[EnergyUnlimited]

EU has a history of posts like that. It has become annoying. My post clearly said I was renting the land.

Well, but how I could work out, are you a tenant or landlord?

Yes, I am impatient. I've been at this for 37 years and still people are in denial.

And they will carry on with that...
It is why our situation is hopeless and impossible to change by man's design.
Only Nature can help.

Is reality so hard to grasp?

No, it is easy.
We both agree, what humanity already have in store, and the only difference between us is that you being kind of idealist are hoping that there is still a chance to mitigate it by design, and me being realist know that such chance does not exist for reasons known as system inertia and other human factors.

Whatever happpened to critical thinking?

We both are criticizing status quo as unworkable in longer term.
Most of members of this forum are also accepting that.

[MonteQuest]

EU has a history of posts like that. It has become annoying. My post clearly said I was renting the land.

Well, but how I could work out, are you a tenant or landlord?

By reading this:

Love to farm without chemicals, but no one will rent the land if I insist on it. I also have two sisters and a brother who don't always share my ecological views. But my renter is a good farmer and doesn't abuse the soil. We still rotate crops.

I rent the land to a renter, therefore I am a landlord.

[EnergyUnlimited]

I rent the land to a renter, therefore I am a landlord.

OK, point taken.

[Omnitir]

Seems like most people didn't bother reading the article.

This isn't about feeding the US, it's about feeding the world. According to these studies, adopting organic farming in developed nations would result in a lower yield. However if underdeveloped nations were to adopt organic farming they could produce far great yields than if they attempt conventional agricultural practices.

So, if the entire world converted to organic farming, there would be much more food per person than trying to feed the world with petrochemicals.

But apparently the argument is that this doesn't matter because you still need to transport produce and work the land, and ultimately, it is apparently a bad thing to feed the world because it means more people will die.

But this does dispel the myth that petrochemical agriculture is the only way to produce enough food.

[bshirt]

Yes, COULD.

Americans will starve before they'll get their hands dirty. They'll spend $10/person on fast food even while their finances are crashing, rather than start out a garden with a few hens out back.

Jared Diamond's example of the Greenlanders describes it perfectly - Americans will die if they can't have things the way they're used to, the Greenlanders wouldn't eat fish, and when suburban Americans become homeless they always leave nice lawns behind.

Isn't that something?

Even in my tiny town in the plains there's "nothing" that gets folks motivated like mowing lawns. I swear most people just live for that stuff.

To this day, not one single resident here has showed any worries or interest whatsoever regarding PO/GW/fiat currency/national debt/etc....but they're 100% focused on "mowing".

I just don't get it.

[manu]

So most people will not change. Therefore, have a nice die-off.

[Tanada]

Isn't that something?

Even in my tiny town in the plains there's "nothing" that gets folks motivated like mowing lawns. I swear most people just live for that stuff.

To this day, not one single resident here has showed any worries or interest whatsoever regarding PO/GW/fiat currency/national debt/etc....but they're 100% focused on "mowing".

I just don't get it.

When it is cheaper to live in your home than it is to buy food people will shift priorities, right now despite all the whining and knashing of teeth it is still much cheaper to buy food than it is to buy shelter. With housing prices going down and food prices going up this may change at some point, but it is the rule of the road today.