Yes.
The Green Revolution was regarded as a huge success, and I think there were elements of it that indeed were; there was a Nobel Prize for Borlaug. What that did is develop types of wheat and rice that were able to cope with high levels of water and fertilizer without toppling over, without lodging.
That was great if your objective was yield, but if you start to think about the use of that water as opposed to alternate uses, and also if you start to think about the costs, including the energy cost, the carbon cost, of producing that nitrogen fertilizer, you may rethink that business.
As David mentioned briefly, I think, the function of yield versus input is not linear, so you get a big return for your first application of water and your first application of fertilizer, but the response tapers off. I suggested as a hypothetical example that you might end up with 75% with only 50% input.
There's a problem with this. There are a number of complexities, but one is that the farmer invests in the infrastructure of the pumps, the sprinklers, etc., so they're going to want to use them to the utmost.
Anyway, that's the nature of that perspective paradigm shift. I think people worldwide are moving in this direction.