A society of abundance: can 8 billion people be fed and watered with almost no heavy labor

2026-10-09 · by StepForge

Why I ran these numbers

I like one idea: every family has a patch of land of its own, food and water are available without exhausting physical labor, and time goes to children, crafts, learning and work you enjoy. It sounds like a utopia, but I have a habit of checking utopias with arithmetic. If the numbers add up, it's a project. If they don't, it's at least a reason to understand exactly where the bottleneck is.

Below are three things: whether the planet has enough land, which technologies already work and which are still more of a pretty picture, and what you get when you put it all together into a village of 100 families. Spoiler: some of my original numbers didn't survive checking, and I corrected them. The result turned out more interesting.

Part 1. The math of plots: is there enough land?

The world's population in 2024, by UN estimates, is about 8.2 billion, with a peak of around 10.3 billion expected in the 2080s.

Suppose every person is entitled to 10 sotok (1,000 m²):

8.2 billion × 1,000 m² = 8.2 million km². That is a bit less than Brazil and a bit more than Australia.
If we count one plot per family of four: 2.05 billion families × 1,000 m² = 2.05 million km², roughly Mexico or Greenland.

For scale: habitable land (excluding glaciers and deserts) is on the order of 100 million km², so allotments of "10 sotok per person" would take up about 8% of it. Half of that habitable land is already used for agriculture today, and most farmland goes to livestock and feed. The world has about 1.6 billion ha of arable land, roughly 0.19 ha (1,900 m²) per person, and that figure is shrinking as the population grows.

Two things follow from this, and both are useful:

There is, in principle, enough land for "10 sotok each". By area it is about half of all current cropland, which is a lot, but not astronomical.
A plot of 10 sotok is not a farm, it's a house with a garden. You can't feed a family on grain and meat from it. It solves housing, fresh vegetables and quality of life, while the main food still comes from fields and farms, which should be as automated as possible.

On 10 sotok you can fit, for example, a house of 80–120 m², a vegetable patch and orchard of 150–300 m², a recreation area, paths and outbuildings. The plot is 25×40 m, or almost a square of 31.6×31.6 m.

Part 2. Technology: what really works

2.1. The smart field

Driverless tractors, drones and computer vision systems are no longer science fiction, but it's worth telling the mature from the showy.

The clearest example with honest statistics is John Deere's See & Spray system, which recognizes weeds with cameras and sprays only them. According to the company, average herbicide savings in the 2024 season were 59% on corn, soybeans and cotton. Independent field trials in Iowa on five fields (415 acres) showed a spread from 43.9% to 87.2%. The "up to 95% chemical savings" figure often repeated about agricultural drones exists as an upper bound, but not as a norm.

As for autonomous tractors and robots in general: the market is large and growing, but 2024 estimates from analyst firms differ several-fold (from roughly $2 billion to $3.3 billion for autonomous tractors alone), and I couldn't find in open data the share of farms that actually operate without a person at the wheel. So I won't claim that "country N has this many driverless machines". The more truthful version: autopilot and spot operations are already standard for large farms, while a fully unmanned field remains a rarity.

In dairy farming automation has gone furthest: according to 2015 data, milking robots in leading dairy countries (Denmark, the Netherlands) milked about a quarter of cows.

2.2. Water in agriculture

Agriculture takes about 70% of all the world's fresh water (71% according to AQUASTAT for 2022). That is exactly where the main reserve is.

In comparative studies, drip irrigation saves between a fifth and two fifths of the water compared with surface irrigation; water use efficiency is 85–90% versus 50–60%.
A greenhouse tomato with recirculated nutrient solution needs on the order of 4–22 liters of water per kilogram. For open ground, about 60 L/kg is cited, but that figure comes from a substrate manufacturer's materials, and the real spread across climates is huge.

Household water: the benchmark is 50–100 liters per person per day for basic needs (WHO, the Howard and Bartram review); in the village we plan for 150–200 L, with a margin for the garden.

2.3. Greenhouse complexes

This is the most mature direction for "food without exhausting labor". Modern Dutch greenhouses yield on the order of 50–60 kg of tomatoes per square meter per year (about 500 tonnes per hectare), against around 30 in the 1980s. Automation of climate, watering and feeding has long been the norm there.

But greenhouses have a price: energy. The Dutch greenhouse sector's average consumption for heating and lighting is about 1.1 GJ per m² per year (≈300 kWh), and for year-round tomatoes under supplemental lighting it reaches 2.7 GJ (≈760 kWh/m²). Two conclusions follow: it pays to build a greenhouse where the climate is mild, and the size of a greenhouse should be calculated from needs, not ambitions (see below).

2.4. Vertical farms: strong numbers and an inconvenient truth

A vertical farm is racks of hydroponics under LED light in an enclosed building. What is truly impressive about it:

Yield per unit of area. In a University of Surrey study (2025), a commercial British farm produced about 97 kg of lettuce per m² per year versus 3.3 kg in a field, that is, roughly 20–30 times more. A review of studies gives a median of about 62 kg/m² per year. Note that this is counted per growing area, not per building footprint, and I found no confirmation in any single study of the "10–100 times" that is often written.
Water. A closed loop, with a median of about 15 L per kg of lettuce according to the review.
No pesticides and no seasonality, with "from the bed to the shelf" freshness within a city.

And now what vertical farmers are reluctant to talk about:

Energy. According to a systematic review of lettuce studies, electricity consumption is 10–39 kWh per kilogram (median 18). Lighting accounts for between a half and three quarters. For comparison: a kilogram of lettuce in a shop costs one or two dollars, and a kilowatt-hour costs a few cents, so at an electricity price of 10 cents the energy alone is already $1–4 per kilogram.
Climate. Even on renewable electricity, the carbon footprint of vertical-farm lettuce in the British study turned out higher than that of field lettuce (0.93 versus 0.57 kg CO2-eq per kg). Project Drawdown does not recommend vertical farms as a climate solution at all.
Which crops. Lettuce, herbs, microgreens and sometimes strawberries are genuinely profitable. Wheat, potatoes, rice, that is, calories, don't pay off economically on a vertical farm: too much energy per kilogram of a cheap product.
Business. This isn't theory: Bowery Farming (which raised more than $700 million) shut down in November 2024, Plenty (about a billion raised) filed for bankruptcy in March 2025, and AeroFarms went through bankruptcy in 2023 and emerged from it. Many companies did not survive the electricity price spike of 2022–2023.

Conclusion for my project: a vertical farm is good as a small module for leafy greens and microgreens and bad as a way to feed anyone calories. It cannot be scaled to "food for everyone". In the original version of this article I assumed a 2,000 m² farm and up to 100 kg per m², and you'll see below that this doesn't fit with the village's energy supply.

2.5. Factories and warehouses

A "dark factory" is a plant with almost no people, where you can turn the lights off. The idea isn't new: Japan's Fanuc has built robots since 2001 on a robotic line that reportedly can run unattended for up to 30 days in a row. A striking new example is Xiaomi's plant in Beijing, of which they say "100% of key processes are automated". A caveat: this is the companies' own data, and fully unmanned factories don't exist; engineers and operators are still needed. Such a setup works well for mass-produced standard goods and is expensive to repair when something breaks.

Automated warehouses (shuttles, picking robots, WMS) are already the logistics standard. A village needs only a small one: cold rooms and shelving with an ordering app, not a full robotic center.

Part 3. A village of 100 families: the recalculated project

Now let's put it all together. My original sketch was: 100 families, 400 people, 70 ha, 5 ha of greenhouses and a 2,000 m² vertical farm. Checking the arithmetic showed that the idea is sensible, but the sizes and the economics need serious correction. Here is what came out.

3.1. Territory

Zone	Area
Residential (100 plots of 10 sotok)	10 ha
Farmland: fields, orchards, greenhouse, vertical module	50 ha
Infrastructure: roads, energy, water, shared buildings	10 ha
Total	70 ha

That is 1,750 m² per person. For reference: to fully feed a person on the world-average diet you need about 0.19 ha of cropland, so for 400 people about 76 ha. Our 50 ha of farmland is about two thirds of that level. This means that even with exemplary automation the village will not provide everything for itself; grain, meat and part of the dairy will have to be bought or obtained from neighboring farms. Vegetables and greens can be covered almost entirely, and that is where the emphasis should be.

3.2. How much food is actually needed

The WHO recommends at least 400 g of vegetables and fruit per person per day, which is about 146 kg a year.
For 400 people that is about 58 tonnes a year.
At a yield of 30–50 kg/m², 1,200–2,000 m² of greenhouse area is enough for this.

So the 5 ha greenhouse I assumed at the start is not for a village but for a small agro-combine: 5 ha × 50 kg/m² is 2,500 tonnes, 40 times the need. A realistic option: a 0.5 ha greenhouse (5,000 m²). It yields 150–250 tonnes, that is, the village's own need with a margin and 90–190 tonnes for sale.

Vertical farm: for leafy greens (say, 10–15 g per person per day) you need about 1.5–2.5 tonnes a year. At 60–100 kg/m², 100 m² of growing area is enough. Everything beyond that is already commercial greens production, and it needs a power plant.

3.3. Energy: where my original scheme broke

In the first sketch: 300 kW of solar panels, 100 kW of wind turbines, a 1 MWh battery, an "energy-independent village with a summer surplus". Let's check:

2,000 m² of vertical farm at 100 kg/m² is 200 tonnes of greens. At 10–39 kWh per kilogram that comes to 2–8 GWh a year. Panels of 300 kW at an output of 1,000–1,500 kWh per kW (my estimate for temperate latitudes) will give 0.3–0.45 GWh. The vertical farm alone would eat 5 to 25 times more than the whole power plant produces.
Heating a 5 ha greenhouse at the Dutch average consumption (about 300 kWh/m²) is about 15 GWh of heat a year.

So for the recalculated project the energy balance is as follows (the author's estimates, for a mild climate with minimal greenhouse heating):

Consumer	GWh per year
100 houses (3,000–6,000 kWh per house, including heat pumps)	0.3–0.6
Vertical module of 100 m² (8–10 tonnes of greens × 10–25 kWh/kg)	0.1–0.25
Greenhouse: ventilation, feeding, pumps	0.05–0.1
Water supply, treatment, warehouse, communications	0.1
Total	0.55–1.05

At an output of 1,000–1,500 kWh per kW of installed capacity you need a ground-mounted solar plant on the order of 500–1,000 kW (1–2 ha), plus storage. Winter heat for the greenhouse in a cold climate is a separate, noticeably more expensive story: every hundred square meters of heated greenhouse adds 30 MWh of heat a year.

A price benchmark: the average installed cost of utility-scale solar worldwide in 2024, according to IRENA, is about $691 per kW (about $1,058 in the US), and the average cost of electricity is about 4.3 cents per kWh.

3.4. Water

Household: 400 people × 150–200 L/day = 60–80 m³ a day, or roughly 22–29 thousand m³ a year. A 0.5 ha greenhouse at 250 t of produce and 4–22 L/kg: 1–5.5 thousand m³ a year. But irrigating 50 hectares of fields, by my estimate, is already on the order of 150–300 thousand m³ a year (3,000–6,000 m³ per hectare for irrigated crops), an order of magnitude more than everything else. This is the typical picture: agriculture takes the lion's share of water, so the main money and effort on water should go into drip irrigation and recirculation. A well with automation, rainwater harvesting (a 5–10 m³ tank per plot), filtration and smart meters that track leaks are nice small things, but not the decisive ones.

3.5. Food

Greenhouse of 0.5 ha: tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers, greens.
Vertical module of 100 m²: leafy greens, microgreens.
Vegetable gardens and orchards on the plots; shared automatic watering; exchange of harvests between neighbors.
Fields and orchards on the rest of the farmland, with automated watering and spot treatment where possible.
Optionally a mini-farm of 20–30 goats or sheep with automatic milking.
A 200 m² warehouse with cold rooms and an ordering app, electric cars and cargo bikes for delivery.

A realistic way to put the result: the village covers most of its need for vegetables and greens, and buys the rest (grain, meat, milk) or gets it through cooperation.

3.6. Life and work

Operators and engineers, developers, teachers, doctors, psychologists, craftspeople and creative professions, management of the cooperative. A club with workshops and 3D printers, a school and a kindergarten, a gym, fiber optic with a backup channel.

I keep the "20–30 hour work week" figure from the original text as a goal, not a calculation: I have no data that such a village would reach it on its own. Someone has to repair the robots, drive the truck and milk the goats.

Part 4. Economics: without rose-colored glasses

4.1. Initial investment

Unit prices here are partly from sources and partly my assumptions; I mark which.

Item	Amount (USD)	Note
Land, 70 ha	210,000 – 700,000	assumption of $3,000–10,000/ha, depends on region
Roads, water, utility networks	1,000,000 – 2,000,000	assumption
Greenhouse of 0.5 ha with automation	1,000,000 – 2,500,000	glass about €150–250/m² per an industry review, plus climate control and robots
Vertical module of 100 m²	300,000 – 800,000	assumption; there are no reliable open prices, commercial quotes are needed
Warehouse and logistics	200,000 – 400,000	assumption
Energy: 0.5–1 MW solar plant and storage	1,000,000 – 1,600,000	plant $0.35–1.1 million at IRENA prices, storage is an assumption
Public buildings	500,000 – 1,000,000	assumption
Total infrastructure	4,210,000 – 9,000,000
Per family	42,100 – 90,000
Houses, 100 units (at 50,000–100,000 each, owned by the families)	5,000,000 – 10,000,000	assumption
Total with houses	9,210,000 – 19,000,000	92,100 – 190,000 per family

I rechecked the arithmetic: the original 10.91–21.6 million had been calculated correctly, but thanks to a 5 ha greenhouse and a 2,000 m² vertical farm. The new estimate is smaller on the greenhouse and the farm and a bit larger on energy.

4.2. Monthly expenses of a family of four

The original table said "$45–115 basic expenses" and "$95–265 with food", with food counted twice. The main mistake was elsewhere: maintenance of the infrastructure. If you allow at least 3% of the cost per year for repair and replacement of equipment (my estimate, which for electronics and robots is more likely an underestimate), that comes to $1,260–2,700 a year per family.

Item	USD per month
Energy (own plant)	0 – 10
Water	0 – 5
Communications	7 – 13
Share of maintenance and replacement of shared infrastructure	105 – 225
Purchased food (grain, meat, dairy)	400 – 800
Total	510 – 1,050

I removed the claim "3–5 times cheaper than in the US": it rested on a comparison I couldn't confirm. The real gain is more modest and more honest: you pay almost nothing for electricity and vegetables and live on your own land, but nothing is free; someone has to pay for the equipment.

4.3. Income and payback

The original income table ($0.9–1.95 million a year) added up revenue, not profit, and counted selling "50% of the harvest" of a 5 ha greenhouse. After recalculation:

Source	USD per year	Assumption
Surplus vegetables from the greenhouse, 90–190 t	90,000 – 380,000	wholesale price $1–2/kg
Ecotourism, workshops	50,000 – 150,000	assumption
Village revenue	140,000 – 530,000
Infrastructure upkeep (3% of capital)	minus 126,000 – 270,000
Net result	about 0 – 400,000

I don't include residents' income from remote work (in the original version, $200–500 thousand a year of "digital services") in the village's economy: those are people's personal earnings, and they should be used to pay for houses, not for the warehouse. I also removed the sale of electricity: the plant is sized for the village's own needs, and there is almost no surplus.

Families' savings on food and utilities: an estimated $2,000–4,000 a year per family (their own vegetables plus almost zero electricity bills), that is, 200–400 thousand for the village.

Payback of the shared infrastructure = investment / (net result + savings):

Scenario	Investment	Net result + savings	Period
Pessimistic	9.0 million	0.2 million	about 45 years
Average	6.6 million	0.45 million	about 15 years
Optimistic	4.2 million	0.8 million	about 5 years

The original "7–12 years" fell into the optimistic part of this range, but it was reached by means of unrealistic income. My conclusion: the village is not an investment project but a way to live cheaper and better. It saves money, it doesn't earn it.

Part 5. What works and what doesn't

Already works

Autopilot, spot watering and spraying, milking robots, automated greenhouses.
Warehouses and "dark" factories for mass-produced, standard goods.
Vertical farms as a narrow niche product: leafy greens and microgreens for the city.

Unproven or requires caution

Vertical farms as the basis of nutrition. Energy and economics don't allow it.
Cost. Capital investment is high, and estimates for greenhouses and automation depend on the region and the supplier. It's sensible to request commercial quotes before any decisions.
People. Engineers and operators are needed, not just settlers. A cooperative requires rules: who does what, and for how much.
Laws. Drones, autonomous machinery, local power grids, land status.
"Robots will cut the cost of food by X%". I couldn't confirm the 15% promise I came across with a direct study, so I removed it. There is a measurable effect on individual operations (herbicide savings of 44–87% in field data), but the overall effect on the price of food depends on too many factors.

Conclusion

There is enough land for "ten sotok each", the technologies for almost unmanned production of vegetables, milk and greens exist, and a village of 100 families built on this basis is realistic as a pilot. But the realistic picture differs from the first version: vertical farms are a niche module, not the basis of nutrition; a greenhouse should be sized from need (0.5 ha, not 5 ha); energy and equipment maintenance are expensive; the shared infrastructure pays back in 5–45 years, not 7–12.

Key takeaways:

Plots of 10 sotok will fit, about 8% of habitable land, but they won't replace fields.
The technologies for vegetables and milk are ready; for calories (grain) the answer remains highly automated fields.
Vertical farms remain for greens; energy sets the limits.
A village of 100 families is realistic as a pilot if you count from needs and honestly budget for maintenance.
The economics are about lifestyle and independence, not quick payback.

If any readers are interested in building such a village, or at least a pilot for 10–20 families, write to me. We need engineers, agronomists and people who count the money.

Appendix. Pilot roadmap

Stage 1. Preparation (6–12 months)

Find 70–100 ha of land with water and good soil: $210,000 – 700,000 (assumption).
Geology and resource assessment: $20,000 – 50,000 (assumption).
Master plan: $50,000 – 100,000 (assumption).
Assemble an initiative group of 10–20 families.
Draw up a budget, find partners and financing.

Stage 2. Infrastructure (12–24 months)

Electricity: solar plant and storage.
Well, water supply, roads.
Greenhouse of 0.5 ha and a vertical module of 100 m².
Warehouse and logistics.

Stage 3. Settlement (24–36 months)

The first 20–30 houses.
Launch the greenhouse in test mode, tune the processes.
Finish the houses and public buildings.

Stage 4. Development (36 months and beyond)

Fields and orchards, automation.
Educational and creative projects, cooperatives.
Share experience with other villages.

Appendix 2. Payback calculator

A simple formula:

Payback (years) = investment / (annual net result + annual savings)

Example for the cooperative (the average scenario from part 4.3):

Investment in shared infrastructure: $6.6 million.
Village net result: 0.15 million a year.
Savings of 100 families: 0.3 million a year.
Payback: 6.6 / (0.15 + 0.3) = about 14.7 years.

Plug in your own prices for land, electricity and vegetables, and you'll immediately see which parameter decides the fate of the project. Usually it is the cost of maintenance and the price of a kilowatt-hour.

Sources

Discussion

No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.