The statement is correct on both counts, and the two halves are connected.
They are necessary. Humans have been practising farming for thousands of years to grow food, and as the population grew, our dependence on agriculture increased. Between 1950 and 1965 India faced a food crisis due to low crop production; tractors, machines, synthetic fertilisers and pesticides in the mid-20th century — the Green Revolution — helped raise food production and made the country food secure. No natural ecosystem could feed a population of this size.
They must be made sustainable. Those same methods are now considered unsustainable because of the overuse of synthetic chemicals, excessive groundwater extraction, and growing only one type of crop for commercial gain. The result is soil degradation: less humus, fewer friendly microorganisms, erosion, a falling water table, pests that have developed resistance, and fewer pollinators.
A field is an ecosystem we manage
Manage it well → soil life, pollinators and pest predators keep working for us
Manage it badly → we must replace their work with chemicals → cost rises, soil falls
What "sustainable" means here: using the field in a way that leaves the soil as good next year as it is this year. Compost and manure, crop rotation and mixed cropping instead of monoculture, efficient irrigation, spraying only when needed, and organic and natural farming methods that keep interference with natural ecosystems to a minimum.
Why it happens: unlike a forest, a human-made ecosystem needs human care and management — we removed most of its natural checks when we made it. So the choice is not between farming and not farming; it is between farming that renews the soil and farming that spends it.