I think that frame was correct for a long time, but things that are generally true in one generation can be false in another. Small, undercapitalized, under-in

I think that frame was correct for a long time, but things that are generally true in one generation can be false in another. Small, undercapitalized, under-industrialized farms were an issue for a long time... in some/many times and places this was the bottleneck on the green revolution. That doesn't (necessarily) mean it's the case here. IE, the economies of scale when going from a $100k farm to a $10m may not apply to a move from $10m to $1bn. I think this is ultimately the question: Are there real economies of scale edriving this. If/where the current transition is being driven by finance, it's a different kettle of fish. IE, If it's just cheaper/easier to finance megafarms... which I think is the case, it's not real economies of scale. It's securitisation. As the article mentions, extreme scale and centralization has some serious side effects. Industrial farming is the story of several centuries. It has major triumphs, like the feeding an extraordinary human population. It also has major dark spots. Slavery, and centuries of moral failures of the colonial "plantation" model. But it also caused several famines and other such collapses. For an old analogy from the early days... Agribusiness that the British East India Company could profit from was often at odds with producing food. Douglas Adams has a fantastic essay (section) about Dutch agricultural industrialization reforms in Bali. If nothing else, there's a major "eggs in one basket" problem... an even bigger problem when it comes to ecosystems and biology than elsewhere.