I have a few issues with your statements: > the most amazing abundance the world has ever seen This abundance requires a lot of fossil fuels, which does not a

I have a few issues with your statements: > the most amazing abundance the world has ever seen This abundance requires a lot of fossil fuels, which does not appear to be a long-term sustainable mechanism. How productive are modern methods if the amount of oil used is reduced by 95%? Modern methods, as applied to Maui, caused agriculture production to switch to pineapple and sugarcane, significantly decreased soil quality, and contributes to species extinction. This does not appear to a be long-term sustainable process. The economics requires cash to pay for the import of 85-90% of their food. The cash comes from tourism. The recent pandemic shows the fragility of the system, because when tourists don't come, locals don't get money. How will they pay for food? The method is being applied to land that modern agriculture deems "lifeless", so it is not replacing existing agriculture. > to throw away modern agriculture and go back to just eating whatever happens to grow naturally and hoping for the best. The article describes an artificial system with humans highly involved in the process. This is not simply "whatever happens to grow naturally". Or as the article puts it: "It isn’t just about looking back, but rather mixing ancient regenerative farming practices with modern tools and technologies to meet the climate and food challenges facing Hawaii in the 21st century." Quoting one of the farmers: “Our yields cannot match industrial farming but our return on investment is the healthy land and water we’ll leave for our kids … this isn’t just about bringing back the rains, it’s the right thing to do as Hawaiians.” How important is cheap pineapple and not-so-cheap sugar [1] to you to justify poor quality land and water in Hawaii? [1] U.S. trade barriers result in doubling the price of sugar in the U.S. compared to the rest of the world.