>>I still find it more efficient to assume incompetence of the masses, and revise my opinion upwards if needed.<<
Well yeah, I do that too.
>> Monoculture and factory farming are more efficient if the end goal is the biggest possible profit every year, with the clock resetting annually, and a bad year being an acceptable outcome (instead of a kill-all famine). <<
I would say rather, they allow you to produce the most food for the least work when you don't care about the damage done.
Intensive gardening requires considerably more effort but you can grow a LOT more food. I mean think about all the empty space in a tractor-tilled field vs. something like square foot gardening where every square inch is used or a food forest with its many layers.
>> I didn't know that. I wonder why they stopped? <<
Various reasons. Changing society, crowding, but a big part was industrialization meant fewer horses and thus less fertilizer. The market gardens relied heavily on a constant stream of nutrients.
Re: Yes ...
Well yeah, I do that too.
>> Monoculture and factory farming are more efficient if the end goal is the biggest possible profit every year, with the clock resetting annually, and a bad year being an acceptable outcome (instead of a kill-all famine). <<
I would say rather, they allow you to produce the most food for the least work when you don't care about the damage done.
Intensive gardening requires considerably more effort but you can grow a LOT more food. I mean think about all the empty space in a tractor-tilled field vs. something like square foot gardening where every square inch is used or a food forest with its many layers.
>> I didn't know that. I wonder why they stopped? <<
Various reasons. Changing society, crowding, but a big part was industrialization meant fewer horses and thus less fertilizer. The market gardens relied heavily on a constant stream of nutrients.