I'm definitely not anti-technology as a whole, but I very much think many of the environmental problems we're facing in agriculture were caused by an over reliance on technology in the first place. We abstracted ourselves out of the process too much and it has had horrible consequences.
Biointensive gardening and earth-centric/organic/whatever methods definitely have their place, but it would be a huge shift to grow everything that way, and it's far from clear that it's even workable for the volumes needed for the big staple crops like corn, wheat, and soy.
The idea of bringing companion planting, cover cropping, etc to conventional agriculture by way of increased automation is a fascinating one, in part because of how pragmatic it is. It could allow those methods to scale much more than they do today, and allow a conventional farmer to adopt them incrementally, realizing the savings piecemeal (better yield here, reduced fertilizer use there, etc). This is going to be way more realistic than trying to reboot the whole system from scratch, especially to a method that requires 100x the labour inputs.
And it's definitely closer to the land than the other high tech direction, which is closed loop indoor hydroponic/aquaponic system— essentially doubling down on the monoculture approach by isolating the whole operation even more from unwanted natural inputs (pests, weather, and so on).
Thanks for your great comment, it's helping further the discussion and my own understanding.
> but it would be a huge shift to grow everything that way, and it's far from clear that it's even workable for the volumes needed for the big staple crops like corn, wheat, and soy.
Agree completely. But I think a huge shift is very much needed, and this shift may decrease our dependencies on staples like corn, much of which goes to cattle feed and fuel uses when we have other, more ecological methods like pastured beef, solar etc. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-c...
RE 2nd paragraph, also totally agree with, minus the "100x labor inputs". If done properly, bio-mimicry in Ag should decrease labor inputs as you leverage the advantages of natural plant/soil nutrient cycling, reduced watering and tillage from cover cropping and soil development, reduction of pesticide application by attracting animal/insect diversity etc.
From my understanding, "conventional" farming (I say ironically as we've really only been practicing these methods for ~60-70 years vs millennia of small scale farming that is the real "conventional"methods lol) has forced us to increase labor inputs - adding fertilizers, pesticides, annual tillage, managing irrigation systems - these are all things that can be eliminated, if the proper systems are put in place.
Gabe Browns book, Dirt to Soil was an eye opening read. Cheers.
We don't necessarily have to scale this. I think a better approach is to build decentralized food systems using these practices. At the neighborhood or household level, these practices are very practical. It does not require rebooting the whole system. It does not require venture capital, because you're not trying to make a big return. It does not require waiting for conventional farmers to change their practice.
That process is under way, somewhat— I have several CSAs serving my city, and two major farmers markets. But relevant to note: all of those outfits are focused on fruits and vegetables, where the impact of "fresh" is the greatest. All of the corn being grown around me is sweet corn for immediate consumption, or for animal feed.
No one is growing wheat on a small scale, much less in the kind of quantities that would allow me to have several dozen kg with which to bake through the winter. Same with legumes, as far as I know.
In any case, I'm not trying to impose a solution here. Quite the opposite; the food system is a large problem that requires multiple irons in the fire, and that may well look like reinventing large-scale cropping to be less destructive and chemical-intense, while simultaneously moving fruit and veg production closer to home with smaller scale operations.
Legumes are interesting in that there are many crops that can be companion planted. Can they get to quantities that can sustain a family? I don’t know. But pole beans are known to grow better as a companion plant to corn than by themselves. There are many other types of legumes — the Mesquite tree here in my neck of the woods (lower Sonoran) is a nitrogen fixer, with some varieties producing bean like pods that can be harvested. (They require a mill to get the full use pf them).
My point is that there is a lot more options out there, and what is possible is a lot greater than people think.
As far as wheat goes, I have not heard much from permaculturists doing that. I hear more about cultivating amaranth and quinoa as nutritionally dense pseudo grains.
Generally, I also hear a lot more about winter squashes. That follows the design principle of “Catch and Store Energy”, with squashes being a very durable store of sunlight and nutrients. Speghetti squashes can be made into pasta-like noodles. Not so much with bread.
Cauliflower can be processed to make a kind of flour that can be used in a lot of baking. Again, I don’t know the yields that can sustain a family. Depending on where you are, they are a fall crop. (They are a winter crop for the lower Sonoran, zone 9b/10). Probably grown in succession so that they can be had for a while. Maybe the flour can be stored over winter.
There are also sunchokes. These are in the sunflower family, and are considered invasive. They are very hardy, and their tubers can be harvested during a time when few other plants can be harvested. Their flowers open late season, and also nourish pollinators at a time when they don’t have a whole lot of options. They will grow in poor, depleted soil, and will probably edge out other pioneer plants. So not bread for the winter, but a good source of calories nonetheless.
Maybe that will the challenge my wife presents to me: finding the a good set of crops that would allow her to bake.
There is an element of truth to this. I agree -- people are out of touch with the world around them, on average.
But it's a double-edged sword. The abstraction has been hugely beneficial to society as a whole. Specialization lets us create entirely new industries.
These problems can't be ignored forever though. Eventually the dollar figure behind them will motivate even the most conservative actors. If it's cheaper to use better technology, and that technology doesn't have the same side effects, then there is no reason to continue to harm.
Having been wrangling this over the years, I've come to conclude that these abstractions create more problems than it benefits society.
I think these very abstractions are the cause of class inequalities, and by extension, racial and gender inequalities as well. Many identity issues come from that specialization. We've defined worth to society to how economically productive someone is. There are many things that society as a whole and individuals can benefit from, but society don't value them economically to pay for them. People involved in that (such as artists and musicians) are constantly struggling with the tension of authentic expression as an artist and creating something popular so they can make a living wage.
I won't even go into how these abstractions are a detriment to mental and emotional health, let alone, someone's spiritual life.
I am not advocating for things to go back "to the way they used to be".
Rather, I think there is a way to move forward. I think it will involve decentralizing our food system using resilient, and regenerative practices at the household and neighborhood scale. People will have to become more involved with growing their food, and that is generally a good thing. We have collected a number of design patterns that can yield nutrient-dense foods without as much labor, and reducing transport costs to ... going to your backyard (or going down the street).
Our society is already moving towards more remote work (for some segment of our populous at least), and that will drive a trend towards the hyperlocal. The big missing piece is the decentralized food system.
I have a coworker who grew up on a farm. When asked about the experience he has almost nothing positive to say about the experience. Working on a farm, even in modern times, does sound like a significant step down from the relative comforts of city living.
If advances in technology can decrease the burden on farming then we may see people willingly choose that lifestyle.
"Growing up on a farm" can have vastly different meanings across places - from living next to an industrial-scale operation to an idyllic, quiet small farm surrounded by nature.
Well, that goes to show it. Not every country has gotten rid of small-scale family farms. I used to visit a place just like that in Brazil, and a friend's parents also still live in such a setting in France.
There has been an incredible resurgence of small scale farms, in the range of 40-300 acres, that are a combo of country house and working farm. Some are capable of feeding thousands of community families. Not all food comes from industry.
The environmental problems we're facing in agriculture seems more closely related to our need to improve yield given limited land / proximity with customers.
If you hate on agricultural technology, you're just hating on the effect, not the cause.
Most people are against your so-called "environmental problems". It's just that solutions have to be financially sustainable besides being environmentally sustainable. The original comment you replied to was suggesting how that trade-off can be fixed with technology, just like many other trade-offs before it.
Top soil depletion, nutrient deficiencies in crops, watershed damage from excess fertilizer run-off, insect population decline from overuse of pesticides; these are all real issue. I'm accurate in hating the effect... the cause is ignorance and shortsightedness.
I know what you mean by "Luddite", but historically, they were not anti-tech either. They broke machines to gain leverage and put pressure over employers to give better working conditions, and not because they hated machines.
There are many design patterns in regenerative agriculture that works, but are low-tech or no-tech. It isn't that you need to be anti-tech; it is that we don't need high tech to solve these problems. They are low-tech because you are allowing natural processes to do things on its own, for the most part. Nature, not technology, is the "automation".
I believe we are of similar understanding here. Great to read your responses here. Here's to the wish that we could share a conversation at some point. Trade notes.
Send me an email sometime (talktohosh at gmail). This stuff I am deep diving —- permaculture design —- is still fairly new to me. But I had started to reevaluate the existing tech in my life in the context of the main ethical principles of permaculture (care of earth, care of people, fair share).
