You fail to realize that the agro business model does achieve higher yields in the short term at the cost of soil damaging in the long term. As the natural biod

You fail to realize that the agro business model does achieve higher yields in the short term at the cost of soil damaging in the long term. As the natural biodiversity in both soils and seeds decrease, the risk of catastrophic pest swapping large number of crops grows and over-reliance on chemicals becomes a given. We certainly need modern agriculture as a transitional technology to keep feeding the 7+ billion people on Earth today, but if this does not come hand in hand with measures to drastically reduce fertility rates (and per capita consumption, but that's another story) it means little more than kicking the can down the road. After all, the most important reason we are facing this dilemma today is that our parents' generation faced the same challenge when we were 4+ billion and decided to pretend there's nothing wrong with it. Your choice of labeling alternative agro proponents as "radicals" because they cannot avoid calling a spade a spade tells more about the willful ignorance of society on these matters than about any objective measure of character of the label's subjects. And you surely know that problems cannot be made to go away by shutting eyes and ears, do you?