As a social scientist, I hate to be the one to has to say this, but you have to be skeptical of data and statistics.

When people say "show me the data that regenerative ag can feed the world" they don't realize this question makes no sense.

When you see worldwide data on agriculture and land use (cutting down trees for example) what you're seeing is *industrial* ag. They collect data on these practices because they are standardized practices that are done according to specific **corporate** rules.

So you think "wow agriculture is so destructive. Humans suck. Eating is an act of environmental destruction." Because all you're looking at is the data from entities that do the worst farming in human history.

Typically, peasants don't collect data. Why would they?

Imagine saying to a peasant: "show me your ghg emissions per calorie and compare that by specific foodstuff. Show me your calories per acre and soil erosion stats!"

You can see that this is a kind of imperial question. Like the diverse, ecologically specific peasant livelihood is only valid if *we* measure it according to corporate agricultural standards.

There are scientists studying specific farms doing a kind of Global North version of regenerative ag, and the data look very promising! Multi use farms that stack livestock with low tillage plant ag are *sequestering* carbon and providing tons of nutritious foods!

"But, but, but that's just one farm!"

Yes, exactly!

To answer the question "can it feed the world?" We need to go on an imperial quest to measure every beautiful, diverse way of farming of every peasant in the world according to *our* way of knowing.

"Peasants you must prove your worth to us according to our data parameters! (Which we developed to understand our own environmental destruction because we invented a form of ag that's never existed that destroys the earth)"

So, literally right now policy makers are convinced industrial plant ag is better than CAFOs (which it is *less bad*) and are stealing land from peasants to plant "pea protein" because if the peasant isn't measured according to our data they are invisible and will be destroyed.

So if you're waiting until we can prove on a global scale that peasant, regenerative, ecologically embedded ag is better than industrial ag, please don't.

There is no industrial money to do this science and it will therefore never be done.

Science can be a tool for understanding. But you have to understand how it works and who it serves. Use your intuition, or better yet, *go experience* a regenerative farm and see how it works.

Not to mention all the unmeasuable concepts like reviving rural areas, meaning, community, health and everything else that doesn't fit into "but what are the ghgs?" https://twitter.com/gettingclaudia/status/1360637189001015296?s=19