Must commerce, ecology, and agriculture always be at odds with each other?

Question

business. conservation. production. necessarily strange bedfellows?

is there some way the three can be COMBINED into one stronger, more sensible process?

or must there always be a separate place be reserved for all of them?

Answer 1

Business is in general a heartless thing with statistically more businesses now putting all their eggs in the basket labeled "The Bottom Line". The big business has come under fire a number of times from the older, mostly retired executive sector who criticize the younger new exec's as being heartless, money grubbing ruthless criminals. They have their dirty work done in countries without worker protection laws, hire lawyers to skirt laws and issues on technicalities in the name of the bottom line and forcing the people and government to pay the bill to close the loopholes.

I am grateful for the small farm making a comeback from the big agro-giant. In the world of the farmer and the crop there are still big groups who try to make huge harvests with known  questionable techniques in the name of "The Huge Nation we have to feed". So mountains of surplus go to waste while others starve, even in this country (I'm in the US) in this century. And government still writes checks to people to not grow a certain crop? And still, in light of all we know, land is still being abused in the large scale make a buck farm corporation. Thanks to the independent grower that embraces the land and cares, I buy from them first, always local in season. The mega farm and mega business is still a tight union but they will not for long, as "The times they are a changin".

Conservation is an elephant, not so much in that it's memory is long (and it is), but in that it is slow but as it gains momentum and speeds up, get out of the way or get flattened. For the most part, all that are involved here are into it heart and soul. They can't be swayed for money or power, as they now have their own. And they have "right" on their side and know it. And they have "fear" on their side and use it. And they have science on their side so they know and you know and no one is going to be fooled.

Of the three aspects, they overlap only where they agree and where they don't agree is that which defines them, but like everything, time and the people will always find a happy medium and do the right thing. The wealth of the people, the health of the world, and having every ones basic needs met is the one shining moment that has been the goal of society since the first people, not a simple thing to do but is worthy enough and it will happen.

Answer 2

If you could have a perfect world without greed and politics, without crop failures and plant diseases, without insects, then you could have a world where commerce, ecology, and agriculture are not at odds with each other.  As is is, we don't live in a perfect world, so we have to make the best of it.  Can the three competing factors optimize the situation?  Yes.  It takes a lot of foresight, wisdom, and planning.  There is a way the three can be combined into a workable entity.  Boulder County, Colorado has been doing a reasonable job of it.  Because we have people on earth, and there are finite resources, we must plan so everything has its place.

Answer 3

Permaculture,combines all 3

http://answers.yahoo.com/search/search_r...

Answer 4

No they dont have to be at odds.  You need to read books by Joel Salatin and Gene Logsden.  Joel has a website polyfacefarms.com, go there and click on principles and you can read exactly how these very 3 things can be combined in a way that is ethical and environmentally sound.

The way our government has pandered to the big agri businesses has created a nightmare.  We now plow up millions of acres, losing millions of tons of soil to erosion and burn who knows how much diesel, to plant corn and soybeans.  Spray them with herbicides, pesticides and synthetic fertilizers (more diesel).  Burn more diesel to harvest, haul and process the corn, all this to feed 70% (70% freaking percent!!!!) of it to animals.  Most of which goes to herbivores who are supposed to eat grass, not grain.  These animals are trucked all over the US crammed into feedlots or large scale confinements, pumped full of antibiotics, insect and worm poisons, growth hormones and more shots to make them eat.   They generate tons and tons of waste which then in such quantity become toxic and pollute our water sources.  They then get trucked to large scale slaughterhouses that regardless of how many white coat inspectors are present cannot help but become anything but sanitary due to the large volume.  Then the meat gets injected with dyes to make it keep its color then gets trucked to grocery stores all over the US.  Whew.  Thats alot of waste to make a steak (ok alot of steaks).

How about instead we plant those fields with mixes of cool and warm season perennial grasses and legumes.  The cows are born there and grow up there eating grass like they are supposed to and they get butchered by many small scale butchers and you pick up your steak at the grocery store where it hasnt traveled more than 100 miles or so.  Lots of savings in fuel and road repair.  Environmentally sound.  Happy cows mean less spent on antibiotics and better meat quality.  The benefits are many but I think you get the general idea by now.

Answer 5

they will always compete. there is a finite amount of resources on the planet and an increasing population looking to consume those resources. conservation and ecology seek to limit the consumption of resources. business and production seek to consume resources.

the middle ground is how they co-exist, but they will always pull in opposition.