I'm always happy to have a conversation, but to be clear: my article was not intended as a how-to for widespread adoption of self-reliant practices as a key to solving climate change.

The article more broadly addresses the idea of losing touch with the natural world and communities. I get specific with arguing that this can lead to a couple of things: motivated reasoning for denial, negation, or disavowal, and greater reliance on large systems and supply chains.

I am a CSA member. The small farms in my area seem to be thriving. I wish they served the full community; it seems the small farm patrons generally tend to have money. Many small farms have grants and subsidies, yet spinach is still $7 a bag at the farmer's market. So there's room for improvement there.

I put out a vegetable stand on my road last summer with a donations box. One person seemed to leave whatever change he could spare and took eggs, lettuce, tomatoes, etc. He's why I did it, so to speak.

I am working with some people to get system-wide solutions proposals into the right hands. But I also am compelled to address the individual, psychological, emotional components of climate change. Working on self-reliance is healing. And 80% of people in the US live in urban areas. There are still plenty of opportunities for people to go "back to the land" and work together on communities building climate resilience, and anyone, pretty much anywhere in the developed world, can take steps to reconnect to nature and community and practice some basic self-reliance.

That's not a "dream" of self-sufficiency versus a "reality" of total dependence. It seems like you're still framing in terms of a panacea, when there are many shades of gray.