Harmony with Nature

In Harmony with Nature

 

Much of human history has been written in terms of an ongoing struggle of "man against nature." The forces of nature � wild beasts, floods, pestilence, and disease -- have been cast in the role of the enemy of humankind. To survive and prosper, we must conquer nature � kill the wild beasts, build dams to stop flooding, find medicines to fight disease, and use chemicals to control the pests. Humans have been locked in a life and death struggle against "Mother Nature." We've been winning battle after battle. But, we've been losing the war.

We humans have killed so many "wild beasts" that non-human species are becoming extinct at an unprecedented rate � except in prehistoric times now labeled as global catastrophes. It's clear that humans cannot survive � nor might we want to survive � as the only living species on earth. How many more species can we destroy before we lose more than we can afford to do without? How many more battles with Mother Nature can we afford to win?
We have dammed so many streams the sediment that once replenished the topsoil of fertile farmland through periodic flooding now fills the reservoirs of lakes instead.

 Populations of fish and wildlife that once filled and surrounded free flowing streams, and fed the people of the land, have dwindled and disappeared. Floods may come less often now, but when nature really flexes its muscles, as in 1993 and 1996, nothing on earth can control the floods. How many more streams can we afford to dam? How many more battles with Mother Nature can we afford to win?

We have wiped out plague after plague that has threatened humankind, and we now lead longer, presumably healthier, lives than ever before. But new, more sophisticated diseases always seem to come on the scene as soon as the old ones are brought under control. We may live longer, but that doesn't necessarily mean we are healthier. Much of the medicine we take today is to treat the symptoms caused by the medicines we take. On average, we Americans spend more money for health care than we spend for food. How long can our new cures keep ahead of new diseases? How many more medical miracles can we afford? How many more battles with Mother Nature can we afford to win?

We can quite easily kill most insects, diseases, weeds, and parasites using modern chemical pesticides. This has allowed us to realize the lower food prices brought about by a specialized, mechanized, standardized, industrialized agriculture. But we still loose about the same percentage of our crops to pests as we did in earlier times. In addition, health concerns about pesticide residues in our food supplies and in our drinking water are on the rise. In addition, rural communities have withered and died and industrial agriculture has replaced the family farm. Good paying jobs in the city are no longer there for people forced off the land. How many more pests can we afford to kill before we kill ourselves? How many more workers can we displace before we displace ourselves? How many more battles with Mother Nature can we afford to win?

Every time we think we have won a battle, nature fights back. Nature always seems ready for the counterattack. And, people are beginning to lose faith in "man's" ability to ever conquer nature. They are concerned about whether we can win the battle with the next flood, the next disease, or the next pest that we create with our efforts to control the last one. They are concerned with their own safety, health, and well being. But, they are concerned also about the sustainability of a human civilization that continues to live in conflict with nature. They fear we cannot win our war against nature, because we are a part of nature � the very thing we are trying to destroy. They are searching for ways to find harmony with nature � to sustain the nature of which we are a part.

A new paradigm or model for working and living in harmony with nature is arising under the conceptual umbrella of sustainability. Sustainable systems must be capable of meeting the needs of those of us of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs as well. In simple terms, sustainability means applying the Golden Rule across generations. It's about short run, self-interest � meeting our present needs; but it's also about long run, shared-interest � leaving equal or better opportunities for others both now and in the future. Sustainability requires that we find harmony between others and ourselves as well as between those of us of the present and those of the future. Sustainability requires that we find harmony.

The sustainable agriculture movement is but one small part of a far larger movement that is transforming the whole of human society. But a society that cannot feed itself quite simply is not sustainable. Human civilization is moving through a great transformation from the technology-based, industrial era of the past to a knowledge-based, "sustainable" era of the future. Agriculture is moving through a similar transition.

The industrial model of the past, and present, was based on the assumption that the welfare of people was in conflict with the welfare of nature. People had to harvest, mine, and otherwise exploit nature, including other people, to create more goods and services for consumption. Human productivity is defined in terms of one's ability to produce goods and services that will be bought and consumed by others. Quality of life is viewed a consequence of consumption of something we can buy at Walmart or Disney World. The more we produce, the more we earn, the more we can consume, and the higher our quality of life. The more we can take from nature, and each other, the higher our quality of life.

The sustainable model is based on the assumption that people are multidimensional that we are physical, mental, and spiritual beings. We have a mind and soul as well as a body. All three determine the quality of our life -- what we think and what we feel as well as what we consume. And, the three are as inseparable as the height, width, and length dimensions of a box. A life that lacks the physical, mental, or spiritual is not a life of quality, as an object that lacks a height, width, or length dimension is not a box. The industrial model has focused on the physical body, the self -- getting more and more to consume. The sustainable model focuses on finding harmony among all three dimensions in the physical, mental, and spiritual -- on leading a life of balance.

Spirituality is not synonymous with religion. Spirituality refers to a felt need to be in harmony with some higher unseen order of things  paraphrasing William James, a well-known religious philosopher. Religion, at its best, is simply one means of expressing one's spirituality. Spirituality assumes a higher order to which humans must conform if we are to find peace. Harmony cannot be achieved by changing the "order of things" to suit our preferences. Harmony comes only from changing our actions to conform to the "higher order." A life lived in harmony is its own reward.

A sustainable agriculture must be economically viable, socially responsible, and ecologically sound. The economic, social, and ecological are interrelated, and all are essential to sustainability. An agriculture that uses up or degrades its natural resource base, or pollutes the natural environment, eventually will lost its ability to produce. It's not sustainable. An agriculture that isn't profitable, at least over time, will not allow its farmers to stay in business. It's not sustainable. An agriculture that fails to meet the needs of society, as producers and citizens as well as consumers, will not be sustained by society. It's not sustainable. A sustainable agriculture must be all three soundness; ecologically sound, economically viable, and socially responsible. And the three must be in harmony.

Some see sustainability as an environmental issue. They are wrong. It is an environmental issue, but it is much more. Any system of production that attempts to conquer nature will create conflicts with nature, degrade its environment, and risk its long run sustainability. Industrial agriculture epitomizes a system of farming in conflict with nature. Sustainable farming systems must function in harmony with nature.

The fundamental purpose of agriculture is to convert solar energy into products for human food and fiber. Nature provides biological means of converting solar energy into living plants and animals. Nature provides means by which things come to life, protect themselves, grow to maturity, reproduce, and die to be recycled to support a future generation of life. Agriculture attempts to tip the ecological balance in favor of humans relative to other species. But, if we attempt to tip the balance too far, too fast, we destroy the integrity of the natural system of which we are a part. A sustainable agriculture must be in harmony with nature.
But, a sustainable agriculture also must be in harmony with people. Since people are a part of nature, with a basic nature of our own, a sustainable agriculture must also be in harmony with human nature. A socially sustainable agriculture must provide an adequate supply of food and fiber at a reasonable cost. Any system of agriculture that fails this test is not sustainable, no matter how ecologically sound it may be. But "man does not live by bread alone," and a socially responsible agriculture must contribute to a positive quality of life in other respects as well.
The industrial system of farming has destroyed the family farm as a social institution, has caused rural communities to wither and die, and has changed the social impact of agriculture on society in general from positive to negative. A sustainable agriculture must meet the food and fiber needs of people, but it cannot degrade or destroy opportunities for people to lead successful, productive lives in the process. A sustainable agriculture must be in harmony with our nature of being human.

Finally, a sustainable agriculture must be in harmony with the human economy. The greatest challenge to farming in ways that are ecologically sound and socially responsible is in finding ways to make such systems economically viable as well. Our current economy seems to favor systems that exploit their natural and human environment for short run gains. Those who choose to protect the natural environment must sacrifice any economic opportunity that might result from exploiting it. Those who show concern for the well being of other people � workers, customers, or neighbors � must sacrifice any economic opportunity that might result from exploiting them. So it might seem that sustainability requires that one sacrifice some economic well being to achieve ecological and social sustainability.

Conventional thinking assumes the relationship among the environment, social, and economic wellbeing is a trade-off relationship � that one can have more of one only by sacrificing some of the others. However, this represents a highly materialistic worldview. If anyone gets more of something, then someone else must have less of it. There is only some fixed quantity that must be allocated among competing ends. This materialistic worldview ignores the fact that we can gain satisfaction, for ourselves, right now, by doing things for others and by saving things for future generations just because we know these are the right things to do. Our satisfaction is not dependent on realizing the expectations of some future personal rewards but the reward is embodied in the current action rather than the future outcome. There is inherent value in living and working in harmony. Getting more of one thing without having more of the others only creates imbalance and disharmony hence making us worse off rather than better off.
However, the necessity for economic viability is a very real concern � even for those who pursue harmony rather than material wealth. If our endeavors are not economically viable, we lose the right to pursue those endeavors. But, how can a person make a living farming without degrading either the natural environment or the surrounding community? Industrial farming sets the standard for dollar and cent costs of production and industrial farming exploits its natural and human resource base to keep those costs to a minimum. How can a sustainable farmer compete? The answer is not to compete with industrial farming but to do something fundamentally different.

This something different includes letting nature do more of the work of production and working with nature rather than against it. Production costs may be competitive with, if not lower than, industrial systems if you let nature do enough of the work. Organic production methods, management intensive grazing, pastured pork and poultry, low-input farming -- these are all systems that rely less on off-farm commercial inputs and more on one's ability to understand and work with nature. Industrial systems require uniformity and consistency, but nature is inherently diverse and dynamic. Harmony comes from matching what you produce and how you produce it to the unique ecological niche in which you produce. The greater the harmony the more of the work nature will be willing to do.