An interesting point Sally. I have met quite a few people who tend towards organic measures, but they have all, like us, gone for the simplest wormers, because people who think enough to know we should be using fewer chemicals also know when we do have to use them they need to be the simplest and least contaminating available but still effective. For me, if an animal needs a treatment, then it gets it, but we don't go dosing our sheep willynilly, and I don't know people who do. Obviously you must have met some who tend more towards the 'organic if its simple, but load on the chemicals if it gets complex' approach.
But at least when someone says that they try to be organic in their approach, you can enquire further to find the detail. Also, not everyone is perfect, and at least they are beginning the journey to a more sustainable approach to farming.
I have been studying the ins and outs of ecologically sustainable answers for the Planet for at least three years now, and the big point I've realised is that there is not one answer, but many. Trying to shift the behaviour of seven and a half billion people is not going to be easy. A horribly large proportion of those people do not believe that we need to make those changes, but choose to ignore the glaringly obvious, or simply do not have the information they need to make the decision. Governments suffer from the obvious reality that their tenure is in most cases quite short, so the making of long term plans and rules which will not be popular will not get them re-elected, so any measures they do legislate for will be reversed as soon as they are voted out. Just look at the last administration over the pond.
But even then, it is not totally clear which measures we should be adopting and for me at the moment I am struck by the question of car power. Electric cars are now the bee's knees in the UK but there is no way there can be enough recharging points if everyone makes the change, and long journeys which may be necessary would take days with stops for recharging. We changed our petrol driven car for a diesel when the Gov said diesel was best, then we changed back to a petrol car when they said diesel was the new evil. Now they're both wrong so it's electric vehicles we have to have. Each time we have changed our car, we have effectively ditched a perfectly functioning vehicle in order to get a new one which is costing the Earth in raw materials and manufacturing costs, transport and carbon just to get it as far as the showroom. Our Landrovers on the other hand date back years (the oldest to 1951) and although they are petrol driven, there are no replacement costs involved and the springs make for such an uncomfortable ride that we don't go far, so don't use much fuel. Our motorcycles are even better - the oldest is from 1913, so has given a pretty good return compared to a modern 'disposable' car.
There is the question of reducing or cutting out our meat consumption and 'retraining farmers to grow veg'. The mind boggles. Veggies on the Fells, on salt marshes, on The Hill or on any of the marginal ground where grazing animals do so well. Some of the suggestions which come out of scientific research are amazing; some are downright daft.
How to feed all the seven and a half billion people in the world today, and the nine and a half billion we are creeping towards, is an enormous quandary, especially because at the same time we absolutely have to improve the living conditions of people who currently have so little that drinking a cup of clear, clean water is not a possibility.
Whilst the scientists are arguing about the changes we have to make, they are not sure whether we should be going in the direction of increasing mechanisation of food production, such as robot controlled agriculture, or whether we should reduce mechanisation and give every family a small piece of land on which to grow their own crops. Some see one extreme as bound to lower the quality of life for all, others see the opposite as having the same effect. Meanwhile, no decisions can be made and we have to wait from year to year for another climate summit to discuss the same old topics, make the same old promises, then fail to fulfill them.