> that cuts into short-term profit margins. We can always change how profits are made in farming, and farming tends to be one of the areas that even "free mark

> that cuts into short-term profit margins. We can always change how profits are made in farming, and farming tends to be one of the areas that even "free market" economies like the US tend to interfere the most in. I would be far far far more concerned about the change in labor requirements needed to use these methods. If we suddenly need 30% of our workforce working in fields in order to feed ourselves, profit is not the problem. And we also need to evaluate these methods for actual increases in ecosystem diversity. When it comes to the ecosystem and land use, most of the population evaluates aesthetics rather than actual environmental impact in terms of how much of the non-human ecosystem is allowed to flourish. Which, for example, results in lots of people thinking that placing their homes in the midst of lots of greenery, sprawled out, is more environmentally friendly than a multi family apartment complex, or a small village with houses right next to each other, where you can walk for most of your daily needs. Whereas in reality in most ecosystems, the constraint is land untouched by humans, so that apex predators have enough land to exist, and enough of the smaller creatures to feed them. It is very good for humans to live amongst nature, but especially with suburban sprawl we have taken that desire to live amongst nature and made it one of the most environmentally unfriendly ways of existing.