Together, nothing will get done.

Agreed! A more meaningful metric would be total cost and gross and net revenue per acre, sustainable people and/or livestock per acre, and (more difficult) total quality of produce (taste and nutritional value). These need to be considered over a long-term (years, decades) to determine whether it is sustainable as far as long-term soil condition, water retention, and resistance to pests, weather and precipitation patterns.

If you consider the total cost/net income of any agricultural practice, "conventional" industrial agriculture will lose, and badly. I believe permaculture-based practices will come out on top. If nothing else, based on the real-life examples of one man (and several others who have followed along a similar path).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sepp_Holzer

Sepp Holzer is The Man, when it comes to agriculture. I'm willing to bet he produces more diversity, quality and quantity per acre on his 45 hectare farm in the Austian Alps ( at 1100 to 1500 meters above sea level!) than any other plot on earth, on what used to be a sterile and acidic pine forest. All ON HIS OWN, without any government subsidies. On the contrary, he has spent his adult life fighting for his way against ignorant civil servants and self-serving "Large Ag" lobbyists who are determined to maintain the status quo. His farm has brought him wealth, fetching the highest prices for the quality and rarity of his product and livestock, but he's more in demand these days as a lecturer and to help with international projects to undo the devastation caused by modern industrial agricultural practices.

   

by lobbyists claiming to be fighting in the interests of "greener" energy. Bulb manufacturers weren't happy with profits from incandescents, so they lobbied to have them banned in favour of "longer lasting and greener" CFLs. Never mind the mercury, or the fact that they give off crappy light, or the fact that they don't last nearly as long as claimed (even under ideal conditions, such as 24/7 operation), or the fact that they cost a shit-tonne more, even with heavy subsidies. Oh, and Home Depot and other stores claim to discard them in a safe manner. I've been told by folks who work there that they dump them with the rest of the garbage - they just want your ass in their store to buy more stuff. In case you haven't learned the lessons from the CFL debacle, have a look at Australia, which is about 5 yrs ahead of North America in this sham. They brought in CFLs, heavily subsidized to the point where they were popular enough to be a real threat the incandescents. Then the manufacturers lobbied to have incandescents banned, as inefficient and harmful to the environment (my ass). Once this happened, the subsidies were dropped. Have a look at the prices of a CFL bulb now: http://www.shopbot.com.au/cfl-light/price/australia/38031

Maybe LEDs will be better in some way, but paint me a skeptic. Oh, and here's an incandescent light bulb that has been in continuous operation for 110 yrs. I wonder what they paid for it. http://www.centennialbulb.org/

I had a friend who almost triggered a bomb threat in high school when his science experiment, consisting of a video game controller fashioned from a football helmet, mercury switches and lots of wires, was found during a routine locker inspection.

Agreed, Google the following pioneers in this field and how they are promoting SUSTAINABLE agriculture Bill Mollison Geoff Lawton David Holmgren Sepp Holzer Masanobu Fukuoka

Are they also asking to log into my bank accounts so they can monitor my financial status and transaction history?

I do not have a specialized education or interest in the field of language design, but I agree with the premise that they are all abstractions over the implementation language, which is typically a CPU's micro-code. Given this, what I fail to understand is why some languages (I'm looking at you, C++) attempt to be the all-purpose language for all (or most) programming paradigms (imperative, generic, procedural, OO). This is sold as a benefit, but I'm not convinced. Why not use the best tool for a given job and design a language that abstracts one paradigm well and concisely. Implement interoperable components so you can mix and match the best of each breed.

Current industrial agriculture practices are not sustainable for many reasons, irrigation being a significant one. It depletes water and soil quality. There are alternatives. Do a search on Sepp Holzer, Bill Mollison, Geoff Lawton, and hugelkulture for a start.

I'll take sides based more on their underlying motives. Those that argue against global warming tend to have an interest in capitalizing on the exploitation of our environment for their own benefit while those who voice their concerns over the impact of industry to the environment tend to have an interest in the welfare of the rest of the planet.