> I'm talking about reliable solar panel setups being very expensive and often only barely worth it with substantial subsidies.

FWIW, I'm actually kind of unimpressed by solar panels. (Although it's clear that the trends favor them.) I'd prefer passive solar design and direct utilization (solar hot water collectors, etc.) instead.

> I'm talking about "village homes" being incredibly space & land inefficient.

Compared to what? Other suburbs?

FWIW, I like the idea of "arcologies": ecologically integrated whole cities built at once. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology I don't know if they are truly possible, but it seems obvious to me that constructing a city as a unit would permit massive economies of scale (e.g. no need for individual AC units if the whole city is temperature controlled with passive solar/wind design, etc.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_River%27s_City_project

> I'm talking about permaculture-style forests wasting large amounts of land and resources hosting plants and herbs few people actually want

To me that seems like a bizarre take on the concept of food forests. These systems produce more food than conventional mono-crops without the ecological destruction. Long-term what does it matter if a conventional farm can grow more of a single crop if the land it's on is eventually destroyed? That's the fundamental trade-off: if a system of agriculture destroys the basis for life it is doomed sooner or later. In other words, the "waste" of land you're talking about (to the extent that it's actually true) is really maintenance cost that has to be paid one way or another, sooner or later.

> I doubt that a 2h30m video giving situational advice on soil health is an answer to the declining biodiversity this article is talking about. Even if his techniques are more "productive" (which means little on its own anyway, it's not efficient if productivity gains don't match time/labor/financial/scale cost increases), as long as his farm is still very much a farm it will largely exclude the kind of "wild" biodiversity that is declining which includes a lot of destructive, nasty or totally pointless flora & fauna. It's not a problem with solutions like "using less fertilizer" or "don't till the soil as much so some fungi can grow".

Well I don't know what to tell you other than that is exactly what is addressed in the video. I'm sure there are other, shorter videos if you really want to check it out. His farm is more productive, has fewer inputs, has more biodiversity, etc. than conventional farming.

Maybe check out these folks? "Homestead Paradise: got barren land, boosted it at a profit" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRPP4Ilpxso it's still an hour, and they're doing something much different than Gabe Brown is, but it's another example of having one's cake and eating it too: more "wild" biodiversity and fertility, fewer inputs, economically productive, etc.

> "Real" biodiversity and utilitarian farmland have very little overlap, natural "wild" ecosystems generally suck at meeting modern consumer demand. The most relevant and compelling solutions that I see focus on increasing yield and space/land efficiency so we can meet modern demand with less space, leaving more space for low-utility wild ecosystems scientists care about.

Setting aside the point that Permaculture et. al. is all about "increasing yield and space/land efficiency", you're right (IMO) that we should be setting aside, say, half the Earth for non-human use. See E.O. Wilson's "Half Earth" proposal. https://www.half-earthproject.org/

My original question is how do you get buy-in on such a goal if only a few scientists care about it? I see the root of the problem as humankind's divorce from Nature. What prevents us from seeing the intrinsic value of "low-utility wild ecosystems"?

> If Gabe and co can solve this problem more efficiently, I'd encourage them to prove that in the market by providing more and better produce.

That's exactly what they're doing.

> The market cuts through the bullshit and nonsense we tell ourselves about how much better something is.

Except when we ignore externalities like degraded soil and overheated atmosphere, eh? I mean that's the whole problem we're facing now, isn't it? No oil company put aside profit to pay for mitigation of CO₂ emissions? No farming conglomerate put aside funds to pay for new topsoil to replace what's getting blown away, or to regenerate oceanic deadzones caused by over-fertilization with and runoff of artificial fertilizer, eh?

> > So where do you want to get power w/o burning fossil fuels?

> Perhaps a mix of centralized renewable techs...

So solar? Renewable energy comes from the sun. Wind is powered by thermal differences that are driven by solar flux. (Although wave power technically comes from the Moon.)

> ...and nuclear.

Which is fine with me, but it won't help in time to alleviate climate change.

> Good solutions don't necessarily exist yet, that's why the world is working hard on energy tech, the world isn't giving up.

Again, my point isn't that nobody is working on it, my question is what prevents us from taking up the tools and technology (and eco-farming is a technology based on the science of ecology) we already have faster and more eagerly?