Do you want to compare the percentage of corn of people's diet between now and then?
Do you want to compare the actual plant - size, nutrition profile?
Do you want to compare the growing methods - monoculture pesticide gmo corn vs heirloom corn?
Food forests being a big thing is disputed by some people, that doesn't mean they didn't exist, and it certainly doesn't mean that we couldn't do the same thing but better if we made an effort to.
It irks me when people use 'the way we do things now' to dismiss alternatives with great potential. What's the motivation there?
Where's the logic in saying 'we can't do that, because that's not how we are doing things now?' It's stupid, and it shows a complete lack of imagination.
"Food forests being a big thing is disputed by some people"
Food forests being a BIG thing all around the world is something many people, myself dispute. So you make a claim against the common consensus, it is up to you to proof your point.
"Where's the logic in saying 'we can't do that, because that's not how we are doing things now?'"
And the logic is, now there are way more people to feed. And I have actually seen quite some alternative permaculture communities. Usually they struggle to feed themself, let alone feed others(usually cannot live off their huge land at all). You cannot live off imagination. You need solid food.
And food forests do have some potential, but not to feed the world.
> And I have actually seen quite some alternative permaculture communities. Usually they struggle to feed themself, let alone feed others.
Maybe that's true. But, does it actually matter - at all - that some communities didn't work? It shouldn't, but you think it does. That's weird.
> food forests do have some potential, but not to feed the world.
Think those goalpoasts just broke the sound barrier. We went from "food forests would let people eat fruit with less pesticides" to "well they won't feed the entire planet".
And you're still wrong. Food forests will have a critical role in feeding the world sustainably. It's not just about calories - it's about soil health, diversity, fairness, carbon sequestration.
> You cannot live off imagination. You need solid food.
There's no call for this kind of condescending strawman. It's very much against the guidelines here.
"Maybe that's true. But, does it actually matter - at all - that some communities didn't work"
Can you point me then towards some communities, that do live off their land? Without pesticides?
Like I said, I have seen quite a few. But usually those with the biggest words had the lowest yield. And no doubt some can do it. (Conventional organic farming obviously does work). But the combination of permaculture and food forest and alike I have not seen work. Nice looking gardens, yes, but simply not enough solid food as an outcome.
And in general:
"There's no call for this kind of condescending strawman. It's very much against the guidelines here. "
Well, then maybe reconsider your words before?
"It's stupid, and it shows a complete lack of imagination."
> Can you point me then towards some communities, that do live off their land? Without pesticides?
Modern synthetic pesticides were invented in the 40's. Natural pesticides have been used for thousands of years. Your question doesn't seem to discern a difference.
> Well, then maybe reconsider your words before? "It's stupid, and it shows a complete lack of imagination."
That wasn't a strawman, nor was it personal. And it's 100% true, so I'll say it again - using the way things are done now to shut down ideas for making things better is profoundly stupid and unimaginative. If you think that mean I'm saying you are stupid, well...
"Modern synthetic pesticides were invented in the 40's. Natural pesticides have been used for thousands of years"
The difference is still the number of people between then and now. So far it is a hypothesis, that we can feed everyone without conventional agriculture methods.
Food forests were very much a thing, for a very, very long time. Thousands of years.