Malthusian crisis narrative¶

The world is going to have a population close to 10 billion people by the mid-point of this century and those who support the intensification of monocultural farming say this will be the only way to feed this number of people. What is your response to that?

No one’s asking us to feed them. In many cases, people are just asking us to leave them alone. So that, in a way is a PR ploy for big ag: “We need to increase yield forever, so that we can feed the world.” But the world does not want us to feed them. The world wants us to stop stealing their land and stop poisoning them and so on. At least, that’s my perception of the world.

— Bittman

Permaculture more efficient than modern large-scale agriculture¶

Raised in Farm of the Future.

Small-holdings, "nomadic gardening" more efficient: James Scott, passim in [(seeing-like-a-state, art-not-gov)] (and probably against-the-grain)

Addicted to grains?¶

Farm of the Future: grains harder to grow under permaculture, but we're "addicted to grains".

art-not-gov: eating grains was a habit cultivated by states, that wanted to settle and concentrate people (manpower) for easier state appropriation.

Non-state peoples equally chose to eat nuts, fruits, etc., or (sweet) potatoes and tubers, which were less visible crops and evaded state appropriation more readily.

Are we, humans, addicted to grains? Or just the historical predecessors of the states we're now incorporated into? Or perhaps, the centralised food systems that continue to exist only through massive government subsidies?