What I am “pretty much anti-” is the perception that we cannot deviate from the current agricultural model without using all our land for farming. If we used more land to grow food for people, not animals, and reduced food waste, we would have much more room to maneouvre.
I am also anti senseless waste of resources (e.g. overusing antibiotics), pollution (e.g. large-scale, concentrated animal waste), and inhumane treatment of sentient beings (e.g. the vast majority of egg and broiler chicken production in the US). This doesn’t make me anti-meat per se (don’t worry, I won’t be sending in the troops to snatch your steaks), but it does make me highly wary of the corn-soy-CAFO complex.
I don’t think you’re correct that organic agriculture can’t feed a large population (especially given a fraction of the R&D investment that has gone to conventional methods— organic doesn’t need to be, and shouldn’t be anti-science), but I do think you’re correct that organic and local food is currently too expensive for many people. The potential benefits of local agriculture include (1) couterbalancing the worrying trend towards hyperconsolidation in the food system, and (2) revitalizing local communities. So, rather than dismissing it as for “zealots and those who want to be accepted by their organic friends”, I’ll be looking for some thoughtful discussion of the economics behind the issue — the roles of economies of scale, labor (aka jobs), policies, subsidies/insurance, etc.