3 ms·

Let me outline briefly as I can what seem to me the characteristics of these opposite kinds of mind. I conceive a strip-miner to be a model exploiter, and as a

by tspike 10y ago

Let me outline briefly as I can what seem to me the characteristics of these opposite kinds of mind. I conceive a strip-miner to be a model exploiter, and as a model nurturer I take the old-fashioned idea or ideal of a farmer. The exploiter is a specialist, an expert; the nurturer is not. The standard of the exploiter is efficiency; the standard of the nurturer is care. The exploiter's goal is money, profit; the nurturer's goal is health -- his land's health, his own, his family's, his community's, his country's. Whereas the exploiter asks of a piece of land only how much and how quickly it can be made to produce, the nurturer asks a question that is much more complex and difficult: What is its carrying capacity? (That is: How much can be taken from it without diminishing it? What can it produce dependably for an indefinite time?) The exploiter wishes to earn as much as possible by as little work as possible; the nurturer expects, certainly, to have a decent living from his work, but his characteristic wish is to work as well as possible. The competence of the exploiter is in organization; that of the nurturer is in order -- a human order, that is, that accommodates itself both to other order and to mystery. The exploiter typically serves an institution or organization; the nurturer serves land, household, community, place. The exploiter thinks in terms of numbers, quantities, "hard facts"; the nurturer in terms of character, condition, quality, kind. This is a passage from Wendell Berry's The Unsettling of America. His premise is that viewing agriculture as an equation to be solved is fundamentally incompatible with maintaining the land's carrying capacity. akiselev said in another comment, "How would you propose we study an ecosystem where we can't even isolate and analyze the majority of bacterial, fungal, and viral species let alone study or simulate their interactions with each other and crops at the scale of even a square meter plot?" We already have the knowledge of how to sustainably farm land without irreparably damaging the ecosystem (although it is dying fast); we are simply unwilling to work as hard as it would take to do it and are hoping for a technological breakthrough from an expert to solve problems we can't even verbalize.

akiselev 10y ago
We can verbalize the problem: our population growth has outpaced our investment in agricultural technology and infrastructure such that in order to even try to feed everyone, we have to turn to ever more drastic measures that are unsustainable or carry worrying existential risks. It is only in the last decade or so that farmers are finally going full force in with tech that was standard factory equipment thirty or even fifty years ago except now designed for farmers. There is no technological breakthrough coming, we already have all of the technology and the rate at which its costs are dropping is monumental. Finally the low margin businesses that feed the human race are able to afford it. As the article talks about, this is largely because the old equipment and seed manufacturers, the ones the farmers trust for their farm, are finally starting to provide "smart" machinery and even cloud services with mesh sensor networks. Combine this with genetic engineering of nitrogen fixating bacteria, breeding guided by genetic screening, and all of the hard work that people like Norman Borlaug have done and will do and we will be able to sustainably feed our civilization without a high chance of running face first into an ecological catastrophe.
- ciconia 10y ago
  No, automating stuff and using technology to protect crop from "the vagaries of nature" (what a ridiculous idea!) will not solve the main problems of modern non sustainable agriculture, namely soil erosion, contamination and monoculture vulnerability. Despite constant technological progress, agriculture sadly remains one of the top contributors to global warming. Unless the whole concept changes I really don't see how we can avoid a global catastrophe.

by tspike 10y ago

akiselev 10y ago

We can verbalize the problem: our population growth has outpaced our investment in agricultural technology and infrastructure such that in order to even try to feed everyone, we have to turn to ever more drastic measures that are unsustainable or carry worrying existential risks. It is only in the last decade or so that farmers are finally going full force in with tech that was standard factory equipment thirty or even fifty years ago except now designed for farmers. There is no technological breakthrough coming, we already have all of the technology and the rate at which its costs are dropping is monumental. Finally the low margin businesses that feed the human race are able to afford it. As the article talks about, this is largely because the old equipment and seed manufacturers, the ones the farmers trust for their farm, are finally starting to provide "smart" machinery and even cloud services with mesh sensor networks. Combine this with genetic engineering of nitrogen fixating bacteria, breeding guided by genetic screening, and all of the hard work that people like Norman Borlaug have done and will do and we will be able to sustainably feed our civilization without a high chance of running face first into an ecological catastrophe.

ciconia 10y ago
No, automating stuff and using technology to protect crop from "the vagaries of nature" (what a ridiculous idea!) will not solve the main problems of modern non sustainable agriculture, namely soil erosion, contamination and monoculture vulnerability. Despite constant technological progress, agriculture sadly remains one of the top contributors to global warming. Unless the whole concept changes I really don't see how we can avoid a global catastrophe.