No wonder it has continued throughout time. It's once we try to farm intensively that we see issues.
So this is a model for sustainability. How does this scale to replace the industrial farming?
Every locale should be responsible for its own food security. As each locale is different, there is no universal solution. Each locale will need to be resourceful and adapt according to its own climate and what resources are available in its vicinity.
Sadly, some locales are unprepared for food self-sustainability, and the denizens of these places will have to find a way to adapt eventually, whether by will or climatic/geo-political event. Better sooner than too late.
https://www.eldiario.es/economia/afronta-empresas-alimentos-...
Much better to farm elsewhere and transport the food, imho.
The part that I find interesting to think about is the relationship between the areas. We require intensive farming to sustain the current lifestyle of people, yet most are very disconnected from the source of their food. If we grew more food locally (impractical given the current setup) then people would witness the impacts of intensive agriculture. This might also help constrain population levels closer to sustainable numbers because people see how finite the resources are.
I've seen a variety of estimates of how many people the world can support. But I haven't seen any that estimate how many the world can sustainably support. If we aren't thinking longterm, then we're just trudging towards bigger problems with many of the smaller ones we solve. For example, use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer from non-renewable sources, or biosecurity threats from fast international travel and trade, or overfishing, etc. Pretty much all due to demand for food and the modern lifestyle.