Steven C. Blank, an extension economist from UC-Davis and author of "The
End of the American Farm?" (pp. 22-27), draws from his 1998 book–The End of
Agriculture in the American Portfolio–to argue that agriculture is becoming
uncompetitive in the US and that we ought to give up the outdated notion of
producing food in the U.S. and import it from places that can produce it
more cheaply. If I were to criticize Blank, I would do so for not
mentioning the promise of biotech for eliminating agriculture all together
(a prospect that should prevent rational land grant administrators from
hiring any new production scientist faculty members younger than 50). Some
excerpts that I hope fairly capture the main content:
"Most Americans could not care less if farming and ranching disappear, as
long as they get their burgers and fries. Americans will waddle on. The
U.S. economy no longer needs agriculture and is rapidly outgrowing
it...family farms have become an expensive lifestyle that America cannot
afford; it is an inefficient use of resources that is becoming a hobby that
leads to bankruptcy...The high costs of producing food in America, compared
with the costs in poorer countries are pushing American producers out of
business as foreign competitors develop enough to serve the same markets"
(p. 22). "Some people may worry that leaving agriculture behind and
shifting to imported commodities may cause Americans to miss a meal or two.
But the United States has been importing an increasing amount of food for
years, and American's waistlines are growing not shrinking" (p. 23). "Is
this decline in farm numbers [about 33,000 farms per year since 1969]
something to fear? No, it is an improvement in the efficience of American's
economy" (pp. 24-25). [On two unnamed rural sociologists, one from Missouri
and one from Iowa] "The sociologists are so busy worrying about the
institution of family farming that they ignore the bottom line: There is no
‘rural America' anymore, and the people trying to hang on to the outdated
version of farming are simply holding on to a bad investment...American
agriculture is heading for the last roundup...Especially at this point in
history, when American agriculture leads the world in almost every way, it
is startling to think that the country will not need farmers or ranchers
for much longer. But it is true...We need to strip away the romance and
nostalgia surrounding agriculture and see it for what it is: a business. It
is a type of business that has limited potential for long-run profits
because of its competitive nature. The whole world can do it" (p. 25) [On
demand for farmland from urban people seeking rural amenities] "It is
ironic that many farmers and ranchers retiring in the future will be
thankful for the flood of city folks into rural America...That irony is
lost on many Defenders of the Farm. Several groups, such as the American
Farmland Trust (AFT), still strive to preserve the nation's farmland" (p.
26). "...AFT has created a ‘Purchase of Development Rights' program...In
other words, when the value of land is too high to justify farming it, AFT
will buy it at market prices so that land can sit idle instead of being
developed into something useful. This is an example of shooting yourself in
the foot...Clearly the end of Agriculture in America is near, but some
people refuse to see the signs and are hurting themselves in an effort to
resist the inevitable. A classic example of this comes from reports that
retiring farmers are passing their livelihoods on to young enthusiasts
through a growing number of programs that match retiring farmers with
younger ones in order to keep alive a family farm and a way of life...The
idea...was developed in 1990 by a think tank in Nebraska...Yet, all the
analysts agree that these programs are not going to change the faces of
agriculture...Americans...must learn to let go of farming and ranching...In
the long run, this means becoming citizens of the world, dependent on
others for food commodities while Americans produce the marvels and the
know-how for the future...accept that farming, although it enabled America
to move into its dynamic future, is part of a proud past. Job well done"
(p. 27).
Robert B. Shapiro (who, perhaps some will recognize as the CEO of a firm
headquartered in Missouri and mentioned lately in posts to SANET) authored
"How Genetic Engineering Will Save Our Planet" (pp. 28-29). This is drawn
from a speech published by the Center for the Study of American Business,
Washington University, St. Louis. What he writes may not surprise you; my
reading of his argument is as follows: The prospects for massive population
increases require us to rethink how to feed the world. On top of that,
people are demanding higher quality diets that include more animal products
and oils. Therefore, we need to double or triple food output in the next
few decades. Given the prospects for greatly increased demand for food,
what we have done in the past is not sustainable. We have come to the
limits of increasing land under cultivation and wildlife habitats are
threatened. Biotechnology and information technologies are the only viable
alternatives to accomplish this AND make sustainability and development
compatible. Plants bioengineered to repel or kill pests are important
examples of this.
Note for purposes of perspective on the above:
If you are not familiar with The Futurist, it is a publication of the World
Future Society. The society is not particularly exclusive (I believe the
main requirement for membership is $35 for dues). I suspect (but don't
know) that its membership is mainly relatively politically-conservative and
technologically-optimistic types. I find The Futurist interesting and
stimulating because publishes all sorts articles and news notes on
interesting ideas, projections, and cutting-edge technologies (e.g., using
explosives to tenderize meat--p. 8 of the April issue). Like with National
Public Radio, one needs to be able to read between the lines to gauge the
perspectives and commitments of the authors. I would judge that most
articles (like the two I described above) are consistent with the
perspective of its main membership group. The general thrust of most
articles is projecting current trends into the future with a new wrinkle or
maybe two and conjecturing about some of the implications. Other articles,
those more consistent with my tastes, identify novel and unexpected
possibilities. Finally, some of the technologically-optimistic authors
propose some downright whacky schemes with an unself-conconscious
seriousness that I find, at the same time, very entertaining and very scary.
Gil Gillespie
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail