• BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    Your article says it’s 40:1 instead of the 10:1 I assumed, but that’s still far too little to matter.

    Your two floors of farming would still feed less than a hundred people full time, even if they hit those lofty idea targets.

    • Canaconda@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      You’re the one inserting the assumption that this has to become the only source of food for people.

      I said:

      or source through a local network.

      If you can’t read those words and comprehend them than why would I consider anything you have to say?

      • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 days ago

        What the fuck does local mean? I just showed you the math that even Los Angeles alone consumes more food than you can possibly grow in California.

        You’re the one fucking around with “I want a greenhouse above my grocery store” with no real proof that it would matter or be a good use of space.

        • grindemup@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          You seem to be assuming that this idea would have to solve all food consumed by everyone. No one is making that assumption except for you.

          • Canaconda@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            Thank you. I’m literally just trying to fix food banks not having enough food and a handful of people are insisting I’ve suggested this will replace Loblaws.