, than those that live in mansions, and so the number should balance itself out.

    IMO one of the best ways to deal with over population would be to make better use of the space we have, meaning, instead of sprawling, low level cities, we could build large, and much taller single hubs with a smaller ground level footprint, where millions of people could live in at once. These human hubs would be surrounded by nature and allow the relative coexistence of the human population with nature, without destroying it in the process.

    This concept is known as an 'arcology' which is a cross between the word 'architecture' and the word 'ecology'. There have been several designs for various structures that have been completed.
    - Only love can be divided endlessly and still not diminish -

    www.theidea.online

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
web statistics
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1