8 comments on “Hurrah! Sustainable farming can feed the world!

  1. Isn’t all farming sustainable?

    Plough, sow, reap, plough, sow, reap…and so on.

    Mummy cow/sheep/pig/goat meets daddy and has baby cow/sheep/pig/goat which grows up and meets daddy, etc.

  2. Why are people who make their living from writing so keen that other people should make their living by doing unpleasant manual jobs?

  3. People who advocate this sort of farming do not expect that they or their children will be the ones to plant the rice or hoe the turnips.
    During the Chinese Cultural Revolution which sent many “intellectuals” back to the land, the most favoured official song was
    “How I love to carry nightsoil (i.e. shit) up the mountain for the commune”.
    It was top of the hit parade for years!
    But these people see themselves in the Commissar class.

  4. This article is on the Opinion page of the New York Times because it contains opinions instead of facts. “this, however, is a supposition, not a fact” is a lie – the “green revolution” was heavily dependent upon the use of artificial fertilisers and a lot of liberals criticised it for that as poor farmers were less able to invest in buying fertilisers six months before harvest. Crop yields per acre on “organic” farms in the UK are significantly lower than those where artificial fertiliser is used – which is why farmers pay good money to buy it rather than relying on cowpats and pig slurry: perhaps Mr Bittman thinks 99.9% of British farmers are morons. …
    Secondly, the unsustainable agricultural practices are most often found in poor “underdeveloped” countries – which is one important reason why they are still poor – and in the USSR and its successor states (the Aral Sea has become too saline and is drying up because Gosplan decided that Uzbekistan should grow cotton in an unsuitable climate; Russian factory trawlers were the/a main cause of overfishing in the North Sea reducing stocks of many species below sustainable levels and the EU has for many years ordered fishermen to catch too many fish but throw some of them back dead). If we didn’t have artificial fertiliser then billions (no, that is not a typo for millions) would be starving because night soil collection is not sufficient when the world’s population is growing.
    Why has there been a move off the land into cities for the last four thousand-odd years? Well, because ever since the first city was founded, life in the city has been more pleasant than in subsistence agriculture of the type that Mr Bittman seems to advocate

  5. Well, because ever since the first city was founded, life in the city has been more pleasant than in subsistence agriculture of the type that Mr Bittman seems to advocate

    Lefties will tell you people migrated to the city having been forced off their land in the countryside. Every one of them.

  6. IMHO subsistence farming and war lie at the heart of all famines.

    The quicker we move away from that and the resulting natural creation of food distribution networks and infrastructure, the better.

    In the UK, supermarkets have about 2 days supply, so really they are being supplied in almost real time. 60m people fed at 2 days notice.

  7. Isn’t more mechanisation the reason we have more productive farms?

    These people just want to starve us all to death, really. Nothing says successfully implemented leftism like an engineered famine.

  8. Tim Newman:

    It’s true lefties are always referring to folks having been “forced off the land.” Looks to me as though they want to achieve the reverse by legislative means. Come to think on it a bit, didn’t Mao and Pol Pot have “programs” of the sort?

    Come to think on it a bit–maybe you could call that “being forced off the land.” Maybe the lefties are right after all, ain’t it?

    In a way, though, maybe they’re right about one thing. Though there are farmers who wouldn’t want to do anything else for their living, most folks don’t want to stay “down on the farm” and making $25K a year when they can move to the more urban areas and make (with reasonable skills and probably a lot less labor and responsibility) twice that amount.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.