The main problem with that logic is unlike crypto or options or fiat, the investment in food producing plants does not scale well.
100 bitcoin does not require 100x the work than 1 bitcoin and yet yields 100x the return. 100 apple trees are a monoculture that requires a massive amount of work, more than 100x that of a single tree.
Then comes the actual monetization. Even with all the processing possible (cider, vinegar, sauce, jam, etc), you cannot possibly consume the produce of a single grown tree yourself, let alone a hundred!
So you have to either try to sell some apples (lowest price per volume, but no extra labor involved) or process them and sell them at a higher price (much more labor intensive and subject to health regulations).
Even after you've got a line of products to sale, the actual marketing of the goods is a full time job if you plan to live off it...
So while I wholeheartedly agree we should all be planting much more perennial food crops like nuts, fruits and herbs, the act of planting them is not nearly enough. In order to "cash out" on that investment, disproportionally large amounts of work are required, compared to other types of investing.
I'm not saying you should not invest in trees - you absolutely should! But if I get a few bitcoin at 1000$ and then it reaches 20000$ in a matter of a few years, that's a whole other ball game, compared to apples.
Conversely, crypto could be a bubble and when it bursts, at least you're left with a ton of apples! :D
I totally agree that it is not perfect and it doesn't scale well. If that weren't the case then all the farmers that grow tree crops would be rich. I think the point of my article was to point out that there are natural processes that are amazingly productive.
Also while in hind sight buying and holding BTC would be an effort free and super profitable investment, past returns on man made investments are no guarantee of future returns. While the returns from trees are pretty reliable as long as you do your part to choose the right varieties and location and take care of the soil.
Oh I agree, only Nature is truly abundant, all human activities that claim to be abundant are either virtual (non-existent outside the realm of machines) or based on natural processes!
In an interview with Ben Falk (or it could have been in his book, not sure) he talks about the sentiment of Bill Mollison that an yield of a natural system is unlimited. The idea being that Nature , if fostered and not destroyed, will always yield more than we can make use of. So from that thought stems the principle that it's better to have half an acre of properly managed, regenerative and fully productive system than 10 acres of badly managed one.