I agree Tom Abeles (below) that "Steven Blank represents a real position
within the larger agricultural community" in his new book "The End of the
American Farm. Blank represents the position of a professional
"agricultural economist." Since I have been a "degree carrying"
agricultural economist for almost 30 years, on the faculty of four different
Land Grant Universities, I can usually identify one quite accurately when I
read one. Blank should not be blamed for seeing the world through an
economist's eyes. But, we neither should we blindly accept what the
economist sees as the only objective reality - even if the "larger
agriculture community," and the "larger global economic community" -- see
the same things.
Blank's fundamental arguments for the End of American Farm are based in the
premise that economic considerations ultimately will prevail over all other
considerations - industrial agribusiness replaces family farms because they
are "more efficient" and American agribusiness eventually will be displaced
by "more efficient" producers elsewhere in the global market. If the
assumptions of economic theory were an accurate reflection on reality,
Blank's predictions would be reasonable. If the world, at some point in the
future, completely abandons human rationality for economic reality, then
Blank's predictions could actually come true. Economics has become the
dominant "religion" of our American society, and it is being rapidly spread
around the World. But, people have not yet abandoned common sense - at
least not completely.
Economics is fundamentally incapable of dealing with relationships among
people, or between people and their environment. This fact is freely
admitted even in economics text books. In economics, a market is nothing
more than a collection of independent individual consumers. Human
institutions such as families, communities, nations and cultures have no
economic relevance - other than as collections of individuals. Thus, one
gains no economic well being from relationships -- from identifying with or
being a part of any particular family, community, nation or culture. Does
that make sense? Are believing, trusting, sharing, caring, and serving just
empty words? Do faith, hope, and love have impacts on our quality of life,
or these just illusions of the human imagination?
In economics theory, the environment is a passive entity, and thus, has no
specific active relationship with people. The environment is always
external, or outside, the economic system. The environment may be ignored,
treated as an external constraint, or as something outside impacted by
economic activity within. But, the environment is always treated as
something separate and apart from people and the economy. Does that make
sense? How can we be separate from something that we are a part of? Do the
serenity we feel and beauty we see in nature have no impact on our human
well being? Does the sense of "rightness" that comes from our attempts to
be good stewards of the Earth's resources contribute nothing to our quality
of life?
When one ignores relationships among people and between people and their
environment, the economic arguments are logical. If one values
relationships, with people or with the earth, then many economic arguments
quite simply do not make sense. To assume that industrial agriculture
should displace family farms simply because they may (or may not) have lower
dollar and cent cost that the "average" family farm may make economic sense.
But that assumption totally ignored the positive relationships that farming
families have with the natural environment and with communities of other
people with which they are interrelated. The industrial corporation is not
human, and thus, if fundamentally incapable of such relationships. Does it
make sense to turn the economy - a human creation to serve the needs of
humans - over to something that is fundamentally non-human?
To assume that food and fiber should be produced wherever on the globe that
it can be produced at the lowest "dollar and cent" cost totally ignores the
relationships among people, among communities, among nations and among
cultures. Trade takes place between two people, or groups of people, not
between two non-human economic entities. Economics assumes that trade
always takes place between two entities that are equally competent and
capable of pursuing their own self-interest. Sometimes this is a valid
assumption, but often it is not. Any trade that is legal is generally
accepted as "free" trade. Economics ignores the fact that the world is
filled with people (and countries) who are inherently unequal in competence
and capabilities. It ignores the fact that the strong may pressure the weak
into trading by simply threatening or withholding benefits, or protection
from harm, upon which the weak has become dependent. Since the strong are
not legally required to provide these benefits, no law is broken.
When trade occurs between the strong and the weak, particularly when
motivated by profit as economists assume, the weak is invariably exploited
by the strong. As long as the outcomes for strong and weak added together
end up in a larger dollar and cent total, economics concludes that there
have been gains from trade - no matter that the weak is now even weaken and
more vulnerable and the strong is now stronger and even more dominant. Does
that make sense? Are justice and equity just empty words that were written
into our Constitution in our "romantic and idealistic" past. Or are they
fundamental principles of democracy that must be upheld by any democracy
that expects to survive as a democracy? Are we really willing to accept "He
who has the gold rules" as the Golden Rule of America - or will we insist
that Americans actually "Do unto others as we would have them do into us?"
Economics is concerned totally and completely with pursuit of short run,
self interests. Economics recognizes no unique social value - society is
nothing more than a collection of individuals. Economics recognizes no
unique spiritual values - and concern for the environment, at least for its
sustainability - is fundamentally spiritual. Economist - and the
industrial, corporate interests that now would raise economists to the
priesthood - would cast out those of us who still believe that quality of
life has social and spiritual dimensions that are just as important as our
narrow economic self interests. Does economics really make sense? Or are
we a society that is being shamed into doing things that don't make sense
because we don't want to be publicly degraded and labeled as being
economically illiterate and irrational?
Sustainability, as a new model or paradigm for human society, simply makes
more sense that does conventional economics. Current economic theory has
its foundations in assumptions that are at least 200 years out of date. It
is economics -- not family farms, rural communities, families, nations, and
cultures - that is out of date. We have no ethical or moral obligation to
accept economics as the final arbitrator of who gets to farm and who
doesn't, what we do in rural communities and what we don't, where food is
produced and where it is not, whether or not we trade, or anything else.
Economics is a creation of people. We simply cannot afford turn the thing
we created for our benefit loose to exploit the very people it was designed
to serve. Does that make any sense?
The religion of free market economics, would quite likely take us to a
future much like that forecasted in "The End of the American Farm." This is
a distinct possibility and certainly not a trivial matter to be considered
lightly. If our concerns for each other and for our natural environment are
simply illusions of our imagination, then we may all be better off as a
consequence. But if relationships, with other people and with nature,
really do matter, we could find out too late. There is a positive
alternative to conventional economics emerging from the sustainability
movement. The time to choose between the religion of economics and the
common sense of sustainability may well be at hand. Let's hope we choose
wisely.
How do choose wisely? Quite simply -- continue to use our common sense.
John Ikerd
University of Missouri
-----Original Message-----
From: tom abeles [mailto:tabeles@tmn.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 1999 7:00 PM
To: Ronald Nigh
Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: End of Steven Blank's nonesense
There have been several cutting posts regarding Steven
Blank's article
in the recent issue of "The Futuist". None has contributed a
single
counterpoint, any rational respnse or constructive
alternatives. Blank
represents a real position within the larger agricultural
community. Yet
no peer from The Academy or government has come forward with
anything to
counter. And the alternative agricultural community,
including think
tanks have been stragely silent. Sometimes silence serves as
a reasoned
respnse. Not in this case and not on this list devoted to a
partisan
vision of agriculture which might be considered antithetical
to the
positon postulated by Blank
thoughts?
tom abeles
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
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