1
$\begingroup$

This question already has an answer here:

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?

$\endgroup$

marked as duplicate by Ash, Measure of despare., Morris The Cat, JBH, dot_Sp0T Jun 19 at 17:17

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ Ash i am going for volume, not acreage of farmland. $\endgroup$ – bukwyrm Jun 19 at 15:48
  • $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Ash Jun 19 at 15:49
  • $\begingroup$ @Ash part of the answer is in part relevant to my question, but possible synthetic ways of food production are never discussed. $\endgroup$ – bukwyrm Jun 19 at 15:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "no regard for (external) ecology, economics or politics" yet "sustainable"? $\endgroup$ – L.Dutch Jun 19 at 15:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ edited. please provide further input as to how this Q can be improved. $\endgroup$ – bukwyrm Jun 19 at 17:49