Briefly and even more belatedly, a few responses...
'Yes, agriculture is anti-nature, but that does not mean it is unsustainble in other words it does not mean any intrinsic loss of biodiversity. Biodiversity is lost through the *scale* of these activities outpacing the regeneration of nature.' - hmmm, but loss of diversity practically +defines+ agriculture, esp field-scale monocrops, regardless of the scale. Old growth forest gets felled; marsh reedbed gets drained, either way it's a demolition job that kills off all the native species in that area and replaces them with a few domesticated invasives. Am I missing something?
'The point is that infectious disease spread does *not* require proximity' - well yes, but I specifically mentioned +epidemic+ disease, ie: those that cut a swathe through large, settled populations with a high mortality rate. These diseases could only survive in the long term if there were enough dense settlements in reasonable proximity so they could flare up again, as with the plague example. In a small band or village scenario a disease like that, if it emerged spontaneously, would either completely wipe them out (as happened so often with smallpox and other diseases in post-contact americas) or leave enough alive to develop immunity with none left to infect. Either way the chances of it surviving long enough to be transmitted to the next tribe over are vanishingly small compared to highly connected modern city-states.
'I am saying the opposite, that in fact is IS the way we are and have always been. But for it to go exponential and for it to be formalized, there are some basic requirements like writing and and literacy and distribution of manuscripts,and better tools etc., then you get to where we are right now.' - well then it sounds like we agree on that at least