Industrial Agriculture Debate

The premise of this argument is false. Pre-agriculture people were food supply constrained. Nobody is audiobook or other entertainment supply constrained today. And worse, modern farm produce is effectively worth zero. In many cases farmers are paid NOT to produce specific goods. And those who do MUST produce at purely artificial levels as to require the use of unsustainable, patented, and specialized chemicals or GMOs to break even. This entire line of research leads to spam and waste.

Actually, the farming trend is being reversed. We've realized that the compromises we have to make in order to produce enough to feed us with only 2% of the population results in food that is actually killing us and generating super pests.The trend is now headed back to more farmers working on smaller less efficient farms with out machines (or with fewer machines) or chemicals. So don't base your argument on the example of farming.

Try to analyze what you eat in an year and how much land is needed to produce it, then try to interpolate for a global population. Just count how much flower (as flower and as products made with it, from bread to biscuits) you consume in an year and how much grain, corn etc you need, with the relevant quantity of land needed. Than try to go the classic natural way, witch means manure and fertilizer derived from urine, compute how much cows, pigs, sheep etc you need both for milk, cheese, butter,

A lot of people would starve without industrialized agriculture.

While losing the animals would probably be pretty beneficial, the crops are also not without sin; they use a huge amount of land and are vulnerable to climate change. "Most/all food is produced in, effectively, chemical factories" is an interesting vision of the future; it would potentially do great things for food security and allow the rewilding of much of the planet.

Either we feed our species, or we die. Granted, we as Americans eat too much and waste too much, but even if we all stuck to 2000 calories a day and cleaned our plates doing it, 19th century and prior farming techniques would simply not support our current population. And I disagree with your last sentence. Fertilizers and pesticides don't replace dirt, they make it more effective at growing crops.

I think you're replying to the wrong comment? The article linked talks about how less area is needed for farming due to higher crop yields

Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea of it, I think grains are lowest-tier food and I would much prefer to eat the produce you describe.However, grains are the staple food, not just in the US, but around the world. To my knowledge no other method than having fields of grains buffed with fertilizer comes close to its caloric output.You're saying it requires "no inputs", but it actually requires a lot of land. The inputs you describe are plentiful, lan

This is an extremely over-simplified take. It depends on entirely on what the farms are producing, their water efficiency, etc. Nobody would seriously suggest that people go hungry so that we can have more chips, so responding as if that's the actual suggestion is unwarranted.

Well said.I would also argue that concerns over crops taking up too much land are somewhat misplaced until we reach a point where we at risk of not having enough farmland to feed the population. When we reach that point, only food that can be grown in ultra-dense (calories per acre) ways will be affordable, and other foods will be luxuries with a high premium.Until then we are enjoying our relative luxury of plentiful land, and can enjoy luxury crops and meat for cheap.Although this har