h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Stuff grown using modern farming methods yields much more per square acre (or whatever they measure it with) which means less land needs to be used and abused for farming. Organic is less efficient. So isn't it "green" to go non-organic?

Using modern intensive farming methods 'abuses' the land far more. It's more damaging in the long run to the local ecosystem than organic farming, which has many sustainable aims built-in and is less intensive.

Yes, but fact is, if we only did organic farming most of the world would starve and we'd need a lot more land for cultivating. Which runs the ecosystem very prettily too.

Yes, it would be interesting to know how much more land organic farming needs.

As a matter of fact, I'm currently revising the impacts of intensification of farming for my A-level Geography exam. Here are the notes I'm learning:

Impacts on Landscape:
Removal of hedgerows to make fields larger.
'Industrialisation' - large new agricultural buildings out of keeping with landscape - an eyesore.

Soil:
Compaction by heavy machinery, and nutrients are removed by monoculture (growing the same crop every year). This leads to the degradation of the soil and its erosion. Fertilisers are therefore needed to keep the soil's fertility.
Agrochemicals (fertilisers, insecticides, etc) cause a decline in soil bacteria and organic matter, both of which are important for long-term fertility.
Over-use of irrigation water leads to salinisation of the soil as the water evaporates.

Ecology:
Nitrate fertilisers lead to water pollution and contamination. The soil has been compacted by machinery, meaning it is less capable of holding water. So fertilisers are more easily washed off the land and into rivers.
A reduction in biodiversity due to loss of habitat.
HYVs (High Yielding Varieties of crops) attract more pests, potentially unbalancing the ecosystem.

These are some of the things organic farming, with its less intensive approach, can help avoid.

And can you find out how much more space it would require?

No, but I would very much like to find out. Because if it takes too much space then our existence on this planet is almost certainly unsustainable in its current form. Either we don't grow enough food or we degrade our environment to the point where we can't frow enough food. So: either we starve...or we starve .

So much for fire and ice... I can't say I'm very worried. We'll just find more artificial ways to correct the problems raised by our artificial ways. The thing with doomsaying is that it doesn't take into account human ingenuity.

I think there's a limit to human ingenuity. You still depend on the land, no matter what you do with it, and if the land's crap there's only so much you can do. Then again, Karl Marx did say 'only the poor go hungry'. There's plenty of food to go around as long as you can afford to buy it.