In article ,
Josh Kalish wrote:

Billy wrote:
involved in the work of feeding that population. Industrial agriculture
did not 'save' anyone from that work, it only shifted people into other
forms of food service."

Ah, too bad that we can't become subsistence farmers again. Life was
truly better then. Damn science!

You don't read too good, do you boy? Using the latest, scientific
advances in agriculture, modern farmers are, in many places, less than
subsistance farmers.

-------

This strategy was laid out by the
technological Green Revolution, as it was called in the 1970s (when
"green" was not the word it is today), which promised that one farmer
with the right tools and chemicals could feed hundreds, freeing the rest
of us for cleaner work.

It sounds good unless you're that one guy on a tractor in Nebraska, and
the price of soybeans won't quite refuel your tank and pay for your
fertilizer. Elsewhere, it's worse. In India, Shiva says, 150,000 farmers
have committed suicide -- often by drinking pesticide, to underscore the
point -- after being bankrupted by costly chemicals in a cycle of debt
created by ties to corporate agriculture. Centralized food production
requires constant inputs -- fertilizers, pesticides and irrigation --
that in some settings are impossible to sustain, and chemical-based
farming virtually always damages the soil over time, whether in India or
Nebraska.

--
FB - FFF

Billy
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/