3 ms·
Uh, no. Permaculture produces a fraction of the calories per acre of traditional monoculture agriculture. It is nothing more than an amusement for dilettantes,
by forgetfreeman 4y ago
Uh, no. Permaculture produces a fraction of the calories per acre of traditional monoculture agriculture. It is nothing more than an amusement for dilettantes, as is any other system that claims to significantly improve upon the ~12,000 of human experience with field-based agriculture. I'm in the process of converting a 20 acre tract of woods into a "productive" farm via a combination of aquapontics and permaculture, I just don't have any illusions that I'm doing anything other than fucking around for my own amusement.
- greenonions 4y agoDoes the traditional monoculture acres include the acres for fertilizer, the production of all of the equipment needed, fuel, seed, equipment and fuel for transport to final location, storage, pesticides, insecticides, and water? I agree that intensive agriculture is needed, but it's not so easy to compare the two.
- forgetfreeman 4y agoIt's trivial to compare the two unless you showed up to the conversation with an agenda or you're pretending issues with population density don't shit all over whatever counterfactual is being peddled by the homesteader-instagram industrial complex. One system feeds the overwhelming majority of humans on the planet, and takes most of the arable dry land surface of the planet to do so. The other produces a fraction of the food per acre, so unless you're planning on raising Atlantis you've got a serious problem to contend with.