The Age of Robot Farmers(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
The Age of Robot Farmers
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/15/the-age-of-robot-farmers
16 comments
That says something that people will rather go back to prison than work the job.
Well, the felons never stop being prisoners in the time they work. This tends to result in an unmotivated workforce no matter what the activity. No only this project but most prison labor projects fail.
I'm unable to locate a resource indicating the pay, only a blurb that says prisoners must pay for their transportation (I'm sure that isn't marked up or anything...) and the pay rate must be at least minimum wage.
I'm guessing pay rate is a big part of the prisoners lack of enthusiasm.
I'm guessing pay rate is a big part of the prisoners lack of enthusiasm.
Well, prisoners are unskilled and keeping them supervised while working is a significant expense, so the net value they yield is going to be very low.
Clearly, being a farm worker isn't a career path for the prisoner so the prisoner has no motivation to learn the intricacies of the job. And farm work turns out to have many intricacies. So yeah, this project seems impossible.
Clearly, being a farm worker isn't a career path for the prisoner so the prisoner has no motivation to learn the intricacies of the job. And farm work turns out to have many intricacies. So yeah, this project seems impossible.
> Georgia farmers lost more than a hundred and twenty million dollars
> H-2A workers are still among the lowest paid in the country
Why don't they pay labour $100M?
> H-2A workers are still among the lowest paid in the country
Why don't they pay labour $100M?
I think a larger issue is that food/resource prices may be too low.
Obviously, the farmers need to charge for the food/resource, but if they aren't able to turn a profit when properly hiring and paying staff/contractors to work for them, that's an issue. We don't know if the $100MM would cover the new cost or not.
I believe there is an issue where we've (the US) relied on such low-cost labor for farms far too long and we do not know how to balance out our supply chain with properly paid labor.
Obviously, the farmers need to charge for the food/resource, but if they aren't able to turn a profit when properly hiring and paying staff/contractors to work for them, that's an issue. We don't know if the $100MM would cover the new cost or not.
I believe there is an issue where we've (the US) relied on such low-cost labor for farms far too long and we do not know how to balance out our supply chain with properly paid labor.
These are the tough questions that are going to have to be answered until another robotic cotton gin is invented.
Yes, the food market is heavily distorted. If giant ag businesses that employ immigrants can't make a profit, it means there's too many farms in operation. Farms will close, food prices will rise, and the market will stabilize.
A huge positive to this, smaller family-run farms that don't hire immigrant labor would actually be able to compete with the larger industrial farms. We might even be able to reduce total miles food travels farm to table because it's simply not profitable to ship produce cross-country when local farmers can produce at a competitive price.
A huge positive to this, smaller family-run farms that don't hire immigrant labor would actually be able to compete with the larger industrial farms. We might even be able to reduce total miles food travels farm to table because it's simply not profitable to ship produce cross-country when local farmers can produce at a competitive price.
I'm not sure even that would overcome the hyperoptimization capital trap advantage big industrial farms enjoy.
I'm still pretty shallow in my understanding of the Ag industry, but the last research I'd done showed that process optimization gaps driven by capital access disparity, and an increasing encroachment of vertically integrating distribution businesses were the major drivers of small farms out of the market.
The wage hits through access to capital to pay workers will also hit smaller operations harder in the sense the smaller you are the fewer people feel safe investing in you.
It'd be nice if it would sort itself in favor of the little guy, but I'm just not seeing it.
I'm still pretty shallow in my understanding of the Ag industry, but the last research I'd done showed that process optimization gaps driven by capital access disparity, and an increasing encroachment of vertically integrating distribution businesses were the major drivers of small farms out of the market.
The wage hits through access to capital to pay workers will also hit smaller operations harder in the sense the smaller you are the fewer people feel safe investing in you.
It'd be nice if it would sort itself in favor of the little guy, but I'm just not seeing it.
> It'd be nice if it would sort itself in favor of the little guy, but I'm just not seeing it.
Smaller farms already exist, despite the unfavorable business conditions. If we're talking something like corn or soy beans, we're talking about massive direct subsidies as well. But if we're talking about thing such as berries or apples, there are lots of successful smaller, local producers.
Imagine how much more successful those smaller farms would be. And, it might re-invigorate complementary local businesses, such as small tractor dealerships, fertilizer, what have you.
Smaller farms already exist, despite the unfavorable business conditions. If we're talking something like corn or soy beans, we're talking about massive direct subsidies as well. But if we're talking about thing such as berries or apples, there are lots of successful smaller, local producers.
Imagine how much more successful those smaller farms would be. And, it might re-invigorate complementary local businesses, such as small tractor dealerships, fertilizer, what have you.
Farmers I know (in California) quit trying to find native workers when at $25/hour they still were not getting anyone to apply, even though that is double the $12/hr McDonalds in pays. That is before you factor in most native workers didn't show up for work regularly.
Immigrant workers see $15/hr as riches beyond belief: back home they get about half of that per DAY. To us it looks bad, but to them it is much better than their life before.
Immigrant workers see $15/hr as riches beyond belief: back home they get about half of that per DAY. To us it looks bad, but to them it is much better than their life before.
I'm not seeing any indication that wages ever reached $25 / hour.
https://www.epi.org/blog/farmworker-wages-in-california-larg...
https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-farms-immigration/
And the job requires at least an hour commute, with 12 hour days. That should require a premium. It's not full-time work.
https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-farms-immigration/
And the job requires at least an hour commute, with 12 hour days. That should require a premium. It's not full-time work.
That was prices offered to locals, not immigrants. By the time you deal with all the paperwork immigrants are worth less. However they work hard, and are happy to get those wages. Again, by our standards working conditions are bad, but to them they are getting rich...
> By the time you deal with all the paperwork immigrants are worth less.
I don't see how immigrants are worth less after the paperwork. More expensive maybe, but it seems their worth is related to the work they can output and that isn't directly impacted by the paperwork.
And maybe they are happy to receive those wages, but let's not pretend that they aren't being taken advantage of if they really are being paid less than minimum wage, work 12+ hours, etc.
I don't see how immigrants are worth less after the paperwork. More expensive maybe, but it seems their worth is related to the work they can output and that isn't directly impacted by the paperwork.
And maybe they are happy to receive those wages, but let's not pretend that they aren't being taken advantage of if they really are being paid less than minimum wage, work 12+ hours, etc.
They are being paid more than minimum wage. Even after the worth less than natives (less paperwork) they are still paid more than the McDonald's in town would pay. It is hard work with long days.
Of course I can only report on the farmers I know. They only employ legal workers (or at least that is all they will admit to...), illegal workers probably make much less.
Of course I can only report on the farmers I know. They only employ legal workers (or at least that is all they will admit to...), illegal workers probably make much less.
>>Why don't they pay labour $100M?
Because they'll go bankrupt. Big AG can afford to take loans or to buy machinery or to pay extra to labor, most others can't.
Because they'll go bankrupt. Big AG can afford to take loans or to buy machinery or to pay extra to labor, most others can't.
Because to do backbreaking work, labour demands $200 million.
the current low price of produce is subsidised by cheap illegal immigrant labour. Just like how the spartans spent their time being warriors while their slaves toiled the field.
the current low price of produce is subsidised by cheap illegal immigrant labour. Just like how the spartans spent their time being warriors while their slaves toiled the field.
I'm solely in the consumer camp: I don't produce food, I buy and eat it (I don't buy and sell it either).
I think we've been trained to assume cheap food is a goal. I think the goal should have been clearer: cheap enough but not too cheap
The economics here are complicated. It benefits me to have cheap food, but if the cost is ag workers with systematic health problems, low income, farmers going bust, prison labor being used, its actually not really an overall benefit.
The price of strawberries needs to reflect the real costs here which include paying pickers a living wage.
Replacing pickers by robots only masks the problem, the problem of low paid workers remains: if they aren't picking, what are these people doing, and whats the wider cost?
Here in Australia we have this problem. We exploit backpacker labour (visiting kids on restricted visa) to do picking, we exploit migrant labour from island communities (we actually used to predate them for virtual slaves. Wierd history. Read up on "blackbirding") to do picking. And, we have a duopoloy in the supermarket supply chain which abuses market power to avoid paying farmers a living income stream, sometimes arguing over 10c or 20c price differences.
its really not helping to drive the cost of food down all the time. It has to be a realistic price, or you can't have safe, strategically suitable, sustainable, locally grown food.
I don't want soylent.
I think we've been trained to assume cheap food is a goal. I think the goal should have been clearer: cheap enough but not too cheap
The economics here are complicated. It benefits me to have cheap food, but if the cost is ag workers with systematic health problems, low income, farmers going bust, prison labor being used, its actually not really an overall benefit.
The price of strawberries needs to reflect the real costs here which include paying pickers a living wage.
Replacing pickers by robots only masks the problem, the problem of low paid workers remains: if they aren't picking, what are these people doing, and whats the wider cost?
Here in Australia we have this problem. We exploit backpacker labour (visiting kids on restricted visa) to do picking, we exploit migrant labour from island communities (we actually used to predate them for virtual slaves. Wierd history. Read up on "blackbirding") to do picking. And, we have a duopoloy in the supermarket supply chain which abuses market power to avoid paying farmers a living income stream, sometimes arguing over 10c or 20c price differences.
its really not helping to drive the cost of food down all the time. It has to be a realistic price, or you can't have safe, strategically suitable, sustainable, locally grown food.
I don't want soylent.
The price of strawberries needs to reflect the real costs here which include paying pickers a living wage.
Replacing pickers by robots only masks the problem
What? If we had robot pickers then maybe we could get strawberries to be cheap enough that everyone could afford them, not just those who are wealthy enough to not worry about such jobs.
Replacing pickers by robots only masks the problem
What? If we had robot pickers then maybe we could get strawberries to be cheap enough that everyone could afford them, not just those who are wealthy enough to not worry about such jobs.
> If we had robot pickers then maybe we could get strawberries to be cheap enough that everyone could afford them
Americans spend just 6.4% of their household income on food. It's the country spending the least on food in the world.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/this-map-shows-how-mu...
Historically, the developed world was spending much more. People can afford strawberries, they choose to spend less money on food and more on other items.
Americans spend just 6.4% of their household income on food. It's the country spending the least on food in the world.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/this-map-shows-how-mu...
Historically, the developed world was spending much more. People can afford strawberries, they choose to spend less money on food and more on other items.
Displacing workers without considering the workers is an externality in action: everyone else picks up the cost. That's what I feel has happened every time work is automated: the specific company sheds labour cost and society at large has to remediate.
If we automate farm work equitably I'll be all in favour: the injury rates and low pay are horrendous. Equitably means we have to man up and address what happens to the farm workers.
If we automate farm work equitably I'll be all in favour: the injury rates and low pay are horrendous. Equitably means we have to man up and address what happens to the farm workers.
I don't look at automation as the bad guy. In many cases, automating an industry changes the overall question, which can lead to further answers, that end up creating more employment.
For a start, who will create the tools? The manual labourers are the experts on what the tools need to be able to do? Secondly, if automation decreases the price of a product, it will often expand the market for it, and thus also related goods and services. But also, cheaper, automated products may make related products viable which previously weren't due to excessive cost.
IMHO, automation can increase economic activity sufficiently to absorb any labour excess, however it definitely needs the right planning and control. I think relying on the free market is too simplistic.
For a start, who will create the tools? The manual labourers are the experts on what the tools need to be able to do? Secondly, if automation decreases the price of a product, it will often expand the market for it, and thus also related goods and services. But also, cheaper, automated products may make related products viable which previously weren't due to excessive cost.
IMHO, automation can increase economic activity sufficiently to absorb any labour excess, however it definitely needs the right planning and control. I think relying on the free market is too simplistic.
Huh? We have already automated most of the farm work in the past century through big machines?
It is really what have made our current civilization possible.
It is really what have made our current civilization possible.
> if they aren't picking, what are these people doing, and whats the wider cost?
This idea needs to die so fast. It's an incredible psychosis that people fear the utopia that is automation. Imagine telling people 1000 years ago that everything around them will be done by robots, but that the people of the future would fight it. Psychologists are going to study this for generations.
It's also pretty offensive. The only reason you (or I) are not picking the fruit is because we were born somewhere else. No one deserves to do that. Especially if we know how to avoid it. What kind of sick fuck would subject someone to that just because they had fewer options. What else can they do? Perhaps help fulfill humans' literally infinite wants? What about nothing? I would much prefer nothing than forced unnecessary labor.
This idea needs to die so fast. It's an incredible psychosis that people fear the utopia that is automation. Imagine telling people 1000 years ago that everything around them will be done by robots, but that the people of the future would fight it. Psychologists are going to study this for generations.
It's also pretty offensive. The only reason you (or I) are not picking the fruit is because we were born somewhere else. No one deserves to do that. Especially if we know how to avoid it. What kind of sick fuck would subject someone to that just because they had fewer options. What else can they do? Perhaps help fulfill humans' literally infinite wants? What about nothing? I would much prefer nothing than forced unnecessary labor.
Please don't reply like this, it's not helpful and its abusive. Nobody is a sick fuck here. Robots displacing workers is not a black and white story as a follow-up says, much less gratuitously
It was a figurative "sick fuck" not an insult to op, although I see now how it could look that way.
It's obviously because of the way our economy is set up. One possible outcome of more automation could be higher standard of living while doing less work for everybody. Another possible outcome is a large part of the population being unemployed or underemployed, without health care and trouble to keep housing and even put food on the table, while a small portion of the population that owns the robots lives in luxury. Which of the two alternatives seems right now more realistic? We can't even agree on basic income guarantee which obviously is a necessary step to move towards the desirable of the two scenarios. It's understandable because that clearly would be "communism" and that's always bad and we cannot have that as god fearing, compassionate Americans.
I don't get it. You're saying the incompetent government's fiscal policy is unable to handle the growing inequality and therefore instead of fixing the government we should just ban robots? Seriously... Nowadays I think the biggest problem developed countries face is the opposition to progress because they are already happy with what they have and any improvement becomes an "us vs them" scenario where the new thing is demonized.
> instead of fixing the government we should just ban robots?
I don't think it's "instead", but "until".
> opposition to progress because they are already happy with what they have and any improvement becomes an "us vs them" scenario where the new thing is demonized.
Find me a single worker who will say no when you tell them "you now own this robot, and can live from its output instead of working".
I don't think it's "instead", but "until".
> opposition to progress because they are already happy with what they have and any improvement becomes an "us vs them" scenario where the new thing is demonized.
Find me a single worker who will say no when you tell them "you now own this robot, and can live from its output instead of working".
Jobs are useless vestiges of the past. There is nothing honorable about jobs and no one cares about them. By their very definition they are things we don't want to do but have to for survival. This is all industrial work-centric brainwashing. If we can get survival without jobs that would be a great win for human kind.
> Another possible outcome is a large part of the population being unemployed or underemployed, without health care and trouble to keep housing and even put food on the table, while a small portion of the population that owns the robots lives in luxury
The whole point is that robots can make everything including more robots etc. We are talking of a world without scarcity. Why wouldn't everyone have health care? It would be virtually free. Everyone will have 10 or 20 robots. Who cares if someone has 40 or 100. Now that labor is solved people can focus on the fulfilling, interesting, human work of creating and inventing. The only job available will be to configure robots in interesting arrangements to make cooler stuff. But since we have so much stuff already, only a few people will do that as a hobby, for free, other people will make art or entertain or raise families or do nothing. Existence is inherently meaningless and filling time with worthless labor is only a distraction. That's the real issue to solve.
> It's understandable because that clearly would be "communism" and that's always bad
This is also brainwashing, communism is by no means "always bad", it just so happened that economies are too complex to centrally plan and that distributed computing through free individuals (aka capitalism) works better. But if, for example, computation got strong enough, it could potentially be more effecient to holistically and centrally plan an economy. Or in the case of automation, perhaps in a world of plenty, communism becomes the perfect system. I'm not advocating for communism, and I would never want it to encroach on freedoms, but these two cases are viable candidates for success.
> Another possible outcome is a large part of the population being unemployed or underemployed, without health care and trouble to keep housing and even put food on the table, while a small portion of the population that owns the robots lives in luxury
The whole point is that robots can make everything including more robots etc. We are talking of a world without scarcity. Why wouldn't everyone have health care? It would be virtually free. Everyone will have 10 or 20 robots. Who cares if someone has 40 or 100. Now that labor is solved people can focus on the fulfilling, interesting, human work of creating and inventing. The only job available will be to configure robots in interesting arrangements to make cooler stuff. But since we have so much stuff already, only a few people will do that as a hobby, for free, other people will make art or entertain or raise families or do nothing. Existence is inherently meaningless and filling time with worthless labor is only a distraction. That's the real issue to solve.
> It's understandable because that clearly would be "communism" and that's always bad
This is also brainwashing, communism is by no means "always bad", it just so happened that economies are too complex to centrally plan and that distributed computing through free individuals (aka capitalism) works better. But if, for example, computation got strong enough, it could potentially be more effecient to holistically and centrally plan an economy. Or in the case of automation, perhaps in a world of plenty, communism becomes the perfect system. I'm not advocating for communism, and I would never want it to encroach on freedoms, but these two cases are viable candidates for success.
You and GP likely agree on the same points, but are talking past one another concerning time scale. Their concern is if we automate the pickers of their jobs, what is their immediate recourse? Waiting years for society to establish a better safety net is not an option. One can retrain, but options are limited, and will be more so with greater automation.
The point is to be more mindful of the immediate effects of displaced labour due to automation. Is it a net social/economic gain to have prices slashed by say 10%, while at the same time seemingly externalizing both the social and economic costs of those who lost their jobs?
It makes sense to ask these questions to ensure such a paradigm shift goes smoothly for those affected by minimizing undue hardship.
The point is to be more mindful of the immediate effects of displaced labour due to automation. Is it a net social/economic gain to have prices slashed by say 10%, while at the same time seemingly externalizing both the social and economic costs of those who lost their jobs?
It makes sense to ask these questions to ensure such a paradigm shift goes smoothly for those affected by minimizing undue hardship.
I agree with this. The transition will be tricky and potentially long. It needs to be managed. And you're right that GP was hinting at that stuff too, but I saw a little bit of the misguided mainstream talking-points creeping in that I felt I needed to address.
I'm totally with you. You were calling the mainstream reaction a "incredible psychosis", which it is not. It's rational on in individual level given the current economic system and general attitudes especially in the US.
If it was up to me we'd get UBI ASAP and as automation makes work more and more obsolete get closer and closer to communism. I think this also is desirable because it will allow us to follow our natural instincts and contribute to the commons rather than try to put them on our individual balance sheets at the expense of everyone else. (See this great discussion: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/future-thinkers-podcast/...)
If it was up to me we'd get UBI ASAP and as automation makes work more and more obsolete get closer and closer to communism. I think this also is desirable because it will allow us to follow our natural instincts and contribute to the commons rather than try to put them on our individual balance sheets at the expense of everyone else. (See this great discussion: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/future-thinkers-podcast/...)
Even if we are in a robot Utopia, the benefits are not going to be passed down to illegal immigrants directly via a basic income. You still have to ask what will this group do instead because the option of "stay home" isn't always on the table.
The bigger long term issues to cheap food are water and loss of arable land from salinity caused by irrigation or saltwater incursion. Even without global warming, it doesn't look good.
In terms of sustainable locally grown food, most places are not going to be eating fresh produce year round.
In terms of sustainable locally grown food, most places are not going to be eating fresh produce year round.
I guess it depends how big a circle you draw around local.
For me, I prefer near, but I'll settle for in-state and ultimately in-country as "local"
Buying phillipine bananas and pineapples and thai rice, I want to understand why. We can grow all of these locally and very probably sustainably. If its food-as-aid purchase for regional trade, I can be there. But the assumption "because its cheaper" feels to me wrong. I suspect the reason the shops are selling imported bananas is not because of aid to emerging economies: its because they make more profit.
(to be clear, I'm in Australia. I believe that California (for instance) which was a food garden faces pretty intractable water issues. As do the various people who depend on the River Jordan. Australia has water issues too, but its more about equitable distribution than a complete lack of irrigation sources. We're not facing starvation due to lack of locally grown food in the 10-20 year horizon, climate change permitting. If you want to racionate to 'thats the bigger problem' I won't disagree)
For me, I prefer near, but I'll settle for in-state and ultimately in-country as "local"
Buying phillipine bananas and pineapples and thai rice, I want to understand why. We can grow all of these locally and very probably sustainably. If its food-as-aid purchase for regional trade, I can be there. But the assumption "because its cheaper" feels to me wrong. I suspect the reason the shops are selling imported bananas is not because of aid to emerging economies: its because they make more profit.
(to be clear, I'm in Australia. I believe that California (for instance) which was a food garden faces pretty intractable water issues. As do the various people who depend on the River Jordan. Australia has water issues too, but its more about equitable distribution than a complete lack of irrigation sources. We're not facing starvation due to lack of locally grown food in the 10-20 year horizon, climate change permitting. If you want to racionate to 'thats the bigger problem' I won't disagree)
California's water situation is not a "complete lack of irrigation sources", this is a big misperception.
There are big issues around distribution, water rights, allocation for farming vs urban areas, which crops to grow, and conflicts over distribution of water from (wetter) north to (drier) south and use of Colorado river water.
But it's not about to "face starvation due to lack of locally grown food", the situation is roughly comparable to Australia.
There are big issues around distribution, water rights, allocation for farming vs urban areas, which crops to grow, and conflicts over distribution of water from (wetter) north to (drier) south and use of Colorado river water.
But it's not about to "face starvation due to lack of locally grown food", the situation is roughly comparable to Australia.
I used to run an ag tech automation startup, and we were working on how fulfillment center robots could be repurposed for indoor agriculture. This allows a complete change in economics. Strawberries are an important crop, but on-demand nutrition for animal feed and other segments where robotics allows complex alignment of supply chain and resources may be more lucrative in the mid term. Like Walmart just in time delivery for commodities.
> ...a complete change in economics
For whom?
For whom?
I would say the full stack of financing from individual farms to investment funds of every type. Project finance funds in particular.
Here is an article about it. Disclosure I wrote it. Only posting as relevant.
Https://agfundernews.com/inside-insect-farming.html
Here is an article about it. Disclosure I wrote it. Only posting as relevant.
Https://agfundernews.com/inside-insect-farming.html
I was wondering wheather a free supply of food enabled by robots doing the job, and free basic housing could solve some of mankinds problems. Is there literature on the topic, had anyone done the maths?
Utopia or feasible, that's what I am wondering.
Utopia or feasible, that's what I am wondering.
Unfortunately, our sense of prosperity seems to be relative.
If 90% of the town has a free house and free food, but the other 10% live in bigger, safer, cleaner houses and are eating better testing/healthier food, I don't think the 90% will be as excited.
I think most humans strive for the best available rather than being content with the minimum they really need. This probably isn't a great way to find happiness but it is a pretty powerful motivator.
If 90% of the town has a free house and free food, but the other 10% live in bigger, safer, cleaner houses and are eating better testing/healthier food, I don't think the 90% will be as excited.
I think most humans strive for the best available rather than being content with the minimum they really need. This probably isn't a great way to find happiness but it is a pretty powerful motivator.
This is a little long but covers both the utopian and dystopian versions of the idea. https://marshallbrain.com/manna.htm
The issue of poverty worldwide is more related to distribution/ownership, and not caused by a lack of food. I think if these robots were owned collectively, it would benefit people. But that's not what's happening - like any other technology, these robots will probably be owned by a handful of people.
The issue in the under-developed world is lack of capital, machines, technology, etc. This is more of that. If that's the problem you were hinting at, I don't think this would be the solution.
But container ships.
One of my favorite OSS projects is farmbot. I wish more people knew about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r0CiLBM1o8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r0CiLBM1o8
Farmbot is a toy. A nice toy, to be sure, but a toy for rich urbanites who want a little veggie garden and it'll never be anything more than that. It goes nowhere near addressing the scale of real-world farming and I see no way it ever can. The concept won't even scale to small-scale market gardening -- the 1- to 10-hectare scale.
I'm not saying that farm-robotics in general can't work or scale -- it's a something I'm convinced stands a good chance of tackling the enormous fossil-fuel subsidy that factory farming is so dependent upon -- but the Farmbot thing... /stiffles a giggle/.
I'm not saying that farm-robotics in general can't work or scale -- it's a something I'm convinced stands a good chance of tackling the enormous fossil-fuel subsidy that factory farming is so dependent upon -- but the Farmbot thing... /stiffles a giggle/.
What makes you think that? These first few iterations are expensive (in the thousands of dollars) and require assembly but those are not difficult problems to address over time.
Are you saying people wouldn't want to have an automated home garden in their back yard if they could afford it?
Are you saying people wouldn't want to have an automated home garden in their back yard if they could afford it?
No, I precisely said that it's a nice thing to have an automated home-garden for people that can afford it. I like the Farmbot. But it is Never. Going. To. Automate. Real. Large-scale. Farming.
Never.
Real farming -- the modern, factory kind of thing -- the stuff that provides the overwhelming bulk of food (maize, soya, wheat) -- happens on a massive scale over hundreds to thousands of hectares, and the Farmbot concept -- essentially a 2-D plotter with various head attachments -- is just never going to begin to automate that sort of scale. (Downvote me all you want.) Very large mobile robots might work, though I wonder about how the power requirements are going to be met. To my mind swarms of smaller robots seem to be the best bet, but I haven't seen a lot of work going on in that space.
Lettuces and Beetroots are nice. I grow a hell of a lot of those myself. But they don't feed the planet.
Never.
Real farming -- the modern, factory kind of thing -- the stuff that provides the overwhelming bulk of food (maize, soya, wheat) -- happens on a massive scale over hundreds to thousands of hectares, and the Farmbot concept -- essentially a 2-D plotter with various head attachments -- is just never going to begin to automate that sort of scale. (Downvote me all you want.) Very large mobile robots might work, though I wonder about how the power requirements are going to be met. To my mind swarms of smaller robots seem to be the best bet, but I haven't seen a lot of work going on in that space.
Lettuces and Beetroots are nice. I grow a hell of a lot of those myself. But they don't feed the planet.
> Very large mobile robots might work
My (distant and loose, to be sure) understanding of modern farm machinery is that they largely have, compared to just a few decades ago, though the robots still have operator seats and look very much the non-automated versions that preceded them.
My (distant and loose, to be sure) understanding of modern farm machinery is that they largely have, compared to just a few decades ago, though the robots still have operator seats and look very much the non-automated versions that preceded them.
Yes, that is pretty-much the current state of play - already existing mechanical platforms that have had some more-or-less clever automation (mainly guidance) added.
My thinking is that a smaller-machine, swarm approach might allow us to eliminate the fossil-fuel subsidy. Big machinery is much harder to do without diesel. With small machines, many of them cooperating, renewable energy fueling is much more (I think) approachable. (I may be wrong.)
If we're going to win this climate thing, one of the elephants in the room is decarbonising agriculture.
My thinking is that a smaller-machine, swarm approach might allow us to eliminate the fossil-fuel subsidy. Big machinery is much harder to do without diesel. With small machines, many of them cooperating, renewable energy fueling is much more (I think) approachable. (I may be wrong.)
If we're going to win this climate thing, one of the elephants in the room is decarbonising agriculture.
That sounds suspiciously like the "just get a horse" argument about the first cars.
Every time I read about farm mechanization I remember the Ralph Borsodi work on the book "The Distribution Age". Every efficiency you gain in production scale you tend to lose in distribution efficiency.
The key to sustainable farming is a decentralized small scale. This is the only way to keep transportation, marketing and preservation of the goods low.
The key to sustainable farming is a decentralized small scale. This is the only way to keep transportation, marketing and preservation of the goods low.
Those costs are tiny, compared to all other costs. 'Local' is not a goal in itself (except for geopolitical reasons, but that's another topic). For fun, try to do the back-of-a-napkin math on how many bananas you can fit in a container, how many containers fit on a ship, and what percentage of the retail price that makes. Or how much it costs to ship a truck of lettuce heads from Spain to Northern Europe. Yes there are weird cases (flying roses from Eastern Africa to Europe?) but all in all, the costs are tiny.
The next thing then is, of course, that current costs externalize many hidden costs. Which is true, but look at efficiency gains of current gen freight ships, with sails made of solar panels and that sort of thing, and look at the economics of freight shipping - even at double the (shipping) cost, it would still be only a fraction of the retail cost.
Oh and marketing/sales costs for locally grown goods being low is straight up not true. Look at how hard it is for those small scale farmers to sell their wares, schlepping their old vans from farmers market to CSA collection point, and how much of their product goes to waste because of distribution inefficiencies...
The next thing then is, of course, that current costs externalize many hidden costs. Which is true, but look at efficiency gains of current gen freight ships, with sails made of solar panels and that sort of thing, and look at the economics of freight shipping - even at double the (shipping) cost, it would still be only a fraction of the retail cost.
Oh and marketing/sales costs for locally grown goods being low is straight up not true. Look at how hard it is for those small scale farmers to sell their wares, schlepping their old vans from farmers market to CSA collection point, and how much of their product goes to waste because of distribution inefficiencies...
The costs are tiny because right now they not internalize pollution and social injustice. Yes, “local” is not an end on itself but the same is true for “global”. Right now the cost of sending a banana to the other side of the world in a container is small because we are jeopardizing the future of the planet by not putting a price on CO2 emissions.
Local food need to spend effort on Marketing because they are more expensive that monocultures, and the reason for this is that monoculture prices benefit from subsidies and not paying externalities. We need to fix this for the sake of future generations and if we do this local goods would be much more competitive and so much more effective in marketing.
Well that's exactly what I preempted and refuted in my second paragraph, and my third paragraph was about how, no, just making mass produced food internalize all their costs won't fix all the marketing and sales issues of 'locally produced food', for a broad definition of everything that encompasses...
> Every efficiency you gain in production scale you tend to lose in distribution efficiency.
How is that true in the case of robotic berry pickers?
How is that true in the case of robotic berry pickers?
To apply robotic berry pickers you normally need to produce in a large scale (many tons of berries). So you will need to distribute them. If you don’t apply the externalities of transportation and preservation of the food it would seem that this kind of production makes sense but it doesn’t. It actually less effective if you count for the costs of transportation, packaging and freezing.
Environmentally this is also known as “mix vs sort” and is almost a physical rule. If your are very good in mixing (making things at large scale), your tend to be bad in sorting (distributing things).
Here is the book that talks about it in the 1930 https://soilandhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/0303critic/0303...
Environmentally this is also known as “mix vs sort” and is almost a physical rule. If your are very good in mixing (making things at large scale), your tend to be bad in sorting (distributing things).
Here is the book that talks about it in the 1930 https://soilandhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/0303critic/0303...
> To apply robotic berry pickers you normally need to produce in a large scale (many tons of berries).
Farmers could rent the machine. So the machine can travel instead of the berries.
Also, robotics is in many industries not competitive against cheap labor from low-wage countries. However, for agriculture that might be different, precisely because of distribution costs (e.g., it's expensive to ship fruits and vegetables from China).
Farmers could rent the machine. So the machine can travel instead of the berries.
Also, robotics is in many industries not competitive against cheap labor from low-wage countries. However, for agriculture that might be different, precisely because of distribution costs (e.g., it's expensive to ship fruits and vegetables from China).
I agree, we can apply robotics but always thinking in small scale farming, otherwise the gains in production will be lost in distribution. Sadly right now we are not paying for externalities of distribution so there is no incentive for thinking in small distributed economies.
There are more benefits of thinking small. We are creating a big interdependent and fragile economy. It’s seems robust but a black swan event - as Nassin Taleb would name - can provoke global disaster. Small scale economies are less exposed to this.
There are more benefits of thinking small. We are creating a big interdependent and fragile economy. It’s seems robust but a black swan event - as Nassin Taleb would name - can provoke global disaster. Small scale economies are less exposed to this.
I'm old enough that this title recalls airbrushed illustrations of chrome-plated rockets and robots on distant worlds, in the children's science and technology picture books I read as a youngin.
> Each of the robots was equipped with a patented “Pitzer wheel”—the appendage that does the actual picking. The wheel had six soft-rubber clawlike “obtainers” that are able to cup the berries and pivot, imitating the popping action that human pickers make with their wrists.
So they patented the human hand, minus the functionality they don't need?
So they patented the human hand, minus the functionality they don't need?
I see Robot Farmers still a nice try but not a feasible solution. There are many aspects which are still difficult (e.g. Olives, general Trees with Fruits).
It's the same as for self-driving cars: on daylight and clear condition, they work fine, but in case of snow and in the darkness...well, no
It's the same as for self-driving cars: on daylight and clear condition, they work fine, but in case of snow and in the darkness...well, no
Nitpick - self driving cars have worked fairly well in snow and darkness but still manage issues in good conditions eg. hitting fire trucks (Telsa) or not being able to merge in heavy traffic (Waymo).
Sounds like it could be useful to know the binary language of moisture vaporators.
[deleted]
The limiting factor of automation is still, the amount of human labor you still need. Can it be reduced to zero? Why do you even need the farmers if that's the case?
Considering how abusive the human relationship is with the land and the animals, why don't we have an agricultural revolution and creates 10s of millions of jobs for farmers? Modern human imagination is so constrained to think that this is impossible. But really it's just political and as easy to do as it is to automate millions of jobs away.
The green revolution eliminated a lot of farming jobs. It is a step forward in the right direction.
If I wanted a burger, wouldn't it be more humane to have an automated system that takes in raw material and synthesizes it on demand instead of on using third-party human labor?
The key is that these collection of machines are also able to repair and maintain themselves. Some kind of hardware CRC.
If I wanted a burger, wouldn't it be more humane to have an automated system that takes in raw material and synthesizes it on demand instead of on using third-party human labor?
The key is that these collection of machines are also able to repair and maintain themselves. Some kind of hardware CRC.
> It is a step forward in the right direction.
Perhaps there were many positives as well as a few significant negatives.
> takes in raw material and synthesizes it on demand instead of on using third-party human labor?
Replicator tech isn't coming down the line. In the meantime yes in a bath of chemicals you can produce an overpriced engineered patty of cells. This is highly processed food and I can't wait to see what cost cutting and business optimization will do to this ethical food.
In the meantime automation most likely means more chemicals, more genetic engineering, more intensive agriculture.
Why can we get away with all of this? Well because it works. That's its claim to fame. For how long? No clue. But for now it works and feeds billions and generates profits, at least for the billion dollar corporations at the very top of the game... at what cost? We don't have to actually account for those, we'll just declare bankruptcy and the profits will already be doled out.
Perhaps there were many positives as well as a few significant negatives.
> takes in raw material and synthesizes it on demand instead of on using third-party human labor?
Replicator tech isn't coming down the line. In the meantime yes in a bath of chemicals you can produce an overpriced engineered patty of cells. This is highly processed food and I can't wait to see what cost cutting and business optimization will do to this ethical food.
In the meantime automation most likely means more chemicals, more genetic engineering, more intensive agriculture.
Why can we get away with all of this? Well because it works. That's its claim to fame. For how long? No clue. But for now it works and feeds billions and generates profits, at least for the billion dollar corporations at the very top of the game... at what cost? We don't have to actually account for those, we'll just declare bankruptcy and the profits will already be doled out.
Sounds like yet another argument for why we might need Universal Basic Income sooner rather than later, or some other innovative solution. Isn't there a candidate for president whose campaign is based on that?
One French presidential candidate ran with that on the last elections. He was the candidate for the Labour party (Parti Socialiste), one of the two major party of France (equivalent more or less to the Democrats in importance), so not a niche candidate either.
He did something like 3% and the Parti Socialiste is dead now, replaced by Macron's party.
He did something like 3% and the Parti Socialiste is dead now, replaced by Macron's party.
“Apples, citrus, strawberries, leafy greens, grapes”—those are the five big enough to justify automation.
Some questionable assumptions there.
Some questionable assumptions there.
I'm working an an agricultural robotics startup and can confirm that if anything, it's challenging to find robotics use cases in specialty crops that have a large enough market to justify the R&D investment necessary to get the product working in the first place. Corn and soy add up to hundreds of billions of dollars of market value a year, while even a huge specialty crop like strawberries is ~1/100 of that. There's an argument to be made for building out a robotics platform in a crop with higher value per acre (i.e. a specialty crop), then moving to the larger markets (i.e. row crops), but the degree of specialization real world robotics requires is a counterpoint to that - making the jump is often nontrivial.
PS - if anyone reading this is a roboticist/mechanical engineer in the Bay Area and interested in working on something like this or even just talking more, let me know! My email is my username (at) stanford.edu
PS - if anyone reading this is a roboticist/mechanical engineer in the Bay Area and interested in working on something like this or even just talking more, let me know! My email is my username (at) stanford.edu
I've mostly been under the impression that the big wins for machine intelligence in farming is weed and pest control.
Although a Mexican friend of mine said strawberry harvesting is utterly brutal. He also said harvesting grapes is easy work compared to anything else.
Although a Mexican friend of mine said strawberry harvesting is utterly brutal. He also said harvesting grapes is easy work compared to anything else.
While strawberries are a smaller market, they're also high value and under threat from decreased labor immigration and terrible conditions. If I were working on truck crop robotics, that'd be my first crop to look at (especially because the strawberry industry realizes they're in trouble).
Which are you working on now?
Which are you working on now?
Annual strawberry sales are $3B in California alone. That's a heck of a specialty crop.
https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/
https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/
I run a robotics company in China myself. Would be very interested to chat further and will send you an email.
Right, for one thing, with automation, it's also reasonable to produce many smaller crops and make up for what you lose in individual crop volume with combined varietal volume.
Or, more likely, produce another, lesser-known fruit or vegetable and market the hell out of it.
Or, more likely, produce another, lesser-known fruit or vegetable and market the hell out of it.
Sure. Or for example intercrop in ways infeasible with traditional harvesting methodologies to achieve higher density and support more heterogeneous and nutrition-dense farmland ecosystems. Or perhaps remove current needs for transport, processing, sorting, washing, distribution loss, packaging. Or even relocate a plant or set of plants to an alternate location for picking instead of picking in-place.
We need basic income now.
Lots of countries have an aging pop of farmers where young people are not very attracted to that as a career. This satisfies that trend and allows those regions to remain productive with even fewer people.
All we need is a robot to eat the people that are no longer needed in the area.
> “It’s very expensive,” Wishnatzki said of the process of getting visas for temporary agricultural workers—they are issued under a program called H-2A —because of all the red tape and the cost of housing. (“Expensive” is a relative term: H-2A workers are still among the lowest paid in the country.) “But at least it guarantees that we have workers, so we’re able to plant a crop,” he continued.
Farmers now have to actually house and pay their workers instead of giving them scraps under the table for back-breaking manual labor under the brutally hot Georgia summer sun? It's difficult to sympathize, to put it lightly.