Just curious, figure someone on here will know

Edit: Thank you all for the great answers.

  • Beaver [he/him]
    ·
    11 months ago

    In modern time, we trade some space efficiency for automation efficiency, especially in the United States. Midwest USA agricultural production as an example, can feed ~1 acre per person, meat production included, and requires moderate energy input, and very little labor. But it's very possible to shrink that to ~0.1 acre per person, if you're willing to put more labor and capital investment into it, as well as changing people's diets. It just kind of depends on what you out of food production.

    • Frank [he/him, he/him]
      ·
      11 months ago

      That's really cool. I wish I knew more about it. I'm currently trying to convince people that the solution to wolf-reintroduction controversies is to feed all the ranchers to the wolves and un-fence America.

      • Wheaties [she/her]
        ·
        11 months ago

        I've wondered if a reimbursement programme would placate interests. Basically, state insurance on livestock lost to wolves, with a requirement of a wildlife official confirming it was a wolf responsible. Throw in a pre-requirement of suitable fencing, with a tax incentive for the installation costs. My guess is that a given state or province would seldom need to ever actually payout to ranchers.

        • Frank [he/him, he/him]
          ·
          11 months ago

          They do get reimbursed. Ranchers are notorious for defrauding the government for cows "killed by predators". Ranchers are some of the worst scum on earth. Their industry is only viable due to massive government subsidy. They brutalize the environment. They dominate politics in many parts of the west and they're the worst reactionary scum you can imagine. I do not mean "Feed the ranchers to the wolves" metaphorically.