FROM: JOHN IKERD
SUBJECT: SUSTAINABILITY: There is no end until we get through
I had decided to stay out of the recent discussion on the meaning
of sustainability on SANET, because I have already said enough on
the issue other occasions. More recently, Dr. Lockeretz has
indicated the issue may have been discussed enough. However, Ed
Rayburn's comments get to the heart of the question of why we
continue to debate the meaning of sustainability and why we are
unable to agree on a common definition sustainable agriculture.
His comments on this matter are too important to go without
whatever support I, and hopefully others, can provide.
We are not communicating, because we are using different paradigms,
or mental models, to shape our respective perspectives
sustainability. Members of each discipline -- ecologists,
economists, sociologists, etc -- define sustainability from their
particular perspective. We each have each developed "rigorous,"
scientific approaches to dealing with issues of sustainability
within our respective disciplines. But, each discipline is bending
and stretching their scientific paradigms to fit the issue of
sustainability rather than asking whether a new and different
paradigm might be more appropriate, if not absolutely necessary.
We skirt the question because a new paradigm might even require us
to rethink our fundamental concepts of "good science."
On the other hand, others of us have abandoned the effort to make
sustainability fit any one disciplinary paradigm. There are too
many questions, problems, and issues that just don't seem to fit
any particular discipline. We are busy trying to develop a new
paradigm appropriate for the sustainability issue, even if it means
rethinking our fundamental concepts of science. We state our
positions from this new perspective, and we don't seem to make
sense to any of those using specific disciplinary paradigms to
interpret what we say.
The purpose of this communication is to attempt to explain some of
the dimensions of this emerging paradigm of sustainable
agriculture. As indicated below, the new paradigm is a work in
progress. Hopefully, this will help in future communications. But
I am afraid there will be no end until we get through.
Joel Barker, in his book, Paradigms, defines a paradigm as a set of
rules that do two things: (1) establishes or defines boundaries and
(2) sets standards for success and behavior within the boundaries.
He uses the game of tennis as an analogy to illustrate these
concepts. Tennis courts are standard in size and out-of-bounds are
clearly marked. The ball must hit within these bounds to "stay in
play." The ball must be struck with a tennis racket, not a
baseball bat or anything else, and the ball is allowed to bounce
only once before it is returned over the net.
The traditional economic paradigm has clearly defined boundaries.
The boundaries separate those things that are controllable from
those things that are not. The natural environment and natural
resource base are considered to be "external," or out of bounds, by
economists. Society likewise is considered to be an "external"
factor which constrains or sets bounds on the ability of decision
makers to reach their economic objectives. Success is measured in
terms of profits and growth. Within the limits allowed by nature
and society, economically rational business firms may take a wide
range of actions to maximize short run profits and long run growth.
Almost anything that is possible and legal is encouraged if it
leads to profits and growth.
I am not an ecologist, but the traditional paradigm of ecology
appears also to have boundaries. Ecologic boundaries place
economic and social issues "outside" of the domain of scientific
inquiry. The definition of success for a natural ecosystem seems
to reflect little consideration of the economic or social well
being or success of the human species.
The traditional paradigm of sociology deals primarily with
relationships among people. Economic and natural environments
represent the contexts within which people carry out social
interactions and, thus, are "outside" the of the realm of specific
social inquiry. Economic and ecologic constraints are among the
factors which preclude the achievement of utopian societies.
The new paradigm for the study of sustainable agriculture is still
emerging and may not be widely accepted or even fully understood
for some time. However, it is fundamentally different from
paradigms of economics, ecology, or sociology in several important
ways. The new paradigm clearly considers ecology, economics, and
sociology, all three, to represent different dimensions of a single
holistic, systems approach to scientific inquiry. Environmental,
economic, and social impacts are all be considered "within," rather
than "outside," of the boundaries of agroecosystems "managed" for
sustainability. The constraints or boundaries within which
sustainable agroecosystems systems function are the laws of nature,
including human nature.
The new paradigm considers economic, ecologic, and social
dimensions of sustainability to be inseparable aspects of the same
whole. Fields, farms, and communities are considered to be wholes
that are made up of smaller wholes and make up still larger wholes.
Thus, the approach to farm decision-making and management must be
"holistic." The challenge is to comprehend the complexities of
wholes rather than attempt to reduce wholes to more simple and
easily understood elements. Success in the new paradigm in
measured against the goal of sustainable human progress -- balanced
economic, ecologic, and social progress.
In a paper prepared for a conference on agroecosystem
sustainability I attempted to develop the rationale for integrating
ecology, economics, and sociology into a holistic, systems approach
to the study of agricultural sustainability. The following is a
synthesis of excerpts from that paper.
A MULTIDIMENSIONAL PERSPECTIVE OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
John Ikerd
University of Missouri
Abstract
Agroecosystems are managed ecosystems. Agriculture, by
its very nature, involves self-conscious attempt of
humans to change or manage natural ecosystems. The
fundamental purpose of agriculture is to shift the
ecological balance so as to favor humans relative to
other species in production of food and physical
protection. Humans are unique among species in that we
make purposeful, deliberate decisions that can enhance or
degrade the health of the ecosystems of which we are a
part. Thus, any assessment of the sustainability of
agroecosystem must take into consideration the
purposeful, self-conscious nature of individual and
collective human actions.
The evolving discipline of agroecology provides the scientific
underpinning for agricultural sustainability. Agroecology
represents an integration or fusion of ecology and agricultural
sciences. However, disagreements exist regarding whether
agroecology should include the social as well as the natural
sciences. For example, in a book review, Anderson chides the
authors of two books on agroecology for their "confusion" in
including social sciences in agroecological analysis. Gleissman is
quoted as promoting a vision of agroecology that is "more than just
ecology applied to agriculture (in that) it takes on a cultural
perspective as it expands to include humans and their impacts on
agriculture environments" (page 369).
Anderson points out that "Human culture requires very different
methods of analysis than ecological phenomena. Ecology's methods
were designed to study organic processes and the behavior of
organisms that lack most forms of intentionality. Human capacity
for intentional action -- our abilities to use indirect strategies,
to learn from mistakes, to delay gratification, to persuade others
to work collectively -- imposes a layer of complexity that is
qualitatively different from that of the naturally occurring
'societies' that ecological methods can study" (page 41). She
concludes that we should "prune back the aims of agroecology to
understanding what makes the tangible aspects of agricultural
systems work, rather than trying to tackle cultural systems as
well." (page 42).
On the other hand, Allen contends that "Agriculture does not exist
and cannot function except at the intersection of society and
nature" (page 2). She states that "In our Western conception of
nature, the environment is usually considered to be a physical
space and set of laws that exist and operate external to and
independent of us (humans). While there is a 'nature' that
preexisted human beings, and we are subject to natural laws such as
gravity, nature (as related to) agriculture is a humanly
reconstructed nature" (page 3).
Allen points out also that "problems do not arise from only the
interface between society and external nature but also from
contradictions within society itself." "Natural" disasters, such
as flood and drought, may actually result from, or at least be
"disastrous" because of, past collective actions of humans. She
concludes, that "it is important to understand that we are working
in a situation in which both nature and society have been
developed, produced, and reproduced by the ideas and activities of
human beings" (page 3).
The sustainability of agriculture dependent upon the health of
agroecosystems. Sustainable agriculture has no generally accepted
definition. Allen, et al. suggest that the efforts to forge such
a definition should continue, in spite of feelings on the part of
many that we should spend less time talking about sustainable
agriculture and more time implementing it. Not only is there no
single definition, "there is no generally accepted set of goals for
sustainable agriculture and little agreement even on what and who
it is we intend to sustain" (Allen, et al., page 34). Lacking
explicit goals and objectives it is difficult, if not impossible,
to assess sustainability.
Allen, et al. offer the following definition: "A sustainable
agriculture is one that equitably balances concerns of
environmental soundness, economic viability, and social justice
among all sectors of society." While this definition provides an
appropriate set of objectives, it does not define the overall goal
of sustainability. It does not answer the question; what is to be
sustained and for whom? An appropriate preamble may be added,
however, resulting in the following definition: A sustainable
agriculture is one that is capable of maintaining its value to
human society indefinitely. A sustainable agriculture, so defined,
must be ecological sound, economic viable, and social just.
This definition makes clear the anthropocentric nature of
agricultural sustainability. We are concerned about sustaining
agriculture for the benefit of humans, both now and into the
indefinite future. However, the definition is also ecocentric in
that it explicitly recognizes the critical interconnectedness of
humans with the other biophysical elements of the natural
environment and with each other. Ecologic, economic, and social
sustainability are all recognized as necessary conditions for
agricultural sustainability, but none alone, nor any pair of two,
is sufficient.
The logic of necessary and sufficient conditions provides some
useful insights into the nature of agroecosystems. However,
attempts to distinguish necessary and sufficient conditions are
perhaps the source of some differences of opinion regarding the
importance of the sociocultural or human dimension of
sustainability.
Haskett states that "the foundation of sustainability in
agriculture is a set of biologically/physically possible processes
involved in the production of food." He also states:
"Sustainability is further bounded by a subset of the
biologically/physically possible, which might be referred to as the
socially/culturally possible." However, "it is important to
recognize that these two components, the physical/biological and
the social/cultural are not equal in terms of determining
sustainability." "Biological possibility is necessary for social
possibility but not the other way around." "Not everything that is
biologically/physically possible is socially/culturally possible."
One might logically extend this line of reasoning in that economic
possibilities are a subset of social/cultural possibilities.
Environmental soundness might be considered a necessary condition
for economic viability, and economic viability a necessary
condition for social justice. Using the same logic as Haskett, one
might contend that economic viability and social justice are not
equal in terms of determining sustainability. Economic viability
is necessary for social justice but not the other way around. Not
everything that is economically viable is socially just.
However, the logic of necessity and sufficiency fails to explicitly
recognize the unique dynamics of managed ecosystems. Haskett
states that we must be able to distinguish between "causality and
mere correlation" in study of interactions between biophysical and
socioeconomic possibilities. However, in dynamic systems the
concept of causality becomes tenuous at best. Do natural ecosystem
constrain or restrict human actions or do humans actions constrain
or restrict natural ecosystems? Of course, both are true. Humans
respond to their environment in ways that change their environment.
Thus, causality becomes a circular process from environment, to
action, to environment, to action, to environment..... The
question of whether environmental degradation is a consequence of
social injustice or social injustice a consequence of environmental
degradation becomes moot in a dynamic model of agroecosystems. The
feed-back loops between biophysical and socioeconomic elements of
agroecosystems go in both directions.
In the study of dynamic systems, defining trends and patterns is
more important than determining direction of causation. For
example, systems can become entrenched in self-perpetuating trends
toward growth or toward degradation, or become locked in cyclically
reoccurring patterns of decline and regeneration (Senge). The
fundamental nature of the action elements in systems may not be
subject to change, as in the case of laws and principles of ecology
and human behavior. Such patterns can be broken or changed only by
intervening in the action-reaction "process." For example, if a
society becomes locked in a action-reaction cycle of environmental
degradation, the action-reaction "process" must be broken. It is
no more useful to say that unjust societies cause environmental
degradation than to say that environmental degradation causes of
social injustice. The fundamental question is: how can the
continuing action-reaction cycle of environmental degradation and
social injustice be broken?
The key to stopping and reversing environmental degradation is to
change the action-reaction or stimulus-response patterns of humans.
The fundamental nature of the human species is not more changeable
than are the fundamental laws of nature. However, the ability to
learn, to discover new options, and to choose new responses are, in
fact, fundamental aspects of human nature. Thus, any study of
ecosystem sustainability must include the study of intentional
human actions. From a systems perspective, humans are the only
actors in agroecosystems capable of self-conscious, intentional
actions necessary for sustainability.
Physical scientists, understandably, might question the wisdom of
including economic viability and social justice as prerequisites
for sustainability. Human capacity for intentional actions,
individually and collectively, do impose layers of complexity that
are qualitatively different from those of naturally occurring
"societies" that ecological methods can study. However, the self-
conscious, intentional acts of "humans" and the detail and dynamic
complexities of "managed" ecosystems simply cannot be ignored in
dealing with the issues of agricultural sustainability.
Crews, et al, contend that ecological soundness is both necessary
and sufficient to ensure agricultural sustainability. They argue
against giving equal weight to ecological, sociological, and
economic dimension of sustainable agriculture. They state: "that
the profitability of sustainable agricultural systems is
constrained by the social structure of agriculture but that
sustainability itself is constrained solely by the ecological
conditions of agriculture" (page 146). They contend that if one
accepts their ecological guidelines of sustainable agriculture, the
resulting ecological constraints ultimately will interact with the
social structure to determine what is profitable. They argue that
"Profitability, on the other hand, will never determine what is
ecological sustainable" (page 147).
However, one cannot derive an ecologically based set of sustainable
alternatives and expect social and economic systems to adjust
automatically to make them economically viable and socially just.
Any definition of sustainability based on ecology alone begs the
question of sustainability for whom, or at least for how many?
More directly, how many people are to be sustained at what level?
For example, agricultural systems that once appeared to be
sustainable in the United States, when land currently in the United
States was populated by a million or so Native Americans, clearly
are not capable of sustaining today's population of some 260-plus
million people.
Barring some dramatic occurrence in global society, agriculture
worldwide will need to sustain about twice as many people fifty
years from now as are sustained today. No set of ecologic
possibilities will sustain the maximum population that humankind
might choose to procreate, nor sustain any given number of people
at any level of consumption to which they might aspire. The
history of human civilization provides little evidence to support
an hypothesis that global population and consumption will
automatically adjust to some optimally sustainable level.
To the contrary, based on past history, overpopulation seems more
likely to result in the destruction and degradation of natural
resources to a point only a fraction of the population can be
sustained that might have been sustained if overpopulation had been
avoided. No set of ecological constraints will prevent starving
people from consuming the seeds that might have produced a
bountiful harvest, if the harvest comes only after the people are
dead.
Even when physical survival is ensured, people still tend to act in
their own economic self interest. In fact, they cannot persist in
actions inconsistent with economic survival, regardless of any
personal desire to do so. Enterprises need not maximize profits,
or even be profitable in a strict economic sense of profit. But,
enterprises which are not economic viable will lose control over
resource use to their economically viable competitors.
There appears to be no natural limit to human greed or desire for
control. Historically, individuals and nations with abundant
resources or other economic means of production have amassed great
fortunes while individuals and nations lacking the ability to
compete economically hovered on the brink of starvation. This
disparity in economic power is reflected in a disparity of control
over total resource use and consumption of non-renewable resources.
Human societies that lack economic equity and social justice are
inherently unstable, and thus, are not sustainable over time. Such
systems will be characterized by reoccurring social conflicts which
may do irreparable damage to both economic and ecologic systems.
Deserts, drought, floods, and famine are more frequently the result
of failed social and economic systems than of naturally occurring
ecosystem phenomena. Today's "nature" is a human reconstructed
nature, and tomorrow's nature will be reconstructed again by
individual and collective human actions of today. A society that
will not ensure social equity among those of the current generation
cannot be expected to ensure equity between the current generation
and those of generations of the future.
Even thoughtful observers may become pessimistic about the
possibility of global sustainability when they ponder the
challenges to humanity in meeting the demands of an exploding
global human population while utilizing a finite natural resource
base of rapidly declining proven productivity. There would appear
to be just cause for concern. But, many fail to explicitly
consider the potentially positive aspects of humankind as an
integral element of the global ecosystem.
Human population is not external to the global ecosystem and human
need is not an exogenous demand that the system must meet. Human
needs arise from and are interconnected within the same systems
that must meet those human needs. Human populations have expanded
in response to the expanded capable of systems to support larger
populations. Population expansion seems to be a biological
instinct that humans share with many other species. However, the
human species is capable, at least conceptually, of intentionally
limiting its numbers, needs, and demands to match a sustainable
level of global production. Unlike other species, humans are
capable of the voluntary, intentional intervention required to
reverse the conflicting trends of population explosion, human
greed, and resource degradation.
In general, the sustainability of managed ecosystems depends of
self-conscious, purposeful human actions which reflect our
abilities to learn from our mistakes, to delay gratification, and
to persuade each other to work collectively for the common good.
But, all these actions are consistent with the nature of our being
human. Social and economic systems will not naturally evolve
toward sustainability. But, knowledge-based, purposeful human
actions may well be capable of ensuring long run sustainability.
Such actions, however, must reflect an equitable balance among
environmental soundness, economic viability, and social justice.
All are necessary and no one is sufficient to ensure the
sustainability of agroecosystems.
REFERENCES
Allen, Patricia. 1993. "Connecting the Social and the Ecological in
Sustainable Agriculture," Food for the Future Conditions and
Contradictions for Sustainability, Patricia Allen, Ed., John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY.
Allen, Patricia, Debra Van Dusen, Jackelyn Lundy, and Stephen
Gliesmann. 1991. "Integrating social, environmental, and
economic issues in sustainable agriculture," American Journal
of Alternative Agriculture, Volume 6, Number 1, Institute for
Alternative Agriculture, Greenbelt, MD. (pp. 34-39).
Anderson, Molly D. 1991. "Book Reviews," American Journal of
Alternative Agriculture, Volume 6, Number 1, Institute for
Alternative Agriculture, Greenbelt, MD. (pp. 40-42).
Crews, Timothy. 1991. "Energetics and ecosystem integrity: The
defining principles of sustainable agriculture," American
Journal of Alternative Agriculture, Volume 6, Number 3,
Institute for Alternative Agriculture, Greenbelt, MD. (pp.
146-149).
Haskett, Jonathan. 1993. "Ethics of Sustainability," E-MAIL
correspondence on sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu. 4/7/94.
Senge, Peter, M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline, Doubleday/Currency,
New York, NY. 424 p.