Agriculture – New Thinking for a New Century

John Ikerd

University of Missouri

When most people talk about changes in store for the new century they talk about dramatic advancement in trends that are already under way. They talk about all of things we are going to be able to do with computers – specifically with the internet. The mailman may be as outdated as the lamplighter, for example, when connecting with the internet is as simple as turning on our TV sets. They talk about how biotechnology is going to be used to cure, or even prevent, our physical ailments and how our food supply will be genetically engineered. Defective genes will be replaced with healthy genes to create healthier organisms. Cloning can then be used to multiply plants and animals to carry those desirable traits forward to future generations.

In agriculture, high-tech, bio-tech, and info-tech are the "buzz words" most frequently used to describe visions of the 21^st century. With few exceptions traditional agriculturists foresee a continued trend toward fewer, larger, and more specialized production units. They see current trends continuing until a half-dozen or so large, multinational corporations control virtually all processing and distribution of agricultural commodities in a single global food and fiber market. Many also forecast increasing vertical integration of production, processing, and distribution functions -- spanning activities from the design of germ-plasm to shaping of consumer preferences -- and increasing reliance on biological technologies and information technologies at all levels within the global agricultural system.

But, these forecasts are nothing more than continuations of current trends. Admittedly, these trends are almost certain to continue into the early decades of the next century. And, we may well see continued explosions in information and biological technologies. The industrialization of agriculture may well continue until it dominates global food and fiber production. But, the info-tech and biotech were not even on the radar screen as we approached the 20^th century. In fact there wasn’t even a radar screen for them to be on a hundred years ago. At the turn of the last century, industrialization was still in its infancy and few could envision a century ahead dominated by industrialization – let along a century of high technology.

Likewise, those who look to trends of the present for trends of the future may be right, or at least seem right, for a while. But they most certainly will be wrong after a while longer. The future is inherently uncertain. But, the thing most certain about the future is that it will be different from the present. Agriculture fifty years from now will likely be at least as different from the agriculture of today as today’s agriculture is from that of the 1940s. Yet most of us go about our business as if the world of yesterday and today were to be the world of tomorrow and forever.

Why do folks have such a hard time believing that the future can be much different -- and possibly much better -- than the past and present? Perhaps it is just human nature, but perhaps it is something more. Those in positions of economic and political power have a large stake in maintaining the status quo, or at least in managing change so as not to threaten their economic and political power-base. For example, we may well have been brainwashed, through advertising but also through education, into believing that growth is inherently good – that bigger is better. We are lead to believe there are no workable alternatives to a consumer culture that equates acquiring more stuff with a higher quality of life and regards never-ending "economic growth" as the only true measure of human progress.

But, we need not sacrifice our future on the altar of current economic or political ideologies. An economy is a creation of people designed to meet the needs of people. People have no responsibility to any particular economic culture or ideology. Current economic thinking is built upon the premise that people are no different than animals – that we are concerned first and foremost in fulfilling our own short run self interest. But, we are more than creatures of instinct – we have the God-given ability to imagine a future unlike anything we have ever seen. Our challenge is to help shape a future that we want, with our uniquely human foresight and sense of purpose, rather than simply accept whatever evolves from following the persuasion of others or our animalistic instincts. I think we do this best by modeling this future, as nearly as possible, in the way we live our lives in our little part of the world, day by day.

In early 1991 Science magazine published a couple of articles related to a proposal by two scientists that everyone should be taught "The 20 Great Ideas of Science." Among their top 20: "One set of laws describes all motion. Energy is conserved. Energy always goes from more useful to less useful forms. Everything is made up of quarks and leptons. Every observer sees the same laws of nature. All life is connected." Pretty heavy stuff. Also on the top 20 list was "Everything on earth operates in cycles." The global scientific community was asked to respond to the list. There were some slight differences of opinion about how the ideas should be stated, but no serious challenges to the ideas themselves.

So everything on the earth operates in cycles - seasonal cycles, business cycles, cattle cycles, life cycles, electronic cycles, and so on. Nothing goes in one direction forever. At some point everything changes direction and comes back toward where it has already been. Of course, the rest of the world may have cycled a few times in the time it takes for something to pass through, turn around, and come back. So each cycle may be quite different in detail, but its fundamental nature is essentially the same. Historically, humanity has seen people within societies congregate in large cities only to disperse themselves once again across the countryside. In fact, Allan Savory claims the only city-based society that has been able to survive historically has been that of the Nile Valley - only because they were subsidized by a new annual deposit of top soil from up stream. We have seen societies built upon "large farms" before—serfdoms and plantations, for example—only to see them later dissolve into individually owned "family farms." The emergence of the large, corporate-owned, centrally-controlled agribusinesses of today may have been inevitable. If so, they inevitably will be replaced by small independently owned farm and food enterprises. The problems are not inherent in such trends, but instead in the fact that trends often go too far before they are reversed. The question is not whether changes in trends will occur, but rather when and how they will occur.

Must we have a clean slate or an untouched field on which to start over in order to change directions? Must we wait for external conditions to change – for a more favorable environment? Of course not! We never have before, and we never will. New trends typically emerge while much of the visible evidence indicates that the old trends are firmly in place. Change comes first in the minds of a few, then in the minds of more than a few, and as these changes become visible in their activities and outcomes, change becomes an observable characteristic of the whole. But even then, much of the whole may appear unchanged.

If everything on earth operates in cycles, then we can expect agriculture and farming to operate in cycles as well. Does this imply that family farms are obsolete because there were a part of our idyllic past? The world would have to be linear rather than cyclical to support this proposition—and there seems to be no evidence of that. Society may soon discover that quality of life in not something we buy with what we earn from working for someone else 40 or 60 or 80 hours a week. We may conclude that our just having "more and more stuff" has not really increased our quality of life. We may well decide that we don’t want to continue to go in the same old fruitless direction, but instead are ready to turn around and come back to something better.

We need to be able to fulfill our basic needs for food, clothing, shelter, and health care. And in a market society that requires us to earn some amount of money. But quality of life is also about how we spend every day of life, in our work as well as at leisure. Quality of life is about our relationships with others - within families, communities, and society as a whole. Quality of life is about fulfilling our need to be in harmony with some higher order of things—our relationship with the environment and with those of future generations.

A new, post-industrial society is emerging under the conceptual umbrella of sustainable development – development that meets the needs of the current generation while leaving equal or better opportunities for generations that follow. Sustainable development must be ecologically sound, economically viable, and socially responsible. All are necessary and none is sufficient. A society lacking in any one is not sustainable over time.

There is growing evidence that most current systems of production and distribution – including those in agriculture – are not sustainable. Our current industrial systems of mass production and mass production are basic on the premise that everything is – or can be made to be – pretty much the same. Industrial production methods must have large quantities of uniform raw materials to take through standardized production process to achieve the cost economies of mass production. Industrial marketing systems must process, transport, and merchandize large quantities of identical or similar products to achieve the cost economies mass marketing.

But the natural resources that ultimately must support all forms of production are inherently diverse and dynamic and do not lend themselves to "ecologically sustainable, industrial production" methods. In addition, we consumers have diverse tastes and preferences and do not lend ourselves to "socially sustainable, mass marketing" methods. Sustainable "niche" markets are inherently small. If we take it seriously, the issue of sustainable development ultimately will lead the economy toward smaller production units that market their products directly to equally small groups of customers who want and need what they produce - back to a "family farm-like" economy.

The trend toward sustainable development would reverse the current cycles of economic, social, and ecological decay and destruction. People would seek harmony among economic, ecological, and social dimensions of their lives, not as an act of sacrifice but because doing so would result in a higher quality of life. Producers would produce in harmony with nature and with humanity because they know they are better off than if they attempt to maximize profits and growth. Consumers would live and consume in harmony with nature and humanity because they know they are better off than if they spent more time and effort trying to acquire "more stuff."

Is this idealistic? Perhaps, but a positive future is always made of ideals, hopes, and dreams for that future - not of the harsh realities of the past and present. Being realistic often is just an excuse for us to settle for the status quo or for whatever future those with more motivation and energy create for us. A sustainable society means that people will be healthier, better educated, and freer to pursue their dreams wherever they may be—not just better health care, schools, and roads. A sustainable farming community will be a place where people will choose to live and where their children and their children’s children will also choose to live and grow. We know the future will be different. It is not necessarily idealistic to truly believe that it can be better.

The future can be better than the past and the present. How do we make it happen? -- By each of us doing whatever we can do, in our little part of the world, day by day. The only life we have for sure is "right now." The only thing we can do to make the world a better place is what we can do right now. I once read a book with the title "All we can do is all we can do, but all we can do is enough." Whatever we can do in our little part of the world is all we can do. I truly believe that will be enough.