Everything that an ideal farm is composed of should be ideal. No doubt about that. Every part of an ideal farm should be ideal, both individually, as independent items, and together, as a whole. An ideal farm need not to be located in an ideal space, though it could – however if it were, it would be even more ideal. The shape of an ideal farm should be ideal, too. If a sphere is considered an ideal solid, or having an ideal shape, then an ideal farm should be spherical, ball-like. And smooth. Smoothness is more ideal than roughness and ripples and wrinkles of any kind (though wrinkles and ripples also can be either ideal or not). What might such sphericalness (ballness) of a farm mean? That everything that such a farm is composed of would be packed into this ball (sphere), ideally, so in such a way that there would no empty spaces among the parts? Probably not, because if it were like that, nothing and nobody could move in through across and around such a farm, unless in a way grains move in a bag fully packed with them. Oh, this is not a good metaphor, since grains due to their shapes would not fit tight. This should be compared to a kilogram (for example) of sugar cubes in a cuboid box not opened yet… And if we have just mentioned the problem of filling a space tightly, we must admit that balls (spheres) are absolutely not ideal. They can not be compared to cubes. If there is at least one aspect a ball (sphere) is not ideal in, then a ball (sphere) is not ideal at all. Something is ideal if it is ideal in every respect (aspect). Unless we consider this ideal space filling not ideal. Then a cube will not be ideal, and ideal will be a sphere, for it will not fill a space ideally, and these empty spaces (not-fillings) will be ideal concave cubes (really? what solid will be the space among four balls touching each other? and among three?)... Even without further analysis of the details it's clear, that three dimensions bring a lot of troubles, so let's reject one dimension, doesn't matter which one, and assume that an ideal farm is one of many sections of this ideal sphere (ball), so it has an outline of a circle. A circle also seems to be the ideal figure (any section of an ideal solid must give an ideal figure, provided that this section is an ideal section), though it is not like that, because circles don't fill a plane which they are drawn on. Hexagons do, having at the same time the best (ideal?) circumference to area ratio... So what? An ideal farm could be triangular as well, or polygonal, or amoeba-like, with constantly changing border line (but with fixed area). For beautiful shapes are not the point. As a beyond-fence citizen used to say: it doesn't matter what colour the roof is, it matters whether it leaks or not. The shape of a farm is not important. Functionality is important. To make the distance from each other place as short as possible – to have the same distance from each other place. Or, to have everything in one place. As if to print all words on one page in the same place, one word on another – then our eyes shouldn't run wildly across and over whole page from one edge to the other – one piercing look would suffice – one look penetrating to the very bottom - - - - - Many a human would say that an ideal farm is a farm where nobody has to work because everything is being made by itself. How all this might be realised is of no significance – well, it means this is not a problem of a farmer – somehow everything would be made by itself. Nevertheless it's nice to work from time to time. Some people like it. They consider watching beautiful plants grow from the seeds they put into the ground fascinating. Of course, they would not protest when apples fall on the ground making no bruises on their gleaming surfaces, then roll gently towards a box to jump into it (oh, rolling should not be necessary – boxes could be placed right under the branches, so the apples would drop right into them, of course, with no bruises), though quite willingly they would pick up a few fruits with their hands since touching a juicy fruit warmed by sun is a wonderful and deeply touching experience, so why were they to give it up? Even picking up a whole box of apples would be welcomed with pleasure. However picking many boxes would be welcomed with disgust. Also all sorts of plagues and disasters would be welcomed with disgust. Big disasters. Small disasters could be quite nice entertainment in the monotony of constantly good crops and successful harvests. So, it wouldn't be bad if from time to time something wilted or did not sprout or got broken. The presence of all hideous and nasty beings would not be welcome kindly, either. An agreement should be negotiated making them do their necessary work invisibly, not showing off. Multifruit trees would be interesting. Two varieties of them: bearing fruits alternately – this year apples, next year bananas, next year nuts . . . . . . (with subvarieties: seasonal, weekly, monthly, or irregular, any), or bearing various fruits simultaneously – differently on different branches and boughs. The latter one seems more interesting, considering the fact different branches would have different leaves and would blossom differently. Weather should be ideal, too. It would rain only when it should rain, and where it should rain. Winds would blow only where and when they would be necessary and desired. Also sun would shine where and when it should. Clouds would move logically, predictably, and in order. Of course, small fluctuations and surprises could take place. Beautiful morning mists could cover the ground from time to time, sky could be covered by heavy, threatening clouds torn by furious lightnings, but all this could be only a kind of exciting performance. A tornado demolishing everything on its way is also an exciting performance, however it is not absolutely necessary to achieve the full aesthetic and intellectual satisfaction... Those who find the above thoughts as lethally boring as the live in this paralysing mildness, thus not worthy continuing, but worthy immediate interrupting, due to this threat, should consider the following sentence: it's not true that the one who was not devoured by a shark would not learn what the life is like – it's the other way round . . . . . unless the one is devoured at the old age. <<<<