>>13166379Good idea and quite feasible on a small scale where the energy input is through individual labor. It is exactly what they did in pre-industrial times, and it does work, along with things like crop rotation and regularly leaving land fallow. However on an industrial scale the cost can frequently exceed the return and produces no where near the surplus. Even on a local scale at best it usually just maintains the status quo of the soil. However it is a poor replacement for the current system in terms of agricultural production. Great for the environment, wonderful for the soil, yes certainly, almost infinitely sustainable, but far less profitable. And less profits in the food sector means only one thing. A decline in living standards.
So yeah, it works very well, but it also requires a return to an economy and life style more closely related to pre-industrial standards. And the normies are not going to like that. They want their cheap clothes, their cheap sugars and carbohydrates, their MacMansions, their second car and all the good shit that squandering the fossil energy reserves has brought us over the past 100 years. They want their dental surgeries, their hip replacements, their cellphones and air travel. As sensible as it is, as necessary as it is, your idea is just not politically or socially acceptable to the ignorant masses. Sit them down and try to explain the relationship between energy inputs, agriculture, industrialization and standard of living. Enjoy the 99.9% blank stares before facing the barrage of deniers while the rest wander off to check their phones for far more important things, like the latest cat meme or most recent Tesla crash. This is why its going to be forced upon us in an inefficient and relatively sudden manner, with all sorts of associated damage, rather than gradually adopted in a planned and rational way.
