Not going to be anywhere near enough food for one person unless you have more land available for yourself than people in a city or even most modern suburban developments are likely to have.

i did a study on area needed for food production a while ago, and IIRC

• per person, about 1000 m² are needed to feed them. depends a bit on where you live though
• fertile land produces around 3.5 t of grains /ha on average. with modern technology, the peak is 7.5 t/ha
• by far the most area is needed to grow calorie-heavy foods. like, you could get far with 30 m² for yourself if you only plant vegetables and buy the grains at the supermarket
• grains are really cheap, compared to vegetables. that’s because vegetables are labor-intensive (difficult to automate because they’re often fragile and sensitive) while grains can be automated on ultra-large-scale farms with farming machines, so they’re really cheap.

Note: 1 t = 1000 kg, grains = cereals

EDIT: after thinking about it for a couple of hours, my take was really bad, and i’m gonna clarify:

There is significant difference between the republicans and the non-republicans in the US, which is that the republicans are extremely racist. And that’s not just a “little bit of racist”, but a “fucking huge bit of racist”, on top of that. So there’s a clear distinction.

As a side fact, i’d still like to point out that “fascism” as a term is surprisingly difficult to define. Everybody likes to be “against” fascism, but it’s an emotional catch-phrase without a cut-and-dry definition. That’s why i tend to avoid it in discussion, or if i do use it, i give it the following meaning: “Fascism is an illegal way of seizing power in order to do something that you want.” Note that illegal does not inherently imply immoral. There can be moral causes for why somebody does something illegal, such as with slave uprisings as happened around 1800 in northern america. That, according to my definition, is illegal (in the sense that the law said it’s illegal), but not immoral, but since the definition of “fascism”, according to me, concerns whether it’s illegal to do something, not immoral, it would have been fascist too, by that definition. That’s to show that fascism is not inherently good or evil, but it depends on what you do with it.

the original comment is below for historical purposes

I used to think that “left” and “right” were diametrically opposed terms, but i don’t see it that way anymore:

• imperialism: Imperialism means to conquer other countries for the sake of imposing your own norms and values on them. That’s actually what the northern states of the US did to the southern states of the US before they became the US. sure, lots of people argue that the values were worthwhile (being against slavery), but it’s still imposing your values on somebody else.
• fascism: at this point, i’m not sure what “fascism” even means anymore. isn’t it just to do something illegal to get what you want? isn’t every change in human history illegal, before it becomes the new norm? wasn’t it illegal for gay people to stand for their rights in the 20th century?
• because it’s a recent topic, i’d like to give another neat example: liberals from the coastline will loudly proclaim that the conservative “child marriage” (starting at age 14) laws are a monstrosity (because that’s, idk, child abuse or sth), but at the same time, you will find in many schools in the coastside a subject called “sex education” where people learn to use condoms and such. such classes are typically held at about age 13 or sth (well, it was for me). guess why they do it? because they recognize that teenagers do in fact have desires to experiment with sexuality, and offering the courses is simply recognizing that and making the best out of it. [EDIT - ok nvm this point, i don’t actually know exactly what the “child marriage” laws say precisely, and i’m not aware how they’re actually interpreted in practice, so i guess this point is void.]

it’s even really difficult technically, because you have to keep the propellant cool on the surface of mars while you stay there, which is really difficult. in outer space, it’s possible because there’s only sunlight as a heat source, and if you create a shadow, then it’s chilly as fuck, but on the planet surface, winds will carry heat to the fuel deposit and eventually warm it up, and cooling that amount of propellant is expensive (energy-wise) as fuck.

a good compromise is something that everyone is unhappy with, and the EU is such a compromise

Mars will be the next US. it will be hypercapitalistic tech-bro place

the world is actually a database, i believe. reality (the material world around us) is just the user interface.

Infinite growth is not sustainable and will lead to ruin fast.

infinite growth is not sustainable in a finite space, but if you develop spaceflight, you have literally infinite space available, so the argument falls flat.

i just wanted to add that addition. it’s actually why spaceflight is pushed forward in america, because it enables growth without destroying the planet at the same time.

We need to fundamentally change our values to prioritize life over money.

while i agree with the sentiment, i want to point something out.

when you say it like this, somebody else will read it and say “aha, so instead of maximizing money, we have to maximize life, which implies forcing women to have babies. pro-birther confirmed.” and that’s probably not what you intended.

so i guess one could maybe modify your statement a bit to make it make more sense in some other people’s eye.