I am wary of anyone inventing a new word to describe agriculture, even as I embrace some of the prectices that they preach. I think some people feel some people like to brand their thing as "sustainable" or "regenerative" agriculture as opposed to the unsustainable or non-regenerative versions. It sets up an unnecessary dichotomy IMO. It makes the people who use chemicals into the bad guys. My neighbors use chemicals, but they also use no-till methods and winter cover crops. It is all a mix.

If there are bad guys out there farming, I haven't met one yet. The system is bad, yes, because it forces people to use certain practices to compete in the international markets.

Yes, I follow organic practices, some of which are "regenerative." I am curious how many "sustainable" or "regenerative" farms are economically viable? Ours is not, except as an educational farm for children. If we were forced to make all of our money from farming, I think we would need to scale up. And to scale up we would need affordable labor. Vegetable prices (even organic, regenerative, or sustainable vegetables) are not nearly high enough for a me to make a good living without overworking myself or underpaying workers.

So my thoughts on regenerative agriculture are that someone is trying to sell a book or a course or a youtube series. But more power to them, because it is on the edges of what is profitable or currently viable that innovation happens, and we need innovation in agriculture in order to face the climate crisis.