Intensive agriculture cannot be the putative daughter of a sustainable development of the countryside. The function of this capital-intensive agriculture is certainly to produce on a large scale, but also to generate profits, like any other business in competition with the law of the market. There is little organic link between the principals and the territory, giving free rein to predation. The Brazilian agro-industrial model, held up as an example by the supporters of productivist agriculture, such as the FNSEA, or the Brazilian bancada ruralista, for obvious partisan reasons, must not appear as the only possible alternative to an increasingly strong demand. The world must indeed postpone producing more and more food to feed a population that is increasingly numerous and increasingly consuming per capita. The countries of the North being already in an advanced productivist model, with a maximum occupation of the UAA, the relay has logically been passed to the emerging countries and other countries of the South. The latter can indeed gain in production thanks to reserves of space that can be developed in agricultural terms, and in productivity, thanks to the use of modern agricultural techniques (mechanization of crops, use of inputs, irrigation, selection of seeds and animals). Producing more in countries with a high demand for food seems to be the implacable logic of the principle of equity dear to the economist Rawls. Unfortunately, the modern agriculture proposed in the countries of the South is too often a mono-agricultural export that exhausts men and soils without redistributing locally the fruits of their respective labors. The green deserts ignore food production and often predate on the last primary forests of the planet. The few jobs that are created are poorly paid and too often still resemble modern slavery (see on this subject the studies of the site reporterbrasil.org).