- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,918
- Thread starter
- #31
Not always. (Your poster boy reduces it - but then it's got it GM-ed into it's very structure).As in an inverse correlation.
Very often this is the result*:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/056c4/056c49583727853b28ba1a14b0fbe3d2a5d40e3a" alt="1632924022035.png 1632924022035.png"
*from a quickly googled harvard paper. Of course, YMMV, but I'm not going to get into graph tennis. The above is largely a truism. And an unnecessary truism considering we can nearly eliminate use and massively increase calorie and nutrition density and benefit biodiversity through intense organic methods and crop rotation - as long as we increase human involvement. More farming jobs has to be better than more deliveroo riders.