“Organic growers must rely on mechanical cultivation that burns fuel and can lead to greater soil erosion or the use of fallow and/or cover crops thereby taking land out of production and reducing yields. Organic production has lower yields. All the land that can or should grow crops in the world is being used to produce food. If low yield organic farming techniques were to be used throughout the world we would need to drain the swamps and cut down the forests to make way for more land. High yield farming prevents environmental degradation by producing more on an acre of land.”

this is the very old tale of what came first, the chicken or the egg.

we produce because we need to feed the people in the world, or we have even more people because we produce more? So, it’s not a valid argument. It’s tautological.

second, what called my attention in the post is the idea of culturalization of the nature. Nothing, anymore, is natural. Everything is cultural, is produced by someone, in a place where isn’t the “right” place. In America we hadn’t horses before the spanish, english and the portuguese (and the others) to come here. Now we have breeds that are “trully” americans (i.e. http://www.cavalocrioulo.org.br/). They aren’t natural, they are cultural, they were built by the human.

Organic is not as the same as natural. It’s just the production (cultural) process that is something different from the other process. It’s cultural. It’s marketing. It’s what you want to call.

If this cultural process is better to the world is another topic, if it’s better for the human too. But it still remains a cultural process, not natural.