I'm not going to bother responding to most of your points because most of them are poorly thought out and not worth my time, however this one stands out to me a

I'm not going to bother responding to most of your points because most of them are poorly thought out and not worth my time, however this one stands out to me and I think captures the thrust of it.. >I'm not passing judgement Oh I think you are. For many people in the world the decision around using synthetic fertilizers or pesticides is a decision between having a crop or not. This choice you want to make is a privilege that can only be made in the context of additional resources not accounted for, like having sufficient area to do crop rotation, additional land for the cultivation of fertilizers, or additional time and resources to dedicate to cultural practices. Have you done the math on what are you would need to grow an acre of corn using only animal fertilizers? What about the carbon cost of moving that fertilizer around? What about the cost to the soil for tilling it in? How much additional land would need to be dedicated to animals to do? What about the methane and water quality issues for raising those animals? What if you live in an urban or sub-urban area? There are real issues around over fertilization, intensified crop rotations, and pesticide use. Rejecting these tools outright, and more specifically, the attitude that we have the privilege to reject them outright is deeply problematic. If what you actually want is for people to grow into being more food self-sufficient, this attitude creates more barriers than it resolves. If we could run the Haber-bosch process on what is effectively waste electricity, this would be a huge deal. Home gardeners could have something not too dissimilar to a battery bank that kicks on when there is surplus electricity, and fix nitrogen for storage into a tank for later use. Farmers could dedicate small sections of their farms to solar panels which can optimize between grid usage or the filling of fertilizer tanks depending on the economics. It would reduce the cost of producing and moving around that fertilizer. It would be a really good thing.