The problem with activism/criticism in general

As passionately as this is put and the lady also has some very interesting points, it is really interesting to study this from meta point of  view.

It more or less looks like the lady has issues with every thing. Nothing that exists is right. Things have been going wrong for centuries together,
and they are still degrading. Generally this is not some thing you would want to pursue. Even when it is not optimum, human beings have been surviving and majority of it is flourishing.
Especially it is post-reform India. She some how comes across as trying to make a point that green revolution was not a success. This in itself is a point of debate. I know that it definitely did have its own disadvantages and side effects. But that has to be a separate piece of activism with good time spent in elaborating the stand and nuances. By not focusing only on seed freedom, she is deteriorating her other wise rather strong position.
This is some thing atheists also fail at. Actually in my opinion, their point should actually just stop at questioning an omnipotent deity/afterlife. They are the m,most successful when they raise doubts and prove religion wrong. Giving an alternative belief system/lack of it and the framework for it is really the next steps.
By just concentrating on the attack on theism, the individual is freed and then starts thinking on his own, which is a great win. But by just trying to focus on even bigger wins, in my opinion even this advantage is lost.

        Then there comes a time when the activists' win their point and the opinion is with them. Now is   the time for the next generation where the solutions and alternate structures are proposed. Most of the times it is done by the next generations or is done by the activist in the next phase.

So from my pulpit, the sermon for the day is: "you should fight your limited battles with full strength, rather than cover the whole spectrum and give complete alternate solution".