>
>As we are the 5000-fold of 1 million now, things get a little tighter.
>Stone age agriculture reduced the space needs by a factor of 1000 (but for
>good soils).
>Organic agriculture today yealds some 3-10 fold more than this.
>Chemical agriculture of today yields 2-4 fold of organic agriculture.

Ver missleading  calculation . LIfe can't be reduced to a mathecatical game
.
thoses numbers doesn't take in accompte the ecological impact of those
different ways of food production..
This ecological impact is also proportionnally  related to the raise in
yield to the point that IN REALITY  and GLOBALY there is no gain at all ,
just the appearance of a TEMPORARY and GLOBALLY  made  improvment .
The ecological impact   of 1 acre in  chemical agriculture is responsible
for the impoverishment of many acres of land indirectly affected by what
comes in the system, ( the production of machinery ,fertilisers , fuel ,
pesticides , irrigation ...) and by what comes out ( pollutants of many
sorts) and this for generations to come
Organic farming timidly try to adress the ecological impact but it is still
serious  because it relie on many things coming from outside the system so
depleting other aeras of the globe ( machinery , organic fertilisers ,
irrigation , ...)
Some organic schools like biodydamic agriculture or even better permaculture
are closer to a closed system but there the yield fall per acre .
The only ecologically sound  way of farming is" The natural way of farming "
defined by Masonobu Fukuoka  because it doesn't upset the ecological balance
of the soil( from which everything start), respect the natural fertilisation
process ( rendering useless human intervention ) and optimise the
biodiversity in edible plants and animals .

>>In my experience, vegetarians want to argue that we can or
>>should only eat in a way that would support the largest (human) population
>>possible.  Mother Nature does not have that as her goal.
>
>I think this is off topic, it's not on nutrition.
>And I think your question should be put annother way round:
>If we are xx people at a place, how do we plan to *share* what we have?

I think it is completelly on topic the nutritional status of a population is
directely related to it's place in the web of life.

The number of peoples on the planet is not a fix number  it is fluctuating
according to death and birth rate and it is  globally intimatly related to
the amount of foods produced and of other species populations
But there is a limit in that ratio of peoples to other species  We are soon
to reach this limit thru desertification .Masanobu told us that a reduction
of  5 percent more  of the total biomass will bring us in a irreversible
stage of desertification.
The only option left  to Nature for Life to perpetuate itself on earth will
be to Recycle the human biomass and reduced it to a manageable
ecologically) size.
Can be done very quickly.
I will say  ,  in that perspective ,  that trying to improve yield is
criminal and irresponsible  . Nature if left alone is allways at the most
of it's potential.
doubting that demonstrate the narrow selfish perspective we have been
reduced to embrace.
Not a good plan!

The good plan is to work and focus on  quality and the best in quality
nutritionaly
speaking is  diversity of wild plants and animals . So we come back to the
starting point Hunting gathering . I found Natural way of farming as a
perfect transition  mean to go there .

Masanobu wrote that Pure Natural way of farming is hunting and gathering
and he managed to set up his land like that.( apart from sowing some grains
and seeds all what he have to do is to harvest )

jean-claude
.