[modo_mario]

>Self sufficiency is net terrible as impact to the globe. It's obvious that specialization+trade gives us much more efficiency, be it in raw material usage, power usage, you name it, to create whatever product. Even space usage requirements balloon if everyone wants to be self sufficient.

I think you forget that the alternative hides a ton of externalities. For example those massive agri corporations are vaaaastly more efficient than me or my grandpa working our own gardens. But we aren't spraying or the like to contribute to insect population collapse. We're being rather damn space efficient, yet we don't use any fertilisers from gas and mining. We don't compact the soil or lose topsoil. and what we do produce is less deficient in micronutrients.

And as someone else already said. It really just means more self-sufficient.

[labcomputer]

Big agri corps can afford large tractors that till, plant and harvest more efficiently. They can afford to buy remote sensing imagery to optimize planting. In other words, there exist scale effects in agriculture.

You lose those effects if every hundred acres needs to produce all of needs of a human family. Self sufficient is less efficient.

You can bring back some of those effects with co-ops, but now it starts looking like a single large business with many owners again.

[modo_mario]

That's indeed what I was saying.

You don't get those things when being a lot more sustainable. You're not being more efficient with resources like time, labour, etc.

But I'm not pumping up gas for it, making the insect populations go into freefall as much, etc Am I being more efficient in my use of those?