Homestead mailing list

[tom <tom AT honeychrome.com>]

On Feb 24, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Clansgian AT wmconnect.com wrote:

> ....Because when you look up my farm on an
> agricultural map, you find that the amount of agricultural land in  
> this end
> of the county (and for a 100 miles east) is zero.  It is classified  
> as marginal
> forrest and so does not deduct from the pool of land at all......


Excellent points and post.  The argument that organic/non-monoculture  
agriculture cannot possibly feed the world because there just isn't  
enough arable land really becomes tiresome, yet so many people pick  
it up and repeat it ad infinitum.  As industrial chem-ag (so called  
'traditional' or 'organic') becomes increasingly expensive to  
maintain, devoting more human labor to food production will become  
increasingly viable (and necessary), which will change the common  
definition of 'arable' land and upset the 'there just isn't enough  
arable land' equation.  American suburban lawns occupy an area  
roughly the size of Indiana- that land is certainly not measured as  
agricultural, yet if the same amount of attention and labor devoted  
to now keeping that land a pristine carpet of grass were devoted to  
intensive and diversified horticulture (which it will if prices at  
the grocery store go up high enough/people get hungry enough) it  
would produce a not insignificant amount of food.