Interesting article. In my opinion, if you re-read it and substitute
"global economics", or "growth oriented society", for "industrial
agriculture" and "sustainable society", or "harmony oriented society" for
"sustainable agriculture", you will see the larger situation. With a
little imagination, you can come up with substitute examples. I think the
problem is much more than agriculture. Though I am not suggesting that we
ignore the problems of agriculture.
For example, here is some of what Ikerd wrote with my (substitutions):
> (Growth oriented societies and harmony oriented societies) are (based on)
two
> fundamentally different philosophies, diametrically and irreconcilably
opposed.
> There is no common ground on which to compromise.
> We need only think of Rome, Greece, Egypt, etc. and how their
cultures/empires > collapsed upon (their inability to adapt) their
(culture) to (the carrying capacity > the land they inhabited.)
> (Each seemingly separate) crisis is a chronic symptom of the type of
(society) > we have been (creating) in (the 'civilized' world) for the past
(3,000) years, > magnified (now) by the brazen attempts of giant
corporations to wrest control > from (communities, families and
individuals) and complete the (separation) of > (humans from ecological
systems). But (separation) is neither inevitable nor > progressive.
> We need to tell (the people of the world) about (a) new kind of (society)
that will > sustain people (and the earth), not just (the few who profit
from industrial > growth). And we need to give them common-sense reasons
why the old system > cannot be sustained and why a sustainable (society) is
not a luxury but an > absolute necessity.
Other comments:
> Our task is made more difficult by institutions that see industrialization
> as the only viable option for the future. The government subsidizes our
> industrial competitors with everything from tax concessions to direct farm
> program payments. We are excluded from traditional markets and prevented
> from marketing direct to customers by a maze of complex government
> regulations. We are denied equal access to the research and educational
> resources of public institutions.
Hidden within this I see the possible risk of the "new agriculture" to fall
into the traps and assumptions of the "old". I can't conceive of a
"sustainable agriculture" that uses "marketing", "government subsidizes",
"traditional markets" and government supported research and education. If
based on the same deep philosophy, sustainable agriculture will be little
improvement.
> Today, Paine's work provides valuable insights into how to keep a
> revolution from failing - at least when the cause makes common sense.
> Sustainable agriculture, like freedom and democracy, is a cause that makes
> common sense.
I agree that any significant change, especially a rapid one, should be
founded on common sense. Unfortunately, humans are amazing in their
ability to distort common sense.
Thrive Lightly on the Earth!
Eric Storm
