This episode is brought to you by Hello Fresh. Many folks assume the future of farming is robots, algae vats, and soylent green… but is this future forecast accurate? The answer, as we’ll see today, is ‘probably yes’ A few months back we did a number of polls of some potential topics folks had suggested, and the winner over on our Reddit group was “The Future of Farming”. It's an interesting topic in that until fairly recently, farming was such a common profession that discussing its future was the same as discussing humanity’s future or the future of jobs. There are some very high-tech options we will touch on today that might alter farming drastically, including everything from vertical farming to growing meat or printing food – or even turning humans into cyborgs who don’t need food or who live in pods like in the Matrix, fed nutrient gruel while living in virtual utopias. But I’d like to keep our main focus on the major new developments relating to challenges and opportunities that are likely to arise in the next generation or so. These include things like international dietary changes, population growth,
land repurposing, robots, genetic engineering, invasive species, and changes to local ecologies and environments… just to name a few. We also need to keep in mind that farming is a big blanket term, and most individual farmers have a single crop they specialize in, or a small handful. Homesteaders, family farms, or polyculturists often aim to have several crops or products in medium production but this is not the norm and whether or not it could become the norm economically would be very technology dependent. As long as it is not,
someone’s entire livelihood is at stake if one crop disease sweeps through or even if the demand in the market just changes and this year people love broccoli and hate cauliflower. A single lone technology can obliterate a market too. For instance we tend to eat a lot of staple grains – wheat, corn, rice and so on – not because they are super-nutritious in every aspect of that word, but because it stores well and also because a single person with a tractor can do hundreds of acres of corn. Indeed in the US the average farm is 444 acres, or 180 hectares, which is huge by the size of most local farms in my county.
For staple crops this is a necessity, as a single acre might produce less than 5 tons of corn or grain and not even a thousand dollars in revenue each year. Only a fraction of that is profit, necessitating grain farms of thousands of acres. Hundreds of acres handled by a single worker on that end of the spectrum, because it's so easily and highly automated, on the other end an acre of strawberries might produce 25 tons of berries a year and no single person is tending hundreds of acres of them, indeed farms will often need dozens of pickers per acre. Needless to say, a bunch of robots coming by and clearing fruit from trees or bushes and properly pruning them for maximum yields is the sort of thing that would cause a simultaneous boom in production and crash in prices. Probably akin to what we saw with the invention of tractors or combine harvesters for those grain crops, or more.
It’s easy to forget our ancestors often grew those grains in part because they could harvest them fairly easily compared to many plants, more crop for less work than with many other plants, rather than always nutrition per acre or any interest in balanced or flavorful diets. Livestock usually does even better than that, as long as you have lots of land, letting critters eat what grows there without you needing to farm it much is frequently your path to most calories per least effort, and they’re high protein calories at that. That matters for contemplating the future because there’s only so much land, for now at least, there’s also way more people being born every day than dying, for now at least. Now strawberries aren’t an ultra high-calorie crop, 330 calories per kilogram, versus about 960 for corn, so that yield per acre in tons is a bit misleading, also that corn silage – the whole plant as opposed to just the grain – is an excellent food source for livestock, economically anyway, especially for dairy cows. Folks often beat up on the amounts of grain or pasture needed to produce beef compared to other animals or just eating the vegetables, and Ranchers often argue that data is cherry picked, but regardless it also tends to ignore the dairy aspect which is vastly more efficient in calories per farmland used. A modern Holstein cow can literally fill a tanker truck full of milk each year.
On the other hand, don’t expect the dairy industry to survive this century in anything like its current form. Sarah and I were at the local Farm Bureau’s Ice Cream social earlier this week and the main presentation was on dairy and what a rough time the industry has been having this year, even compared to the rough time it’s been having almost every year I can recall. Incidentally, very good ice cream, and same the local Cattleman’s Dinner each year which has the hands-down best prime rib I’ve ever had so if you live in an even vaguely rural area these sort of events are common, usually open to the public for free or quite cheap, and often are good way for folks to get to know that part of their community better or even consider going into it themselves. Which is my little public service shout out
for Agriculture. Incidentally, since I rarely do autobiographical commentary, my wife and I co-own a farm. I’m newer to farming, although I grew up in the country and have been an avid gardener since I was a toddler. My wife on the other hand has been farming her whole life and serves on
the Agriculture Committee for the Ohio House of Representatives. So I am no expert on the topic of farming, or even gardening for that matter, but do have a pretty solid grounding in the basics, and I tend to think having a garden or even homestead or farm is a good hobby or profession for folks to contemplate even as we get ever more high-tech, indeed possibly because we are doing so.. I hate to say though that I probably would not recommend entering the dairy industry. A lot of the technological improvements are resulting in a need for very large capital investments, very big machines for running barns of many hundreds of cows, not ten or twenty. At the same time we see a lot of folks switching to alternatives like soy or almond milk – though to be fair in many cases this represents someone who had an allergy or digesting issues with milk products and wasn’t using them anyway. However, while cows are pretty efficient at
converting plants into milk, we are already seeing artificial milk rising in quality and production in an equal if less loudly broadcast fashion as artificial meat. Such being the case it is quite likely we’ll just start growing raw milk in vats or giant bioreactors, and I’d say that’s right over the horizon but I would bet on this being one of those areas where interested parties try to skew public approval or desire for such alternatives and get roadblocks and regulations in the way. It will happen anyway though, there’s just too many obvious advantages to growing huge vats of milk in clean sterile and controlled environments without a cow being involved, and there’s nothing super-tricky about the recipe or biological process. Not everything is bleak for the dairy industry, improvements in medical science will probably eventually find some way to eliminate any lactose issues that prevent folks from enjoying dairy products, or mitigate them a great deal, and this would probably see a disproportionate rise in its use. Dairy and meat make up a big portion of farming so I didn’t want to bypass either today, but we discussed synthetic meat in its own episode a couple years back so we’ll shift away from animals with one last exception: Pollinators. It’s pretty easy to forget that bees, butterflies, ladybugs, and hummingbirds aren’t the only critters that pollinate plants, just the prettiest, and out of all of them, only bees produce a crop of their own for use, honey, and only honeybees do that, and there are 20,000 species of bees incidentally. Now
the super-majority of plants need pollination, and acreage with lots of pollinators produces vastly better yields. You can keep any kind of pollinator around and encourage them to multiply in various ways, and some are even better at pollinating than honey bees, but honey bees are the preferred pollinator, because people like honey. Sarah and I keep some hives and it’s worth the occasional sting for the sweet, sweet honey inside, and ironically this is a problem in some areas. I saw a paper from the Royal Botanic Gardens that a new fad of beekeeping in London in the last decade had resulted in too many bees for the small local garden environment to support and also that they were getting issues with bees transmitting disease between hives.
Diseases have a harder time spreading between different species, so packing a lot of the same type of pollinator into a region can risk high rates of transmission. We also want to beware of that elsewhere. With hundreds of thousands of pollinator species out there, we risk damaging our biological diversity if we limit ourselves to only that relative handful of species that are hyper-efficient pollinators, pretty to look at, or produce tasty honey. As a counterbalance, there is a good probability that honey, like milk, might be something we learn to artificial produce more efficiently down the road.
This is also a good place to get into genetic engineering, because we may also see a lot of crops genetically modified to be self-pollinators, or alternatively we might see some lab engineering honey bees that are twice as efficient at pollination and nectar gathering, and never sting. Which would be nice, though this is probably a case where superior science of knowing what keeps them from stinging us comes into play, so you could spray on a pheromone that said ‘ignore me’ so to speak. So many critters in nature run in large part on pheromone signals that the ability to understand and fabricate those might see huge gains in agriculture.
This is another area where research is likely to produce huge changes and gains in farming. Or other signals too, honey bees for instance have what’s called the waggle-dance, and really good internal clocks, sense of gravity, and where the Sun is, and they can precisely transmit direction and flight time to their peers via a carefully coordinated set of waggles. We may have to adapt them genetically to function on other worlds or space habitats. However for
such types of signals, instead of making something like robotic pollinating bees by the million to do a farm field, slipping a robot bee into the hive to waggle-dance the coordinates of the places you want pollinated most is maybe a better approach. On the genetics end, it is possible this will lead to vast fields of clear-topped vats of hyper efficient black algae sucking up every photon of sunlight and converting it into genetically perfected blends of high-protein or high-oil algae, to be used as animal feed or even human feed in 3D Food Printers. Do not rule out the possibility that by century’s end your kitchen might have tanks of printer feedstock and appliances able to render those stocks into foods identical in taste, texture, and appearance to the food they were mimicking, and be indistinguishable, or differ only in that they were absent impurities, toxins, or had a better nutritional breakdown. Nor do they need to match or surpass current food to be in wide use, desperation and hunger are the best sauce, and for that matter we might be able to fix the taste and texture through augmented reality and mind augmentation. You eat your protein slurry and soylent green but it tastes like steak and ice cream. Short term though, genetic engineering brings up the issue of GMOs. Many folks insist that they
are dangerous or unnatural – where unnatural is bad, unless it’s a smart phone of course – many others are such proponents of the higher yields of GMOs that they ignore the various problems and concerns, like accidentally introducing some crop that’s so strong and abundant it starts growing in every nook and cranny, which is a common GMO worry, justified or not. This is also pretty wrapped up in the Organic Foods sector, and I would actually guess that is a fad too, but one that will end with generally greater scrutiny and quality control of production and transport of food. In the long term, use of GMO technology will increase. Learning more about genetics and utilizing that knowledge to improve crops is just too useful. Short term, we’re still novices at it, and it can have unexpected consequences as a result, and because genetic engineering permits much bigger and less probable changes to DNA than classic means of changing crops over dozens of generations. Though it appears transgenic transfer between similar species is more common than once thought. Genetic engineering, though, allows radical and hard to react to changes to local ecologies and economies. So GMOs are
often seen as more of a higher-risk, high-reward approach and our goal is to keep learning more so the risk goes down while the reward goes up. There will be a point where it reaches a place most folks consider safe enough and a generation after that I’d expect it to be a dead issue. That might be 40 years from now or 4000. The more distant future of farming means millions of alien
worlds we terraform to various degrees, where genetic engineering is darn near a necessity for even the most Earth-like worlds, and for inside millions of rotating space habitats, each of which is its own enclosed and quarantined ecology, at which point experimentation with GMOs inside those enclosed habitats seems virtually guaranteed. Closer to now, it is likely we will see more and bigger greenhouses in decades to come, and this can serve as a fairly decent quarantine method too along with producing higher yields per acre, so might result in more greenhouse grown GMOs, ditto for vertical farms inside buildings. Two other notes on genetics. First, while GMOs could cause problems, they also often solve them even now, a lot of vaccines are genetically modified for instance, and greater knowledge on that can let us rapidly counteract diseases spreading to flora and fauna too. Or for that matter, crafting our diseases and predators to carefully and knowledgeably curb overpopulation of a given species, or the spread of animals or plants. Tomorrow a lab might whip up a magnificent GMO algae or fungus able to produce biofuels at a tenth the cost of gasoline – causing an unintentional food shortage as folks race to shift land and production over to that – or someone might finally convince folks nuclear reactors are safe, or invent fusion, freeing all land given over to biofuel production, or better solar panels might come out, suddenly requiring new land to put them on or not, maybe roof-based solar but in doing so replaced rooftop gardens and much urban agriculture. Cause, effect, and unintended consequences are always a huge consideration in contemplating the future or ecological and agricultural engineering, doubly so for the future of agriculture.
Second point on genetics, they can alter our own needs. Right now there’s a debate on what our population size will look like in the next century, for my part I’m going to guess at least 20 billion by 2121 but I might be optimistic. A lot of folks think it will stop at 9 and begin contracting. There is no real room for accuracy on such things though as, for instance, someone could come out with a fertility extension method next year that permits women to have children as easily and safely at 45 as 25, which might result in a fairly large increase in average family size. Or on the flip side, a birth control pill so cheap and effective, with so few side effects, that accidental pregnancy became a rare anomaly. How much farmland we need depends on how much we
need to support a person – which can include land for solar, biofuels, textiles, and lumber, not just food. However it also depends on how many folks we have. If the production per unit of land rises, as it's been doing, but the population does not, or rises slower, or even falls off, that price per farmland goes down. Which also means uses which are less labor or resource intensive but more land intensive become more economically viable, such as meat and grains. If the population rises faster than production increases in land, we either need to use more land-efficient but labor or resource intensive methods, like hydroponics or greenhouses, or we need to make more land – which is on the table, see our Space Farming and Seasteading episodes for discussion of that. Which emphasizes how sensitive all our predictions on agriculture are, however, it’s another example of how genetics and medical sciences will play into an existing problem: the age of farmers.
In the US for instance, the average farmer is over 58 years old, and keep in mind it is frequently a family profession with a lot of young adults included in that average. This has been an ongoing trend to, the average of the ‘principal operator’ of farms was already 50 years old fifty years ago. And while my wife has been in farming her whole life, I’m new to it, and yet at the age of 41 I’m actually younger than the average beginning farmer. The average beginning farmer, those with less than 5 years experience, is 47 years old. That bit of
data was decidedly on my mind earlier in the episode when I none-too-subtly encouraged folks to consider farming as career or side hustle. I could not find any data on the world at large, but a few other highly developed countries I could spot check seem to have parallel numbers. Of course in developing nations farming is still often the most common profession, and yet it would seem likely those lands will also go the same way with fewer folks doing most of the farming. Whether or not they’ll face the same aging issues is harder to say, aging workforces in an economic sector is frequently a sign of a contracting economic sector, but cultural preferences for or against being a farmer will presumably be specific to each country or even more zoomed in. Will this trend reverse? No, not a chance, and again because of genetics and medicine. We might make it more popular as a profession with
younger folks but people are also living longer now and that is a trend I expect to continue. Indeed I would be surprised if the condition we call aging and often view as inevitable was not effectively eliminated by the end of this century. That often seem extraordinary to folks but disease was considered a way of life, and regular cause of death, for most of human history, and yet Covid hit us so hard because it was the first big pandemic in a century and even then, there is just no comparison between how the last pandemic hit us and the mass death and panic of prior plagues, which was considered ordinary and inevitable to those times and cultures. Aging
will likely be the same and it’s likely to have a very big impact on land ownership and farming. We’ll come back to that in a bit but there’s another major effect of farming in terms of life extension technologies that should also be considered. Back in our Future of Pets episode, I pointed out that while super expensive life extension serums were the norm in science fiction, most probable pathways to the real technology indicate it would be dirt cheap and perfected on animals first. So longer-lived pets might result before we ever got clinical testing let alone FDA approval for human life extension technologies. But that also opens the door to hundred-year old cows still producing thousands of gallons of milk per year. When we discuss colonizing new worlds on this show we often point out that your two big options are terraforming – making a world more like Earth – and bioforming – adapting the organisms to that world. So our alternative to genetic engineering might be widening the area we can use for farms,
or how well tailored they are for that crop. We have a lot of tundra and desert we can use, and plants grown inside greenhouses get much higher yields per area and allow plants to exist in dry areas or cold areas, by minimizing loss of water and heat. I would not be too surprised if we saw a vast increase in greenhouse usage, as well as a vast increase in greenhouse sizes, in the years to come. I could also see potential subsidies for these options, not just to add food production capacity, but also as ways to let new folks into the industry economically without having to interfere in current land ownership, which is often generational. Let’s talk Farm size. I mentioned earlier that the US average is 444 acres, and that number has been on the rise. Don’t get the impression size correlates super-strongly to revenue or
profitability though, a strawberry farm a tenth the size of a grain farm or ranch might use ten times the people and move ten times the revenue. The other thing is that average is not the same as median. In the US there’s 900 million acres of farmland and 2 million farms and ranches, both numbers have actually been on the decline in the last decade, while average farm size has risen.
In the US we currently divide it into 6 categories: farms which generate 1000-10,000 dollars of annual revenue, 10,000 to 100,000, 100 to 250,000, 250 to half a million, half a million to a million, and those that make more than a million dollars per year in sales. Many small farms are hobbies, side incomes, or tax shelters but it’s a little hard to distinguish those from small poor farmers, but I do know a fair number of wealthy professionals in my area who run their farm as some mix of tax shelter, hobby, or income diversification. I would guess we would see more of that in the future too, though it may fluctuate in time and place a lot in popularity. Anyway half of those two million farmers fall into the under $10,000 in sales per year class, and average 81 acres or 33 hectares of land, meaning they’re averaging less $100 in revenue from each acre. I feel obliged to mention that along with the part-time farming roles because very few of these folks are farming for a living, and while there are exceptions, this is not your poorest class of farmers, it’s the majority of farmers, accounting for around a tenth of the farmland, and whether poor or wealthy themselves, most of their income doesn’t come from farming.
That second category of 10-100,000 is your poor farmers category, containing about 600,000 farmers in the US, and averaging 304 acres or 123 hectares, and about a fifth of the farmland overall. These bottom two categories then make up 4/5ths of the farmers and less than a third of the land. I should note that this category also still includes a lot of part-time farmers too, so do not get the impression most of this category is hard-scrabble living, it could as easily be a doctor or lawyer who enjoys rural life, likes riding a tractor around, and has an accountant who is familiar with various farming tax credits. It includes
lots of part time farmers keeping up their inherited land while having a different career. This can also include a lot of homesteaders, folks who have opted for the self-subsistence lifestyle and the farm is their main job and they may have a part-time job, but the farm revenue is for buying what they can’t make. This is fundamentally the category that most folks who self-describe as farmers fit into, so it’s the biggest spectrum of reasons and backgrounds, whereas the category below it is rarely a full-time farmer. The next three categories above this is where we get into the area of almost exclusively full-time farming, those generating 6-digits of farm sales a year, and in those three categories 100-250,000, 250-500,000, and 500,000 to a million dollars in annual sales, we have 135,000, 89,000, and 71,000 farmers in each respectively averaging 1000, 1500, and 2000 acres of farmland respectively and fairly parallel portions of the overall farmland, each about 15%. The last category of over a million in annual sales makes up about 4% of farms and 25% of land. Incidentally we classify something as a ‘small farm’ in the US if it's under a
quarter million in income, which is 91% of all US farms. But keep in mind earlier we said the average farm was 444 acres, whereas the median farm size was well under 100. Fair amount of data, and very US specific I’m afraid. It is not universal though many of the trends are common around the world, unfortunately most countries aren’t as good about churning out data as the US Department of Agriculture is so we stick with that today. I think what it tells us
is that if technology stopped right now, we would probably see a convergence to 3 camps of farming, mid-sized operations for folks who wanted it to be their life and were able to keep it profitable enough to support a family, large scale corporate operations, and part time or hobby farming. Mind you that this also varies by state as much as nation, and also by crop. The reality is that growing corn, grapes, blueberries, or trees for lumber all bear about as much resemblance to each other sailing a boat, driving a car, flying a plane, or jumping a pogo stick. Technology won’t stay the same though so lets ask what the big shifts there will be. Again robots are the big obvious one, and we’ll come back to those in a moment, but anything that helps with soil erosion, water irrigation or desalination, weather prediction, and the cost and availability of nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus is capable of totally disrupting the agricultural industry, mostly positively for the world but in many cases not so positively for farming. Small things can have a big impact too, imagine someone manages to get an operation going that can replace plywood with a 3D printed hardwood, allowing wooden furniture and objects to essentially be printed to shape as though some master carpenter had selected the finest woods to work with.
Same, improvements in growing and processing mushrooms might result in a vegan leather with all the appeal and durability of normal leather but much cheaper potentially, while on the flip side, a civilization which began favoring synthetic meat or meat alternatives might see leather become as rare as ivory... or they could learn to grow ivory without elephants. Never rule out weird options a century down the road like a genetically engineered tree that grew bacon and had sap for blood. Or that someone might make ultra-cheap electricity allowing us to just churn out cheap irrigation water and nitrogen while centrifuging other minerals right out of the runoff water or oceans, or permit vast towers or underground caverns made of ultra-cheap and durable materials lit by LED lamps... see the arcologies episode or the Earth 2.0 series. Okay, now let’s talk about robots before closing out. No other innovation will alter the agricultural landscape as much as them and artificial intelligence, the two are not always identical. First, all our big farm equipment in modern
times requires simplicity over detail-oriented selectivity. Combine Harvesters are simplistic, but even a berry picker or apple-shaker is still a brute force approach to harvesting, compared to some smart drone that could carefully identify each piece of fruit at the moment it was ripe or carefully alter the soil in one specific spot a meter-wide. Instead of a few soil samples speaking to rough soil makeup for a large area, you can apply soil amendments to each plant individually with least use and waste. Same for watering. These are all different levels of sophistication of course but note that we’re not even contemplating something like a humanoid android robot in shape or mind yet. Nor would we be, the future wouldn’t be farming plantations with androids on them, it would be a bunch of different specialized equipment, some owned, some rented probably, doing specific tasks coordinated by a computer. A Smart Farm or Smart Farming. This is the drone that spots birds and drives them off, the smart camera near a beehive that counts where and when the bees are going or even inside it and analyzes them for parasites or has fake robot bees infiltrate the hive to do a waggle-dance to give coordinates to the other bees where a crop needing pollination is at.
It’s the one where the weather and markets are being carefully watched to give everybody a best guess how much of what they should plant, or a few best options to pick from, and is precision coordinating transport and storage for optimum efficiency. It’s the one where the tractor drives itself and sends notes when it needs maintenance and for what. However I think it’s a future where the spirit of farming remains intact, on the same farmland our civilizations have been using since the height of farming technology was a sharp stick, but also into the tundras and deserts, up in vast vertical farms or deep underground, in vast space farms or on alien worlds. It will be more automated, so we’ll see a lot more metal and silicon in the fields, but also more green in the ecological, environmental, and economical sense. And as a last prediction, while it was one of the most common professions of the past, and now is fairly rare, I personally think we will see that reverse, more and smaller farms, as automation improves, and more folks have a desire to go beyond the small garden to the small farm. It’s easier to contemplate having a
big lawn when you’ve got labor-saving tools and products for mowing, weeding and watering, and I think more folks would do more gardening and farming if similar labor-saving approaches emerge, the smart home transitions to include the smart lawn, the smart garden, and eventually the smart farm, greenhouse, and land management system. There are thousands of major innovations going on in agricultural all the time, we’ve barely touched on even a handful of them today, and the history of agriculture is a fascinating one too, it's often driven civilizations and I suspect that will still be as true tomorrow as it was yesterday and will be a century from now. As I mentioned one of my hobbies is gardening and another is cooking, and there is nothing better than working with fresh ingredients, and as we discussed today and in other episodes, getting produce from the farms to the dinner tables quick, clean, and safe is going to be critical to that industry in the near future and I’m happy to welcome on board our newest show sponsor, Hello Fresh, who excel at all of the above. They are a meal delivery kit service that delivers a series of meals with the ingredients and recipes in a box, and I thought we’d run a video of me going from unboxing it, through cooking it, to eating it, with the assistance of my lovely wife Sarah and my 7-toed mutant cat Flax. Hello Fresh delivers all their meals fresh to your door and you can be eating in about half an hour or less, but we’ll still accelerate the cooking process. Today we’ll be cooking White Cheddar
Wonderburgers & Old Bay Fries, and as a preview it tasted great, better than take out or delivery, and much cheaper. Everything is fresh, you still need to do your prep, but you cut down on time and waste as they send you exactly the right amounts for the dish, resulting in 25% lower carbon footprint than store-bought groceries, and fresher than them too, with the produce sourced directly from farmers. I love cooking but I often get interrupted while doing it, meaning I can’t always give it my full attention, so it's nice to have everything in the right quantity and a handy step by step visual recipe right there. I’ve also got a nice amount of space to film this in, but I’ve done a lot of cooking in dormitories, barracks, and even tents in warzones or over engine blocks before and so it was nice to see they didn’t require any elaborate tools or equipment for food prep. I also love the variety and weekly and seasonal changeups of the menu, to help break out of a recipe rut and try new things, plus for when you’re not wanting to spend a lot of time in the kitchen and don’t have a fast-forward button, they’ve got 20-minute meals, easy cleanup, and low prep options. Hello Fresh has more five star reviews than any other meal kit, and you can try them out today, just go to HelloFresh dot com and use code “ISAACARTHUR14” to get 14 free meals, plus free shipping! Eat fresh, eat healthy, eat variety, and eat sustainably, and again you can try it out for free today, just go to HelloFresh dot com and use code “ISAACARTHUR14”.
So that will wrap us up for today, but we’ll back this weekend for another Scifi Sunday here on SFIA, to take a look at the concept of living, Sentient Planets & World Consciousnesses. As mentioned, this Upcoming Thursday we’ll be looking at Convergent Evolution, the notion that certain traits - like eyeballs or a humanoid form - might tend to be something we would expect to see out on alien worlds. Then the week after that we’ll take a look at the notion of artificial intelligence being used for crimes, or being criminals themselves. Then we’ll close the month out with our Livestream Q&A on Sunday October 31st… Halloween.
Now if you want to make sure you get notified when those episodes come out, make sure subscribe to the channel, and if you enjoyed the episode, don’t forget to hit the like button and share it with others. If you’d like to help support future episodes, you can donate to us on Patreon, or our website, IsaacArthur.net, and patreon and our website are linked in the episode description below, along with all of our various social media forums where you can get updates and chat with others about the concepts in the episodes and many other futuristic ideas. Until next time, thanks for watching, and have a great week! [outro]
2021-10-15