I believe it would. Industrial farming, including all of the chemicals it uses, completely destroys soil. Mother nature builds soil . Take a close look at the "soil" in imperial valley, and the "soil" that grows our grains. It is only a growing medium requiring massive inputs. Massive money. Massive transportation. There are many examples out there that prove we can feed ourselves with a surplus and while building soil. Just like everything that goes against the status quo, you may have to dig to find them. The biggest argument currently against the change is that farmers who change do not see improvement or a good crop within 5 years. Most of them will be broke in that time so cannot afford to try it. Just as we all see the time it is taking to clean out anything our enemies have created , our food systems will take time to turn around.
Just for conversation sake, permaculture and regenerative farming could get rid of much of the emissions that are created by industrial farming.
By no means am I calling you a net zero dipshit, by the way.
Using the method you mentioned, would that sustain the current population? I am asking, not trying to make a point.
I believe it would. Industrial farming, including all of the chemicals it uses, completely destroys soil. Mother nature builds soil . Take a close look at the "soil" in imperial valley, and the "soil" that grows our grains. It is only a growing medium requiring massive inputs. Massive money. Massive transportation. There are many examples out there that prove we can feed ourselves with a surplus and while building soil. Just like everything that goes against the status quo, you may have to dig to find them. The biggest argument currently against the change is that farmers who change do not see improvement or a good crop within 5 years. Most of them will be broke in that time so cannot afford to try it. Just as we all see the time it is taking to clean out anything our enemies have created , our food systems will take time to turn around.