> What are the "obvious limitations"? There are many problems with today's industrialized agriculture, but I wouldn't call the limitations obvious. The article says it doesn't work well in Africa for instance, and I believe it, but isn't it just because we don't have the proper GMOs/fertilizers/pesticides for this kind of soil due to a lack of interest? Is there some "obvious limitation" that makes it impossible.
Basically pollution, resource destruction, and expense; from the OP:
> But today, the downsides of that kind of farming are becoming all too painful. Excess nitrogen fertilizer runs down watersheds to create vast dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere around the world. The rich soils of the U.S. Midwest or Ukraine, grown over thousands of years by billions of grazing animals, are almost gone, damaged by relentless plowing, blown away by the wind or washed away by storms.
> Everywhere, farmland is becoming increasingly acidic, demanding additional liming. Vast monoculture plantations act like an open bar to pests and diseases, forcing farmers to spend more and more on pesticides. Aquifers are being sucked dry, raising the cost of irrigation as new wells must be dug ever deeper. Industrial farming is engaged in a vicious circle of ever more inputs at ever greater expense to try to keep up with the challenges it creates.
> And often, it fails. About a third of the planet’s farmland has already been abandoned because of soil degradation.
20% of the African population is dependent on food aid. There are now more Africans living in Poverty than at any time in history.
How much of our agricultural bounty is sent as food aid, and serves to create only more hungry mouths?
Disabling all food aid, and requiring (/forcing) recipient populations to develop self-sufficiency, is a necessary step to fundamentally improving our agricultural systems. We can assist by providing education and family planning to Women in poverty-stricken countries.
> 20% of the African population is dependent on food aid. There are now more Africans living in Poverty than at any time in history.
> How much of our agricultural bounty is sent as food aid, and serves to create only more hungry mouths?
Also, I've read that such aid basically kneecaps the local economies. A large fraction of the local population is employed in food or clothing production, and the aid ends up just undercutting them and increasing unemployment (and even more dependence on aid).
Basically pollution, resource destruction, and expense; from the OP:
> But today, the downsides of that kind of farming are becoming all too painful. Excess nitrogen fertilizer runs down watersheds to create vast dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere around the world. The rich soils of the U.S. Midwest or Ukraine, grown over thousands of years by billions of grazing animals, are almost gone, damaged by relentless plowing, blown away by the wind or washed away by storms.
> Everywhere, farmland is becoming increasingly acidic, demanding additional liming. Vast monoculture plantations act like an open bar to pests and diseases, forcing farmers to spend more and more on pesticides. Aquifers are being sucked dry, raising the cost of irrigation as new wells must be dug ever deeper. Industrial farming is engaged in a vicious circle of ever more inputs at ever greater expense to try to keep up with the challenges it creates.
> And often, it fails. About a third of the planet’s farmland has already been abandoned because of soil degradation.