Choices
and Consequences for the Future of Food and Farming[1]
Food
and farming systems of the future will be different – different from those of
today and those of the past. Perhaps,
this is the only thing we can say about the future with any degree of
confidence – it will be different. In
addition, the least accurate way to predict the future is simply to extrapolate
linearly from the past, through the present, and into the future. All trends eventually change direction. Somewhere in the future there will be a time
to choose, a time at which our choices will set a new and different course for
the future. Or, perhaps the time to
choose is now.
The
future is not predetermined and there is no way of knowing for sure which
choices we should make. The world around
us is simply too complex to anticipate its evolution. However, we humans are interconnected with
the world around us, and over time, we co-evolve with our environment. Perhaps, our actions will not determine our
future, but we most certainly will influence our future with our actions – or
our inactions. We all have choices to
make and our choices will have consequences.
Some
may consider the choice “to do nothing” as a choice for a future that will be
much like the past, but that is not possible.
If we do nothing, our communities, our nations, and our world of the
future will be far different from the past, in ways that most now find
difficult to imagine. If we, the people,
choose to do nothing to shape our future, the almost certain result will be the
homogenization of our economies, our nations, and our cultures – one economy,
one society, one human culture around the globe. If instead, we want to maintain our economic,
national, and cultural identities, if we want to maintain a diverse, dynamic,
and sustainable global society, we must make conscious, purposeful choices.
If
we choose to do nothing, we will continue the current trend toward a single
global food system, with specialization of production of specific commodities
in regions of lowest costs, for distribution around the world to those who are
able to pay the highest prices. If we
choose to do nothing, the global food system will come under increasing control
of a small number of transnational agribusiness corporations with the power to
decide where foods are produced, how they are produced, processed, and
distributed, how much food will cost, and ultimately, who has enough to eat and
who doesn’t. If people within
communities, nations, and regions of the world want to maintain their long run
food security, they will have to make conscious, purposeful choices.
We live in a global
ecosystem; in this, we have no choice.
Such is the nature of the “natural world.” The atmosphere is global. Whatever we put in the air in one place
eventually may find its way to any other place on the globe. Weather is global. The warming or cooling of the oceans in one
part of the world affects the weather in another, which in turn affects the
temperature of oceans elsewhere on the globe.
The climate is global. If we
experience global warming in one part of the world, the climate is changed in
all parts of the world. All the elements
of the biosphere, of the living world, are interrelated and interconnected,
including its human elements. We are all
members of a global community of nature – the global ecosystem. We have no choice in this matter.
Increasingly, we also live in a global
social community – a global society. Global
communications – print media, radio, television, and the Internet – have erased
technical communications barriers among nations of the world, resulting in the
spread of common cultural values around the globe. Global travel has become faster, easier, and
less expensive, resulting in greater person-to-person sharing of social and
cultural values among people of all regions and nations. Consequently, the distinctiveness of our
regional and national cultures has diminished.
We seem to be moving toward universal membership in a common global
culture.
However, in matters of
society and culture we still have the right to choose. We have the right to maintain whatever
aspects of our unique local or national cultures and communities that we choose
to keep. We still have the right to
protect our regional and national communities and cultures against the economic
and political forces that are pushing us toward a single global society and
culture. But, we also can choose to
sacrifice that right, through the World Trade Organization (WTO) or other
means, in our pursuit of greater economic growth.
In
spite of recent set backs for the WTO, we seem to be moving toward a single
global free market. International trade has
increased dramatically over the past few decades, first under the various GATT
agreements, then under the WTO, and now under various multilateral trade
agreements among nations – such the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA), the European Union (EU) and the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC).
All of
the national economies of the world are interconnected through their dependence
upon each other for trade. Problems
anywhere in the world economy, with
In the matter of a single
global free market, we also have a right to choose. Today, however, the natural right of every
nation to protect its resources and its people from economic exploitation may
be slipping away. In a single,
homogeneous global free market, the social and political boundaries that now
protect nations from economic exploitation would no longer exist. Today, we are being asked to make a choice to
give up our right to choose.
If we give up this right to
choose, we almost certainly will continue the current trend toward a
corporately dominated global food system, which will threaten the long run food
security of every nation of the world.
The food security of any nation lies in the ability of its farmers to
meet the minimum food and fiber needs of its people in time of crisis. A nation that cannot feed itself is no more
secure than a nation that cannot defend itself.
Food security does not require self-sufficiency, but it does require a
sustainable level of domestic agricultural productive capacity. Our individual and national security demands
that we never give up our right to choose.
Perhaps the best way to begin addressing questions of
globalization is to examine the boundaries that currently restrain ecological,
social, and economic homogenization and to ask why those boundaries exist. The boundaries that exist in nature, the
ecological boundaries, were put there by the forces of nature. Topographical features such as oceans,
mountains, and even rivers and ridges, separate one physical bioregion from
another. Why do such boundaries exist
within nature? Nature is inherently
diverse and physical boundaries are nature’s way of defining its
diversity. Boundaries separate and
define the form or structure of those things that support life: sunlight, air,
water, and soil. Boundaries also define
the physical structure of all living things: bacteria, fungi, plants, animals,
and humans. We know also that biological
diversity is necessary for life; diversity that distinguishes cells, organs,
and living organisms from each other; diversity gives resistance, resilience,
and the regeneration ability to living communities. Without diversity, without boundaries, nature
could not sustain life, including human life.
Cultural and political
boundaries are those things that define distinct “communities” of people –
including cities, states, and nations. People
established such boundaries to facilitate relationships among people within
boundaries and to differentiate between relationships among people within a
given community and their relationships with people in other communities. “Within” cultural boundaries, relationships
were nurtured to enhance social connectedness and personal security. Boundaries “between” communities maintain
some sense of identify, and thus, maintain diversity among different groups or
collections of people. Diversity among
communities maintains choices and opportunity for those of the current
generation and for those of generations to follow. Historically, whenever one human culture or
society has become dominate, but then failed, alternative cultures and
societies have always been available to restore health and growth, and thus,
have provided resilience, and long run security for human progress. Without cultural diversity, there would have
been nothing to replace the long line of failed societies of the past.
With some exceptions noted above, economic boundaries, over at
least the past century, have been the same as national political
boundaries. Historically, each nation
has had its own currency, and has maintained economic relationships among those
“within” nations as separate and distinct from economic relationships “among”
nations. Economic boundaries allow for
“free trade” within nations and “selective trade” among nations. Economic diversity, as defined by economic
boundaries, is necessary for division of labor and specialization among
nations. If all national economies were
to lose their distinctiveness, becoming as one, all natural and human resources
would be quickly exploited, and all further potential gains from trade among
nations would disappear. Historically,
economic diversity among nations also has been considered a necessity to ensure
choice and opportunity – to ensure health, growth, resilience, and long run
security of the global economy. Humanity
has not been willing to put all of its “economic eggs in one basket.”
The
dilemma confronting people of the world today is whether the potential benefits
of removing the economic boundaries that separate national economies are
greater than the potential costs. Are
the potential short run economic benefits of a single global economy greater
than the potential long run ecological, social, and economic costs? There is little doubt that a single global
free market would result in an increase in global economic activity and would
accelerate growth in global economic output – at least in the short run. However, such benefits would almost certainly
be achieved through increased extraction of natural resources and exploitation
of human resources, placing an increased burden on the global ecosystem and on
global society. Thus, the fundamental
question confronting humanity today is whether the economic benefits of global
free trade are sustainable.
The
short run benefits from a single global food system might be lower dollar and
cent costs of food. Global specialization,
standardization, and consolidation of the food system presumably would result
in greater economic efficiency. However,
over the longer run, it seems highly questionable whether benefits from
increased efficiency would be passed on to either food producers or consumers
or simply retained as greater corporate profits. Also, there seems little doubt that the
removal of economic boundaries will lead to increase exploitation of the land,
of farmers, of consumers, and of global society, as corporations are freed to
maximize profits, globally. A global
food system is simply not sustainable – ecologically, socially, or
economically.
The ecological, social,
and economic consequences of globalization are rooted in some of the most basic
laws of nature. The first law of
thermodynamics, the law of conservation of mass and energy, might seem to
suggest that sustainability is ensured.
Matter may be converted to energy and energy converted to matter, but
energy and matter in total are conserved, and thus, remains undiminished. However, the second law of thermodynamics
suggests that each time matter is converted to energy, or energy to matter,
some of the “usefulness” is lost. This loss
in usefulness is identified with the concept of entropy, “the ultimate state
reached in degradation of matter and energy; a state of inert uniformity of
component elements; absence of form, pattern, hierarchy, or
differentiation.” So, the second law of
thermodynamics might suggest that sustainability is impossible.
However, the first and second laws of thermodynamics relate to
“closed systems” – where nothing is lost to the outside and nothing comes in
from the outside. With “closed systems,”
entropy is inevitable. Thus, the
possibility of long run sustainability of life on earth is a consequence only
of the “openness” of the biosphere, as a system, to the inflow of energy from
the sun. Sustainability is possible only
because the earth, as an “open system,” is capable of capturing and storing
sufficient amounts of “useful” solar energy to offset the declining
“usefulness” associated with the inevitable tendency toward entropy.
This dependence on solar
energy suggests that sustainable development ultimately is dependent upon
“living systems.” Living systems, by
nature, are “open systems.” Living
organisms capture energy from the sun, convert it to more diverse and “useful”
forms, and thus, have the capacity to offset the inevitable degradation of
usefulness of energy and matter. The
natural tendency of “living systems” is toward greater diversity in structure,
form, hierarchy, and pattern – away from entropy. Scientists continue to explore the potential
of various kinds of synthetic solar collectors and of solar energy carried by
wind and water. But living plants on
land and living phytoplankton in the seas remain the only practical collectors
of significant amounts of solar energy.
Thus, the sustainability of human life on earth remains dependent upon
the sustainability of other living systems.
A sustainable human
society must conserve, recycle, and reuse materials and energy, if it is to
slow, rather than accelerate, the process of entropy. And ultimately, human population and per
capita consumption must accommodate the carrying capacity of the earth. But, the carrying capacity of the earth
depends at least as much on our effectiveness in nurturing and using living
systems to capture and store solar energy as on our efficiency in using stocks
of energy and material with which the earth is endowed. Sustainability depends upon “living systems.”
Sustainable living systems must be regenerative systems; they must
be capable of renewing and reproducing themselves, of maintaining their
productivity and vitality from generation to generation, indefinitely. Living systems are “self-making.” Non-living or dead systems are not. Bacteria, insects, plants, animals, and
humans, are examples of living systems.
Clocks, bicycles, automobiles, machines, and factories, are examples of
dead systems. All systems, both living
and dead, can be characterized by the pattern, structure, and process. But, the processes by which structure is
created and recreated are fundamentally different for living and dead systems.
The “pattern” of a dead system is the organizational concept – the
plan or blueprint by which it is constructed.
The “pattern” of a living system is encoded in its DNA – the genetic
code, which guides its process of development.
The “structure” of both living and dead systems is the physical
embodiment of pattern. For both living
and dead systems, the structure is the thing that you can see, feel, touch, or
otherwise perceive using your physical senses.
The “process” of a system defines the means by which the system performs
the functions necessary to fulfill its purpose.
Something useful or meaningful results from the “processes” of both
living and dead systems.
The primary difference between living and dead systems is in the
“process” by which their “structure” is made and remade. Non-living systems must be constructed
according to some plan or blueprint, which must be developed before
construction begins. If non-living
systems wear out, become obsolete, or lose their usefulness, they must be
redesigned and rebuilt. Once built, the
structure of dead systems remains constant.
Dead systems may break or wear out, but their basic structure remains
unchanged. Non-living systems can be
remodeled, rebuilt, or redesigned, but they cannot make, remake, or redesign
themselves.
Living systems, on the other hand, make and remake themselves, and
given time, are even capable of redesigning themselves. All living organisms are living systems. Throughout its life, the physical structure
of a living organism is continually changing.
Living organisms, including humans, are born, mature, reproduce, grow
old, and eventually die – by nature. The
cells of living organisms are replaced continuously, even in mature organisms,
creating essentially new structures, often many times during a single life
span. While the pattern of an individual
living organism, its DNA, remains unchanged during its lifetime, living species
are capable of evolving over time, modifying their genetic code to accommodate
a changing natural environment. Living
and dead systems may both perform useful and productive processes, but part of
the process of a living system is self-renewal and redesign.
The capacity of a living system simultaneously to produce, renew,
and regenerate depends upon its strength and its health. The health and strength of any living
organism depends on the health and strength of the relationships among its
various structural units or components.
Cells are a fundamental structural unit of all living organisms. All living cells are surrounded by membranes,
which separate the water-rich cytoplasm inside the cell from a significantly
different outside environment. The
membranes, which define the boundaries of each cell, are “semi-permeable” –
they let some things pass through, but keep other things in and out. Cells that are either permeable or are
non-permeable, rather than semi-permeable, cannot support life. If living cells weren’t semi-permeable, they
wouldn’t be able to retain moisture or minerals; they wouldn’t be able to metabolize
food, release energy, or eliminate waste.
The organism would die. All
living organisms are made up of cells, which are defined by semi-permeable
boundaries.
This principle of semi-permeable boundaries extends beyond the
cellular level to many other aspects of life.
All living organisms are defined by boundaries – skin, bark, leaf
surface, scales, etc. – which give them structure, form, and identity. As with cells, the boundaries of organisms
must be semi-permeable or selective with respect to what they allow to pass
through and what they keep in or keep out.
The human body is protected by boundaries, which must allow “food” to
come in and “wastes” to go out, in order to sustain life. Plants exchange nutrients stored in their
roots for nutrients needed from the soil, and the root boundaries are very
selective in what they let in and let out.
Boundaries are necessary, but they must be semi-permeable or selective.
The natural tendency of living systems toward the creation of
greater biological diversity implies a tendency toward greater complexity and
variety of living organisms, and thus, a tendency toward more boundaries. On the other hand, the natural tendency of
closed systems, of “dead things,” toward entropy, is reflected in their
tendency toward the dissolution or destruction of boundaries. Inevitably, “degradation of energy and
matter” results whenever boundaries are destroyed to release energy from
matter, because some energy must be used to restore the boundaries, leaving
less “useful energy” than before – thus, the tendency toward entropy.
When an oak log is burned, energy, in the form of heat, is
released and the structure of the wood is turned to ashes. The boundaries that once defined the
structure of the log are destroyed through the releasing of energy. The human body converts food to energy by a
similar process of digesting or breaking down the structure of the foods that
we eat. In both cases, the energy
consumed is renewable because new boundaries can be built and new energy can be
captured from the sun by other living organisms. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, are
non-renewable sources of energy – at least non-renewable in a reasonable human
timeframe. Lacking a new infusion of
energy from “outside” – as from the sun – systems that depend on non-renewable
energy slowly lose their ability to restore the structural boundaries of
matter, and thus, slowly lose their ability to store and release energy. This is the essence of entropy – the
degradation of energy and matter, as systems lose their form, structure, and diversity
through the destruction of boundaries.
Such contrasts of living and dead systems, of sustainability and
entropy, are equally relevant to cultural, political, and economic systems – to
issues of economic development, globalization, and trade. The dissolution of boundaries among cultures
increases the efficiency of social and political processes, releasing the
energy previously bound by cultural constraints. The dissolution of political boundaries,
likewise, releases the energy bound by conflicting laws, regulations, and other
political constraints. The dissolution
of cultural and political boundaries removes constraints to economic
specialization, standardization, and consolidation, the key characteristics of
industrialization, thus allowing maximum productivity and economic
efficiency. Thus, strong social and
economic incentives exist to remove all cultural and political boundaries.
Agriculture provides both a prime example and a meaningful
metaphor for anticipating the consequences of global free trade. All economic development ultimately is
dependent upon the land, the earth, the dependency is simply more clear in
farming. All social and cultural
development ultimately is dependent on relationships between living organisms,
including people, the dependency is simply more clear in farming.
Industrialization, characterized by standardization,
specialization, and consolidation of control, has been the dominant model or
paradigm of economic development of the past two centuries. Industrialization
is the physical manifestation of a specific philosophy of economics, a specific
concept of science, and a specific worldview.
The mechanistic worldview emerged during the 1600’s to 1700’s. It was first articulated by early scientists
such as Isaac Newton and Rene Descartes.
During this Age of Reason, the world came to be viewed as a large
complex machine with many interrelated parts – as clock-like in nature. The foundation of modern science was laid
during this period with development of the “scientific method” of inquiry and
the “reductionist” approach to research. All complex systems could be reduced to their
elemental parts, isolating individual causes and effects, and thus, to gaining
understanding of systems as wholes.
Classical
economics had its roots in this same period of Enlightenment. However, it was not until the early 1800’s
that neo-classical economists abandoned the “pursuit of happiness,” with its
inherent social and moral implications, instead pursuing “maximization of
utility,” and turning economics into a “mechanistic social science.” Today, the mechanistic scientific worldview,
neo-classical philosophy of economics, and industrial paradigm of development
dominate virtually every aspect of modern society – including the new electronic
information and biological technologies.
Nowhere are the consequences of industrialization more clear and
compelling than in farming. In farming,
tremendous gains in productivity and economic efficiency have been achieved
through the removal of boundaries.
Farmers removed fences that had separated fields, as they moved toward
more mechanized and standardized systems of farming. The diversity of crops and livestock enterprises
that once defined the structure of typical family farms was abandoned to
achieve greater specialization. The
“landscapes” of many farms were left without form, pattern, hierarchy, or
differentiation. These new “more
efficient” farming methods allowed farms to become larger, through
consolidation, removing the boundaries of ownership and identity that once
defined different farms within communities.
As farms became larger, farmers reached beyond the boundaries of the
local communities to market their products and purchase their inputs because it
was “more efficient” to do so.
This transformation, this industrialization of agriculture,
resulted in tremendous gains in agricultural productivity and economic
efficiency. As with industrialization in
general, it has released tremendous stocks of stored energy that were
constrained by the boundaries that once defined different fields, enterprises,
farms, and farming communities.
Industrialization removes the boundaries allowing stored energy to be
released. But, the industrial paradigm
provides no means of restoring the inevitably lost energy.
Thankfully, we have another choice. An alternative paradigm of resource
development is emerging. Sustainable
development is the name most commonly linked to this alternative. Sustainable agriculture is but a part, albeit
an important part, of the pursuit of sustainable development.
The new paradigm of agricultural sustainability is being
developed by thousands of farmers all around the globe. They are doing it with little help from
scientists, from government, or anyone other than each other. These farmers may label themselves as
organic, biodynamic, holistic, biological, ecological, practical, innovative,
or accept no label other than family farmer.
However, they share a common philosophy of farming that fits under the
conceptual umbrella of agricultural sustainability. [3] These new farmers are helping to define an
alternative paradigm of sustainable development – not just for agriculture, but
also for all resource development activities.
Sustainable development must meet the needs of the present while leaving
equal or better opportunities for the future.
A sustainable farm is a useful metaphor for a sustainable society.
A sustainable system of farming must be ecologically
sound, economically viable, and socially responsible. The living ecological, economic, and social
sub-systems, which constitute a sustainable farm, must all be renewable and
regenerative. A farm that is not
ecologically regenerative cannot be sustained over time, no matter how
profitable or socially responsible it may be in the short run. A farm that is not economically regenerative
is not sustainable, no matter how ecologically sound and socially responsible
it may otherwise be. And, a farm that is
not responsive to the needs of society will not be supported by society, no
matter how ecologically sound or profitable it might be. A farm is a living organism – soils, plants,
animals, people, all are living, growing, evolving living entities, and the
farm exists in a living economic, ecological, and social environment. The
ecological, economic, and social organs must all remain healthy and strong, if
the farming organism is to be regenerative, and thus, sustainable.
The
social, ecological, and economic problems which threaten the sustainability of
agriculture today are all direct consequences of treating the soil, plants,
animals, and people as if they were separable, replaceable, mechanistic parts
of some sort of sophisticated biological machine. Ecological, social, and economic boundaries
are treated as physical constraints to be manipulated or removed. Current biological technologies, as developed
and promoted by the “life sciences” community, are but the latest products of a
worldview that treats life as nothing more than a sophisticated mechanical
process, which can be manipulated for economic gain. But, a farm is a living organism made up of
microorganisms, plants, and animals.
Farmers, consumers, members of society, are living, breathing, thinking,
caring people. Solutions to the current
problems of agriculture will require new ways of thinking – a new living
systems worldview.
Each sustainable farming operation is site-specific,
individualistic, and dynamic. To farm sustainably, the farming systems must fit the ecological,
physical, and intellectual resources of the individual farm operation, which
being a living system, continually changes and evolves over time. However, some general underlying
characteristics of successful sustainable agricultural operations are beginning
to emerge from the diverse experiences of these new farmers. From these characteristics, we can begin to
understand how sustainable farms and other sustainable systems must be
organized and managed.
Industrial management is characterized by
specialization, standardization, and consolidation of control. Sustainable farm managers can realize
economic gains from appropriate levels of specialization, standardization, and
consolidation, but must do so without sacrificing the social, ecological, and
economic benefits of positive relationships among diverse elements within
holistically managed, interdependent systems.
Instances of specialization, uniformity, and hierarchy can also be found
within natural ecosystems, but only within the boundaries of nature. Sustainable farming systems, likewise, must
respect the natural limits of living systems, including the economic and social
systems within which they must function.
Sustainable farms must be managed holistically. In holistic management, each component of the
farming operation – each practice, method, or enterprise – is treated as an
inseparable aspect or dimension of the farm as a whole. Each rearrangement creates a new set of
relationships among the components of a holistically managed operation, and
thus, constitutes a new and different whole.
In essence, the addition of a new crop or livestock enterprise or a
change in production or marketing strategy creates a new farming system. When viewed holistically, farms embody
something more than the simple sum of their parts. Relationships among parts are as important as
the parts themselves. That something
more than the sum of the parts, i.e. synergy, is the product of positive
relationships.
Holistic
managers create various spatial arrangements of crops, pastures, animals, etc.
across the landscapes of their farms.
They create different temporal arrangements by rotating crops, forages,
and pastures, by sequencing different animal species on pastures, etc. during
each season or from one season to the next.
They arrange various types of plant, animal, and marketing enterprises
so that the output of one enterprise becomes the input of another or the waste
from one becomes a resource to another.
And they arrange people so that the right people, including themselves,
can do the right thing at the right time so that the things they produce can
meet the individual wants and needs of their customers.
Through
holistic management, the new sustainable farmers are able to reduce their costs
while increasing productivity, making their farms more economically viable, as
well as more ecologically sound, and socially responsible. They are able to conserve non-renewable
energy by relying on solar energy and renewable human energy, without
exploiting either land or people. And,
they reduce or eliminate their reliance on costly non-renewable commercial
inputs, which threaten human health and the natural environment. They make a good living while remaining
stewards of the land and keepers of communities.
Sustainable farms must be managed for diversity. Nature is diverse, and the diversity of an
ecologically sound farming operation must reflect the diversity of its
ecological “place.” People are diverse,
and the diversity of a socially responsible farming operation must reflect the
diversity of the people who operate the farm and the customers it serves. Horizontal diversity is reflected in the
number and nature of different practices, methods, and enterprises carried out
on a specific farm, which allows farmers to fit what they do to the needs and
capacities of the land. Vertical
diversity is reflected in the number and nature of different functions
performed in transforming raw materials into finished products, which allows
farmers to fit what they do to the needs and preferences of their
customers. By reconnecting vertically,
sustainable farmers are helping to recreate local, community based food
systems, which can be reconnected horizontally to form regional, national, and
global food networks – without sacrificing diversity. Diversity creates opportunities for “economic
synergy,” across space, among people, and over time, which allow ecologically
sound and socially responsible farming operations to achieve economic
viability.
The new sustainable farmers produce goods and services
that meet the needs and wants of specific, unique customers. They realize that people, as consumers, have
unique tastes and preferences, and many don’t prefer the foods they find in
supermarkets and fast food restaurants today.
They produce for growing ecological niche markets – organic, hormone and
antibiotic free, humanely raised, free range, natural, etc. Sustainable farmers recognize also that
producers are people with unique abilities, aptitudes, and aspirations. They choose to do things that they do well
but also things they want to do. They
pursue their passions. By managing for
diversity, their lives are more productive and fulfilling, their products are
more valuable, and their farms are more economically viable, as well as
ecologically sound and socially responsible.
Sustainable farms must maintain interdependent
relationships, rather than strive for independence or accept dependence. Interdependent relationships are
relationships of choice, not necessity.
Obviously, we humans are dependent on nature, because we must breath,
drink, and eat if we are to live.
However, we humans are now capable of degrading, if not destroying, nature,
and thus, nature also depends upon us.
Thus, we must recognize that nature will not continue to support us, at
least not many of us very well, unless we humans choose to conserve and protect
our natural environment. We must create
an interdependent relationship with nature, in which we choose to take care of
nature so nature will take care of us.
Sustainable farms must maintain an interdependent relationship with the
land.
Sustainable farmers also must maintain interdependent
relationships with each other, with their neighbors, and with their
customers. They must recognize that past
struggles for greater independence has separated farmers from their families,
their neighbors, and their customers, and ultimately, has led to their economic
demise. In a confrontation of farmer
against farmer, farmer against neighbor, farmer against consumers, and
ultimately, farmer against corporation, the independent farmer was destined to
lose. But neither can farmers be
sustained through dependent relationships.
The sustainable farm can’t depend upon the charity of its neighbors or
customers, nor can it depend upon government subsidies or corporate contracts;
it must produce things of value and expect value in return.
The new sustainable farmers work together when to do so
is to their mutual advantage – share equipment, market or process together,
etc. – but retain the ability to “go it on their own,” whenever it is mutually
advantageous to do so. They care about
family and are active members of their community, but they negotiate the nature
of their relationships with others, rather than either dictate or submit. They work with their customers, providing
those things that each individual customer values, but not becoming dependent
on any single customer for their economic well-being. Their customers are treated as real people,
as friends, rather than markets to be exploited. Their farms are more productive and
profitable, as well as more socially responsible and ecologically sound,
because they maintain interdependent relationships.
Interdependent relationships are the ultimate consequence
of holistically managed, diverse living systems. And, interdependent relationships depend on
healthy semi-permeable or selective ecological, economic, and social
boundaries. By maintaining healthy,
selective boundaries, sustainable farming systems are able to realize the
synergy inherent in holism and diversity, through win-win relationships with
nature and with people, rather than through extraction and exploitation. Sustainable farmers sustain their productivity
and profitability by caring for the earth and caring for people. Sustainable farms are renewing, regenerative,
healthy living systems.
These
lessons of sustainable farmers can help inform the choices of human society in
general as we address the issues of globalization and free trade. Humanity can
realize economic gains from appropriate levels of specialization,
standardization, and consolidation, but we must do so without sacrificing the
social, ecological, and economic benefits of positive relationships among
diverse elements within holistically managed, interdependent systems. We must respect the natural boundaries that
separate geographic regions, cultures, and economies. To sustain healthy ecosystems, societies, and
economies, the boundaries defining them must be selective – allowing
relationships within to be different from relationships among.
The ecosystem is inherently global in nature, but we
must respect its natural boundaries to keep it healthy and regenerative, thus
helping to sustain its bounty. We can
realize the benefits of a global society, of sharing among cultures, but we
must respect and value human diversity by maintaining our separate regional and
national cultural identities. We can
realize the benefits of a global economy, but all nations must retain their rights,
and must accept their responsibilities, to protect their people and their
natural resources from economic exploitation.
We must maintain healthy, semi-permeable economic boundaries if we are
to maintain healthy interdependent relationships among bioregions, communities,
and economies.
We
can choose holism, rather than reductionism, recognizing that we cannot find
truth through analysis or separation, but instead must seek truth in the whole
of things. The ecological, economic, and
social dimensions of alternatives are inseparable aspects of the whole of human
experience. The personal, interpersonal,
and spiritual are inseparable aspects of our quality of life, which is
inherently affected by our choices. All
bioregions, economies, and societies are inseparable parts of the global
ecosystem, global economy, and global culture, which are inseparable parts of
the biosphere – the same whole. We must
learn to make choices, giving due consideration to the whole.
However,
holism does not imply homogeneity. In
choosing holistically, we can choose diversity, rather than homogeneity,
recognizing that diversity is necessary to ensure resistance, resilience,
regeneration, and sustainability. Loss
of diversity inherently leads to loss of form, structure, identity, toward
dissipation of matter and energy, toward entropy. We can choose to maintain the separate
identities of our families, communities, regions, nations, and cultures,
without sacrificing the sustainability of human society. We can maintain diverse ecosystems,
economies, cultures, and still realize the benefits of appropriate
specialization, standardization, and consolidation. In fact, we must choose diversity if we are
to sustain those benefits.
We can choose interdependence, rather
than dependence or independence, recognizing the mutual benefit to be gained
from relationships of choice.
Interdependent relationships among diverse elements of holistic
organizations are the key to a sustainable quality of life – for farms,
families, communities, nations, and humanity.
Relationships of choice require healthy, selective boundaries among
farms, families, communities, regions, and nations. Each living entity must be free to make the
choices necessary to protect themselves from domination and exploitation, if
all are to benefit from their relationships with others. Mutual benefits are assured only by
relationships of choice, not of necessity.
Gains from “free trade” are possible, even necessary, but gains from
trade are sustainable only if all parties are “free not to trade.”
Soon,
we will all be asked to make choices that either will lead to the removal of
all economic boundaries between nations, resulting in a single global free
market, or alternatively will lead to retention of the economic boundaries
needed to define a diverse global economy.
The choices, I believe, ultimately will lead to either an industrial,
global society or a sustainable, place-based society. If we choose “to do nothing,” we will have
chosen the former – the natural tendency of unrestrained economic development
is toward extraction and exploitation – toward entropy. If we choose to close our economic
boundaries, to let little if anything either in or out, we will not have chosen
sustainability, but instead our choices will cripple or kill the living
economies within.
To
choose sustainability, we must choose to maintain selective boundaries –
letting some things in, keeping some things out, letting some things out, and keeping
some things in. It will not be easy to
choose what to let in, what to keep out, what to let out, and what to keep in,
but we must make such choices if we are to choose sustainability. We make such choices every day regarding our
own bodies, our food, our families, and our circle of friends and
acquaintances. We must learn to extend
these same principles of living systems to choices concerning ecosystems,
economics, and societies.
We
are nearing a time when we must choose, a time at which our choices will set a
new and different course for the future.
Or, perhaps that time in now.
Perhaps, our actions will not fully determine our future, but our
choices most certainly will influence our future. We all have important choices to make and our
choices will have important consequences.
[1] Presented at the “Ecological
Agricultural Conference" at the
[2]
[3] For 50 examples of these new sustainable
farmers, see “The New American Farmer – Profiles in Agricultural Innovation,”
the SARE Program, USDA,