• 2 Posts
  • 23 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 8th, 2023

help-circle





  • I like this idea in concept. However in most cases failure is mostly due to power loss. So unless these seprate systems have different power sources it might not protect from catastrophy that much.

    As some one who does aquaponics at home. Here are some things ive learned which you might consider.

    • There is a minimum physical footprint that these systems use, especially if you are trying to conserve power. So it might make more sense to max out those systems in that minimum footprint.
    • Different fish can have very different temperature and pH requirements.
    • The pH and temp that the fish like isn’t always what a plant wants.
    • some fish have much greater ranges of pH and temp requirements than others.
    • if indoors, it’s easy for a pest to establish. Like aphids will trive without ladybugs or green lacewings.
    • Vegetables grown in aquaponic systems simply do not taste as good as vegetables grown in soil. Often they are lacking flavor.
    • something about the water in an aquaponic system is excellent for propagation from plant cuttings.

    For these reasons, I use aquaponics more as a backup and complimentary grow system to my no till regenative garden. Having an indoor system is great in the winter if you want leafy greens or to proprpgate trees for the next season.


  • But, you know if a business changes to dynamic pricing and their next quarterly numbers shows that the vast majority of people didn’t swallow it, and revenue is hugely down, they would undo it in a second.

    You would be right if we assume that

    1. The people leading these companies are making informed data driven decisions.
    2. Companies majorly made money through selling goods/services

    However once a company is a certain size or in the correct position it’s more about showing a growth potential to investors, then actually proffiting from selling goods/services. Investors is really how these companies make money now. I’m not an economist so I’m not sure if this is still technically capitalism when the majority of profits come straight from investors but to me it sounds much more like a ponzi scheme.

    My point being is that in a best case scenario, a nationwide boycott could take place and a company makes $0 gross income. But they can still profit if they can convince their investors that they are taking the right steps to position themselves in “this new economy”. Now realistically someone is still going to buy their products and any boycott effort will just have minor effects. The absolute worst case scenario for anyone actually in charge of making decisions like this at a large company is they get a golden parachute and hop over to another place.

    Just like you said, why would they turn down free money?