>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 phy

>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.