An Economic Postulate

Agriculture Metamorphosis:

An Economic Postulate

Agriculture must make an economic comeback and as importantly social recognition for the world economy to rejuvenate and stabilize.

Civilization has undergone many influences, both economic and political, while evolving to the current economic level. By analyzing the social and cultural evolution of man, one can gain better understanding that where Agriculture is today, as an economic and societal influence might not necessarily be where Agriculture should be.

A Brief History

Civilization formed as small bands of nomadic people, described as hunter-gatherers, united into quasi family groups. The size of the group was limited by the ability to find food and energy sufficient to sustain the group, and the ability to remain mobile for the sake of safety.

As man gained better understanding of the natural world around him, he developed techniques for cultivating plant crops. The discovery and constant refinement of Agriculture encouraged independent family groups to band together, forming settlements. This stabilization of the groups, and the ability to cultivate plant crops, supported population expansion. Prior to this, the size of the family group was limited by their ability to feed and hunt in a given but ever-increasing area. But in forming agricultural settlements, family size was further defined by the need for labor. The “large farm family” was born.

The farming families banded together to form a “nucleus” (rural communities) with branches extending from the core in all directions. With the increase of potential laborers, more land was cleared and planted. Over time, this caused a contraction of the nucleus as the older farmers turned over their lands to the younger generations. Eventually, the older farmers banded together with others to form towns. At the same time the agricultural branches expanded to encompass more and more land as the new families grew and others joined in.

Eventually, the expansion of rural towns and the increase of land being used for agriculture led to surpluses of agricultural products of limited variety, that were defined by what the local environment could support. Trading of surplus commodities ensued, thus beginning agricultural commerce among rural groups. The inequities of trade products soon defined the need for a new trading medium, and consequently the need for cash.

The desire to “live a better life” in this new economic environment of cash became and impetus for commerce to slowly replace the barter system. Artisans and craftsmen became key in this new environment, as the need for non-essential goods increased. An imbalance in trade developed, as the need for agricultural products was limited to the amount the population could consume. Hindered by this, agriculture began to lose it’s dominant role in the developing economy. The seemingly insatiable need for more than “the basics” in life proliferated, boosting the social and economic position of artisans and craftsmen. Over time, this shift in the cultural and economic fabric became a wave that would eventually drown agriculture’s control of, and indeed influence on, the economic system.

Agriculture’s inability to evolve further limited it’s growth, and therefore the economy of the surrounding regions. A new economic influence was needed if commerce was to flourish and the economy was to further stabilize. Necessity, in this case, truly was the mother of invention. Businessmen, tinkers and yes even farmers developed new machinery to automate labor intensive tasks.

The Industrial Revolution, fueled by the precept of “betterment of life” helped create a new economic paradigm, consumerism. Cities flourished and population increased, fueled by the Industrial Revolution, and their own innate ability to consume the products from it. Agriculture remained limited by the amount of food we could eat, and to limited extent, export. The agricultural economy stagnated. Over time, consumerism and Industry continued to flourish at the expense of agriculture. The family farm (or factory) suffered a decline in re-investment, as the investment dollars many times were spent to “better one’s life”.

This decline of manufacturing re-investment stymied the further development of agricultural infrastructure. Specialty manufacturing of agricultural equipment, chemicals and even the marketing of agricultural products were taken over by the consumer-driven Industry. The prices for these products, and the majority of the profits realized from them, were dictated by the marketers, who neither produced nor processed. Soon, agricultural marketing became a specialty of the Industrial Infrastructure. A continued lack of self-marketing and manufacturing by agriculture eventually doomed Agriculture to a non-controlling secondary role in the economy.

Social Implications:

It would be interesting to examine the social dynamic that catalyzed the shift in perception of the farm person. The commonality of agriculture has been forgotten, as the dwindling farm populations are no longer social and political leaders, but near “social outcasts” in the society which they helped develop and nurture.

The common perception of the farm person is as honest, independent, hard working (although not to bright) and either unable or unwilling to except change. Is this true? Is the farm family socially and economically inferior? Or is it simply a result of isolation and quasi-enslavement, in order to maintain control of the segment of the population that control the food supply? Control of the food supply is an appalling as well as frightening concept. What might happen if society were suddenly plunged into a world where 3% of the population controlled the food for the remaining 97%, and this certain 3% did not know it was in control? Is this true in today's economic and political structure? What is the general perception of this 3%?

Society sees the farm person as slow, committed to the old ways, willing to work for low pay and able to accept an imposed low self worth. The farm personage does not tend to be inherently less intelligent, even though the quality of education has traditionally been remedial. Unfortunately, it has been thought that if a child was going into farming, he would be best served if we limited his education, thus making it easier to get through. Currently, it has been taken to the other extreme, with a tendency for specialization that is being experienced in the colleges and universities of America. Instead of not teaching enough, are we are focusing our attention too specifically? Agriculture is just that- a culture- a living viable entity that must be lived rather than attended.

The farmer has almost become a non-entity that wields little political power, yet, due to “economics”, has allowed itself to be dependent on the political system. Is this a wise choice? Is it in the best interest of the “whole” to geld the political, social, and economic capacity of agriculture, so that it appears the same as always, but does not have the power to propagate? Has “The Family Farm” diminished in numbers because its has been deemed politically irrelevant, whether by conscious or unconscious choice? Political and economic control of agriculture is at best suspicious, at worst insidious.

At some point it will become apparent to the less than 3%, that less than 3% of the population controls 100% of the food we eat.