I don’t see how my communication was or is off-topic, if the topic is agriculture and whether it is a villain or a boon to us and our future, as I understand of what is addressed. This is still the subforum for dealing with misconceptions. If it is still desired I will start discussion for my position on it elsewhere, but this seemed to be the good place for it, but if any are responding to a post from me and it calls for my response, I think I should then respond. I have come though to make a point of never making personal remarks or saying something to make another uncomfortable with it
I have read quite a bit of such material suggested, it contributed to much of my current thinking. But I did not come to agreement with absolutely everything I read. I am more selective being discriminating with examination.
I may not be communicating in the best way, I understand that, but I tend to avoid saying what I do in simple ways as this may not be persuasive enough. I can still try to have what I say be understood better.
I am communicating for what is most sustainable, and saying that it is really needed, and especially with many not doing so soon enough, those who will should do so in the greatest way possible. I communicate for having the most people survive well, and even for them to do better. Nothing else would attract people to come to a great change. I see there is real need for rapid change in things for sustainability, by many if not all, which it ultimately must be.
This will involve change to living with great simplicity, and it is called for to do this with others, living in the way that worked so long for humanity.
It just won’t work just the same way as it did for much of that time when there were a lot less people, there are too many now, and it is better to have as many survive as can, with what is most sustainable still. Using animals will not be the most sustainable way that there could be, and current use of animals is with it being the greatest of causes bringing destructive harm and depletion in this world, with exception of a possible nuclear war. You and any can certainly examine it individually and make choices about using animals, but this use could be minimized and even eliminated, the use is not needed, as people are showing and even more so now, and that use is not sustainable in the way using plants would be. And as agriculture is discussed in this thread I think I can speak to it, not that there shouldn’t be foraging for wild edible vegetation, I do understand about that, but with the most survival for many with contentment with that, there should be vegetation that people would grow, this having the greatest sustainability for the most people. Anything else will not support as many people as well, and that being provided is desirable, with more then being ready to come to such change for that.
Growing vegetation, which I previously thought was the equivalent of agriculture, is not to continue with all the modern equipment and monocrops for it. It should be organically grown with all of it being known to not be GMO. I communicate with thinking of natural farming with little use of tools for it, which has communication for that, and I can elaborate at some time if it is needed.