Assuming the land in question is arable in the first place …
There's land that isn't good enough to grow crops, but is good enough for wild plants to grow. You can, as you said, 'manage' it - give enough fertiliser and water to make it suitable for agriculture. But that is often unaffordable for the people living in such places, so using animals to gather and concentrate the available nutrients is the best option available to them.
There's an element of truth here, in that parts of the world have a system where farm animals eat stuff humans can't, such as wild grass, kitchen waste and straw. But modern 'factory farms' do use insane amounts of growth su0lements and medicines, which are just as bad.
1nf0warez
I don't get it. If an organisation loses its tax-exempt status, it will have to pay tax. This would definitely be bad news for the organisation. But how does it 'kill any nonprofit’s ability to function'? Why would they be unable to get banks to service them or get donations? Is it just hyperbole, or am I missing something?
Look at what Labour did to Corbyn.
It's a public service. It needs to be corrected, not abandoned.
The smaller the eye, the stronger the wind?
If enough of them sell, the price will go down, so at least they'll be selling at a 'loss' and people will be able to buy them at reasonable prices.
The CSA precedes the Nazis. In fact, Nazi race laws were partially based on slavery laws from the southern US.
NATO losing to Russia in Ukraine, and to the Houthis in the Gulf of Aden, will send a message to a lot of neutral countries that (1) NATO can't / won't protect you anymore, and (2) you can push back against NATO and win or at least gain concessions. NATO will still be the single largest military bloc in the world, but they'll actually have to negotiate, maybe even compromise.
People who are forced to work fewer hours can often do more work in those fewer hours. Opposition to the four-day week, like opposition to free healthcare, does not even make economic sense. It is purely a form of sadism.
The economist Amartya Sen, who studied famines in South Asia and Africa said that 'starvation is the characteristic of some people not having enough food to eat. It is not the characteristic of there being not enough food to eat." Producing more food than we need means nothing if it does not reach everyone.
I would say it is more of a food-allocation problem. Land redistribution is a great thing, and has worked in the past. But natural disasters and crop failures can occur in regions, and larger farms can benefit from long-term planning and more scientific management. So the better solution, in an ideal world, would be to focus on guaranteeing food rather than land.
Solving food security will of course greatly reduce this problem, although personally I am worried that food availability will get worse in the coming years and decades due to the various ways in which we are damaging the environment.