> Wouldn't the desired alternative be to have adequately wealthy, good quality of life farmers? Not realistic if 90% of the population were farming, as asserte

> Wouldn't the desired alternative be to have adequately wealthy, good quality of life farmers? Not realistic if 90% of the population were farming, as asserted before. Quality of life has risen dramatically over the last century or two exactly because people are no longer bound to the fields and are able to do and create other things. Put them back in the fields and where is the wealth and quality of life going to come from?