Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T17:52:52.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The futures of agriculture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Karl N. Stauber
Affiliation:
Vice President-Program, North-west Area Foundation, 332 Minnesota Street, Suite #E1201, St. Paul, MN 55101-1373.
Get access

Abstract

One widely held view of the future of American agriculture is that it will continue the current trend toward fewer but larger farms, greater centralization and vertical integration, and declining rural populations. If so, the research, teaching and extension institutions created to serve agriculture will not survive unless they can adapt to changing political and demographic conditions, especially the domination of the suburbs. This will require these institutions to set new goals for themselves. Their historic pursuit of increased technical efficiency already has been so successful that it has sharply reduced the farm population, which has been their main base of public support. Suburban America, in contrast, will demand an agriculture that is more in harmony with nature. Alternative notions of the Common Good can provide the philosophical basis for this shift Historically, the economic system, including agriculture, has regarded nature as something to be used to advance human well-being. In this view (which could be called “Liberal” in the 19th century sense of the term), the reason to protect nature is to insure that it can continue to serve human needs. In contrast, the “Ecocentric” view of the Common Good emphasizes that humans are part of an ecological community, and that we must optimize the balance between human needs and the health of the ecosystem.

Type
Selected Papers from the Conference on Science and Sustainability, Seattle, Washington, October 24–26, 1993
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Albrecht, D.E., and Murdock, S.H.. 1990. The Sociology of U.S. Agriculture: An Ecological Perspective. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames.Google Scholar
2.Buttel, F. 1990. Social relations and the growth of modern agriculture. In Carroll, C.R., Vandermeer, J.H., and Rosset, P.M. (eds). Agroecology. McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., New York, N.Y. pp. 113146.Google Scholar
3.Carroll, C.R. 1990. The interface between natural areas and agroecosystems. In Carroll, C.R., Vandermeer, J.H., and Rosset, P.M. (eds). Agroecology. McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., New York, N.Y. pp. 365384.Google Scholar
4.Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
5.Cochrane, W.W. 1993. The Development of American Agriculture: A Historical Analysis. Revised ed. Univ. of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
6.Daly, H.E. 1980. Introduction to the steady-state economy. In Daly, H.E. (ed). Economics, Ecology, Ethics: Essays Toward a Steady-State Economy. W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, California, pp. 132.Google Scholar
7.Flora, C.B. 1990. Sustainability of agriculture and rural communities. In Francis, C.A., Flora, C.B., and King, L.D. (eds). Sustainable Agriculture in Temperate Zones. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y. pp. 343359.Google Scholar
8.Francis, C.A. 1990. Breeding hybrids and varieties for sustainable systems. In Francis, C.A., Flora, C.B., and King, L.D. (eds). Sustainable Agriculture in Temperate Zones. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y. pp. 2454.Google Scholar
9.Galbraith, J.K. 1987. Economics in Perspective: A Critical History. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
10.Garreau, J. 1991. Edge City: Life on the New Frontier. Doubleday, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
11.Hallberg, M.C. 1992. Policy for American Agriculture: Choices and Consequences. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames.Google Scholar
12.Hardin, G. 1980a. The tragedy of the commons. In Daly, H.E. (ed). Economics, Ecology, Ethics: Essays Toward a Steady-State Economy. W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, California, pp. 100114.Google Scholar
13.Hardin, G. 1980b. Second thoughts on the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’. In Daly, H.E. (ed). Economics, Ecology, Ethics: Essays Toward a Steady-State Economy. W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, California. pp. 115120.Google Scholar
14.Lewontin, R.C., and Berlan, J.-P.. 1990. The political economy of agricultural research: The case of hybrid corn. In Carroll, C.R., Vandermeer, J.H., and Rosset, P.M. (eds). Agroecology. McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., New York, N.Y. pp. 613628.Google Scholar
15.Madden, J.P., and Brewster, D. (eds). 1970. A Philosopher among Economists: Selected Words of John M. Brewster. J.T. Murphy Co., Inc. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
16.McPhee, J. 1971. Encounter with the Archdruid. The Noonday Press, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
17.Nash, R. 1967. Wilderness and the American Mind. Yale Univ., New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
18.O'Brien, P., Myers, W.H., and Morton, A.S.. 1990. A market context for the 1990 farm bill debate. In Allen, K. (ed). Agricultural Policies in a New Decade. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. pp. 4780.Google Scholar
19.Office of Technology Assessment. 1986. Technology, Public Policy, and the Changing Structure of American Agriculture. U.S. Congress. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
20.Petulla, J.M. 1988. American Environmental History. 2nd ed.Merrill Publishing Co., Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
21.Schuh, G.E. 1984. Revitalizing the Land Grant University. Presented at the Colloquium, Strategic Management Research Center, Univ. of Minnesota, September 28.Google Scholar
22.Strange, M. 1988. Family Farming: A New Economic Vision. Univ. of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, and Institute for Food and Development Policy, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
23.U.S. Dept. of Commerce. 1992. Statistical Abstract of the United States. 112th ed. Bureau of the Census. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar