The ceaseless proliferation of polluting substances like forever chemicals, plastics, and pesticides stands as an unequivocal testament to humanity's reckless disregard for the wellbeing of our planet and its inhabitants.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#/media/File...
Are there consequences? Absolutely!
Were the benefits or costs greater? Now that's a more interesting question.
Hint: it does. https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/why-use-lead-in-paint/30...
Or CFCs over replacement fluoropolymers?
Replacements which, circling back to the OP, may be decomposing into persistent organic chemicals. https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-pollutants/CFC-re...
Sometimes you get something for free, but more often you're trading something in exchange for it (at minimum, cost).
Maybe it's a valid trade-off, maybe not.
But ignoring the consequences on both options is an incomplete comparison.
But we can feed people, so it's probably worth it.
1. "79% of studies reviewed reported that smaller farms have higher yields, with yields increasing 5% per 1ha decrease in farm size."
2. "77% of studies finding that smaller farms have greater biodiversity at both farm and landscape scales"
3. "no statistical evidence for farm-size relationships with resource-use efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions, or profitability"
Here's another paper that specifically breaks down people fed per hectare: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034...
Sure, industrialization has had some benefits, but it is also full of bad actors who internalize profits and externalize their effects. Example: These chemicals we KNOW are bad and unsustainable, but whose use we do not change because it is cheaper so someone at the top can keep making money.