Must Commerce, Ecology and Agriculture Always Be At Odds With Each Other?

Doesn't how we relate to our ecology determine the vitality of our economy?

• If we had a sustainable and viable relationship with our ecology instead of a superficial unsustainable one reliant upon non-renewable resources, wouldn't our population be better moderated because our resources would inevitably be distributed in a manner that wouldn't enable population increases that are reliant upon resources which are both limited and unsustainable? Any time an excess of resources is introduced to any population in nature it causes a population increase, which explains why the human population exponentially grew after the Agricultural Revolution, and the Industrial Revolution allowed for further population increases due to practices such as mechanized agriculture. The adaptation of 'developing' countries' economies into economies that are internationally competitive influenced those populations to increase as well because agriculture changed from self-sustainment to surplus-oriented mono-crops; having more children became an economic benefit to them because children are a source of labor to them. In arguing this I am advocating more indigenous lifestyles in which people have a more immanent and engaged relationship with their immediate local ecologies which, I believe, would create more favorable political and economic relationships worldwide. I think it would imply self-sufficiency and having immanent, viable, and engaged relationships with the people immediately around us instead of being so globally interdependent upon each other for trade, labor, and resources. I think our ecology is essentially our economy, and that our political actions are directed by our economies which are determined by our ecologies. If you dislike the political climate, shouldn't you consider that the source of political power lies in how a society relates to its actual environment? Is this a valid way to understand our ecological, economic, and political paradigms?

• Answer:

  The cheap food policy of the last 50 years is actually a detriment to the environment and a sustainable future. It caused too many people to be born putting pressure on worldwide ecosystems. 50 years ago people spent 30 cents on the dollar for food. Now it's only 18 cents and while it sounds like a good thing why do americans now need two incomes to get by? In the future farmers of the recent era will be known as the worst ever. In 1973 Secratary of Agriculture Earl Butz told american agribiz to plant fence to fence. Plant plant plant sell sell sell trying to use agriculture to balance our trade deficit. California farmers getting colorado river water to overplant and now it's like patriotic to be concerned with these "farmers" who as the press touts---"grow half of our nations fruits and vegatables". I can see people saluting our flag in my minds eye every time I hear that. Surplus oriented crops as you say have become our bane as Indias overpopulation becomes, because of the green revolution, so large that they toss their dead in the river because there is nowhere to bury them. People seem largely unaware of the problem. When I introduce the topic of population control in forums I get eugenics and other code words tossed at me and people don't even realize we have reached the tipping point in world populations. My idea is to have what I call a household industry exemption for the first 10,000 dollars of home or farm based income to enable small growers to have a chance once again. Then a 1% property tax on all large properties and also to eliminate the overtime exemption that agriculture has enjoyed all along. In Brazil there is a positive movement where farmers are forced by law to plant native vegetation along with their crops and there is a booming prosperity in these areas, a sustainable prosperity and an integration with nature. I disagree that economies and ecologies are interconnected. Like a hiking trail in the forest that becomes a logging road, greed has completely steamrolled over all indigenous lifestyles.