* Sure, seeds germinate with water and warmth. But that's true today. In the words of an Australian farmer quoted in a research paper a few years ago: "Mate, we don't need a chip to tell us the soil's dry."
* There are other paradigms of agriculture that are actually sustainable. Agroecology is a good example of an alternative scientific paradigm for agriculture, one that thinks of agriculture in ecological terms.
Not all things are farmed like you seem to think. I own a commercial wild blueberry operation. Knowing this information, with less effort and cost, can improve harvesting methods and may do things like reduce the reliance on chemical weed mitigation strategies.
Microclimates are a thing. Water is not evenly distributed across any sizable plot of land. Being able to tell where the water is (or more importantly isn't) can surely help deploy resources more efficiently.
But, I'm a desk jockey, and hope to never, ever be a farmer.
You are right. I've been working a bit with the software for water management (although related to measurements of humidity over the day). Local management of resources does increase yields and sometimes just saves the crop.
Only if the same machine has to run on every farm in the world, without the option of learning what local conditions are or having them configured.
Machines operating farms in Australia can easily just assume the soil is dry, like the farmers do, as long as they don't also have to operate farms in Louisiana.
That's at least partially true. World population in 1850 (before the use of modern fertilizers) was about 1.6 billion. Then you have to take in account mechanization of agriculture and genetic selection of varieties, which also probably multiplied the yields several times.
But I would argue that all these practices are part of the aforementioned "traditional agriculture".
Well, mechanization is powered by oil, yes? And genetic engineering could be applied in any case.
In any event, you haven't made an argument that "traditional agriculture" is more efficient than applied ecology (Permaculture is an (the?) exemplar.)
Yield per acre is greater in a Permaculture farm than in a traditional farm, often by as much as an order of magnitude or more. Inputs are fewer too.
More importantly, under Permaculture the soil improves over time, while in traditional agriculture it is degraded and eventually becomes desert or wasteland.
A well-designed permaculture system should exceed industrial farming if you are talking about productivity per square meter. The problem is that the amount of labor required is totally unsustainable to feed billions of people.
That's where I see smart technology playing a role. Industrial agriculture involved building farming techniques around the machinery we have available. We "just" need to invert that approach and build smart machinery that enables us to glean food from highly-productive ecosystems.
> the amount of labor required is totally unsustainable to feed billions of people.
I disagree: in a well-designed system there may be a lot of labor in the beginning, but it should fall off within a year or two to a very low level, much lower than conventional farming.
(I admit a lot of "Permies" don't seem to set it up this way.)
Maybe you mean everyone growing their own food? That's not sustainable.