[briantakita]

Really. Don't let the marketing of large chemical manufactures fool you.

The UN has a report that small scale, distributed farming is more efficient & yields more food than large monoculture farms. It's been measured.

http://www.technologywater.com/post/69995394390/un-report-sa...

The only "disadvantage" is more people will be required to grow food. However, given the amount of people who are out of work & economically displaced, this would be a good thing. These people will be given autonomy & food sovereignty.

There is historical evidence that monoculture, petrol farming does not work. Look at the "green revolution" in India. India is moving back toward natural farming techniques because they work.

[Turing_Machine]

"These people will be given autonomy & food sovereignty."

You're kidding, right? Small-scale peasant farmers have historically been the most downtrodden and oppressed group. Serfdom or outright slavery is the norm.

"There is historical evidence that monoculture, petrol farming does not work."

No, there is historical evidence that it does work. China hasn't had a major famine in close to fifty years, and India hasn't had one since the 1940s.

Yes, there are still hungry people there, but you don't see the kind of mass die-offs that were common under the "natural farming techniques".

"The only "disadvantage" is more people will be required to grow food."

Cool. You get to go first.

[Turing_Machine]

Historical corn yield in Missouri:

http://crops.missouri.edu/audit/images/CornYields_MO.jpg

What was that you were saying about "does not work"?

Note that even in a horrible year, the yield is still about 3x what they were getting in the early 1900s. In a good year it's 7x-8x.

[briantakita]

> What was that you were saying about "does not work"?

Things that do not work: the overuse of till farming, soil erosion, drought, loss of habitat of wildlife, water pollution, inefficient water usage, desertification, famine, uneven food distribution, the reduction of nutrients in food, the obesity epidemic of the consumers of monoculture petrol agriculture, methane pollution from concentrated livestock, to name a few...

Note that the graph you present is a myopic & reductionistic lens on the system's performance. It is also based on the evolution of the tradition of monoculture till farming, which can work (in an unoptimal way) in forgiving (even rainfall through the year) climates, but devastates the ecosystem in brittle (uneven rainfall through the year) climates.

> No, there is historical evidence that it does work. China hasn't had a major famine in close to fifty years, and India hasn't had one since the 1940s.

Yes, look at the "fertile crecent", that is Iraq, Iran, etc. It was once a lush paradise that has been till farmed to desert. Look at the farmers in India who are going back to natural methods because they are going into debt due to chemical agriculture's exploitative & inefficient practices.

In China, look at the Loess Plateau being transformormed from desert into green land with Natural & Permaculture methods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBLZmwlPa8A

And famines happen all over the world. Centralized food production results in unequal food distribution.

Re: traditional agriculture, we have been improving on a fundamentally broken tradition for thousands of years; We & Earth's ecosystems have suffered. It's time to go back to basics & work with, not against, nature.

Reductionistic policy creates many externalized consequences, because we optimize for the things that we measure. In a monoculture mindset, we optimize for one crop. In a systemic mindset, we optimize for the entire system. Polyculture farms grow food by acre than monoculture farms. The many plants interact with each other to form a symbiotic food web, having introduce chemicals.

Natural farming techniques, such as no till farming, have been shown to consistently out perform chemical monoculture agriculture.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yPjoh9YJMk&feature=youtu.be and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masanobu_Fukuoka

One "challenge" is the diversity of the ecosystems on Earth call for a diversity in natural growing methods. There are many bioregions. The natural farmer needs to be in tune with the land & the ecosystem.

On a side note, we have an epidemic of overly reductionistic thinking, which tends to blind us from the bigger picture.

> Cool. You get to go first.

I am. I'm taking part in the solutions to humanity's biggest issues. You are invited to as well.

[Turing_Machine]

"Note that the graph you present is a myopic & reductionistic lens on the system's performance."

Measuring actual, you know, food output is "myopic"? Okay.

"Yes, look at the "fertile crecent", that is Iraq, Iran, etc. It was once a lush paradise that has been till farmed to desert"

That was done with "tradtional, natural farming methods", dude.

"Centralized food production results in unequal food distribution."

You couldn't be more wrong. Centralized food production and distribution is exactly why we don't have famines any more.

Where we do see famines, it's where the central distribution mechanism has been destroyed by war or by the government in the area being otherwise fucked up.

Your "must grow locally" idea is guaranteed to produce at least localized famine when the crop fails (as will from time to time).

Before mechanized agriculture China had a famine in one or more provinces almost every year, for over a thousand years.

"I am"

No, you aren't. Writing about it online and actually living the life of an agricultural stoop-labor peasant farmer are two different things. Entirely.

[Turing_Machine]

Let me ask you this: what is the largest percentage of your total caloric intake that you, personally, have ever produced for yourself using hand/low-tech farming labor?

Maybe you should give it a try before advocating it.