You still couldnt feed 30 million people + growth with traditional farming methods.

Which is realtily easy depending again 1. on were the farms are located. 2. you slowly get off the market for international food. 3. if the years food supply goes amuck you store food for that case.

@Techpriest of house Roundeye ? I'm not sure if that is correct.

Arable land per 1000 population 2007 13.3 km2 per 1000 population map
Arable land (percentage of total area) 2007 4.5 % of total area map
Arable land (percentage of land area) 2007 5.0 % of land area map
Arable land (percentage of agricultural land) 2007 66.7 % of agricultural area map

Your concept of how agriculture work is just too simple.

Furthermore a purely rural society in a nation like Canada would be a logistical nightmare

So unless youre willing to go full anprim your society would be unattainable

it's not all or nothing

Either hypertechocapitalist or we all shit in the woods and eat bark.

As much as it tickles me to think about being a blacksmith in the post technological post half the population dying of starvation society
I think its a hard sell

aren't selling anything.

unless we come up with magical technology to replace hydrocarbons we are in serious trouble.

Oh no... your not going "peak oil" are you

oil is renewable?

I can agree with the logistical nightmare part. Yes also i do have a primative understanding of Farming. But think about that the fact that the Airable land is expanding beacuse of muh "Climate" change. In the coming year's it will become quite lucrative for Canadian Society to move farming farther north. Not only that you are also missing that farming can also be moved into massed green houses.

From a technological standpoint actually yes

how many barrels of energy does it take to produce it?

nuclear is one way but there has been negative movement on that front from the start.

Green house's are slowly becoming more prelevant within the farming industral and if we use green house's we can keep production up over the winter time.

Depends on your method. But that aside there is also Solar, Nuclear, and within the next 50 years Fusion is very likely to be viable

Fusion doesn't exist yet...

Solar is quite lucrative but an eye sore.

solar isn't efficient enough

Battery technology has managed to store more than lithium ion in a purely carbon based battery so thats possible

Solar is effecinet but it depends on the place you put it.

Even if we ran on only nuclear we would have enough energy for over a millenium

Not only that again eye sore.

Eye sore vs your civilization dies

gee I wonder what people will pick

maybe we will go to nuclear one day, but while people who remember the Simpsons it's not going to happen

Homer made sure of that.

Tourism and Economy vs destorying potenital tourists attractions hmmmm.

I choose the first.

Tourist attractions dont matter if you have no power

True, but there are other energy sources.

We are an energy based economy. If it came down to solar vs pretty much any facet of that civilization I can tell you what will win

provided we have enough foresight to do it soon enough.

but point still remains. hydrocarbons will not last forever.

Like I said, your looking at a problem that is possibly centuries away

we cant even concieve of what options we will have available by the time we in our current level would have seen an energy crisis

But that is not the arguement. there are other energy sources, and destorying potenital tourism sectors with solar farms.