What do you mean by that?
> If we don't work on this correctly, in the end, we will end up in a dead end
We have over 10.000 years of agriculture already behind us so I think that's proof that it works well enough to support small communities in a sustainable fashion. It's simply not necessary to understand all the microbes etc..
If you are hinting on optimization so we can feed all of humanity, then I mean we are definitely not resource and knowledge limited but rather by more mundane things. I'd wager just the US defense budget is enough to feed to world without a problem.
Meanwhile there are forests that were forest (and other ecosystems as well) 10s of thousands of years ago and just as lush and fertile (if not moreso) than they were to begin with.
Sustainable generally means we can maintain the fertility of the land indefinitely without mined inputs. Whether or not it's a completely achievable goal, it makes good sense to strive for it... Mines will become spent, theres only so much land to degrade, etc.
Often when people talk about sustainable agriculture they are talking about systems that mimic biological systems that keep those forests lush for millennia. These types of agricultural systems frequently look similar to agricultural systems of the past with more human labor involved, but less damaging waste products and fewer externalities. (Reducing pollution of the water downstream and minimizing ecosystem impact).
Totally but I'd argue nowadays it's not because we are missing the knowledge but rather ignorance and short-term economic gains.
Imo sustainability goes hand in hand with population (and lifestyle). We want a diverse ecosyaystem, this simply doesn't work if there are 10 billion people wanting to eat meat or produce tons of plastic. Our problem is not knowledge in agriculture that prevents us from sustainable living.