John Deere Plans to Feed the World with Robotics | Hacker News Reader

John Deere Plans to Feed the World with Robotics

beth.technology

27 pointsCitizenTekk28 comments

Pretty tone-deaf in an 'analysis' piece not to mention the rights they are taking from farmers, and the struggle to regain them.

(Edit: If not for the sake of telling the whole story, then at least as a commercial / competitive factor.)

Which rights do you mean?

Right to repair. Sorry, it's such a talked-about thing on HN I didn't say. Previous discussions:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9414211

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13925994

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13802969

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14176195

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17479629

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13990266

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=889355

John Deere tractors are locked down and without modification can only accept JD parts by JD authorized mechanics. For example a new transmission has to be 'authorized' by a JD technician before it can leave the shop because the computer will refuse to start without the authorization which costs $230 + $130/hr for the technician to do the authorization.

Also JD has added a clause to their contracts absolving them from any losses or damages as a result of software failures.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/xykkkd/why-americ...

The article is content marketing by a professional marketer.

https://angel.co/beth_kindig

I'm sorry, but if I'm going to rely on a robot, I'd want the ability to open it up and perform my own maintenance.

John Deere is actively hostile to people like us.

The only trustworthy robotics software is open source robotics software.

From what I’ve heard John Deere’s software is kind of a jumble of legacy ECU’s. It would be too embarrassing to open source it.

John Deere wants to move 50 year lifespan and secondary markets into guaranteed MRR. Just like everything in my industry as well.

Sure, we could move humans even further away from the means of production and deploy robots to do mega-scale monoculture using closed-source hardware / software, while continuing to further the monopolies held by Monsanto, John Deere, etc..

Or, we could try to shift agriculture back to a local scale, use open source hardware/software, and community-owned infrastructure to build more sustainable, polyculture food systems.

In particular, I am excited about the rooftop farming work being done in the Brooklyn Navy Yard here in NYC(1). Our Public Advocate has even discussed building-code mandated "green roof" legislation(2). CNC/Robotics & IoT are the key to unlocking urban micro-agriculture that can begin to offset some of our dependency on dirty food, and I applaud those(3) who are working on these very important problems.

(1) https://www.brooklyngrangefarm.com/navyyard

(2) https://www.bkreader.com/2018/07/18/brooklyn-councilmember-i...

(3) https://farm.bot/

In our race to the cities and suburbs, Americans have given up an incredible amount of food sovereignty, both in terms of zoning laws and our own skills. Our grid in the US is quite vulnerable and even brief interruptions could have catastrophic effects. Re-focusing on growing some portion of our food and sourcing locally as much as possible can alleviate many of these risks.

I also want to encourage people to just try with something basic. Get a planter box, and grow some Tomatoes! It's almost a wonderful luxury. What you eat and taste from the grocery store is a pale, awful facsimile of what real fruits and vegetables are.

This snobbery is one of HNs chronic illnesses.

The stuff you grow at home isn't any more real.

https://www.mnn.com/your-home/organic-farming-gardening/stor...

Maybe real isn't a good word, but because you can grow varieties that are more optimized for taste instead of transporting, and you can pick up the fruit when it is ripe, instead of picking early to optimize for storage, locally grown tomatoes are on average better than greenhouse tomatoes.

I think real is a good word. The taste is night and day. Also, if you grow with heirloom seeds vs. GMO, you can harvest seeds for the next season.

while "real" is somewhat debatable, "GMO" in this context is certainly not a good word, all organisms are genetically modified, and all cultivated plants are modified by humans, the difference is that most of them were modified by waiting for random errors, and some were modified in a more controlled manner.

It is counterproductive to group under one word things as different as seedless tomato, roundup resistant tomato, spicy tomato and millions of other possible varieties that can be created with crispr (often starting from the wild version of the plant).

Fair enough. The things that are most important for local food and self-sufficiency are open (vs. proprietary / locked) and seed-bearing (vs. barren / sterile), IMO.

I agree, but in many cases sterility is a very nice feature. For grapes and banana people managed to breed seedless varieties long time ago, and for other things like peppers or watermelon many would be prepared to pay extra.

The abundance of modern farming is hard to fathom. Local food is more expensive specifically because it’s less efficient and therefore less capable of dealing with significant shocks.

Increases in efficiency make systems less resilient. Buffers tend to be optimised away.

Despite which, we have more overweight (~2e9) than hungry (~815e6) people in the world.

Probably a false dichotomy.

Efficiency is a loaded word in this context. Agricultural monoculture is destructive in many ways and yet is easily portrayed as "efficient."

Local does not mean 4 fold crop rotation, it just means close to the consumer. You have all of the same issues as regular agriculture, and add growing plants less suited for local conditions. It’s a pure net loss with zero benifit.

More water use, more fertilizer use, more greenhouses, more pesticides, more machines, more labor, more of frankly everything.

I’ve noticed that efficiencies and the idea of net loss appears quite frequently in your comment history.

Efficiency is something I consider really important.

The difference between say subsidized green energy and a carbon tax seems minimal to most people. But, a difference in efficiency means one simply works better.

It’s really easy to end up with sub optimal choices, like US efficiency regulations subsidizing SUV’s. Individual choices that seem reasonable rarely result in optimal results. Add in a little corruption or propaganda and people get down right stupid.

There are serious costs to consider when you submit everything to the ideal (idol?) of efficiency. Regardless, the type of local I'm most interested in is people growing food in their own backyards. Dependence on food supply chains is a single point of failure that is completely unnecessary.

As an ideal it seems like a good idea. However, you need to grow a lot of food to avoid that dependence.

In terms of disaster preparedness having actual food stored is also much more valuable than growing plants that can’t be moved.

Thus, you’re either talking about a meaningless token, or a huge life commitment for minimal gain.

People who remain underfed today arent so because of lack of food/grains.

US and India combined have historically dumped mountains of wheat into the (metaphoric) sea.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com