Farmers aren't 'average people'. A commercial-scale farm requires millions in investment. It runs on small margins, and is run like a factory. A modern 1000-acre farm can be operated by one or two people. That's been the trend for 200 years. America for instance has gone from 50% farmers to under 2%. Arguably the reason we were the superpower we were - so much more manpower for other things.

And to create a fancy mechanical robotic wall-farm to produce commodity products like lettuce seems folly. I'm sure they chose that because it comes to maturity in a score days, not weeks or months. And the 'floor space' per plant has to be enormous for that farm-of-the-future.

The article belabors the 'less land used' argument throughout. Perhaps because that's the only place they win (not on price; not on investment cost; not on variety or flexibility?) While that's important, the issue is not running out of farmland. The American farmer has gotten so efficient, doubling output per acre repeatedly for a century now. Iowa could feed two United States. The US could feed the world. With old-fashioned land-intensive agriculture.