Firstly, the contrast you draw regarding artificial versus natural farming is yours, not mine. Secondly, surely it is apparent that there is a big difference be

Firstly, the contrast you draw regarding artificial versus natural farming is yours, not mine. Secondly, surely it is apparent that there is a big difference between digging potash from hundreds of metres below the surface of the earth versus gathering animal manure - for a start, if we make our food production systems dependent on the former we are in trouble if it becomes unavailable, for example through exhaustion or economic/civilisational collapse. Thirdly I'm not sure the term trace is in keeping with the magnitude of e.g. nitrogen run off into the sea - some think the eutrophication of the world's oceans could become as big a problem as carbon: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-05/uov-at051208.php https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-05/uov-at051208... Fourth, I think we all have an idea of what constitutes western lifestyle, and thus I would say it is an effective term in communicating an idea. Are you really saying you have no idea what western lifestyle means? Fifth, you ask me what I would specifically fix. I suspect that overall your tactic is to challenge aspects of my statements without refuting the central thrust of what I am saying, but whatever, I will engage. Specific problem: eutrophication due to high levels of fertiliser. How do we fix it? Drastic restriction of food production - there is a massive surfeit of food in most developed countries - and introduction of less destructive methods of agriculture. Why would this never be allowed to happen? Big business would take far too big a hit.