4 ms·
That is nakedly not true at all for yields and shows a massive ignorance of history, trophic layers, ecology, and economics to declare it less productive. Less
by Nasrudith 7y ago
That is nakedly not true at all for yields and shows a massive ignorance of history, trophic layers, ecology, and economics to declare it less productive. Less biodiversity by definition but that is essentially the whole point of agriculture - producing what you want.
Permaculture really seems to be the new Lysenkoism. They keep on making grand claims about their sustainability and output and how it is the only sustainable way yet their yields aren't even any better than conventional farming with crop rotation.
If you want to preserve nature your best bet is unsexy density - scales better than local and distributed. Even solar and wind which benefit from being spread around are still clustered.
- carapace 7y agoYou haven't had time to watch the video? > Permaculture really seems to be the new Lysenkoism. No need for insults. > That is nakedly not true at all for yields and shows a massive ignorance of history, trophic layers, ecology, and economics to declare it less productive. Yeah, I actually know a lot about this and you are just plain wrong. Agriculture has always been destructive. The masses of people have historically been miserable and malnourished, suffered from regular famines, etc. Applied ecology generates greater yields per acre, and per unit of labor input, than any other system we have tried. It's a new form of civilization.