- Joined
 - Dec 22, 2003
 
- Messages
 - 37,904
 
- 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*:

*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.
					
				
					
				