Solutions Part II
Next in the solutions series, where I explain the flaws of the most popular “solutions” to the world’s problems I’ve heard. Here’s the second one:
Create more large-scale industrialised farms to feed the hungry of the world.
Problem: Many. First of all, we can already feed the hungry of the world. Reports show that at this time, we have enough food in the world for everyone to consume between 2500 and 3000 calories per day. So why on earth are there hungry people? The same reason there are poor people. Uneven distribution.
Second of all, large-scale agriculture, industrialised agriculture, and cash crops have created more problems than they have solved. The people who are hungry could fill their bellies on subsistence agriculture. They are using large-scale agriculture to make a profit; that is, money. Or perhaps I should say, not them, but the people who hire them. They then make enough money for a bowl of rice, pass on the rest of the profit to big agricultural businesses, and ship the cash crops off to other countries. Much of the food is thrown away. This is how export agriculture has always been; a form of colonialism.
The other problems that industrialised agriculture causes are environmental, but of course translate to social and economic problems as well. Industrialised agriculture comprises several unsustainable inputs:
- Petroleum-based fertilisers and pesticides. Because this form of agriculture relies on petroleum, prices are completely unstable, as they fluctuate with the price of oil. As oil extraction becomes less efficient, pesticides and fertilisers become more expensive. They also pollute the groundwater, destroy ecosystems, and create even more robust pests with a new-found tolerance to pesticides. These chemicals destroy soil fertility, making it harder and harder to grow crops with each generation. This is one of the reasons our global food yield is dropping.
- Petroleum-powered machines. Once again, this is linked to the price of oil, along with greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants from exhaust.
- Monocropping. This also causes the soil to becomes less and less fertile, reducing yield. Acres upon acres of a single crop dominate this form of agriculture. This creates a perfect breeding ground for pests, while depriving the crops of nutrients they could naturally get from being mixed with other crops. It also destroys ecosystem diversity.
- Clear-cutting. Huge areas of forests are destroyed for agricultural development. This creates erosion, as the tree roots that once held the soil together are gone. The soil is washed away with the rain, along with the chemicals used in fertilisers and pesticides.
Solution: I know it’s popular among greenies today to promote local, organic agriculture. But popular things can sometimes be right.
So why local? Because it provides self-sufficiency for the people cultivating the land in the first place. Its primary purpose isn’t to create profit for some disconnected multinational corporation. If you buy from a small local farm, you are giving money directly to the people who made the food. No dissociation from reality is required.
And why organic? The general definition of organic agriculture involves various sustainable practices, such as cover-cropping and green manure (as opposed to fertilisers), integrated pest management (as opposed to pesticides), intercropping (as opposed to monocropping), and even sometimes zero-tillage (as opposed to machine tillage).
In addition, permaculture is the best form of agriculture there is, in my humble opinion. It is also known as the lowest of low external input agriculture, meaning it takes fewer resources than other forms of agriculture. On top of that, it is not just an agricultural practice, but a lifestyle with its own design, economic, and social principles.
