From ACLARK@CROP.UOGUELPH.CAMon Feb 27 11:16:43 1995 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 23:12:21 EDT From: "E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: response to On Defining Sustainable Agriculture - Ikerd Attached is a response from one of my colleagues, with whom I and others have collaborated on the issue of defining sustainable agriculture. Remarks Concerning: "On Defining Sustainable Agriculture" by John Ikerd 1. We are not convinced that most disagreements concerning the definition of sustainable agriculture stem from differing opinions concerning the "means" by which a sustainable agriculture can or should be achieved rather than the "goal" toward which those means are directed. To pursue this question further it would be useful to have a sample of definitions, about which people have disagreed, for discussion. We suggest that if you are developing a document for use in discussion of "the definitional issue" that you include some definitions as part of the document. It seems to us that disagreements concerning the way to define sustainable agriculture are indeed disagreements about goals or objectives. Indeed, as you note in your third paragraph, "we must agree on what is to be sustained, for whom, and for how long". At the present time we have not achieved such agreement. Further, it is not informative to say, as you do on your second page, that what everyone is aiming at sustaining is "agriculture". There are various views concerning the nature of agriculture, that is, concerning the forms that agricultural activities ought to take. It is difficult to state these matters clearly and concisely. However, we shall try the following. The primary goal of some people is to reform agriculture as an essential part of the re-creation of conditions within which people engaged in agriculture can live in accordance with a complex ideal. The emphasis here is on creating conditions which sustain good people doing good work. We suspect that the primary goal, according to a second view, is to reform agriculture so that agriculture ecosystems emulate wild ecosystems. While achieving this goal is not necessarily incompatible with achieving the first goal, it is not necessarily compatible either. Finally, we suspect, there is a third view, and this is very likely the dominant view, in which the primary goal is to find a way to preserve agriculture as agribusiness. Advocates of this view recognize that some practices of contemporary conventional agriculture will have to be changed, indeed are being changed through adoption of such concepts as low-till nor no-till farming and integrated pest management. From this perspective, the goal is to do agribusiness in ways that don't undermine our capacity to continue to do agribusiness, rather than to do farming in a way which mimics wild ecosystems or to do farming in a way that enables farmers to live virtuously as independent beings. 2. We agree with much of what you say concerning economic viability. People engaged in any aspect of agriculture, whether it be farming, supplying materials to farmers, manufacturing goods from farm products, or distributing farm products or such manufactured goods, need to be able to earn enough income from these activities to live well. Perhaps that is what economic viability means. However, we believe there is strong disagreement as to what is necessary in order to earn enough income. Some people think that if your farm business is not growing, it is dying. Such people are not likely to agree that a farm business which does not strive to maximize profits can be economically viable. The tone of your remarks suggests you would disagree with such a perspective. Assuming that we have interpreted your opinion on this matter correctly, we hope that you are correct. We doubt that it is possible to farm in a way which maximizes income of farmers from year to year but which also tends to preserve the resource base which is necessary for farming. If you are not correct then developing a mode of agriculture which both preserves the resources necessary for farming and is economically viable would appear to be impossible. We suggest that in training professionals who are to work with farmers, it is important to bring fundamental controversies out into full view. That is the best way to prepare such indi- viduals to face the questions that they will inevitably have to face. Further, only through rigorous scrutiny of such controver- sies can we justify whatever confidence we may achieve as to the correct way to proceed in regard to agriculture in the future. We need to investigate carefully whether we can have agriculture which is both economically viable and ecologically sound. 3. We like much of what you said concerning social responsibility, especially your claim that to assume that agriculture can be economcially viable and ecologically sound in the absence of justice is to beg significant ethical questions. We note that your use of the term social justice may reflect some question-begging assumptions also. There are profound disagreements concerning what justice requires as you can see from reading the works of John Rawls, Robert Nozick, as well as utilitarian thinkers. Perhaps, in training agriculture profes- sionals, you should consider introducing them to some such philo- sophical literature. At the very least, we think, it is necessary to develop some discussion concerning statements of justice. It is not satisfac- tory simply to refer to ideals though use of terms such as "social responsibility" or "social justice". Use of such terms without considerable explanation of specific principles and discussion of controversial matters gives students the false impression that we know what justice requires and that questions of what practices are just are simple matters. Students need to be made aware of conflicting perspectives on these matters and encouraged to think carefully to provide a strong ground for the opinions they judge to be correct. 4. We don't understand what you mean by saying that "the foregoing thesis does not define sustainable agriculture, instead it defines an approach to working for agricultural sustainability" (or the comparable remarks you made near the beginning of your paper). Perhaps the distinction between what you think you are doing and what you think you are not doing needs to be clarified. 5. Your last six paragraphs call attention to many ethical and other assumptions you have made in the course of your paper. We commend you on being open about your assumptions. We suspect you are trying to give some indication of the reasons which you believe justifies your taking the positions you do concerning agricultural sustainability. You hinted at such reasons in your third paragraph. There you suggested that agriculture should be sustainable for the benefit of humanity. We are uncomfortable with this way of speaking as humanity is an abstraction. We prefer to speak of working for the benefit of living and future human beings as well as of any other creatures that may be entitled to consideration. Achieving sustainable agriculture will almost certainly harm some human beings in various ways. Speaking of benefiting humanity obscures the fact that in trying to improve our agriculture in order to fulfill our obligations some human beings may have to sacrifice much that they cherish. However, given that you have neither attempted to support these assumptions by reasoned argument nor tried to refute those who have tried to provide rational support for assumptions with which you disagree, we suggest that your position begs important and controversial questions concerning agricultural sustainability. Given that you recognize that sustainable agriculture must be socially responsible, your dismissal, in the absence of rational discussion, of ethical perspectives with which you disagree, is highly questionable. If you aim at training agriculture professionals to meet their responsibilities, should you not train them to address controversial ethical assumptions in a socially responsible manner? Rather than simply dismissing assumptions with which you disagree, it might be useful to call attention to such assumptions and to provide your students with a bibliography of relevant reading material and encouragement to pursue inquiries concerning controversial matters. Hugh Lehman Dept. of Philosophy ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca Dr. E. Ann Clark Associate Professor Crop Science University of Guelph Guelph, ON N1G 2W1 Phone: 519-824-4120 Ext. 2508 FAX: 519 763-8933