Your point is not really any clearer than it was originally. I’m guessing here, but are you suggesting everyone who isn’t a farmer stops doing whatever it is they are doing now and starts farming (on land they don’t own, for the majority of them)? - see other comment re solution feasibility

Broad scale land use changes are a feasibility challenge. That’s why afforestation and reforestation aren’t likely to deliver scaled benefits. But improving on current processes on land can make a big difference, especially where there are co-benefits

1/2 If you read our paper, you will see that quantitative assessment is just the first step in the initial assessment where pragmatic considerations are assessed. There is a second step that includes analysis of social, policy, institutional, legal, and other issues

Link to original publication here: www.nature.com/articles/s41...

But, this doesn’t negate the thesis we published: increasing carbon sequestration and decreasing emissions over large scale in broad-acre agriculture can influence global carbon fluxes on the scale required to address climate change

3: Also: I can tell you feel strongly about this issue, but let’s keep this discussion polite please.

2/n: But this seems counter to your claim about yields - if ‘small scale sustainable farming’ delivers higher yields as you claim, then this would be even better for urbanization, as opposed to reversing it.

1/n: Could you please provide references for your statements about relative yields?

Your statements seem contradictory: “Urbanization makes ‘factory farming’ necessary” implies that intensive agriculture is required to support high population density (I agree)….

Yes: I grew up on a small farm so I have a lived experience. Small scale farming can’t deliver the food required to sustain the population; your proposal would require a radical decrease in current population. I think your strategy is impracticable, but happy to discuss further

Inbreeding?

Oooh that’s cool!

Is it that obvious?!