In Michigan we've already got family farms with a man, two sons and a single employee handling 10,000 acres. Robots driving tractors, trucks and combines would allow that to expand 5-6X. In turn that would lead to a reduction in farmers of up to 80%. This is a trend that has been running for close to a hundred years. Remember at one time a quarter of America's population were farmers and now it's under 2%.
managing giant monocultures with a few giant machines (that may or may not be human controlled) is not what this article is about; it is about the huge potential that smallish robots have for farming. More diverse crops, less pesticides, less damage to soil, less energy use, mixed instead of mono cultures. Really exciting if this takes off, such a win for the environment, the landscape, and ultimately for everyone of us
A single employee for 10,000 acres is nothing. (I'm assuming that the three owners would stay on with or without robots.) That person's salary is a rounding error compared to land, seeds, fertilizer, water, equipment, etc.
I think the benefit of automation for commodity crops (rice, wheat, etc.) is almost nil. Labor isn't driving the cost for these crops. However, automation for labor intensive crops (like berries or certain fruits) is a huge opportunity.
The immense productivity gains in agriculture have driven down food costs, which improves the standard of living of everyone. It also frees up those who would have worked farm jobs to do higher-valued labor in the economy.
It seems like you would still want those 4 people, just to keep an eye on what's happening with those 10,000 acres, whether the robots are working correctly, selling and marketing their harvest, researching new opportunities for improvement, etc. With just 4 people, you also have a worryingly high bus factor if one gets sick or takes time off for any other reason.
> This is the one note of darkness that enters an otherwise optimistic conversation. “This technology could be used in a completely different way,” he says. “You could have entire states in America with no people in them. The potential for what we’re doing to be used in the wrong way is there.”
What is inherently wrong or evil about this? If we could automate a state-size farm to feed everyone, isn't that a good thing?
But to have a state with no people in it implies that people would not be allowed to enter it, i.e. it would represent huge swathes of natural resources wherein some smaller group of people would be keeping the general public out by virtue of it being private property. Forcing people off of land and into cities, thus forcing them to buy food with labor, is one of the primary means by humanity has been subverted from achieving its real potential. Empirically, the rise of more efficient machines has often been deeply linked to human bondage.
It is an interesting exercise to imagine a state sized "farm state". Essentially you'd have one city (the capital of the state) consisting of folks who administered the state, people who maintained farm equipment, farm operators, and a police force for patrolling the state to protect the farms from people who might trespass or try to steal crops. "Farmers" would likely be more like DevOps folks who would sit in an office with a few dozen screens showing the equipment status, perhaps views from the various pieces of equipment as it was driving around the various plots, maintenance status, etc.
Efficient, pleasant, and dystopian all that the same time.
There's nothing morally wrong with it, but our current government systems aren't built for a few corporate entites (because there's no way this is downscalable to small family farms) essentially owning both entire states and the majority of the nation's food production. That's one merecenary army away from corporate nation-states
Could mean local community farming hands will suffer from possible job loss and in turn cant make money the way they used to. If people lose those jobs where do they turn, people living in the rural communities do so out of cost or personal preference, so where do the former go if their income disappears?
I guess if you picture it more like in the movie Logan where its just a giant corporate run automated farm that displaces regular farmers who cant afford the setup that seems pretty dark and dystopic.
This is the general trend that pervades tech. Using algorithms to automate business tasks is good, but using the same technology to reduce demand for unskilled, backbreaking labour is somehow bad.
I think its because it leads to uncomfortable future scenarios, like how the economy of the future will be completely dominated by skilled and educated workers, and there will be much less requirement for unskilled labourers.
The problem is that "we" would eventually be "Amazon Monsanto Corporation". People can accept inequality when it is somewhat plausible that it is necessary, but transitioning to what would essentially be a kingdom would be a challenge for a lot of countries.
> “I expected farmers to be quite luddite about the adoption of new technology,” he [Ben Scott-Robinson] says, as he packs Rachel away.
I actually assume farmers are very welcoming of technology. They are hard workers and good business men. Usually technology makes them more efficient and more money.
> We’re an agri-tech start up commercialising a deceptively simple idea: small robots not big tractors.
> Because unfortunately big tractors are neither efficient nor environmentally friendly. Currently, 95% of energy is used ploughing. And ploughing is only necessary because of heavy machinery crushing soil.
> We are building robots that will seed and care for each individual plant in your crop. They will only feed and spray the plants that need it, giving them the perfect levels nutrients and support, with no waste.
> This level of detail allows you to be kinder to soil, kinder to the environment, more efficient, more precise and more productive. It’s the best of all worlds. An increased yield, as well as minimal chemical usage. So you can increase revenues by up to 40%, reduce costs by up to 60%.
> Our robots are being designed and built by farmers, for farmers. Because we have spent the last year talking to you, we know you don’t want to buy robots. You are worried about the cost, and what happens if they break down. Instead you can lease our robots through a Farming as a Service (FaaS) model.
Obviously it may not be as good as it sounds. But it sounds amazing.
Also these quotes from the article about scale were interesting:
> The agility of agricultural robots means small farms with compact fields will no longer be at a disadvantage; independent shops and restaurants will be able to grow their produce on smallholdings efficiently tended by Rachel-like machines.
> ...
> “Most people think this is going to be expensive, is going to do everyone out of a job and is going to be good for the big farms, not the small farms,” he says. “It’s actually the exact opposite. The big farms are all about economies of scale: big fields, big tractors. We are developing small machines. I believe the extra production we need to feed the planet is going to come from small farms that can’t use those economies of scale.”
I love the idea of a farmer on 2 acres competing with Big Ag on price.
Hi! Would lasers work for Bermuda grass infestations? I am forced to till sections of my organic field to get rid of them and I would like to go no-till as far as possible.
I've been thinking about a suite of robots on the residential level that could not only mow the grass and edge it, but also shovel snow, and perhaps eventually prune plants and pick the harvest. Would such a suite (or a base plus a suite of attachments) be practically affordable soon (say, cost less than $5k retail)?
Edit: oops, I guess this should be directed at the small robot company, not the space bots with laser company.
What kind of remote operation/visualization interfaces do you have for deployed systems? Does your company receive the alerts/visuals/notifications or do the farmers that buy from you receive these?
Do you want farmers to eventually be able to operate the fleets you sell them, or would you prefer to sell the entire operation to farmers and manage the fleets yourself?
In Spain and in Portugal grape harvesting machines are common. They are also used for harvesting olives. The vines have to be planted in hedges. The machines straddle the hedges and gently shake the tree with rubber flippers. The vines have to be ripped out when they become to brittle.
Now for a bit of hubris: anyone else reading this feel that building a robot that could do pest/weed control and harvesting is almost a triviality compared to say, fixing enterprise software to maximize customer purchases and ad revenue?
What are we all doing? Seriously, why can't each of us take a year of our lives and automate all the most awful jobs in the world?
Building yet another database/analytics platform is trivial compared to automating even the simplest real-world tasks. Because in the real world, you don't have full control of everything, and you can't just hit the reset button or restore from backup.
I do enterprise software, I have a small farm AND I just completed a masters in robotics.
Probably wasn't intentional on your part but I feel like you just left a Baby Ruth in my pool.
Farming isn't horrible.
Programming Enterprise Software isn't that hard.
Safely doing robots in the real-world is.
When I read articles such as this one I still see a lot of hype.
I'm not a Luddite or anything, bu I think the future of sustainable, productive agriculture lies in agronomic science, not laser-robot overlords or the next OGM fad.
If driving a car is less demanding than driving a tractor, let alone a tractor coupled with equipment, since we're still some years away from generalized self-driven cars, what can we say about farming in general?
There's a lot of work to be done that would make agriculture sky-rocket in terms of efficiency and environment protection.
The last great changes in agriculture have been to lock away the farmer from the equipment, managing software, and crops they use, and to make it easier for large companies to guarantee sales and futures markets to gamble on predicted yields.
In the past, the food industry was in between farmers and consumers. Now it seems independent farmers are the middle man corporations want to remove: an annoying part of the chain of production.
So this has nothing to with technological advances, but in feeding the hype that everything can be automated with ease. This is a publicity stunt for the zeitgeist of the AI dream.
And, by the way, pest and weed control is not a triviality. Not if you want to do it right. Automation is not the mere substitution of humans: it's also the adaptation of the chain of value so that it can be automated. It always comes with a cost that is sometimes underestimated.
I'm slightly surprised the use of the laser is killing weeds instead of insects. There have been some prior efforts at killing mosquitos with lasers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_laser
I've been interested in setting up setting up some sort of micro farm in my flat (led based) for a few years. Anyone got some good resources for the novice micro farmer? (I like robotics/automation as well so if I could blend that in it would be cool)
Human ingenuity is amazing when applied to labour shortages.
The Black Death, Brexit, the recent American Immigration Crackdown. All of these events reduced the supply of labour, resulting in increased wages and productivity.
Goes to show that arguments about needing migrants and refugees from poor countries to fill labour shortages in the West do not hold water.
That was a pretty inspirational tale about the startup the guy founded in terms of purpose and possibility and application of technology. For me it's better than anything I've heard about recently in America, though I am not an expert in this.
Related: Can someone from the industry share what is the current status of vertical farming? Is this considered the future or the verdict is not out yet? Any good people/startups/articles to check out?
this doesn't sound like it's even in the technology's infancy. prototypes are being drawn up in the labs. they don't understand any drawbacks. when they eventually come up with something, inevitably it'd disappoint and fail. I can't see robots making the complex decisions of harvesting individual plants with all its variables involved, especially at the scale to not fail. This is much more than three years ago. This is a cheer leading fluff piece.
I eagerly await the introduction of fully automated farming. Not, however, on farms. In my own garage. I see no reason I should simply let a "farmer" purchase the automation gear and then collect profit after wasting tons of energy in transportation. There's dirt, water, and sun at my house. There's no reason a robotic farming situation couldn't be shrunk down and made into something private individuals or small families could own to provide for their own food needs.
The point about entire states being used for agriculture is interesting, and I guess whether you see this as utopic or dystopic really depends on the nature of the owner of the land. If the government owned the machines, land, and produce, and socialized the gains, this seems like a utopic solution, although obviously there is potential for abuse and bureaucrazy. On the other hand, if a corporation owned it, it would seem very bizarre and symbolic of income inequality.
I wonder if Marx was simply too early. Let the machines be the proletariat and let all of society be the bourgeoisie, and maybe communism can work in some industries.
I am encouraged by what they are doing across the pond. Not so much stateside.
I have been trying to form a framework for a few years now. Small acreage farmers growing organically need automation.
Large corporate farms are already mechanized. As are most commodity crops. Speciality crops that need a lot of human labour and expertise..especially in organic operations need help from automation and robotics tech.
The trend I am seeing in the US is mostly data collecting intelligence. Everyone is doing something in AI or ML or blockchain. But small acreage farmers like me need more automation.
I have noticed that the trend in the states seems to be data collection technology which needs massive datasets. There isn’t a lot of care or use from small acreage farms. This is the biggest stumbling block for small farms(less than 100 acres) to be included in the big boys game.
We need small cheap robots that does a diverse set of tasks. At this point, for small farms, human intelligence trumps AI. But data is king. More money is made off data harvested from farmers than the actual produce itself. Because farmers sell wholesale but we pay retail for the tech.
We are lagging behind in the United States compared to endevours in the EU or down under. Not everyone can be a unicorn. Not everything has to be big.
In a way..we don’t have to try because we have super cheap migrant labour. For now. I will bet my bottom dollar that it will be gone in a few years time. What then? We are also spoilt for choice by the produce bounty from Mexico. But for how long?
As a small farmer who is interested in automation, a few thoughts : 1. I would like a robotic platform that can be modular depending on my operation. Diff farmers use diff methods. We live in diff zones and have diff pests and diff soil and diff water. One size won’t fit all. 2. There is more to farm labour than just weeding bots. 3. I need to own my farm’s data and be able to commodify it. 4. We need to be partners. Because bots are not farmers and the industry needs us to train them. Include us. I am the domain expert. Not the roboticist or the engineer. 5. I would pay upto 20-25k for a robotic platform with a certain set of features. It’s worth it for me. That’s because I have a smattering of interest about robotics and automation to know what’s possible and how much it would cost. I also know how valuable data is and I want to make money off my data. A seemingly expensive platform is still worth that to me..however, I find it very difficult to convince my fellow farmers. Why? Distrust. 6. Farmers distrust technology because we deal with perishables and tech we can’t control is our work rotting in the field. 7. Farmers don’t get enough respect. Not the farming concerns with 10s of thousands of acres or corporate farms that have lobbies and trade memberships. Not commodity farmers..but regular farmers who sell at the farmers markets or to restaurants. 8. Nobody works with us. They ask us questions and once funding comes through, they are being nudged towards larger farms. They won’t grow bitter melon or fenugreek. Those huge farms won’t grow the eggplant from Laos or India. Or that specific spicy hot pepper from some place in South America. Without small farmers, we will all be eating the same kinds of foods. Same variety of tomato or the same kind of sweet pepper bred for machine harvest and mass production.
I started out naive. I am not under any illusion anymore that I can design a small acreage robotic platform. But now I know what’s out there and how I can make it work for smaller operations. And how to integrate the many things we do seamlessly as a new kind of Ag for us. Afterall, in other countries..the average farm size is 2-3 hectares. And they feed local population. So my platform will be useful elsewhere even if it doesn’t gain traction in the states.
I also have realistic expectations of technology now. And people. I am excited every time I read about innovations across the pond. Maybe we will get it for small acreage specialty crop organic farmers here. Or maybe not. But when we consider global momentum, some really exciting things are happening. And it’s happening fast!
[+] [-] rmason|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tda|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nostromo|7 years ago|reply
A single employee for 10,000 acres is nothing. (I'm assuming that the three owners would stay on with or without robots.) That person's salary is a rounding error compared to land, seeds, fertilizer, water, equipment, etc.
I think the benefit of automation for commodity crops (rice, wheat, etc.) is almost nil. Labor isn't driving the cost for these crops. However, automation for labor intensive crops (like berries or certain fruits) is a huge opportunity.
[+] [-] clarkmoody|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leggomylibro|7 years ago|reply
Modern agricultural technology sounds fascinating.
[+] [-] jimbokun|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pwaivers|7 years ago|reply
What is inherently wrong or evil about this? If we could automate a state-size farm to feed everyone, isn't that a good thing?
[+] [-] kevmo|7 years ago|reply
But to have a state with no people in it implies that people would not be allowed to enter it, i.e. it would represent huge swathes of natural resources wherein some smaller group of people would be keeping the general public out by virtue of it being private property. Forcing people off of land and into cities, thus forcing them to buy food with labor, is one of the primary means by humanity has been subverted from achieving its real potential. Empirically, the rise of more efficient machines has often been deeply linked to human bondage.
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|7 years ago|reply
Efficient, pleasant, and dystopian all that the same time.
[+] [-] wolfram74|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomatotomato37|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] T4NG|7 years ago|reply
I guess if you picture it more like in the movie Logan where its just a giant corporate run automated farm that displaces regular farmers who cant afford the setup that seems pretty dark and dystopic.
[+] [-] beerlord|7 years ago|reply
I think its because it leads to uncomfortable future scenarios, like how the economy of the future will be completely dominated by skilled and educated workers, and there will be much less requirement for unskilled labourers.
[+] [-] geow|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pwaivers|7 years ago|reply
I actually assume farmers are very welcoming of technology. They are hard workers and good business men. Usually technology makes them more efficient and more money.
[+] [-] nathan_long|7 years ago|reply
> We’re an agri-tech start up commercialising a deceptively simple idea: small robots not big tractors.
> Because unfortunately big tractors are neither efficient nor environmentally friendly. Currently, 95% of energy is used ploughing. And ploughing is only necessary because of heavy machinery crushing soil.
> We are building robots that will seed and care for each individual plant in your crop. They will only feed and spray the plants that need it, giving them the perfect levels nutrients and support, with no waste.
> This level of detail allows you to be kinder to soil, kinder to the environment, more efficient, more precise and more productive. It’s the best of all worlds. An increased yield, as well as minimal chemical usage. So you can increase revenues by up to 40%, reduce costs by up to 60%.
> Our robots are being designed and built by farmers, for farmers. Because we have spent the last year talking to you, we know you don’t want to buy robots. You are worried about the cost, and what happens if they break down. Instead you can lease our robots through a Farming as a Service (FaaS) model.
Obviously it may not be as good as it sounds. But it sounds amazing.
Also these quotes from the article about scale were interesting:
> The agility of agricultural robots means small farms with compact fields will no longer be at a disadvantage; independent shops and restaurants will be able to grow their produce on smallholdings efficiently tended by Rachel-like machines.
> ...
> “Most people think this is going to be expensive, is going to do everyone out of a job and is going to be good for the big farms, not the small farms,” he says. “It’s actually the exact opposite. The big farms are all about economies of scale: big fields, big tractors. We are developing small machines. I believe the extra production we need to feed the planet is going to come from small farms that can’t use those economies of scale.”
I love the idea of a farmer on 2 acres competing with Big Ag on price.
[+] [-] thruflo22|7 years ago|reply
Happy to answer any questions.
[+] [-] philipkglass|7 years ago|reply
Can lasers kill weeds at the root, or do you just keep them "mowed" down to size with repeated applications?
[+] [-] noonespecial|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nathan_long|7 years ago|reply
Like, can the robot move down the row as fast as a human weeding by hand? Can it carry a car battery and weed for an eight hour shift?
[+] [-] jelliclesfarm|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ph0rque|7 years ago|reply
Edit: oops, I guess this should be directed at the small robot company, not the space bots with laser company.
[+] [-] rytill|7 years ago|reply
Do you want farmers to eventually be able to operate the fleets you sell them, or would you prefer to sell the entire operation to farmers and manage the fleets yourself?
[+] [-] stevenwoo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] terravion|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] honestlyidk|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevmo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uxhack|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zackmorris|7 years ago|reply
What are we all doing? Seriously, why can't each of us take a year of our lives and automate all the most awful jobs in the world?
Asking for a friend :-P
[+] [-] gamblor956|7 years ago|reply
Building yet another database/analytics platform is trivial compared to automating even the simplest real-world tasks. Because in the real world, you don't have full control of everything, and you can't just hit the reset button or restore from backup.
[+] [-] rripken|7 years ago|reply
Farming isn't horrible. Programming Enterprise Software isn't that hard. Safely doing robots in the real-world is.
[+] [-] chicob|7 years ago|reply
I'm not a Luddite or anything, bu I think the future of sustainable, productive agriculture lies in agronomic science, not laser-robot overlords or the next OGM fad.
If driving a car is less demanding than driving a tractor, let alone a tractor coupled with equipment, since we're still some years away from generalized self-driven cars, what can we say about farming in general?
There's a lot of work to be done that would make agriculture sky-rocket in terms of efficiency and environment protection.
The last great changes in agriculture have been to lock away the farmer from the equipment, managing software, and crops they use, and to make it easier for large companies to guarantee sales and futures markets to gamble on predicted yields.
In the past, the food industry was in between farmers and consumers. Now it seems independent farmers are the middle man corporations want to remove: an annoying part of the chain of production.
So this has nothing to with technological advances, but in feeding the hype that everything can be automated with ease. This is a publicity stunt for the zeitgeist of the AI dream.
And, by the way, pest and weed control is not a triviality. Not if you want to do it right. Automation is not the mere substitution of humans: it's also the adaptation of the chain of value so that it can be automated. It always comes with a cost that is sometimes underestimated.
[+] [-] Max_aaa|7 years ago|reply
There is already a lot of technology and automation on big farms.
[+] [-] wccrawford|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nitwit005|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sleepychu|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stevenwoo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HeyLaughingBoy|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elchief|7 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pan5Jo91e8I
[+] [-] stevenwoo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beerlord|7 years ago|reply
The Black Death, Brexit, the recent American Immigration Crackdown. All of these events reduced the supply of labour, resulting in increased wages and productivity.
Goes to show that arguments about needing migrants and refugees from poor countries to fill labour shortages in the West do not hold water.
[+] [-] stevenwoo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hvass|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] winningcontinue|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] otakucode|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Invictus0|7 years ago|reply
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/
The point about entire states being used for agriculture is interesting, and I guess whether you see this as utopic or dystopic really depends on the nature of the owner of the land. If the government owned the machines, land, and produce, and socialized the gains, this seems like a utopic solution, although obviously there is potential for abuse and bureaucrazy. On the other hand, if a corporation owned it, it would seem very bizarre and symbolic of income inequality.
I wonder if Marx was simply too early. Let the machines be the proletariat and let all of society be the bourgeoisie, and maybe communism can work in some industries.
[+] [-] jelliclesfarm|7 years ago|reply
I have been trying to form a framework for a few years now. Small acreage farmers growing organically need automation.
Large corporate farms are already mechanized. As are most commodity crops. Speciality crops that need a lot of human labour and expertise..especially in organic operations need help from automation and robotics tech.
The trend I am seeing in the US is mostly data collecting intelligence. Everyone is doing something in AI or ML or blockchain. But small acreage farmers like me need more automation.
I have noticed that the trend in the states seems to be data collection technology which needs massive datasets. There isn’t a lot of care or use from small acreage farms. This is the biggest stumbling block for small farms(less than 100 acres) to be included in the big boys game.
We need small cheap robots that does a diverse set of tasks. At this point, for small farms, human intelligence trumps AI. But data is king. More money is made off data harvested from farmers than the actual produce itself. Because farmers sell wholesale but we pay retail for the tech.
We are lagging behind in the United States compared to endevours in the EU or down under. Not everyone can be a unicorn. Not everything has to be big.
In a way..we don’t have to try because we have super cheap migrant labour. For now. I will bet my bottom dollar that it will be gone in a few years time. What then? We are also spoilt for choice by the produce bounty from Mexico. But for how long?
As a small farmer who is interested in automation, a few thoughts : 1. I would like a robotic platform that can be modular depending on my operation. Diff farmers use diff methods. We live in diff zones and have diff pests and diff soil and diff water. One size won’t fit all. 2. There is more to farm labour than just weeding bots. 3. I need to own my farm’s data and be able to commodify it. 4. We need to be partners. Because bots are not farmers and the industry needs us to train them. Include us. I am the domain expert. Not the roboticist or the engineer. 5. I would pay upto 20-25k for a robotic platform with a certain set of features. It’s worth it for me. That’s because I have a smattering of interest about robotics and automation to know what’s possible and how much it would cost. I also know how valuable data is and I want to make money off my data. A seemingly expensive platform is still worth that to me..however, I find it very difficult to convince my fellow farmers. Why? Distrust. 6. Farmers distrust technology because we deal with perishables and tech we can’t control is our work rotting in the field. 7. Farmers don’t get enough respect. Not the farming concerns with 10s of thousands of acres or corporate farms that have lobbies and trade memberships. Not commodity farmers..but regular farmers who sell at the farmers markets or to restaurants. 8. Nobody works with us. They ask us questions and once funding comes through, they are being nudged towards larger farms. They won’t grow bitter melon or fenugreek. Those huge farms won’t grow the eggplant from Laos or India. Or that specific spicy hot pepper from some place in South America. Without small farmers, we will all be eating the same kinds of foods. Same variety of tomato or the same kind of sweet pepper bred for machine harvest and mass production.
I started out naive. I am not under any illusion anymore that I can design a small acreage robotic platform. But now I know what’s out there and how I can make it work for smaller operations. And how to integrate the many things we do seamlessly as a new kind of Ag for us. Afterall, in other countries..the average farm size is 2-3 hectares. And they feed local population. So my platform will be useful elsewhere even if it doesn’t gain traction in the states.
I also have realistic expectations of technology now. And people. I am excited every time I read about innovations across the pond. Maybe we will get it for small acreage specialty crop organic farmers here. Or maybe not. But when we consider global momentum, some really exciting things are happening. And it’s happening fast!
[+] [-] ihuman|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|7 years ago|reply
The comment was https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/20/space-ro... if anyone's curious.
[+] [-] uxhack|7 years ago|reply