21st
Century Agriculture:
The end of the American farm
or the new American farm?
John Ikerd
University
of Missouri
The American farm of the 21st
century will be different. This is perhaps the only thing we can say about 21st
century agriculture with any degree of confidence. Farms of the future will be
different from farms of the present as well as different from farms of the
past. In addition, the least accurate prediction concerning how farms will be
different would be simply extrapolation from the past, through the present, and
into the future. All trends eventually change direction – the world works
in cycles. Everything that goes up comes down and everything that goes around
comes back around. Admittedly, the past and the present always contain the
seeds of the future. However, we humans lack the ability to foretell the future
with accuracy – although our human imagination and curiosity continually
tempts us to try.
In his book, “The End of
Agriculture in the American Portfolio,” economist Steven C. Blank
envisions the end of the American farm – a vision of the future
grudgingly shared by a growing number of people in the conventional
agricultural establishment. American agriculture is
destined to end, he argues, but this should be no cause for alarm. He contends
that the end of American agricultural production is the result of a natural
process that is making us all better off. He foresees a time in the not too
distant future when the U.S.
will import nearly all of its foodstuffs from other countries. Costs of land and
labor in the U.S.
will be too high for American farmers to be competitive in a global food
economy. He argues that creeping globalization of the food system is not some
corporate conspiracy but is simply the result of the struggles of farmers and
agribusiness, in America
and around the world, logically pursuing their individual economic
self-interests. This pursuit of individual economic self-interest ultimately
will best serve the long run interests of society as a whole, he claims.
Blank’s fundamental
arguments are based on the basic premise that economic considerations
ultimately will prevail over all others. First American farmers will be forced
to abandon production of basic agricultural commodities – corn, soybeans,
hogs, cattle, cotton, rice, etc. – in favor of high-investment, high-risk
crops – such as wine grapes, berries, organic vegetables, etc. High-risk,
high-return enterprises will be the last agricultural alternatives offering
farmers any hope of realizing profits from employing high cost land and labor.
However, increasing affluence will allow increasing numbers of people to escape
from the cities in search of a quieter, safer, healthier lifestyle in the
countryside. As land prices continue to rise, agribusiness eventually will
abandon America
completely because they will be able to employ their management and capital
more profitably in other countries.
Although, Blank doesn’t make
a major issue of it, he assumes that corporate agribusiness will replace family
farms because corporations are “more efficient” farmers than are
families. As American agriculture comes increasingly under the control of
corporate agribusiness – through ownership, contracting, or various types
of strategic alliances – it will respond even more efficiently to competitive
global markets. Once corporate ownership becomes separated from management,
through public stock offerings, a corporation becomes incapable of pursuing any
objectives other than maximum profit and growth – its stockholders will
accept nothing less. Corporations are not human; they have no heart or soul.
Thus, corporations have no sentimental attachment to any particular parcel of
land, community, geographic region, or nation. If economic costs of production
are less in some country other than in the US,
as they almost certainly will be, then that’s where America’s
food will be produced. Agricultural technology, capital, and management can be
shifted easily from America
to other countries around the globe – as we have seen in the production
of other industrial goods.
However, Blank claims we should
not be concerned because Americans still will be well fed. This is all a quite
logical result of the working of a free market economy, he says. It simply will
be more efficient in the future to produce America’s
food elsewhere on the globe. In fact, America’s
transition out of agriculture will be a sign of national economic progress.
Agriculture is any nation’s first step toward economic development
– abandoning hunting and gathering for a more efficient means of
providing food and fiber. However, agriculture requires only low-skilled,
manual labor and few management skills, and thus, farming is not capable of
sustaining economic progress over time. Manufacturing represents a natural
evolution from unskilled labor to skilled labor, to mechanization, and
management of large, complex industrial systems of production. Over the past
two centuries, industrialization has been the mark of economic progress as
nations move from agriculture to manufacturing.
However, as we enter the 21st
century, America
is moving beyond industrialization – to a new post-industrial era of
economic development. We already have seen the foundation of the US
economy shift from manufacturing to the service sector of the economy. Some service
jobs tend to be low-skill and low paying, such as fast foods and electronic
data entry. However, many service positions are high-skill office work,
requiring high levels of education and training – such as finance,
brokerage, marketing, communications, education, research, systems design, and
all sorts of consulting. Such jobs are more productive and command higher
salaries than do manufacturing jobs.
In the 21st century, America
will become part of the “new economy” – new information
systems will allow corporations in the “more advanced” nations to
create, manage, and control the agricultural, manufacturing, and service
sectors of the economies of other nations. Those who create,
manage, and control things inevitably reap greater economic benefits than those
who actually produce, manufacture, and do things. Agriculture and manufacturing
are but stepping stones to higher levels of economic development. Blank
contends that it’s simply time for America
to abandon agriculture and move ahead to its next stage of economic
development.
Greater specialization among nations is made
possible by globalization of national economies. In a seamless, global
economy, some nations can specialize in agriculture, others in manufacturing,
others in services, and others in providing homes for corporations that
create, manage, and control the economic enterprises of other nations. Current
World Trade negotiations are being carried out for the expressed purpose of
creating a single global economy within which all nations are free to pursue
their economic competitive advantages. Anything that restricts trade is seen as
an obstacle to global economic progress – an obstacle that must be
removed for the sake of greater economic efficiency.
In summary, Blank believes that
the open spaces of rural America
will be transformed from farms into living space for a growing and increasingly
affluent population fleeing the problems of urbanization. Cornfields are unable
to compete with condominiums for farmland. The San
Joaquin Valley can’t
compete with the Silicone Valley
for farm workers. Farming is a low-skilled, “primary” industry that
has no place in an advanced, “high-tech” economy. Rural ways of
life will give way to urban ways of life, as farms become residential
ranchettes. Virtual communities of people, interconnected by the Internet, will
replace real communities of people who meet face-to-face in church or at the
grocery store. Agriculture will no longer be a significant factor in the future
rural economy. Most people in rural communities will be employed elsewhere --
perhaps by companies thousands of miles away. Americans will be well fed, but
our food will come from other countries where it can be produced cheaper.
People of all nations will benefit as they are allowed to pursue their economic
competitive advantages in a global economy. Today’s farmers will find
future employment, but not as farmers, or at least as farmers in America.
Blank claims the only forms of truly sustainable agriculture in America
will be those compatible with urban life – mainly golf courses,
ornamental nurseries, and turf farms. The American farm will be a thing of the
past.
Blank’s
conclusions regarding the future of American agriculture, and of the global
economy, are all quite reasonable and logical within the context of
contemporary economic thinking. If
the usual assumptions of economic theory were an accurate reflection of
today’s reality, then Blank’s predictions would be quite
reasonable. In fact, if the world, at some point in the future, completely
abandons its common sense for some pseudo-economic reality, then Blank’s
predictions might actually come to pass. Admittedly, economics has become the
dominant religion of our American society, and it is being rapidly
spread around the world. But, people have not yet abandoned their common sense
– at least not completely. There is still hope that newly enlightened
thinking will prevail over the dogma of economics, that the twenty-first
century will not bring the end of the American farm, but instead, will
bring the emergence of a new American farm.
Challenging
the Conventional Wisdom of Economics
The conventional economic wisdom in America today seems to
be that only the markets are capable of ensuring that the right things are
done, and are done efficiently. Supply and demand are seen as the only true
arbiters of value. If something is profitable, it should be done, if it is
unprofitable, it shouldn’t. Anything that interferes with the markets; the government, public
attitudes, or cultural values, for example; by definition creates economic
inefficiency and is bad for society. Few people are aware of the origin of these beliefs,
and even fewer seem willing to challenge them. In fact, the few who dare to
question the sanctity of the markets are quickly attacked by people in
powerful places with obvious self-interest in perpetuating the myth of the
markets -- including an army of economists.
The current belief in the sanctity of markets can be traced back
to statements by the British Economist, Adam Smith, in his book, The Wealth
of Nations, published in 1776. “It
is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we
expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to
their humanity but to their self love, and never talk to them of our
necessities but of their advantages” (p. 7). Later, in reference to trade, Smith states,
“he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases,
led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his
intention” (p. 199). These statements provided the foundation for
contemporary economic wisdom -- that pursuit of short run self-interests
is transformed into achievement of the public good, as if by an invisible
hand.
From Adam Smith’s
observations of more than 200 years ago, neo-classical economists developed the
fundamental assumptions that underlie “free market” economic
thinking even today. Although contemporary economists try desperately to rationalize
arguments to the contrary, these conditions must hold before the invisible
hand of competitive capitalism can transform the pursuit of individual
short-run self-interest into the greater long-run good of society in general.
First, markets must be economically
competitive – meaning numbers of buyers and sellers so large that no
single buyer or seller can have any noticeable effect on the overall market. In
such markets, no one has the power to retain profits by exploiting anyone else.
It must be easy for new sellers to enter enterprises that are profitable and
easy for sellers to get out of unprofitable enterprises, so that producers are
able to respond to market signals of consumers’ wants and needs.
Consumers must have clear and accurate information concerning whether the
things they buy will actually meet their wants and needs. And finally,
consumers must be sovereigns – their tastes and preferences must
reflect their basic values – their tastes and preferences untainted by
persuasive influences.
None of these assumptions holds in
today’s society. Today agricultural markets are dominated by the large
agribusiness corporations, certainly at every level other than farming, and
increasingly even at the farm level. In addition, it is not easy to get into or
out of any aspect of agriculture, and it is becoming increasingly harder to
even get into or out of farming. Consumers don’t get accurate, unbiased
information concerning the products they buy, but instead get disinformation by
design, disguised as advertising. Finally, consumers are no longer sovereigns.
The food industry spends billions of dollars on advertising designed
specifically to bend and shape consumers tastes and preferences to accommodate
mass production and mass distribution, which enable corporate control of
agriculture. There is no logical reason to believe that the corporate
agriculture of today is evolving to meet the changing needs or wants of
consumers.
Instead, corporate agriculture
today is designed specifically to generate profits and growth for corporate
investors. In fact, we no longer have a competitive, capitalistic agricultural
economy. Capitalism requires that individuals make individual decisions in a
competitive market environment. As corporations extend their control horizontally
“within” the same functional levels, such as marketing, storage,
transportation, processing, or retailing, they increase their ability to
protect profits from competitors. As corporations extend their control
vertically, “across” functional levels, including additional
different stages of production and marketing, they gain control over decisions
concerning how much of what is produced, when it is produced, how it is
produced and for whom. Those decisions are made to maximize their short-run
profits and growth, not to meet the long-run needs of society.
In essence, as agriculture has
moved from competitive capitalism to corporatism, it has changed from a market
economy to a “central planned” economy. Central planning
didn’t work for the Communists, and it won’t work for true
Capitalists. The
problem wasn’t that the Communists were not smart enough or that their
computers weren’t large enough. Central planning is a fundamentally wrong-headed
approach to managing an economy – for corporations as well as governments.
The corporate system of food production will prove to be fundamentally
incapable of effectively meeting the real needs of people.
Steven Blank’s vision of the
future would place global food production under the control of a handful of
multinational corporations that would decide how much of what kind of food is
produced where, and who gets to consume it. Americans would be at least as
dependent on the rest of the world for food as we are today for oil. Perhaps we
could keep the food imports flowing, as we maintain the inflow of oil today.
But, how large a military force would it take? What new “Organization of
Food Exporting Countries” might be formed to control the market? How many
“small wars” would we have to fight to keep a “renegade
country” from reducing our supply of food? How many people would we
eventually have to kill? Would “cheap food” be worth the cost we
might ultimately be forced to pay?
Toward a More Enlightened Future
Thankfully, as society becomes more enlightened, we are beginning
to understand the true costs of cheap food. We are beginning to realize that
the industrialization of agriculture, while enhancing economic efficiency and
reducing food costs, has brought with it unanticipated ecological and social
costs. The industrialization of agriculture, characterized by specialization,
standardization, and centralization of control, has put farmers in direct
conflict with their ecological, social, and economic environment. Cheap food
most certainly has not benefited most farmers economically. As farms have
become more specialized and more mechanized, they have become larger in size,
and thus, fewer in number. The struggle for ever-greater economic efficiency
has forced many farmers to fail so that a few might survive – by buying
their failed neighbor’s land and growing larger. Does it really make
sense to displace farmers of other countries as we have displaced ours –
in our continuing pursuit of even cheaper food?
Also, we are beginning to realize that we are
destroying our natural environment in the process of trying to produce cheap
food. We are mining the soil through erosion and depletion of its natural
productivity in the process of maximizing production and minimizing dollar and
cent costs of production. We are polluting our streams and groundwater with
residues from the pesticides and commercial fertilizers necessary for
large-scale, specialized industrial crop production and with wastes from giant
confinement animal feeding factories. We are destroying the genetic diversity,
both below and above the soil, which is necessary to support nature’s
means of capturing and transforming solar energy into energy for human uses.
Does it really make sense to export our ecologically destructive farming
methods to other nations – in our continuing quest for cheap food?
We are just beginning to realize that we are
destroying the social fabric of our society in the process of trying to make
agriculture more efficient. We are destroying opportunities for people to lead
productive, successful lives. We are turning thinking, innovative, creative
farmers into tractor drivers and hog house janitors. There can be dignity in
all work, but all people should have opportunities to express their full human
potential. Consolidation of decision-making concentrates opportunities among
the privileged few while leaving the many without hope for a rewarding future.
Industrial specialization also tends to separate people within families, within
communities, and within nations. We are just beginning to realize that
industrialization destroys the human relationships needed to support a
civilized society. Does it make sense to destroy the social and cultural fabric
of other countries – in our quest for cheaper food?
The outdated economics that supports agricultural
industrialization for the sake of economic efficiency is fundamentally
incapable of dealing effectively with either the environmental or the social
challenges confronting agriculture today. In economics, the environment and
society are external or outside of the decision making process –
something that may impact or be impacted by decisions but not part of the
process. In reality, the economy, environment, and society all are parts of the
same inseparable whole. Society needs a more enlightened system of
decision-making – one capable of integrating economic, ecological, and
social decisions.
It’s true, people will pursue their
self-interest, – it is an inherent aspect of being human, as conventional
economics assumes. But, people, by nature, do not pursue only their
narrow, individual self-interest. It is within the fundamental nature of people
also to care about other people and to accept the responsibilities of humanity
as the caretakers of the earth. People are perfectly capable of rising above the
economics of greed to an economics of enlightenment. An invisible
hand can still translate pursuit of self-interests into the greatest good
for society, but only if each person pursues a more enlightened self-interest
– a self-interest that values relationships and
stewardship as important dimensions of our individual well being.
Our enlightened self-interests include our narrow
self-interest, which focuses on individual possessions and pleasures.
However, it also includes a broader self-interest, which recognizes the
value of relationships with other people – even those relationships that
return nothing in the way of possessions or individual pleasures. Our enlightened
self-interests also include our higher self-interests, which recognizes the value of stewardship, and other ethical and
moral behavior, in giving meaning and purpose to our lives. All three –
personal, interpersonal, and spiritual interests all contribute to our well
being. Each contributes to a more enlightened sense of quality of life,
which explicitly recognizes that each individual is but a part of the whole of
society, which in turn must conform to some higher order or code of natural
laws.
The Dalai Lama of Tibet puts this
in slightly different terms, “If you think in a deeper way that you are
going to be selfish, then be wisely selfish, not narrow-mindedly selfish. From
that viewpoint, the key thing is the sense of universal responsibility, that
is, the real source of strength, the real source of happiness. From that
perspective, if in our generation we exploit every available thing, trees,
water, mineral resources, or anything, without bothering about the next
generation, about the future, that’s our guilt, isn’t it? So if we
have a genuine sense of universal responsibility as the central motivation and
principle, then from that direction our relations with the environment will be
well balanced. Similarly with every aspect of relationships: our relations with
our neighbors, our family neighbors and country neighbors, will be balanced
from that direction” (p. 179).
Sustainable
Agriculture – the New American Farm
The sustainable agriculture movement in America
exemplifies the pursuit of a more enlightened self-interest. People may
disagree on the specific words, but there is a growing consensus that a
sustainable agriculture is an agriculture that is capable of meeting the needs
of the present while leaving equal or better opportunities for the future. The
concept of sustainability applies the Golden Rule across generations. We
should do for those of future generations, as we would have them do for us, if
we were of their generation and they were of ours. We must find ways to
meet our needs, all of us who are here today, without diminishing the ability
of those of future generations to meet their needs as well.
A sustainable agriculture must
have three fundamental characteristics. It must be ecologically sound,
economically viable, and socially responsible. Any system of farming that lacks
any one of the three quite simply is not sustainable. This is not a matter for
debate; it is just plain common sense. A sustainable agriculture must protect
and maintain the productivity of its natural resource base. If the land loses
its ability to produce, the farm is not sustainable. A sustainable agriculture
must provide for the food and fiber needs of people, but it also must provide
people with opportunities to lead successful lives. Agriculture must do its
part to sustain society or society will not sustain that type of agriculture.
Finally, a sustainable agriculture must make sufficient profits for farms to
remain economically solvent. If the farmer goes broke, the farm is not
sustainable.
No one of the three dimensions is any more or
less important to sustainability than the others. The ecological, economic, and
social dimensions of sustainability are like the three dimensions of a box. A
box that is lacking in height, width, or length quite simply is not a box. A
farm that lacks economic viability, ecological integrity, or social
responsibility quite simply is not sustainable.
Farmers motivated by
sustainability share a common pursuit of an enlightened self-interest,
in spite of their diversity in many other respects. They are not trying to
maximize profit, but instead are seeking sufficient profit for a desirable
quality of life. They recognize the importance of relationships, of family and
community, as well as income, in determining their overall well being. They
accept the responsibilities of environmental stewardship, not as constraints to
their selfishness, but instead, as opportunities to lead more meaningful,
successful lives. To them, practicing friendship and stewardship are not
sacrifices made solely for the benefit of others, but are means by which they
pursue a higher quality of life.
Sustainable
farmers seek to farm in harmony with the world around them. They match their
unique abilities and talents with their land, their community, and their
markets. This requires a higher level of understanding of themselves, their
capabilities, their values, and their purpose in life. This requires a higher
level of understanding of consumer tastes and preferences and of the uniqueness
of relationship markets. This requires a higher level of understanding of the land
and of nature’s productive processes. In general, sustainable farming
requires more intensive resource management – more thinking and
creativity per acre of land or dollar of investment.
Sustainable farming is thinking
farming. It requires an ability to translate observation into information,
information into knowledge, knowledge into understanding, and understanding
into wisdom. Certainly, sustainable farming involves hard work, but farming sustainably is not the “first stage of development
beyond hunting and gathering.” It is the next stage, beyond
“industrialization.” Sustainable agriculture is very much in
harmony with a post-industrial paradigm for future human progress – the
next step forward in the ongoing process of human development. Sustainable
farmers are thinking workers – or working thinkers. Contrary to
Blank’s suggestion that America must abandon agriculture as it moves
beyond industrialization, perhaps America simply needs to embrace this new kind
of agriculture that brings with it a new vision for the American economy and
society.
This new paradigm for agriculture
is being developed by thousands of farmers all across the American continent
and all around the world. These new American farmers are developing the
replacement for the old industrial model of agriculture. They are developing a
new pattern for farming in the future. Farming sustainably
is no simple task, but thousands of farmers are finding ways to succeed. They
may carry the label of organic, low-input, alternative, biodynamic, holistic, permaculture, or no label at all, but they are all pursuing
common economic, ecological and social goals. By their actions, these farmers
are defining the new American farm.
These farmers, not the experts or
the scientists, are the ones on the new frontier – they are the
explorers, the colonists, the revolutionaries, and the builders. As on any
frontier, life is difficult because no one really knows how to do what these
folks are trying to do – they are creating the future. They are getting
little help from the government, their universities, or the agricultural
establishment. They are doing it pretty much on their own. They will continue
to confront hardships, frustrations, and there will be some failures along the
road. But, more and more of these new farmers are finding ways to succeed.
There
are no blueprints for this new way of farming. But a few fundamental principles
are beginning to emerge. In general, the new farming opportunities arise
directly from exploiting the weaknesses resulting from misuses of
industrialization -- specialization, standardization, and centralized decision
making. The new farm relies instead on the advantages of diversity,
individuality, and decentralized networks of interdependent decision-makers.
New
farmers focus on working with nature rather than against it. The natural
resource base that ultimately must sustain productivity is inherently diverse.
Industrial systems have had to bend nature – to augment,
supplement, alter, and force it-- to create an allusion of conformity out of
diversity in order to meet the demands of large-scale, industrial production.
The ecological problems arising from industrialization are symptoms of natural
resources being used in ways that are inherently degrading to their productivity.
Thus, industrialization has created opportunities for farmers who can learn to
utilize the inherently productive capacity of a diverse natural resource base,
rather than wasting time and money trying to force nature to conform.
These new farmers
utilize practices such as management intensive grazing, integrated crop and
livestock farming, diverse crop rotations, cover crops, and inter-cropping.
They manage their land and labor resources to harvest solar energy, to utilize
the productivity of nature, and thus, are able to reduce their reliance on
external purchased inputs. They are able to reduce costs and increase profits
while protecting the natural environment and supporting their local
communities.
These
new farmers focus on providing value to their customers. They realize that each
of us value things differently, as consumers, because we have different needs
and different tastes and preferences. Industrial methods are efficient only if
large numbers of us are willing to settle for the same basic goods and services
– so they can be mass-produced. So, industrialization has to treat us as
if we are all pretty much the same. Customers have to be persuaded, coerced,
and bribed to buy the same basic things rather than the things they really want.
That’s why we pay more to those who package and advertise food than we
pay to the farmers who produce the food. The industrial system creates
tremendous untapped opportunities for farmers who can tailor their products to
conform to unique needs and preferences of individual customers, rather than
try to bend the preferences of customers to conform to their products.
New farmers market in the niches.
They market direct to customers through farmers markets, roadside stands, CSAs, home delivery, mail order, or by customer pick-up at
the farm. They use everything from the Internet to word-of-mouth to advertise
their services. They market to people who care where their food comes from and
how it is produced – locally grown, organic, humanely raised, hormone and
antibiotic free, etc. They are often able to avoid some or all of the
processing, transportation, packaging, and marketing costs that make up 80
percent of the total cost of mass marketed foods. They increase value, reduce
costs, and increase profits while protecting the environment and helping to
build stronger local communities.
New
farmers focus on what they can do best. They realize that we are all
different -- as producers as well as consumers. We have widely diverse skills,
abilities, and aptitudes. Industrialization has had to bend people --
train, bribe, and coerce -- to make them behave as coordinated parts of one big
machine rather than as fundamentally different human beings. Many problems of
today’s society are symptoms of people being used by industrial systems
in ways that are inherently degrading to our uniquely human productive
capacities. Industrialization has left tremendous untapped economic
opportunities for farmers and others who can use their unique capacities to be
productive rather than attempt to conform to systems of production that just
don’t fit.
These
new farmers may produce grass finished beef, pastured pork, free range or
pastured poultry, heirloom varieties of fruits and vegetables, dairy or milk goats,
edible flowers, decorative gourds, or dozens of other products that many label
as agricultural “alternatives.” They find markets for the things
they want to grow and are able to grow well rather than produce for markets
where they can’t compete. Or they may produce common commodities by means
that are uniquely suited to their talents. Their products are better, their
costs are less, and their life is better because they are doing the things that
they do best. New farmers focus on creating value through uniqueness –
among consumers, among producers, and within nature.
In general, new farmers link
people with purpose and place. By linking their unique productive capacities
with unique sets of natural resources to serve the needs and wants of unique groups
of customers they create unique systems for meeting human needs that cannot be
industrialized. The more unique their combinations of person, purpose, and
place; the more sustainable will be the value to customers and producers alike.
The sameness of industrialization creates opportunities for unique farmers who
can create unique linkages with both resources and customers.
Must everything be quick, convenient, and cheap?
At a recent conference on organic farming, a consumer in the
audience made the statement that organic foods would never catch on with
mainstream consumers until it becomes “quick, convenient, and
cheap.” That question forced me to think about American values, and
eventually, to think about what has brought us to the potential “end of agriculture
in the American portfolio.” It’s our demand that our food must be
quick, convenient, and cheap that has caused us to industrialize our
agriculture and now encourages us to move our food production to other nations
of the world. It’s also our demand that our food be
quick, convenient, and cheap that has caused us to degrade our natural
environment, to destroy our rural communities, and to force millions of farm
families off the land. Hopefully, we are beginning to realize that food that is
quick, convenient, and cheap quite simply is costing us more time, effort, and
wealth than humanity can afford – once we consider the full social,
ecological, and human costs of production.
Perhaps it will take more time, effort, and money in the short run
for American farmers to farm sustainably. However,
over the longer run, the costs of sustainable farming will decline as we
restore the productivity of nature, and the costs of industrial farming will
climb as we continue to degrade the productivity of nature. Within a decade or
two, we will be able to produce more at a lower cost with new systems of
farming that degrade neither land nor the people.
Perhaps it will take more time and
more people to farm sustainably – but after
all,” what are people for?” If a new way for farming can provide a
desirable quality of life, why shouldn’t more Americans be farmers?
Perhaps we consumers will need to take more time acquiring and preparing our
food. But, what better use can we make of our time than in creative activities
that enhance our health and quality of life in preparing and eating meals
together?
Perhaps it will take more effort,
specifically more mental effort, to support the new American system of food and
farming. But most things that are not mentally stimulating, or even mentally
challenging, likewise contribute very little to our overall quality of life. In
general, things that are quick, convenient, and cheap are rarely worth the
time, effort, or money they demand.
Perhaps it’s time to stop
looking for things that are quick, convenient, or cheap and instead begin
searching for things that are worth the time, effort, and money required to do
them right. Perhaps it’s time to end the era of industrial agriculture in
America, and to
welcome the new American farm.
REFERENCES
Blank, Stephen C.
The End of Agriculture in the American Portfolio,
Quorum Books, Westport, Connecticut.
Dali Lama, 1997. As quoted in The
Wisdom Teachings of the Dali Lama, Edited by Matthew Bunson,
Penguin Books Ltd, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England.
Smith,
Adam. 1776. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,
Fifth Edition, Edinburg:
Adam and Charles Black, London,
MCDDDLXI.