4 ms·

Edit: "wheat" -> "corn" "Square foot gardening" with hand labor isn't going to replace the 772 million metric tons of wheat and 1 billion metric tons of corn p

Edit: "wheat" -> "corn" "Square foot gardening" with hand labor isn't going to replace the 772 million metric tons of wheat and 1 billion metric tons of corn produced annually. Sorry, it just isn't. Given that it's January, why not try the experiment of producing all the food you personally consume this year using the techniques in this book? Growing a few tomatoes and a bit of lettuce is pretty easy, and is a fun and rewarding hobby. Producing every single calorie you consume using only hand labor and no chemical fertilizer is an entirely different kettle of fish. We actually ran that experiment for several millennia. It produced societies in which 90+% of the population were slaves, serfs, or other unfree agricultural laborers. I'd rather we not go back to that, personally.

Scoundreller 5y ago
Growing by hand for calories is a negative return activity. Industrial is just more energy efficient and who cares about artisanal sugar or cooking oil. Hand-Grow some herbs and tomatoes on the other hand and now you’re making dough.
- ramblenode 5y ago
  > Growing by hand for calories is a negative return activity. Could you explain what this means? Does this imply animal husbandry was necessary for agriculture?
- freeflight 5y ago
  > Growing by hand for calories is a negative return activity. Industrial agriculture, with the help of chemical fertilizers, has only been a thing since the early 19th century. I find it hard to believe that agriculture, in all the centuries before that, was negative in return. How did sedentary humans feed themselves for these thousands of years before that if not with manual agriculture?
  - Atriptothesea 5y ago
    //wiki/Claviceps_purpurea //wiki/Ignis_sacer hope this may help... (-:
  - Turing_Machine 5y ago
    I don't think it's negative, but it's quite marginal. As noted above, in most traditional civilizations, upwards of 90% of the population was engaged just in growing food, generally as unfree labor. The remaining 10% were priests, nobles, and soldiers to keep the peasants in line and working hard. Such societies typically also had famines every few years. We don't have famines in developed countries any more.
    - Scoundreller 5y ago
      They also supplemented their growing with animals.
jelliclesfarm 5y ago
With ag automation, paradigm shift.
_0w8t 5y ago
When historians looked into details, it turned out a serf worked less than 40 hours per week on average in the Middle Ages in France, less than modern workers. And he needed to feed both own family and his master.
- Turing_Machine 5y ago
  Umm... hours worked isn't the only metric for quality of life. I'm pretty sure that 40 hours spent in agricultural stoop labor is not the same thing as 40 hours sitting in a comfy chair in front of a computer. Also, you're just shining off the fact that they were serfs. I wouldn't want to be a serf even if I had to work only 10 hours per week. Would you? Not free to leave the land on which you were born, living in a hovel with no running water, toilet facilities, or central heating, maybe one change of clothes, fully subject to your master in all aspects of your life, including who (and even if) you were allowed to marry... > And he needed to feed both own family and his master. His master had to have 9 or 10 serfs doing that to produce enough surplus to support him. That was rather the point.
  - AtlasBarfed 5y ago
    Come on, a "modern serf" would have access to (Civil liberties discussion aside): - power tools - solar/wind/battery for power independence - internet for entertainment - running water in the house - cheap goods (clothes, etc are WAY MORE cheap and efficient to make now) So I'd say the day-to-day job is theoretically even easier.
    - Turing_Machine 5y ago
      I don't think a modern serf would have any of those things, because a society in which 90% of the available human capital is devoted to manual agriculture does not have the available labor to produce any of those things. At least, not for anyone other than the 10% of "lords".
  - _0w8t 5y ago
    I am not arguing about quality of life. The point is that less than 40 hours per week (it can be in fact close to 30 as less than 40 is a conservative estimate) was enough for a single person to feed a family and have some extra using manual labor.

Scoundreller 5y ago

Growing by hand for calories is a negative return activity. Industrial is just more energy efficient and who cares about artisanal sugar or cooking oil. Hand-Grow some herbs and tomatoes on the other hand and now you’re making dough.

ramblenode 5y ago
> Growing by hand for calories is a negative return activity. Could you explain what this means? Does this imply animal husbandry was necessary for agriculture?
freeflight 5y ago
> Growing by hand for calories is a negative return activity. Industrial agriculture, with the help of chemical fertilizers, has only been a thing since the early 19th century. I find it hard to believe that agriculture, in all the centuries before that, was negative in return. How did sedentary humans feed themselves for these thousands of years before that if not with manual agriculture?
- Atriptothesea 5y ago
  //wiki/Claviceps_purpurea //wiki/Ignis_sacer hope this may help... (-:
- Turing_Machine 5y ago
  I don't think it's negative, but it's quite marginal. As noted above, in most traditional civilizations, upwards of 90% of the population was engaged just in growing food, generally as unfree labor. The remaining 10% were priests, nobles, and soldiers to keep the peasants in line and working hard. Such societies typically also had famines every few years. We don't have famines in developed countries any more.
  - Scoundreller 5y ago
    They also supplemented their growing with animals.

jelliclesfarm 5y ago

With ag automation, paradigm shift.

_0w8t 5y ago

When historians looked into details, it turned out a serf worked less than 40 hours per week on average in the Middle Ages in France, less than modern workers. And he needed to feed both own family and his master.

Turing_Machine 5y ago
Umm... hours worked isn't the only metric for quality of life. I'm pretty sure that 40 hours spent in agricultural stoop labor is not the same thing as 40 hours sitting in a comfy chair in front of a computer. Also, you're just shining off the fact that they were serfs. I wouldn't want to be a serf even if I had to work only 10 hours per week. Would you? Not free to leave the land on which you were born, living in a hovel with no running water, toilet facilities, or central heating, maybe one change of clothes, fully subject to your master in all aspects of your life, including who (and even if) you were allowed to marry... > And he needed to feed both own family and his master. His master had to have 9 or 10 serfs doing that to produce enough surplus to support him. That was rather the point.
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  Come on, a "modern serf" would have access to (Civil liberties discussion aside): - power tools - solar/wind/battery for power independence - internet for entertainment - running water in the house - cheap goods (clothes, etc are WAY MORE cheap and efficient to make now) So I'd say the day-to-day job is theoretically even easier.
  - Turing_Machine 5y ago
    I don't think a modern serf would have any of those things, because a society in which 90% of the available human capital is devoted to manual agriculture does not have the available labor to produce any of those things. At least, not for anyone other than the 10% of "lords".
- _0w8t 5y ago
  I am not arguing about quality of life. The point is that less than 40 hours per week (it can be in fact close to 30 as less than 40 is a conservative estimate) was enough for a single person to feed a family and have some extra using manual labor.