Nobody has ever disputed that mechanization and intensive use of herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers will increase yields in the short term. But what we are currently experiencing are the long-term consequences, which together with the effects of climate change and the vulnerability of global supply chains pose a real danger to food security around the world.
We are much better off with them than without them. Someone might say, when their car breaks down, 'being dependent on this car is causing me serious problems; I'm better off with a horse'.
It’s not a “with or without” question. Is a “do we want to rely on the behavior of a country like Russia or China, or do we want to assume that these supplies are risky so let’s model and mitigate that risk” question.
It kinda was a with or without question in the parent comment, that we will starve and the planet will die if we use monocultures. Hence my comment. Of course I agree with you that agriculture can be more robust, but 'native Americans did this technique with low intensity method to feed a small population so we should' is about as facile as the 'trade cars for horses' example
