[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Some Fallacies of the Averys' High-Yield Farming
An Alernative Perspective on the AVERYS' HIGH-YIELD FARMING
by:
John Ikerd
University of Missouri
The Averys' paper contributes significantly to the sustainability
debate. In my opinion, they voice positions in agreement with the
vast majority of those in the "agricultural establishment," and for
that reason, their points are worthy of pondering. We can't blame
the Averys' for telling those in the conservative, agricultural
establishment the things they want to hear. They work for the
Hudson Institute, a conservative "think-tank." That's their job.
The puzzling thing to me is why so many people, including some
obviously informed and intelligent people, seem so willing to buy
into the Averys' concept of "High-Yield" farming as "the" system of
the future.
Joel Barker, in his book PARADIGMS, claims "when a paradigm shifts,
everyone goes back to zero." Perhaps those with great intellectual
investments in the "old" paradigm of the Averys' "high-yield"
farming are no less reluctant to "go back to zero" than are those
with large financial investments in the "high-yield," high-input,
industrial approaches to agriculture. We can't criticize people
for reading or listening. We should all listen to and read a wide
range of opinions and ideas, even when they differ greatly from our
own. But can we so easily excuse intelligent people for believing,
if it is simply because doubting might force them to "go back to
zero" and start thinking all over again?
Then again, maybe its the Averys' advocacy of a high-tech, bio-tech
research agenda that keeps the scientific establishment in their
camp. The focus on maximum possible production not only supports
the agribusiness agenda by keeping input sales high, but it
supports the current bio-tech, info-tech research agenda of the
scientific community as well. However, this emphasis on maximum
production does not create a "window of opportunity" for the
future, it closes one that is already open. The relative abundance
of current food supplies -- as evidenced by the fact that we pay
U.S. farmers less to produce the food that we pay to package and
advertise it -- already provides the window of opportunity. We
have an opportunity to find ways to increase production levels
without degrading the environment, or degrading the people who
produce the food, if we don't blow it by bowing to the current
agricultural power structure.
Scientists and farmers alike need to be exposed to a wide range of
viewpoints on important issues -- of which the Averys' is but one.
But, there are at least as many fallacies in their arguments
advocating "High-Yield" farming as there are in the arguments
supporting the "low-yield" systems they attack.
Fallacy #1: A sustainable agriculture won't sustain people.
The Averys begin by outlining a broad definition of
sustainable agriculture, but quickly dismiss all credible
definitions of sustainable agriculture as empty rhetoric.
They claim "sustainable agriculture" is just a code word for
"low-yield farming." They infer that sustainable agriculture
advocates would consider starvation of half the human
population to be an acceptable strategy for sustainability.
They are simply wrong. All of the many credible definitions
of sustainable agriculture include statements such as: "a
sustainable agriculture must be productive, must provide for
the food and fiber needs of society, must meet the needs of
the current generation, must be economically viable and
socially just, or must be capable of maintaining its
productivity and value to human society." The Averys choose
to ignore all these credible definitions of sustainable
agriculture and instead attack "low-yield farming," their
sustainability "straw man."
Fallacy #2. High-yield technologies have no limits and organic
technologies have no potential.
The Averys see "sustainable" as a euphemism for
"organic." Again, they are wrong. Organic farming may or may
not be sustainable. The sustainability of organic farming, or
any system of farming, depends on whether it is ultimately
found to be economically viable, ecologically sound, and
socially responsible. They have stated, without any credible
supporting evidence, "the best yields on field crops grown
using organic methods are roughly half those of mainstream
high-yield farms." They consider documented cases of organic
farmers who attain yields equal-to-or-higher than their high-
input neighbors to be aberrations rather than examples of what
can be achieved even with today's knowledge of organic farming
methods. They seems to have a blind faith in the ability of
high-input farming methods to expand production, seemingly
without limits, but will not concede that organic farming
could ever be any more productive than it is today. Neither
position is consistent with either current scientific evidence
or good common sense.
Fallacy #3. Nature can be protected only by segregating people,
wildlife, and farming into separate spaces.
The Averys' whole case for "high-yield" agriculture as a
necessity for feeding people and protecting wildlife is build
upon this fallacy. It appears that in the Averys' world,
specialization is "good," diversification is "old fashioned,"
and integration is "impossible" -- by definition. They would
have us believe there is no alternative to setting aside space
for agriculture and forestry, separate from spaces for
wildlife, and presumably separate still from spaces for people
to live. They show no apparent realization that everything on
the earth is ultimately connected. We may well have to learn
to farm, harvest timber, and live in harmony with wildlife all
in the "same" spaces -- if we are to sustain the global
ecosystem of which we are a part. The necessity of separating
people from agriculture and agriculture from wildlife may be
a necessary condition for the Averys' "High-Yield" farming.
But, learning to live as part of nature, not separate from
nature, is a primary goal of most who are working seriously
toward agricultural sustainability. We have no logical
alternative.
Fallacy #4. Population, consumption, and production are the
results of separate and largely independent decisions of human
societies.
The Averys' project human population trends, consumption
trends, and production trends as if there were no
relationships among the three. In fact there is abundant
evidence that such trends are highly interrelated if not
inseparable. When people give no conscious consideration to
future generations, history suggests they will exploit their
resource base -- either through increased per capita
consumption or increased population. Agricultural failures of
the past -- the Hanging Gardens and Mediterranean Basin
included -- reflected failed societies, failed economies, and
failed ecosystems. The three are inseparable. There is no
conceivable way the earth can support as many people as
humanity might choose to procreate at any level of consumption
to which they might aspire. No one can possibly know with any
degree of certainty how many people the earth can sustain or
what level of per capita consumption is sustainable. The one
thing we do know is that population and consumption cannot
expand indefinitely. The Averys' "high-yield" agriculture, at
best, can do no more than delay the inevitable day when we
must find acceptable ways to balance production, population,
and consumption. At that time, the earth may be capable of
sustaining far fewer people than it could sustain with today's
resource base.
Fallacy #5. Research on High-Yield Farming is the best bet for a
sustainable agriculture.
The successful pursuit of a "high-yield" agriculture might
allow humanity to ignore its responsibility for conserving our
resource base, protecting our environment, and building a more
responsible society for another 50 years. If so, at that time
we quite likely will be faced with more than twice as many
people, a seriously depleted natural resource base, and an
exploding world population. If we wait 50 years to get
serious about agricultural sustainability, it just might be
too late. Desperate and starving people, historically, have
destroyed their resource base and in so doing have destroyed
their civilizations. Apparently, such is the nature of being
human. The current period of agricultural plenty gives us a
window of opportunity to develop new and better ways to farm.
We need to explore a wide range of alternatives for sustaining
"people" through agriculture -- including the people who farm
and live in rural communities. We can't afford to bet our
scarce public research dollars on any single approach to the
future agriculture, certainly not on the fallacies of "High-
Yield" farming.
Fallacy #6. Sustainability is mainly about "feeding" people.
The Averys' high-yield approach to agriculture reflects
an outdated industrial, materialistic, consumer-driven
paradigm of global economic development. Much of the rest of
the U.S. economy is already moving into a post-industrial era
of human progress-- an era which focuses on people as
knowledgeable, productive, contributing members of society and
not just "consumption markets" to be exploited for short run
profits. To consider people as anything other than consumers,
to the Averys, constitutes "social engineering." In reality
the fundamental questions of sustainability are question of
"social engineering." Will we, as a human society, exercise
our uniquely-human capability for self-discipline and make the
ecological, social, and economic investments needed to sustain
people on the land and human life on earth? Or will be
continue to contrive self-delusional scenarios of "the
supremacy of man over nature" and, thus, justify our
continuing greed?