The idea that the validity of an idea is measured by how much money you can make by implementing it is /why/ our current system is flawed.

Money represents value. It's the lowest common denominator when talking about whether or not an idea is worth doing. It's hard to quantify altruism.

e.g. An idea to plant a garden with entirely toxic plants is just as valid, but not as valuable.

I think ideas like "money represent value" are tru-ish enough approximations from a distance but comments like this show just how easy it is to slip into seeing them as definitions or absolute truth.

Useful models are still models after all.

I'm not sure why you think I was defining 'money is value','value is money' or some other absolute truth. I did not say such a thing.

Money does represent value of some kind, right? Whether that's time, labor, or [fill-in-the-blank]. It's a tool to represent generic value.

I'm interested to hear what you think a better unit of measurement might be for determining whether or not an idea is 'valid' or worth doing. Can you elaborate?

Gabe Brown makes money. His neighbor ignores him. What can you do?

It does seem like folks are catching on though. Business can be slow to adapt, especially in agriculture, but farmers are pragmatic. Brown's talks seem well-attended.

control is more important than technique, in most cases, and then winners reinforce that

I'm not sure I get what you're saying.