Here's the thing I can't understand why you won't acknowledge: That IS adding something to the game. That is exactly what SHOULD happen. Having to put the mass you remove somewhere else in the game IS adding depth and value to the game.
Part of the reason your ideas receive so much hostility is that you want to take a game that is already extremely slow paced and make it even slower paced. Right now, the game runs at around half to a tenth of the speed that it would need to run at to be truly enjoyable. If I could simulate a year of game time in ten real world minutes then I wouldn't care so much if building a functioning fort takes years of game time. But since the current speed is closer to a few hours per year, that's just not workable. I have about five-ten hours a week at most to play games, I'm not about to spend an entire real-world year on a single fort.
The second reason you're receiving so much hostility is that you're openly hostile to those players who value DF as a sandbox, and don't really care about making it a better game. Games are commonplace. Sandbox simulations are rare. Rarity is valuable.
The third reason you're receiving hostile responses is because you're treating people as though you are a teacher and they are students instead of treating them as your equals. You don't get to tell people that they don't know how to have fun, or rail that they shouldn't find the things fun that they do. You are not the universal arbitrator of fun.
People already spend all day in their working lives dealing with economics. They don't spend all day dealing with military conquest. That's why the military is treated as fun. Since you don't understand even this most basic part of the human psyche, it leaves me wondering what else you fail to understand about what people enjoy.