I share your sentiment. In the case of farming is not so much progress as regress, at least in many cases.
For example, in Europe farmers can get the money from the EU, but only if they use certain seeds. So basically there are a couple of crops to choose from that get repeated year by year. What happens to the soil is a great disaseter. Obviusly nobody can use more natural kinds of fertilizers these days and the food gradually loses its nutrient value. The farmers are happy about announcing their bio certification but very few actually care about what happens to the soil. A similar "optimization" is being done with animal farming. It's disgusting and very far from actual progress.
Can you clarify the money for use of certain seeds bit?
I'm quite interested in EU affairs and hadn't heard of this.
I'd expect something that wouldn't give money for certain seeds but this seems like that turned around.
Frankly, I was very suprised to hear this, too. I visited a rural family last year and we had a short chat about this. I had expected the subsidies are for machines etc., but influencing the choice of crops in this way seems really misguided. Whoever created this had good intentions, but the results are lamentable. (The family in question still have a large portion of land they cultivate in a more natural way, alternating the crops properly etc.)
For example, in Europe farmers can get the money from the EU, but only if they use certain seeds. So basically there are a couple of crops to choose from that get repeated year by year. What happens to the soil is a great disaseter. Obviusly nobody can use more natural kinds of fertilizers these days and the food gradually loses its nutrient value. The farmers are happy about announcing their bio certification but very few actually care about what happens to the soil. A similar "optimization" is being done with animal farming. It's disgusting and very far from actual progress.