While on the face of it, this sounds right, I've started to think there's a chance we are wrong. Can you really prove that industrialised agriculture has a high

While on the face of it, this sounds right, I've started to think there's a chance we are wrong. Can you really prove that industrialised agriculture has a higher carrying capacity than untamed nature? Supposedly the population of the USA pre-colonialism was comparable to today's population and, whatever way they were managing food systems, they were able to sustain that for millennia, rather than exhausting almost all the soil's fertility in a few generations. Then there's recent findings that pre-industrial fisheries were often as productive as early industrialised ones[0]. But again, sustained for long periods rather than rapidly leading to vanishingly small returns. Findings like this really lead me to the question of whether our current approach to feeding ourselves is actually so great or whether we should return to more "proven" methods. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/04/precolonial-first-nations-oyster-fisheries-sustained-millennia-of-intense-harvests-study-shows?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/04/precolon...