4 ms·

> If that were true, we wouldn't exist. People did grow their own food for thousands of years. If everyone had to grow their own food, we'd be fine. All mechani

by stale2002 8y ago

> If that were true, we wouldn't exist. People did grow their own food for thousands of years. If everyone had to grow their own food, we'd be fine. All mechanization did was free up people from agricultural labor to do other jobs, humans predate tractors. This works when everyone owns many acres of land per person, and is spending their entire life working the fields, doing hard labor, and doing very little else with their life yes. We don't live in that world anymore, though. I suspect there isn't even enough physical land on the earth to support this inefficient method of farming. We have significant evidence of how this worked out for people. That world that you are describing, where everyone spent their entire life just trying to barely feed themselves, was a horrible place, for everyone. This period of time was called "the history of the world before the industrial era". And lots and lots of people died. So no, they were not fine. > It is a reality for lots of people, and we're pretty happy about it. By "a lot" do you mean a very small percentage of the total population? > My tomatoes cost me 2 minutes of time. What you do with your tiny backyard garden is irrelevant. It is mathmatically impossible for you to be feeding yourself entirely on that, unless you have multiple acres of land, which I doubt is what you are describing. Your anecdote does not overrule physics.

agsdfgsd 8y ago
>We don't live in that world anymore, though. Exactly, we live in a world with machines. Making it easier, not harder. >I suspect there isn't even enough physical land on the earth to support this inefficient method of farming. The calories produced per acre is higher, not lower. We need less land, not more. Why do you think it is inefficient? >That world that you are describing, where everyone spent their entire life just trying to barely feed themselves, was a horrible place, for everyone. That's a modern myth. We have detailed records of rural life in the 1500s. People worked fewer hours than they do now. >By "a lot" do you mean a very small percentage of the total population? Yes. It only takes one person doing it to prove your claim that is impossible is false. >What you do with your tiny backyard garden is irrelevant No it is not, it is the entire point. > It is mathmatically impossible for you to be feeding yourself entirely on that, unless you have multiple acres of land It takes less than half an acre of land to feed a person growing food for yourself. >Your anecdote does not overrule physics. Please point me to the law of physics which states plants don't grow if stale2002 doesn't want them to.

agsdfgsd 8y ago

>We don't live in that world anymore, though. Exactly, we live in a world with machines. Making it easier, not harder. >I suspect there isn't even enough physical land on the earth to support this inefficient method of farming. The calories produced per acre is higher, not lower. We need less land, not more. Why do you think it is inefficient? >That world that you are describing, where everyone spent their entire life just trying to barely feed themselves, was a horrible place, for everyone. That's a modern myth. We have detailed records of rural life in the 1500s. People worked fewer hours than they do now. >By "a lot" do you mean a very small percentage of the total population? Yes. It only takes one person doing it to prove your claim that is impossible is false. >What you do with your tiny backyard garden is irrelevant No it is not, it is the entire point. > It is mathmatically impossible for you to be feeding yourself entirely on that, unless you have multiple acres of land It takes less than half an acre of land to feed a person growing food for yourself. >Your anecdote does not overrule physics. Please point me to the law of physics which states plants don't grow if stale2002 doesn't want them to.