Honestly ewald, we would probably have quite an interesting discussion if we could get past the polemics. I'm actually quite interested in food self-sufficiency and food security. I think not enough people realize how closely tied food production is to human rights and political freedom.
I think that agricultural land is underused on Lamma and it would be great to have some dialogue around this. But, at the same time, it's important to listen to people who warn about the potential dangers of goat farming for local ecology.
You have received feedback that you have scoffed at from some very intelligent, wise people - highly trained scientists in the field of ecology even, who teach at local universities. It would be wise to keep an open mind to all. Pointing out such dangers does not necessary doom farming plans. The goat farm that might eventually arise if all sides were listened to would be a heck of a lot more sustainable in relation to the whole environment / ecology / community because those arguments were listened to.
Maybe, it would be decided that goats were not the answer but that there was another even more appropriate protein source that could be developed? How about
Euglena?
When people are in disagreement isn't it most often the case that both parties are correct in some ways and both parties are wrong in others? So if only one side 'wins' and only their ideas are incorporated into the solution, the solution is weakened by the neglect of truths discarded that were among the points argued by the 'losing' party. This is why dialogue is a much stronger form of communication than argument.
And, this also points to the inherent weakness in societies that control information and restrict open dialogue to only arguments that are perceived to be in accord with the thinking of those in power.