"Each Kansas Farmer feeds 128 people + you," say the billboards posted around the state. The Physiocrats of the 18th century actually believed that all material wealth was derived from agriculture. Farming moved humanity up from the wasteland-existence of hunter-gatherers and made the development of cities and modern society possible. Without farming, we'd still be wandering around with clubs and drawing on cave walls.

And yet, in recent times the agricultural community has come under attack. Animal rights activists have broken into feeding operations to "release" pigs into the "wild." Prominent people, exemplified by Bobby Kennedy Jr., son of the presidential candidate and a prominent environmental lawyer, has made it his quest to run industrialized agriculture into the ground.

These people argue that an attack on industrialized agriculture is not an attack on farmers. As a farmer's son, who spent his whole pre-college life in the country and has thrown his fair share of bales and run his share of cattle, I beg to differ. Sure, environmentalists could survive just eating locally food grown on small farms like mine with grass-fed cattle and cute little plots of corn, but the rest of us might just starve.

Let me start with why there is industrialized agriculture. One word: efficiency. Adam Smith - the god of modern economics - saw that people liked food, and farmers liked money, so he directed his invisible hand to tell farmers to get as efficient as they could by building economies of scale and using technology to the fullest. This means that animals get packed in large groups and cramped circumstances so that cattle feedlots can save costs and increase production. The result: you get more tasty steaks for cheaper than you would.

I'd bite into that.

Now take away that efficiency. What you're left with is much less and more expensive food. The ramifications are pretty far-reaching.

Industrialized agriculture is the only way we can live in the land of plenty. America is blessed with great quantities of inexpensive food; our obesity index is indication enough of that.

Concerned mothers crusade all over the United States against the "obesity epidemic" happening here. Taking away agricultural industrialization would unleash a real epidemic of starvation. Right now, we have so much food that we export to the poor countries in the world, giving them a chance to eat as well.

Is it reasonable to expect food to remain affordable to low income families, even in the U.S. if they are forced to buy food that isn't a product of industrial agriculture? Even "organic" food, which only sheds some industrial practices, is often much more expensive than the standard, industry-made, food. Would it be better to eliminate industrialized agriculture and let the poor in our cities starve?

Agriculture is one of the few industries that the U.S. actually exports more than it imports. We help to feed the 6.7 billion people of the world and there is no way in hell to feed that many without industrializing agriculture. And why would we want to try going without these exports to the hungry world? With the current economic situation, it would hurt us greatly to cut out that valuable export industry. Cargill is the second-largest privately-held corporation in the U.S. and employs 160,000 people.

If that company were to disappear tomorrow and take those employees with it, the entire country would feel it immediately right where it hurts: in the stomach.

Now if after that, you still feel that agriculture shouldn't be industrialized, because of moral issues about animal cruelty or environmentalism, think of this: industrialized agriculture has fed you since birth. If it weren't for it, a lot fewer people would be eating.

Are the poor people abroad and at home less important than the environment? Are they less important than the pigs, cows and chickens they now eat?

Put that on your conscience before you condemn industrialized agriculture.