Green Buildings for Tomorrow reposted this
Lets look at a Higher-Level View on Innovation vs. Adaptation: Here’s the critical distinction: Innovation: = Creating new systems because they improve human flourishing (e.g., vaccines, electricity, sanitation) Adaptive innovation: = Creating new systems because existing ones are collapsing (e.g., desalination after freshwater depletion, geoengineering proposals) Vertical farming borders on the second category. What do we say on the 1000 acre horizontal vertical farming city in China ,fully automated and AI propelled water, climate and nutrient management systems? It is a brilliant adaptation, but one made necessary by: Climate instability Soil exhaustion Urban expansion Water scarcity However, when innovation becomes adaptation to degradation, it signals a civilization maintaining itself through increasingly complex technological scaffolding. So…......... Are We Actually Innovating? If “innovation” means creativity, problem solving, engineering excellence → Yes. Vertical farming is a milestone. If innovation means living in a way that restores or harmonizes with natural systems... Not yet. This is innovation against nature, not with nature. If innovation means addressing root causes rather than symptoms → No. This is a technological buffer against systemic dysfunction. If innovation means survival through artificial environments → Yes, but at the cost of greater dependence on fragile, energy-intensive systems. The truth? A synthesis: Humanity is radically innovating, but often because it cannot or will not confront the deeper dysfunction of its relationship with the natural world. Vertical farming is both: A sign of incredible human ingenuity, and a sign that our civilization increasingly needs artificial ecosystems to remain viable. My final thought on this! A truly sustainable civilization wouldn’t need acres of LED-lit towers to grow lettuce! But given the realities we’ve created, vertical farming cities may be essential stepping stones—bridges between a dysfunctional present and a more ecologically coherent future, if we pair them with deeper changes in consumption, land use, and cultural values. What do you think?