Umea University
Department of Social and Economic Geography
Course: Bachelor’s Thesis
Spring 2010
Supervisor: Marcus Ednarsson
The Basketball Concept
- A hierarchic approach to the food crisis debate
- Jonatan Nyvall
Abstract
The food crisis debate is centered on statistics and locked in a
stalemate with no consensus. With phenomena such as global
warming and environmental deterioration entering the debate, a
new approach is necessary to deal with these issues. This paper
offers one such approach by using hierachy theory with the aim of
complementing the statistics by examining the arguments of there
being a food crisis (Environmentalism) or not (Economic
Liberalism) coming in the near future. It does so by ordering the
arguments of these two point of views within an agricultural
framework, visualized as a basketball, and examining the general
trend of the factors capitalism, global warming and population
growth and how they affect global food production. The paper
concludes that the essential arguments revolves around decreasing
marginal returns on effort versus solutions to them, and that
environmentalism arguments adhere to this while economic
liberalism often do not. As such it proposes a change in agricultural
systems towards one that works within ecological limits, less a food
crisis emerge.
Keywords: Food crisis, System theory, Economic Liberalism,
Environmentalism.
2
Index
Abstract .................................................................................................... 2
1..............................................................................................................................I
ntroduction ..................................................................................... 4
2. ............................................................................................................................T
hesis Statement............................................................................... 6
3. ............................................................................................................................G
eneral outline of the study .............................................................. 6
4. ............................................................................................................................M
ethod ................................................................................................7
5. ............................................................................................................................T
he State of the World .....................................................................10
6. ............................................................................................................................E
conomic Liberalism ....................................................................... 12
6.1 Economic Growth....................................................................................... 14
6.2 The Importance of Technology .................................................................. 16
6.3 Resource-Planning..................................................................................... 18
7. Environmentalism...........................................................................19
7.1 The Poverty Trap ........................................................................................ 21
7.2 Outsourcing Environmental Stress ............................................................23
8. The stalemate in the empirical evidence ......................................... 25
8.1 Data Selection ............................................................................................26
8.2 The logic of predictions.............................................................................. 27
8.3 Levels of Analysis...................................................................................... 28
8.4 Hierarchy Theory...................................................................................... 30
9. The Basketball framework ............................................................. 31
9.1Limitations and Factors of the framework ..................................................32
10. Capitalism .................................................................................... 34
10.1 The Social maintenance of the olicy ..........................................................36
10.2 The Arguments regarding the Policy ........................................................ 37
11. Global Warming ........................................................................... 40
12. Population Growth ....................................................................... 42
3
13. Ecological Limitations .................................................................. 44
13.1 A Change in Systems .................................................................................... 46
14. Conclusions .................................................................................. 49
References ............................................................................................. 50
1. Introduction
The food crisis debate is an age-old topic of discussion, which in its
current state could be said to date back as far as 1798 when Malthus
wrote his “An essay on the principle of population” highlighting the
relationship between the food supply and population growth. In
modern times the debate of a food crisis (Environmentalism) or not
(Economic Liberalism) coming in the near future is influenced by
not just population growth but by global warming, our
environmental behaviour and the susceptibility of the fossil-fuel
intensive society (Ehrlich 2008 and 1971, Moore, 2008, Pfeiffer,
2006, Korten, 2001, Lomborg, 2001, Strange, 1999, Simon, 1995 and
1986). The debate is important for both camps of the issue; for
Environmentalists to prove that the current course of action will lead
to dire consequences for human wellbeing, and thus needs to change
(Ehrlich, 2008). For Economic Liberalists; that the current course of
action is improving human wellbeing over time (Lomborg, 2001).
The issue of food is also pressing, as it shares linkages to the inequity
of the world’s food distribution, poverty, civic unrest, health,
environmental deterioration and national security (Pollan, 2008).
The debate as such can help move each of these issues into the light
as well as bringing sensible responses to them. Since the days of
Malthus much reasoning behind the two fields of thought have
centered on reductionistic science in the form of statistics as the
main driver for their arguments (Bawden, 1990). These statistics
4
have been much improved upon, yet there have been no consensus
as the debate has intensified with the introduction of the
degradation of the biophysical, socio-economic and cultural
environments (Bawden, 1990). The debate has entered a stalemate.
However, it is critical to ask ourselves if the ability to reproduce the
same results is not because it is necessarily the truth, but because we
have limited the system we look at to such a degree that it cannot
behave in any other way. These relatively new phenomena of the
connections between the enviroment and the food production may
need a different approach, one that is systems oriented (Bawden,
1990) and holistic in nature in order to shed new light into the
debate from another angle. Hierarchic theory offers one such
approach, by complementing the statistics by looking at the core of
the arguments, arguments that have arguably remained since
Malthus though feed with different empirical evidence throughout
the years. This paper then uses hierachic theory to revisit these
arguments, with the purpose of complementing the statisticscentered food crisis debate.
5
2. Thesis Statement
I argue that both sides of the food crisis debate, environmentalism
and economic liberalism, are correct but working under different
levels of analysis. By using a hierarchic theory approach to the
system in introducing a framework, it is argued that
environmentalism work on a higher structural level and as such
there is a food crisis being on the way under current human
behavior.
3. General outline of the study
This study aims to offer a different viewpoint on the food crisis
debate than done by statistics by examining the two points of views
of there being a food crisis (Environmentalism) or not (Economic
Liberalism) coming in the near future based on hierarchy theory.
The study starts off with a general background to the issue and then
proceeds by organizing the arguments of these views into a
framework based on the agricultural system in the form of a
basketball. The study then examines how this framework and the
arguments work with factors such as global warming, population
growth and the current economic policy, before finishing with a
discussion on the impacts of these factors.
6
4. Method
Looking at the two points of view, there is a substantial amount of
literature to choose from. I have been mainly interested in the main
arguments concerning a food crisis or not, yet it is a complex system
to analyze as it is intertwined with many other processes. Difficulties
arrive then as most arguments are linked with other issues besides
agriculture, and by selecting parts of them we may end up with
incomplete arguments. I have chosen, due to time constraints, to
handle this by selecting literature from some of the leading scientists
in their fields, with complementing information as it is needed to
illustrate different ideas, factors and data. Literature where chosen
based on two criteria; citations and reprints. If the literature is well
cited in scientific circles, or the book in question has been deemed as
important enough to be reprinted on several occasions, I judged
them to be important in their fields. To this, I read works from both
points of views; Julian Simon and Bjorn Lomborg on the economic
liberalism side, and Paul Ehrlich and David Korten on the
environmentalism side.
Their publications and many others used throughout this paper
belong in the fields of Economics, Agricultural Sciences,
Environment/Ecology and Social Sciences, fields which for all years
vary from 4-10 citations on average (THE, 2009). The main works
used in this paper from Lomborg, Simon and Korten vary in
citations from 1400 to 1900, with Ehrlich’s works having 130 to 600
citations mostly due to the recent publication date. From this, I
7
judged that these scientists represent the main ideas well enough
from both points of view, based on their literary contributions. The
importance of selecting literature from leading scientists is to add
weight to their arguments, since arguments might arguably remain
the same if other scientists are chosen. Arguments where selected
during the literature studies if they discussed the most prominent
factors for the agricultural system; governance (capitalism), climate
(global warming) and demand (population growth), and whether or
not a food crisis seemed imminent or not. This may be a hard line to
draw since there are many subdivisions of thought between the sides
of a food crisis or not, yet it is a core question with no middleground.
Since this paper takes up a broad holistic approach, this division
seemed the best for sheer simplicity rather than discussing several
differing opinions within these two fields.
To illustrate the agricultural system, and how the selected
arguments work within that system, a framework based on hierarchy
theory in the form of a spinning basketball, complete with built in
positive and negative feedbacks, is used. It is rather simplistic, yet it
serves a purpose to simplify the process for the reader and its only
major fault would be that is does not include any kind of limits. To
correct that, I include a chapter on limits to highlight how the
system might work in the long run, since the model merely shows a
short-run perspective. This perspective was chosen since I argue that
the food crisis debate is often centered on reductionistic evidence in
the form of empirical data, data that is often very selective in nature.
This has turned the debate into a stalemate, where new viewpoints
are needed to complement the statistics. Hierarchy theory offers one
such viewpoint, which is used to instead review the arguments
circling around in the debate and the factors that affect the
agricultural system. As such, it differs from other predictions by
8
discussing trends rather than impact, which is always dificult to
access.
The arguments where divided up into three fields of observation;
Capitalism, Global Warming and Population Growth, based on
where most of the weight of the argument centered on. While they
are not separate processes, I choose to highlight them individually
since I deem it important to see how each factor work within the
basketball framework. It also lends my main argument some
strength through showing how the processes enforces one another
by looking at them separately, rather than just pointing out that they
do. A deductive method of reasoning was used in the review of the
arguments, basing the conclusions on their impact within the
basketball framework used throughout this paper.
9
5. The state of the world
Food in addition to water are the most basic supplies necessary for
life. For most of the planet’s 7 billion people, food comes mainly
from agriculture. The management and production efficiency of that
system is critical to our survival. The production output however
varies across the world. In particular, the regions with a
Mediterranean climate have a high food production while those lying
closer to the equator have a lower production due to the
photosynthesis effect (Buringh, 1978). These spatial differences are
further influenced by the economic world system, by trade policies
such as free trade, globalization and economic growth (Korten,
2001).
The actual production of food is enough to feed the whole world
adequately. However, the distribution of that food is not equal.
There are vast differences between regions, countries and even
within countries as to the distribution of food. In some parts of the
world, people suffer from starvation or malnourishment. For 2009,
that number is 1,02 billion people worldwide, which consist most
notoriously of Asia and the pacific (642 million), Sub-Saharan Africa
(265 million) and Latin America and the Caribbean (42 million) as
the most affected (FAO, 2008). At the same time, there are
approximately 1 billion people in the world who are overweight in
2009, of which 300 million are obese. The distribution of overweight
10
adults is mainly focused in North America and Europe, but in
developing countries like China the prevalence of obesity is rising
fast, particularly in cities (WRI, 2010). In other words, there is a
clear inequality in the consumption of food worldwide.
The world is also experiencing global warming, a trend that affects
agriculture negatively by shifting the good climate away from the
good soil (Lobell et al, 2007). It also gives rise to environmental
deterioration in the form of decreasing biodiversity, a case that is
augmented by the global economic system as well as rising income
inequality (Korten, 2001:97-99, Strange, 1999). This is important,
since income inequality is a significant determinant for health. For
example, countries such as Brazil and Turkey have a several times
higher child mortality than Costa Rica or Malaysia, even though all
of these countries have the same income per capita. The difference is
how the wealth in the country is distributed, where Brazil and
Turkey have a higher income inequality (Bergström, 2008:56-57).
People suffering from starvation and malnourishment show signs of
decreasing by relative numbers, yet in absolute terms their numbers
increase (FAO, 2008:6). That is a good trend, yet population growth
is offsetting some of its gains. The population is steadily growing and
is expected to peak around 2050 reaching between 9-12 billion
people depending on estimates, most of which will inhabit the
poorer parts of the world where food is scarce. A majority of the food
production is dependent on oil for fertilizers, transports and
cultivation. The oil production in the world may be nearing a peak in
which the continued production will either decline or become much
more expensive. More expensive oil will be highly visible in food
prices and might prove problematic for the poor. The consumption
11
of oil is also contributing to global warming. This state of the world
is interpreted in different ways in both public opinion and the
scientific literature. While there are many subdivisions of thought on
the current state of the world’s agricultural system, it can broadly be
categorized into two different groups; those who think the world is
on a course towards a food crisis (Godfray et al, 2010, Brown, 2008,
Ehrlich, 2008, Pfeiffer, 2006, Korten, 2001) and those who think
that the world is only showing signs of improvement (Paarlberg
2008, Parry, 2002, Lomborg, 2001, Radetzki 2001, Simon, 1995).
Let us examine both of these points of view in turn.
6. Economic Liberalism
Economic liberalism, conservatism or even corporate liberalism, are
all terms for a point of view advocating a conservative point of view
instead of change in the current capitalistic world policy. In doing
so, it also takes a different viewpoint on the environment not as a
value in itself, but as a value based on the services the environment
can provide for humankind (Simon, 1986:189). It also equates the
common good of the community with the good of the consumers,
that is, the cheaper the goods and the more available they are to us,
the better off the community is. It is a point of view most supported
by economists.
For the global food supply, this perspective points to empirical data
showing that the world is now in a better state than ever (Simon,
1995:2). First, the world is producing more food now than ever
before in history, and we are in a state of overproduction (Hudson,
1995:406-407), which is evident in that the world is also getting
12
increasingly more nourished (Poleman, 1995:396-397, Lomborg,
2001:24). Second, access to drinking water and sanitation is
improving, particularly in poor countries (Lomborg, 2001:22). Such
access helps mitigate and limit the spread of illness and disease,
which in turn improves health. Indeed, the death rates of infectious
diseases between the years 1970-2000 have gone steadily down
(Murray and Lopez, cited in Lomborg, 2001:26). Third, the amount
of people suffering from starvation is diminishing in relative terms,
which is the only morally correct judgment that matters and shows
the world is on the road of improvement. Bjorn Lomborg expresses
this in more detail:
“For the sake of argument, let us say that there are only two types
of people – those who die of starvation and those who survive. We
can thus describe society A and society B:
A. 500.000 die of starvation out of a population of 1.000.000.
B. 750.000 die of starvation out of a population of 2.000.000.
In society B, the absolute figure has increased but the relative
figure has fallen. To me the obvious choice in this situation is that
society B is better than A. My risk of dying in society B is 37,5%,
against 50% in society A…one can naturally criticize this choice on
moral grounds, and argue that the society with the lowest absolute
figure is the best (A is better than B). But a view such as this meets
a significant challenge in the form of yet another hypothetical
society:
C. 499.999 die of starvation out of a population of 500.000.
In this situation the absolute point of view has the substantial
weakness that it would also prefer society C to society A. Very few
people are likely to see this as the right choice.” (2001:64).
13
The poor and malnourished people of the world also cause
environmental problems that push them down a negative spiral. For
example, in order to survive, the poor speed up processes such as
deforestation, desertification and drain away local resources. They
also produce unsanitary water by the matter of waste disposal, but
they have little choice in the matter. It is not their fault (Ravenhill,
2008:465). Moreover, poor people have the highest fertility rates,
which further causes misery as more people compete for the same
resources, which enforces poverty. Sub-Saharan Africa being the
poorest area of the planet is a case in point where this is evident.
Also, this is reinforced by poor and corrupted political institutions
and governments (Bergström, 2008:36), as well as trade imbalances,
debt and not enough assistance from other countries (Ravenhill,
2008:465). Dealing with poverty then, becomes critical, as it regards
the environment. But how can this be done?
6.1 Economic Growth
According to the economic liberalism point of view, the care for the
environment, enhancing environmental quality and ending poverty
can only be achieved by economic growth (De Janvry et al, 2009).
Indeed, this factor is the major contributor to declining fertility
rates, child mortality rates, disease rates and much of the
improvement seen in the world. This is because economic growth
increases the average amount of dollars per person (Simon, 1986:
193), and as such, will help the poor to buy the goods, medical
supplies and food that they need for a healthy life. To bring
economic growth to poor countries however, there needs to be an
efficient market operating under the principle of comparative
advantage. This principle was first proposed by David Ricardo in
14
1817 in “Principles of political economy and taxation”, and in short
means that countries have distinct advantages in certain kinds of
productions compared to other countries. Thus, countries should
specialize in producing the goods that they achieve the maximum
output in, and then trade the surplus for other goods. In the end,
such trade ends up giving each country involved more of these
traded goods than they would have if they each focused on
producing only for domestic use. To this end, economic libertarians
advocates free global trade, as this will create efficient production of
goods, and thus secure a surplus that could be spent on dealing with
issues such as the environment, poverty and health issues. Indeed, a
core cause of our distress is due to governmental restraints on trade.
It is generally recognized (Radetzki, 2001, Ravenhill, 2008, Ehrlich
et al, 1971, Strange, 1999) that economic growth can cause
environmental deterioration, since using more resources means
depleting the stock of resources, and new industries will also cause
pollution in forms of toxic waste, smog or waste material. However,
that is not a continuous truth. In fact, that applies in the beginning
of a country’s development, but as it progresses it will reach a peak
and then as income per capita increases pollution levels will fall
down as people naturally become more aware of their environment
and take up means to protect it. It is when income per capita
increase that this awareness and political will is made manifest, as
poor people are less inclined to care about the environment in their
struggle for survival (Radetzki, 2001:66-70). Another contributing
factor to the eventual decline in pollution is the tendency for
societies to abandon heavy industry in favor for a service industry
once income per capita is high enough. This process is called the
“Kuznets curve” (Figure 1.).
15
Figure 1. Kuznets curve showing a county’s pollution levels as
income per capita increase.
6.2 The importance of technology
There is a need to keep economic growth a central issue, as when
countries are in financial trouble, the governments and companies of
those affected rarely invest in environmentally friendly technologies,
just as the poor only care for survival in harsh times. If companies
work isolated behind barriers of a country’s legislative system, they
will have less competition, and as such, fewer incentives to be
environmentally friendly. With free trade however, countries and
companies are locked in competition to constantly upgrade to gain
access to certain markets. They also bring their new technologies to
less developed parts of the world, improving the environmental
situation (Ravenhill, 2008:461-462). These technologies and any
technological advances can help low-income countries through the
higher end of the Kuznets curve, thus limiting the environmental
impact on their way towards reducing poverty. The WTO (World
trade organization) gives us some insight into this logic:
16
“Every WTO member Government supports open trade because it
leads to higher living standards for working families which in turn
leads to a cleaner environment” (1999).
It is however not enough simply to count on economic growth, there
also needs to be equality in agricultural production to reduce poverty
(De Janvry, 2009). Nick Eberstadt explains:
“Inequality is inextricably linked with production: the only way the
nations of the world can become more equal is through making
their productivities more equal” (1976:36).
For the food supply, this extends to bringing biotechnology to the
poor parts of the world to increase their production. Fertilizers,
modified seeds and pesticides are all part of modern agriculture, a
luxury that the poor parts of the world, in particular Sub-Saharan
Africa, desperately needs (Paarlberg, 2008:105). These tools go
under the name of the “green revolution”, and although we can
question it in regards to its byproducts like exhausted soils, one clear
fact remains: It has helped the developing and developed countries
to produce more food than they need (Paarlberg, 2008:8). As such,
economic libertarians argue that it is only fair that poor countries
should get the same means of production.
17
6.3 Resource-planning
Resources are ever getting cheaper, a sign that they are in
abundance (Simon, 1986:190-197). Even so, oil is a special case
because of the heavy dependence on oil and its increasing cost of
extraction. However, there is no need to be alarmed. Throughout
history, humanity has had a habit of substituting materials once they
become too costly on the market. Once resources become harder to
acquire, the market, new technology and opportunists will find new
cheap alternatives. This rate of substitution primarily affects raw
materials, such as minerals, wood and fossil-fuels. Examples of
previous substitutions include copper wires in telephones to fiber or
coal to oil in 19th century England. Judging from previous
experience, there is no reason to believe our oil dependence will not
be substituted as well once there are market incentives to do so, thus
preventing global warming effects. This production of new
knowledge will be greatly aided by population growth:
“More people certainly imply increased demand in the short run,
and therefore higher costs than otherwise in the short run. But the
long run is not just a sequence of short runs in this case, and hence
it is fallacious to draw any conclusions from this short-run
analysis. In the longer run, technology’s advance comes from
people, and technological advance is the sole factor responsible for
the long-run declines in material cost” (Simon, 1986:209).
The important factor here is that population growth will yield more
human minds, which will inevitably come up with more inventions
and better technology. This new knowledge will affect welfare
positively and thus offset resource demands by population growth
(Simon, 1986:203).
18
7. Environmentalism
Environmentalism refers to a point of view aimed towards
developing a human society within biological limits. With the
economic liberalism point of view being dominant in current
policies, environmentalists most often take up the role of criticizers
of the current world system of organization. In particular they argue
against environmental deterioration, social deterioration and
capitalism. Biologists most commonly support this point of view
(Bergström, 2008:42).
At the core, the basic principle is to manage the resources from the
ecosystem in a sustainable ecological way. This means not disrupting
the way the ecosystem works, but merely to let it run its course and
then collect the surplus or the subsidy of that system (Allen et al,
1999). By disrupting the system, as in over extracting key resources,
it gets damaged and will not function with maximum effect. This is
not to say that humans should not alter the system in any way, it
merely states that it should do so within the functions of the system
to reach stability, not work against it. When damaging the system
initially output will increase as more resources are harvested, but the
long-term stability of the system will deteriorate towards collapse. A
sign of that deterioration is decreasing marginal returns, which
incidentally, has caused previous great civilizations to collapse as
well (Tainter, 1990).
Decreasing marginal returns is a state that can be seen in the matter
of oil, which already have reached a peak says environmentalists
(Pfeiffer, 2006:31-33). Oil represents some key issues. The earth’s
19
biological system is essentially fuelled by sunlight, which is limited
in the quantity that reaches the planet. That sunlight sustains plants
through photosynthesis, which in turn sustains different forms of
life, including humans. Earlier societies built upon this supply of
sunlight, with agriculture and burning biomass such as wood to get
energy. This changed with the industrial revolution and the eventual
use of coal, gas and oil, otherwise known as fossil fuels. These
substances are essentially stored sunlight energy dating back
millions of years. As such, when tapping into this new form of
energy, societies get the benefit of both regular sunlight and stored
sunlight, which creates a surplus of energy and thus enabled the
industrial revolution to get going. This is a process still under
progress, and as of 2006, we are more addicted to oil than ever. The
situation is so dire that if food transports run by vehicles using oil
where to stop tomorrow, a majority of people would be without food
(Pfeiffer, 2006:24-27).
Yet fossil fuels, environmentalists argue, are so addictive to the
modern society that transports are not the most troubling effect of
diminishing supplies. Rather, agriculture and food production may
prove to be just that (Ehrlich et al, 2008:227). The reason is that
agribusiness corporations have forcefully spread the “green
revolution”, with the effect that most of the food produced now come
directly from oil in the form of fertilizers, pesticides and modified
seeds (Pfeiffer, 2006:7-8). In doing so, the world’s food production
has stepped out of the ecosystem function to directly inject it with oil
to increase production, with long-term devastating consequences
such as erosion, global warming and decreasing biodiversity. As
remains of these products are carried away by water flows into the
ocean, they cause algae growth and the Co2 released acidifies the
ocean which kills plankton and severely disrupts aquatic food chains
(Ehrlich et al, 2008:239). The agribusiness corporations have also
20
paved the way for monocultures of crops, that is genetically identical
crops that produces the maximum amount of food per plant known
to humanity. This increases production no doubt, but it also
increases food insecurity by making the food susceptible to diseases.
Just three food staples, wheat, rice and maize represents as much as
60 % of the calories and 56 % of the protein the world consumes
(WRI, 2010), and a disease or virus affecting either one of these
crops will have a higher chance of worldwide devastating effects due
to being monocultures with less natural genetical resistance than
otherwise. The reason is simple; with diversity in genetics a virus
will kill some plants while others will have a natural resistance and
thus survive. With genetic similarity, a virus killing one such plant,
will also kill all of them if spread far enough by winds or insects. The
difference matters for the long-term sustainability of agriculture.
7.1 The poverty trap
Income inequality and the inequality in the distribution of food is a
sign that the current world system is not working properly (Strange,
1999). If food production is more than enough, why is it not spread
relatively equally? It has to do with production distribution, yet even
then, for thousands of years humans have lived in various parts of
the world, all of them being able to provide for themselves. The
reason that they cannot do so now, lies with the inherent problems
of the economic system and with globalization (Korten, 2001:257259). Agricultural subsidies in rich countries to farmers hide the real
costs of production by artificially making it lower than it would
otherwise be. These cheap food products are then mass-produced,
and with globalization they enter the world market outcompeting
more expensive products in other countries. The result is that people
will buy the cheaper products, with devastating effects to local
farmers who go out of business (Korten, 2001:197-204). This is
21
especially so when the surplus of food created in rich countries are
exported under the production value, a situation called “dumping”.
It means that to avoid storing food that is not needed agribusiness
corporations sell the surplus away for a much cheaper cost than it
cost making the products in the first place (Ravenhill, 2008:461464). It is similar to buying a last minute airplane ticket. Instead of
departing with empty seats, the airline often tries to fill the plane up
even if each individual ticket in reality costs more. It cuts losses for
the company itself, with the side effect that is makes local farmers
obsolete. Dumping is prohibited today through international laws
(WTO, 2010), yet the damage is already done, having eliminated
some of the domestic production resulting in the poor countries
getting dependent on food imports.
A larger factor however concerns debt. Every year the least
developed countries, African countries especially, pay four times
more in debt repayment than they do on healthcare, and more
money than they receive in international aid (Korten, 2001:298).
These repayments are increasingly becoming a higher share of the
governments’ budget, for example, between 1980-1987 debt
payments increased from 7,7% to 12,5% for African countries in
general (Stewart, 1991:5). Basically this means that the government
spends less and less money on its own citizens, thus enforcing
poverty levels. Environmentalists points out that this process is
largely at fault due to the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP’s) of
the 1980’s, where the World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) imposed these programs in an effort to move the
countries resources towards debt repayment. This was basically
done in a free trade fashion, reducing trade barriers and granting
subsidies to any foreign investors (Korten, 2001:163). This resulted
in shifting away domestic food production in favor of cash crops,
such as coffee, tea and sugar, in an effort to get a higher price for its
22
products. Unfortunately, this also meant that these countries lost
their own food production, and became dependent upon richer
countries for their food supply. As basic resources have been getting
cheaper throughout the decades, value-added products such as
medicine and technological products have been getting increasingly
more expensive (Johnson et al, 2009). For countries then that
produce little more than coffee, they have to sell a higher quantity to
afford value-added goods (Johnson et al, 2009.). To do that
countries basically expand production by taking new lands into
cultivation, thus cutting down forests and draining marshes with the
result of decreasing biodiversity.
7.2 Outsourcing environmental stress
According to the Kuznets curve (Fig. 1.), richer countries gradually
move from an industrial society towards a service industry, which
diminishes pollution and improves the environment. This is only
half the truth environmentalists say, since these industries are often
then relocated to the poorer countries (Ravenhill, 2008:464). The
effect is that these poor countries draw from their own natural
resources to produce goods that they themselves do not consume,
based on an international pressure to repay debt. Environmental
decay is then naturally outsourced from richer countries to poorer
ones (Ehrlich et al, 2008:336). As our welfare increase, largely by
consuming more, this serves to increase environmental destruction
in poor countries. For example, while worldwide consumption has
almost doubled in the years 1973-1998, per capita consumption for
African countries has instead been declining since the 1980’s
(Ravenhill, 2008:465). This has no apparent negative effect on rich
countries, which instead might preserve their own nature and see
environmental scenery as improving. The result then is that the real
cost of consumption in environmental and social terms are hidden
23
from those that consume the most. It is a tragedy where those that
want environmental improvement do not have the means (the poor
who see the cost), while those that do have the means have no need
for improvement (the rich who do not see the cost).
It is then this unequal consumption that is the cause of
environmental decay, not poverty in itself (Ravenhill, 2008:464).
Richer countries consume above their means, poorer ones below
their means, while the total consumption environmentalists argue,
are beyond the means of the planet. The result of that equation is
phenomenons like global warming, soil degradation and decreased
biodiversity (Ehrlich et al, 2008:358). This situation is
unsustainable since globalization, and the competition for investors,
often leads countries to devalue their environmental laws in order to
attract businesses, further increasing environmental harm (Korten,
2001:131-132). Also, more people added to the planet will increase
consumption, which may further speed this process up (Ehrlich et al,
2008:210).
24
8. The stalemate in the empirical evidence
As seen in the previous chapters, Economic liberalism and
environmentalism differ in a wide range of important subjects. The
difference concerns the arguments but also the empirical evidence
framed for those arguments. Let us turn to a concrete example:
Lester R. Brown argues that global wheat yields are stabilizing and
about to enter a decline, if it has not already. He attributes this to
population growth, water and oil shortages and the use of food for
ethanol in cars, which limit the supplies of food available. He notes:
“And for the first time, harvests in large countries like China are
reduced due to water shortages. This is most evident with
wheat…where water tables are falling and wells are going dry.
China’s wheat harvest peaked in 1997 at 123 million tons and has
now dropped to scarcely 100 tons, a fall of nearly 20 percent.”
(2008:38).
Bjorn Lomborg on the other hand, argues that wheat yields are
constantly rising because of improved technology. He in turn notes:
“In the industrialized countries production of grain steadily
increased from the 1950’s to the 1980’s, stabilizing around 650 kg
per inhabitant, essentially because we just cannot eat any more…In
the developing countries, production has kept growing, from 157 kg
in 1961 to 211 kg in 2000. An astounding 34 percent.” (2001:94).
25
Notice the contradiction, where Brown argues for a decline, while
Lomborg argues for a rise. Different places for the statistics,
different years and even different measurements are chosen to get
their point of view across. Naturally, both points of view criticize
each other on selecting specific data. Is anyone of them right? This
example is but one of the many subjects in which there is no
consensus over the true state of the world.
8.1 Data selection
A serious consideration then concerns the selective measures of both
economic libertarians and environmentalists alike. This makes every
statistical fact contested, be it about inequality, the effect of global
warming and our agricultural future and so on. For one, why are
data chosen between these specific years, at that specific location?
How is it gathered? There are multiple difficulties in gathering data.
In poor countries, finding out real disposable incomes is difficult as
they lack institutions from which to draw the data from. In the worst
cases, data are compiled by knocking doors, asking, and then
extrapolating those statistics to apply for a generally larger area.
Even in developed countries, certain data is fraught with difficulties
on honesty of respondents, but most of all about redundancy. In
statistical evidence, there is a tendency towards reductionism to get
a clear view of the problem. For example, Julian Simon (1986:190197) mentions that resources are getting ever cheaper by providing
long-term empirical evidence. Of course, that does not take into
account governmental subsidies, agricultural oligopolies or merely
that we are harvesting more of said resources than before, therefore
the abundance lowers prices without considering true environmental
or social cost. Including these factors makes for messy statistics
hence it is avoided.
26
8.2 The logic of predictions
The reason a question like a future food crisis or not has not been
resolved may be due to the uncertainty of the data and that the issue
is very complex. It is a state of logic that merely providing a point of
view cannot readily be accepted until there is evidence. Logic
demands that anyone who states one thing to be true, also hold the
burden of proving that statement. The distribution of power is
uneven between the economic liberalism point of view and
environmentalism, which is natural on global issues. At the one
hand, we will have the current policy (economic liberalism) which by
tradition holds the majority of power. It holds a logical thinking
similar to the age old saying: “If it is not broken, do not fix it”.
On the other hand, we will have the critics of that policy
(environmentalism). If anyone then would wish to criticize the
current policy, proof of its wrong-doing and solutions to its
immediate fix will be necessary. Since environmentalists are the
critics, they have readily tried to provide for such evidence.
However, there is a need for consequences as well. Without
consequences, evidence falls short. To that, environmentalists have
the last decades on grounds of uncertain data made several
predictions about the future, balancing extrapolated facts with what
they perceive to be a need for change before the situation goes out of
hand. Not surprisingly then, a fair share of these predictions have in
retrospect proved to be false (Lomborg, 2001:4-5), which
unfortunately have enabled economic libertarians to dismiss the
critics entirely without closer examination. For example, in 1968,
Paul Ehrlich wrote the “Population bomb” which predicted mass
starvation in the 1980’s due to population growth. This was a
prediction that in retrospect turned out to be false thanks to the
green revolution. When environmentalists criticize the current
27
policy, they are calling for action due to the perceived consequences
of not acting. However, there is a need to realize that the current
policy in itself is also action. Both have consequences, one cannot
simply dismiss one call for action without examining the other.
What we are left with then is a stalemate in the food crisis debate.
Whatever statistical evidence is brought forward, it will be biased
and heavily criticized by the opposition. However, the causes of the
predictions, the arguments, are still valid as they persist throughout
the centuries. It follows then that we need to take a closer look on
how to make sense of them.
8.3 Levels of analysis
A basic problem when looking at worldwide issues is the level of
observation we take. By ordering science in different narrow fields,
we essentially handicap ourselves by looking at the complexity of the
whole in small pieces (Korten, 2001:21), be it only economy, biology
or social science. A whole-systems approach is necessary, and in
taking up such an approach, we can look at which arguments are
small or large pieces. Imagine having a children’s puzzle in front of
you, with pieces of different sizes available. As any child would
know, if we want to see the complete picture of that puzzle (the
“truth” of the whole), we would naturally be more interested in the
larger pieces than the smaller ones because they show us more of
that picture. This is not to say that the smaller pieces do not contain
vital information, it merely says that some pieces are of a generally
bigger importance. Some arguments then, matter more than others.
28
We say that arguments operate at different levels of analysis. Some
arguments work on a short-term basis (small pieces), others hold
true for a longer time, and are thus long-term in nature (larger
pieces). Let us turn to a simple example. Today much discussion
revolves around global warming, its cause and its effects. Back in the
1970’s however, climate discussion was just as hotly debated
(Damon et al, 1976, Lockwood, 1978, Laffin, 1971) as it is today, yet
with a crucial difference. It discussed global cooling. How do we
make any sense of that?
One difference lies with the observations. Global warming does not
effectively just increase the temperature; it also causes climate
fluctuation. This means that any global warming is likely to make
some parts of the world hotter, some colder, some indifferent, while
in total the result is a warmer trend. Most statistical evidence in the
1970’s where gathered in the Northern Hemisphere (Damon et al,
1976), were there was a cooling trend due to aerosol particles in the
air. As such, the natural inclination is to point towards a cooling
trend, hence global cooling. As gathering of statistics became more
global, this trend turned towards global warming (Damon et al,
1976) which today is almost irrefutable. The aerosol particles would
have been densely concentrated in heavy industry areas, which
coincide with the Northern Hemisphere and the western countries at
the time, a fact that together with the concentration of gathered
statistics from this area resulted in the call for global cooling.
So in this simplified instance, the climate change debate worked like
a puzzle, where we picked up a small piece that was easily accessible,
looked at it and guessed the picture of the whole puzzle. As more
pieces where gathered, a more complete picture emerged. The very
29
first piece (global cooling) is accurate. Some places are experiencing
colder climates for limited times of the year. But we cannot say it
applies to all places, nor can we say that there is global warming
until bigger pieces are found. Once more pieces are found however,
we see that both global cooling and global warming are accurate.
They are both true. In this case, global warming is a bigger piece of
the puzzle, and hence more true. That there is a global cooling piece
of the puzzle does not detract from there being many more global
warming pieces. Overall, the whole picture is regional cooling in one
place and global warming everywhere else. The different levels of
analysis matter. The whole picture matters more than a single piece.
8.4 Hierarchy theory
We are about to look at that bigger picture now, concerning the
global food production. With us, we carry arguments from both the
environmentalism and economic libertarian point of view. We also
carry with us a knowledge that some of these arguments matter
more than others once we look at a bigger picture. None of these
arguments are necessarily false; they simply operate under different
levels of analysis. We also acknowledge that the empirical evidence
is locked in a stalemate. More empirical evidence as such may not
help. By that, we turn to hierarchy theory for answers:
“Hierarchy theory is a theory of observation whose function is to
clarify those arguments in science where collecting more data will
not help” (Ahl et al, 1996:50).
30
9. The Basketball Framework
To illustrate the global food production, imagine a spinning
basketball (See Figure 2.). It has three characteristics; the speed at
which the basketball spins which represents our food production.
The faster the ball spins the more food is produced. The weight of
the basketball represents the amount of land used to grow food and
also how that land is managed. Finally, the input represents factors
that we need to get that land under production, which are labor,
capital and technology.
Figur 2. The Basketball framework showing the three laws that
govern it; speed, input and weight.
Let us turn to an example to see how it works: We imagine the
basketball is spinning, producing food. In order to get more food, to
spin the basketball faster, we would need to hit the ball harder, i.e. to
increase input. So to get more food, we increase input, be it capital,
labor or technology. Imagine a farm with only workers for example,
31
producing food. Now add a few horses for animal power (capital),
and we are likely to see that food production increase. We could also
add pesticides (technology), which kills some bugs eating the crops,
thus increasing production.
Weight on the other hand, deals with land and land management.
Imagine the same farm with the workers. Now, we increase the
amount of land under cultivation, which makes the ball lighter,
thereby increasing production (within certain limits, or the opposite
becomes true) since a lighter ball will have less friction and thus
utilize the input more efficiently. We could also manage the land
differently, by introducing irrigation or sow grain and beans every
other year (beans work as a natural fertilizer to the grain), making
the ball lighter by increasing production. The same example works
the other way around too. If the soil becomes salty due to faulty
irrigation methods, thereby making the ball heavier, we will see a
decrease in production since a heavier basketball is harder to spin.
Input works the same way. If we reduce input, i.e. we take some
workers off the farm then we are likely to see a production decrease
as well.
9.1 Limitations and factors of the framework
This framework operates under the presumption of ceteris paribus
(all else being equal), and as such has limitations. The main use of it
is to look at outlying factors, and how they affect the speed, weight
and input of the model for the worse or better. Yet, these limitations
will then assume that nothing changes. In a real-world agricultural
system we know this to be false, as things change all the time. New
technologies, new viruses, new methods of farming, erosion and
climate etc. will all change the basics of the agricultural system. The
32
emergence of the green revolution, the introduction of pesticides,
modified seeds and fertilizers, are an example of that which cannot
be predicted.
The factors put into the framework for testing will need to be
commonly accepted and distinctly different from the empirical
evidence it is separating itself from. Since the world is constantly
changing, and the model is trying to get a glimpse of the future, it
will be imperative to look at future trends linked with the
agricultural system. The most pressing trends in agriculture then,
are three factors. One, the current policy of economic thought will
affect agriculture, as it is an action unto itself. Higher economic
growth share linkages not only to weight (land management), but
also to the input (technology and capital mainly) we introduce to the
system. Second, global warming will affect agriculture, although the
real outcome is debated. Climate is linked to the heat sensitivity of
the crops, but also of changing patterns of precipitation and new
ideal locations for production. Third, population growth will affect
agriculture since more people on the planet will demand a higher
supply of food (speed), at least under current consumption patterns.
The three factors, the current policy, global warming and population
growth are what we will examine next.
33
10.
Capitalism
The current policy is without doubt the largest factor of the
framework, since it governs most things. This policy is capitalistic in
nature, and can be seen as a system of how we behave and organize
ourselves in relation to nature. The way that we do behave is critical
for how our agricultural system will work. Think of it like the person
whose hands are spinning the basketball. This person decides the
speed of the basketball, and consciously or not, also decides the
weight and input as well.
One thing the economic liberalism policy does very well is to
produce more food, as seen by cheaper prices. This essentially
means that the system is making the basketball spin faster than
before, which it does by increasing input in the form of technology
(fertilizers, modified seeds, pesticides) mostly made from fossil
fuels. It also increases capital input in the form of heavy duty
machines that are increasingly more efficient, or land management
policies such as monocultures that increase the speed of production.
Before monocultures, farms alternated between which crops where
grown to achieve a balance of nitrogen in the soil, or let parts of the
land in fallow during some years. Thus, there was a nitrogen balance
in the soil. With the green revolution providing artificial nitrogen in
fertilizers, such practices could be avoided. It was now possible to
produce the same crops every year, and thus production increased
(speed increased). However, this naturally produces a decline in soil
content which eventually causes erosion, leaving lands infertile. The
extra input from fertilizer into the system then causes the land to
erode, making our basketball heavier (Pfeiffer, 2006:11-13). To keep
up the same speed of production, input is constantly increased
34
under the current policy by adding more fertilizers and modified
seeds in trying to achieve balance, a policy which may be short-term
in nature.
This is because the agricultural system is also a major contributor to
environmental deterioration. The systems dependence on fossil fuels
contributes widely to global warming, which reduce biodiversity
(Ehrlich, 2001:240). By clearing forests or marshes for crops or
applying excess amounts of pesticides that run off into the ocean,
biodiversity is further reduced. Such practices serve to increase the
weight of the basketball as it increases erosion and food insecurity.
This is evident in monocultures since the natural resistance towards
pests is reduced, which forces the production into a dependence on
pesticides to get rid of the pests. Chances of widespread devastation
are then higher with monocultures than otherwise, unless
technology can keep up. Thus in this system we are forced to use
pesticides to protect the fragile monocultures, with the effect that
since the bugs constantly adapt to the pesticides new ones have to be
developed frequently.
This is done in order to increase food production, that is, to increase
its speed, since monocultures produce more food. What remains
then is a system that increases the speed of the basketball, but also
increases the weight of the basketball. Both effects require higher
input, input that is mostly derived from fossil fuels that may face
increasing costs or even decreasing marginal returns, making it
unsustainable. Even the input of technology may face decreasing
marginal returns, as costs may increase to constantly stay ahead of
the bug’s natural ability to adapt.
35
10.1 The social maintenance of the policy
The policy of economic liberalism promotes reduced trade barriers,
increased production and growth. In many ways, reducing barriers
between countries is what we mean by the term globalization. When
we look at consumption patterns and trade, we should note that the
consumption of natural resources is not equal between countries.
Some countries consume more products than what can be produced
within that country, while that imbalance in countered by some
countries producing more than is consumed within that same
country. The result is an economic system where material goods flow
from the periphery (overproducers) towards the center
(overconsumers), creating inequality (Wallerstein, 1976:230-234).
This division of a center and a periphery faces increased world-wide
homogenization from globalization, which creates a system of
inequality where each entity winning is followed by several losing.
For example, we heard that food prices are constantly going down
according to economic liberalists, which is a net gain for consumers.
Yet, it is a loss to producers. When agribusiness corporations control
markets, they outsource production to reduce risk and increase
profits. Small farmers get contracted to produce a certain amount
each year, which is then sold to agribusiness corporations for
transport, processing and distribution. However, should the farmer
have a bad harvest due to that years ’ weather, he alone bears the cost
and is likely to go out of business. Furthermore, such corporations
will dictate the price of the goods, production methods and more
importantly, the price of getting those production methods active
(purchasing fertilizers for example). The result is a steady decline in
the share of actual profits by the farmers that are doing the real work
(Korten, 2001:214). Consumers also pay a higher price since the low
prices are artificial and subsidized through factors such as taxes,
36
transports and land practices contributing to global warming, lesser
nutritional values and damaging health effects due to chemical
compounds that are not factored into the price. In the end,
producers receive a lower price, consumers pay a higher price and
the net gain is profit for the middle-man, the agribusiness
corporation.
What we get is a social deterioration where a dependence exists
between the core and the periphery, and elements put in place to
keep that inequality. Patents for important and needed medicines
are one such example, forcing fossil fuel products upon the
producers for a maximum yield of return another. The system
advocates a need to increase food production (speed) to keep
growth, and it does so by increasingly spreading the practices of
fossil-fuel input, which makes the basketball heavier. The social
deterioration of making producers worse off than before is in itself
an input in this system as it makes products cheaper.
10.2 The arguments regarding the policy
The current policy is a system locked in decreasing marginal returns
on effort versus technological adaptation. This is where we find the
big pieces of the puzzle, since they concern speed, input and weight
at the same time. Smaller arguments will concern things irrelevant
of where the system is heading, in effect just one or two parts of the
model.
One such example is the argument that resources are getting
cheaper, which only tells us that the basketball is spinning faster, not
37
what is happening to either weight or input. As such, it is irrelevant
as it only concerns speed. It is a small piece. Other examples are
more intriguing. Economic liberalists for example state that to
reduce environmental problems and poverty we need economic
growth. This essentially means that to deal with an increasingly
heavier basketball, economic liberalists wish to increase input. In the
Kuznets curve, the argument is even more complex, as it states that
although the basketball is getting heavier, if we increase input long
enough, it will get lighter. Naturally, this cannot be true on a global
scale, because the shift from heavy industry to a service industry is
not a complete one, and the idea that a basketball gets lighter by
spinning it is false since these factors do not correlate. Western
countries still use heavy industry resources in an increasing rate,
production that have been outsourced to other countries (Ravenhill,
2008:464). Therefore, the Kuznets curve is essentially a small piece
of our puzzle. It applies to some countries in isolation, western
countries, but not to the global whole. The argument basically
unfolds to say that to save the environment we need to destroy some
of it to get economic means to save the rest. Along those lines, we
lose parts of the environment, which means that the basketball will
be heavier.
Environmentalist arguments can also be categorized as small of big
pieces. For example, the statement of our addiction to oil and that a
majority of people will be without food if transports stop, is a small
piece. This is because if we do not have any input into the system,
then the basketball will stop spinning, but the real issue is not the
speculation about if we stop, but rather the effects behind it.
Essentially, that is the argument carried forward with the argument
for peak oil to show diminishing returns on input, environmental
decay being outsourced to poorer countries to show increasing
weight or the rising consumption trend and population growth
38
which point towards there being a need to increase speed at the
same time as the world finds itself more strained to do so. These are
the big pieces up for debate. The essential question is then, now that
the agricultural system is facing decreasing marginal returns, if it
can be remedied as economic libertarians claim, or if it cannot and
we need to change the system, as environmentalists claim.
39
11.
Global Warming
Human caused global warming is a byproduct of the current
economic system. It derives from the use of fossil fuels first and
foremost, which for agriculture extends to fertilizers and pesticides
along with oil-based machines. The classification of agriculture as an
economic system in the current policy has also lead to transports,
processing and packaging being a major part of the food industry,
and as such, the impact on global warming by agriculture is fairly
large.
Not all agricultural land is equal, which is based on the richness of
the soil. An area with good soil will be better for agricultural
production. This land also needs to coincide with climate. Crops are
heat and cold sensitive and grow best in areas with a Mediterranean
climate (Buringh, 1978). Unsurprisingly, the majority of the world’s
food production is grown in areas where both the soil and climate
favor agriculture. The effect that a warmer climate has on agriculture
is twofold. In some parts of the world, the soil is good but the
climate is too cold. A warmer climate here will increase food
production. In other parts of the world, most importantly those that
have the perfect climate and a good soil, a warmer climate will
reduce food production simply because the crops cannot survive the
heat (Lobell et al, 2007). The important question here is if the places
that could benefit from global warming can produce the surplus
needed to cancel out the deficits of decreasing yields elsewhere. In
the short-run, a decline is likely as global warming affects current
major production sites. In the long-run there might be adaptation,
but is the soil good enough to cover the deficit? That is a question of
decreasing marginal returns versus technology yet again. In other
40
words, global warming decreases the speed of the basketball system,
which begs the question; is there enough input to remedy the
decrease in speed?
Given that most forms of input today comes from fossil-fuel
products, which increases the weight of the model, even more input
will be needed. This in turn creates a positive feedback; an infinite
loop where fossil fuels is put into the system, demanding more fossil
fuels or it will crash, more fossil fuels are added, demanding yet
more fossil fuels. The underlying reason is quite simple; the soil has
degraded enough to the extent that if crops are planted without
fertilizers, little nutrition remains in the soil to produce much food.
Or in the case of pesticides, a certain amount of bugs is prevented
from eating the crops when they are killed, dead bugs that would be
alive and eating up substantial amounts of the harvest if pesticides
went away.
Global warming is also worrying since marginal agricultural lands
currently under production by small farmers are the ones most likely
to find their subsistence harder to maintain (Parry, 2002). In effect
this means that the dependence on food imports by poorer
countries, most of all Sub-Saharan Africa, will increase, further
escalating food insecurity. With a trend of decreasing amounts of
nutrients in harvested crops and fruits since the 1950’s, and with
little ability to check imports, this may also have effects on human
health levels in the region (Ravenhill, 2008:462-466).
41
12.
Population growth
As the population rises in the world, there will inevitably be a need
to provide more amounts of food if the current economic liberalism
policy stays put. This is because even with an abundance of food, the
distribution of that food is not equal, and thus there are people
starving and being malnourished as well as overweight people living
in the same world. Also, economic growth in developing countries
will increase the demand for food, most in the form of meat (Godfray
et al, 2010). Meat is an important issue, since it takes nearly 1000 kg
of grain to produce 100 kg of meat, a factor of 10 (Ehrlich,
2008:184). That grain needs to be grown somewhere, which will
mean an expansion of production (decreased biodiversity) or
increased efficiency (higher levels of erosion) in the current
production, both which increases the weight of the basketball. In
effect then, population growth will demand a higher speed of the
basketball, while at the same time economic growth will increase the
weight of the basketball. The solution to this, according to economic
libertarians, is once again to increase input, as the argument falls on
introducing pesticides and fertilizers to Sub-Saharan Africa. Patents,
gene modified seeds and fossil fuel products implementation to
poorer countries reinforce the negative dependence on imports
(Korten, 2001:17) yet Economic Libertarians argue that there is no
other choice in the matter (Lomborg, 2001:66).
Another interesting argument regards Julian Simon’s idea that
population and technology is correlated, which means that they keep
an even pace. As the basketball needs to spin faster due to
population growth Julian Simon argues the population growth in
itself will create technological solutions (more input) to offset the
42
greater speed needed. Both arguments are large pieces of our puzzle
as they deal with several factors at once, and for the third time, we
see the debate as decreasing marginal returns versus an increase in
input (technology).
Environmentalists however argue that we need to limit population
growth, even population numbers, under the argument that current
consumption levels are higher than what can be available in a
sustainable context. By limiting the population, a higher level of food
security can be achieved (Brown et al, 2008:190) by limiting the
amount of food needed to keep hunger levels down. This is an
argument that criticizes the current system of decreasing marginal
returns and favors another system by limiting the population factor.
43
13.
Ecological Limitations
The current policy introduces several effects into the basketball
framework. Economic growth wishes the basketball to spin faster, by
increasing input. That input (fossil fuels) increases weight, which
further increases the need for more input. Global warming decreases
the speed, while population growth demands that the speed is
increased. These two factors then reinforce the need for input as
well. Faced with these demands, an escalating increase in input is
constantly needed merely to keep the basketball spinning. The
system then faces diminishing marginal returns. That the
agricultural system faces diminishing marginal returns is not a
problem if input is limitless. But what if it is not?
The demands placed on the framework to constantly increase input
is a positive feedback. In a world of limits, a positive feedback will
sooner or later encounter a negative feedback to bring the system
back to equilibrium. To visualize it, merely picture yourself spinning
the basketball, trying to spin it faster and faster. The harder you hit
the basketball, the harder it spins. This is a positive feedback.
However, there will be a time when your arm becomes tired, or the
basketball cannot be hit harder than it already is. At that point a
maximum occurs, and what follows is a negative feedback aimed at
lowering the speed to a level where it can keep going indefinitely.
This negative feedback reflects environmental restraints, a limit to
the resources available. This is illustrated in Figure 3., in which we
have a stable system in State A where it would require a lot of power
to hit the ball (an analogy for the sustainability of society) over the
edge, i.e. large-scale events. Every sort of behavior linked towards
using more of our resources beyond the means of regeneration, will
44
increase insecurity, and facilitate a move from state A to state B
where the power necessary to hit the ball over the edge is far less. In
the agricultural system this includes monocultures and the decrease
in biodiversity, as it makes it more likely for a particular pest or virus
to affect a larger percentage of the crops if they emerge. Essentially,
monocultures adhere to the concept of “putting all eggs in one
basket” for short-term profit. Similarly it also affects other sorts of
homogenization, as the heavy dependence on fossil fuels in modern
agriculture, spread by the process of globalization.
Figure 3. A step by step model of the result of ecological insecurity
in a world with limits.
Eventually a limit will be reached where there are no longer any
options left to deal with the flaws of our behavior, such as taking new
non-eroded lands into cultivation, in which case the system moves to
State C and a new equilibrium. A move from State A to State B is
exactly what the concept of decreasing marginal returns, the big
pieces of our puzzle, is all about. A move from state B to state C is a
state of collapse of the current system. While State C may be a
colossal tragedy for human life quality, it is not something that has
not happened before. Previous civilizations, the Roman Empire, the
Byzantine Empire and the Abbasid Caliphate among others, faced off
with diminishing returns until the system became so vulnerable that
a small event (merely nudging the ball in figure 3.) was enough for
the society to collapse into State C (Allen et al, 2003:101-164). The
45
inherent danger with the current economic policy is both that we see
these decreasing marginal returns yet again, and that the
homogenization and globalization of today’s society means that the
world is effectively becoming one society. As such, should the system
crash again it will be with world-wide effects, as countries
dependencies are highly interlinked. Those dependencies are often
felt through financial crises.
There has always been a certain degree of ecological limits, which
David Korten compares to the limits of a pie (2001:47), there is only
so much to go around. Instead of discussing the best distribution of
that pie in a world of scarcity (there is only one pie!), the economic
liberalism point of view instead turns to a policy aimed at increasing
the size of the pie itself. Unfortunately the growth of that pie often
comes at the expense of the environment, especially so for
agriculture, and a neglect for equal distribution of resources worldwide.
13.1 A change in systems
Will the solutions to a system of decreasing marginal returns be
enough? The proposed economical solution is to increase input,
often in the form of technology. For all its merits, technology still
requires energy based on fossil fuels. Also, the belief in technology as
the savior of the day may prove erroneous, it is readily untested.
Previous solutions to decreasing marginal returns where solved by
spatial fixing through conquest or outsourcing (Allen et al,
2003:101-164) yet in the end it was not enough for former
civilizations. These are solutions that are not available anymore,
because we are running out of space (Moore, 2008:56).
The green revolution, the latest true technological input, has solved a
problem (need more speed) but at the same time created a problem
46
(increased weight and decreased input stability) due to the reliance
on fossil fuels and subsequent erosion and environmental damage.
Even if we disregard the debate on peak oil and assume the
resources are limitless (as especially land area is not), another
problem surfaces in population growth. If technology is truly
correlated with population growth in that technology will continue
to progress as long as human numbers do, what happens once
population growth stabilizes at around 2050? This suggests a decline
in input. Even other more sensible forms of input, like adding more
labor to the agricultural system as the Chinese (Barks, 2007:206) or
Cubans have successfully done (Pfeiffer, 2006:60) is often
temporary, and shifting towards other sources of energy besides
fossil-fuels may not work. First, in the current policy there are few
incentives to do so as long as fossil fuels do not run out, despite the
environmental damage, since those responsible for the damage do
not see or feel the damage themselves. Second, other sources of
energy such as bio-fuels are less energy intensive and use up parts of
the food supply. Even Solar power will require parts of our food
supply simply because it needs the space currently taken up by
agriculture (Pfeiffer, 2006:13).
Moreover, the most important part is ethics. With the current
system, even if fossil-fuels are switched out, it will not improve the
poorest people’s quality of life to an equal standard with current
widening wealth gaps. If problems arise, the distribution of power
enables the rich to outsource their problems to the poor to the
greatest extent possible. Global warming is one such problem, as it is
likely to hit the poor the most, yet they did not cause it. Food
shortages in any form will affect the poor the most, yet they are not
responsible for the production methods, because they often import
food, a global economic system enforced on them. If there will be
less food in the world, those who are producing it will keep most of
what is grown, which will be devastating for those that import food.
47
This dependency serves to make the poor economic slaves with few
chances of improvement. The alternative is a step away from the
system of decreasing marginal returns, and the flow of resources
from the periphery of the poor world towards the center of the rich
world. To increase food security. A stable agricultural system would
be one where returns on effort are constant, in which humans take
the surplus of what nature can provide without over-extraction and
keeping within ecological limits.
A point can be made that we do not know the degree of those limits,
that is, the amount may be so vast that for human purposes it could
be limitless, or that we cannot see a timeframe on the increasing
insecurity of the agricultural system. However, if we are to believe
that human life everywhere is equal, we ought to think along the
lines of a world with limits, where the economy is interlinked with
nature and not the other way around. Once we find the system to be
flawed, we could either try patching it up, which this paper suggests
may not work, or change the system completely. Quite naturally
those arguing for the current policy will say that the costs of
switching systems will be great (Lomborg, 2001:66), yet one can also
wonder at what choice we have. In many ways, the reluctance
towards change may ultimately be about self-preservation:
“It follows, as libertarians sometimes maintain, that it is the most
rational for those who have the financial means to continue to
enjoy the party for as long as it lasts. If they sacrifice these
pleasures and the environmentalists are ultimately proven wrong,
they will have sacrificed their reason for living to no end. If the
environmentalists are proved right and the party ends in selfdestruction, then at least they enjoyed it while it lasted.” (Korten,
2001:236).
48
14.
Conclusions
To deal with the new challenges of environmental deterioration and
the future food production capacities, a new approach to the issue is
needed. This paper used hierarchy theory to organize the arguments
of Environmentalism and Economic Liberalism to find that the
argicultural system faces diminishing marginal returns on effort due
to the factors of capitalism, global warming and population growth.
The solutions technology and capital often face the same
diminishing returns, and may not be enough in the long-term to
solve the problem of ensuring adequate food supplies for the whole
world. It therefore concludes that the system will eventually
collapse, leading to a future food crisis, most likely affecting the
poorest countries the most. What needs to be done is to change the
system towards one that has stable returns on effort, which works
within ecological limits and can ensure as equal distribution patterns
as possible.
49
References
Books:
Ahl, V., Allen, T.F.H. (1996): Hierarchy Theory, A vision,
Vocabulary, and Epistemology, Columbia University Press, New
York.
Allen, T.F.H., Tainter, A. J., Hoekstra, W. T. (2003): Supply-Side
Sustainability, Columbia University Press, New York.
Bergström, S., Lindstrand, A., Rosling, H., Rubenson, B., Stenson,
B., Tylleskär, T. (2006): Global Health, An introductory textbook,
Studentlitteratur, Naryana Press, Denmark.
Brown, L. R. (2008): Plan B 3.0, Mobilizing to save civilization,
Yayasan Obor Indonesia, Jakarta.
Buringh, P. (1978): The Natural Environment and Food Production,
in McCain, J. H., Wilcox, L. (eds.) (1978): Alternatives for Growth:
The Engineering and Economics of Natural Resources
Development, NBER.
Ehrlich, H. A., Ehrlich, R. P. (2008): The Dominant Animal, Island
Press, Washington DC.
Hudson, J. W. (1995): Trends in grain stocks, in Simon L., Julian
(ed.) (1995): The state of humanity-steadily improving, 2nd reprint,
Blackwell publishers Ltd, Oxford.
Korten, C. D. (2001): When Corporations rule the world, 2nd
edition, Kumarian Press Inc., Sterling, United States.
50
Laffin, J. (1971): The hunger to come, Abelard-Shuman, London.
Lomborg, B. (2001): The Skeptical Environmentalist, measuring the
real state of the world, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Marks, B. R. (2007): The Origins of the Modern World, A global
and Ecological Narrative from the Fifteenth to the Twenty-first
Century, 2nd edition, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc.,
Oxford, United Kingdom.
Paarlberg, R. (2008): Starved for science – how biotechnology is
being kept out of Africa, Harvard University Press, Massachusetts.
Pfeiffer, A. D. (2006): Eating Fossil Fuels – Oil, Food and the
coming crisis in Agriculture, New Society Publishers, Gabriola
Island, Canada.
Poleman, T. T. (1995): Recent trends in food availability and
nutritional well-being, in Simon L., Julian (ed.) (1995): The state of
humanity-steadily improving, 2nd reprint, Blackwell publishers Ltd,
Oxford.
Radetzki, M. (2001): Den Gröna Myten – Ekonomisk tillväxt och
miljöns kvalitet [The Green Myth – Economic growth and
Environmental quality], Centraltryckeriet AB, Borås, Sweden.
Ravenhill, J. (2008): Global Political Economy, Oxford University
Press, United States.
Simon L., J. (ed.) (1995): The state of humanity-steadily improving,
2nd reprint, Blackwell publishers Ltd, Oxford.
51
Simon L., J. (1986): Theory of population and economic growth,
Basil Blackwell, New York.
Tainter, A. J. (1990): The collapse of complex societies, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Wallerstein, I. (1976): The Modern World-System: Capitalist
Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the
Sixteenth Century, New York: Academic Press.
Articles:
Allen, T. F. H., Tainter, A. J., Hoekstra, W. T. (1999): Supply-Side
Sustainability, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol 16,
Issue 5., pp.403-427.
Bawden, J. R. (1990): Systems Thinking and Practice in Agriculture,
Journal of Dairy Science, Vol.74, No. 7, pp.2362-2373.
Damon, P., Kunen, M. S. (1976): Global Cooling?, Science, August 6,
Vol.193, no.4252., pp.447-453.
De Janvry, A., Sadoulet, E. (2009): Agricultural Growth and Poverty
Reduction: Additional Evidence, The World Bank Research
Observer, February, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.1-20.
Eberstadt, Nick (1976): Myths of the Food crisis, The New York
review, February 19, p. 32-37.
Ehrlich, P., Holdren, J.(1971): Impact of Population Growth,
Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey, Vol. 26, Issue 11., pp.769-771
52
Godfray, J. C. H., Beddington, R. J., Crute, R. I., Haddad, L.,
Lawrence, D., Muir, F. J., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, M. S.,
Toulmin, C. (2010): Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9
Billion People, Science Express, January 28, Vol. 327, No. 5967,
pp.812-818.
Johnson, C. R., Noguera, G. (2009): Accounting for intermediates:
Production Sharing and Trade in Value Added, Department of
Economics, Berkeley.
Lobell, D. B., Field, C. B. (2007): Global scale climate – crop yield
relationships and the impact of recent warming, Environmental
research letters 2, March 16, IOP Publishing LTD.
Lockwood, J.G. (1978): The climatic future, Progress in physical
geography 2, pp. 107-155.
Moore, W. J. (2008): Ecological Crises and the Agrarian question,
Monthly Review 60, November 6, pp.54-63.
Parry, M., Livermore, M. (2002): Climate Change, Global food
Supply and Risk of Hunger, Issues in Environmental science and
Technology, No. 17, The Royal Society of Chemistry.
Stewart, F. (1991): The Many Faces of Adjustment, World
Development 19, No. 12, December, pp.18-51
Strange, S. (1999): The Westfailure System, Review of International
Studies, Vol. 25, pp.345-354.
53
Internet Sources:
FAO, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (2008):
The state of
food
insecurity in
the
world,
URL:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0291e/i0291e00.htm
[Visited:
2010-04-08]
Pollan, M. (2008): An open letter o the next Farmr in Chief, URL:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/magazine/12policy-t.html
[Visited: 2010-06-07]
THE, Times Higher Education, Average Citation Rates by Field
1998-2008,
URL:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=4057
89&sectioncode=26 [Visited: 2010-06-01]
UN, United Nations report on Wealth distribution,
URL: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3jv048hx [Visited: 2010-0412]
WRI, World Research Institute webpage,
URL: http://www.wri.org/publication/content/8584 [visited: 201004-13]
WTO 1999, World Trade Organization: report on Trade and
environment, Special studies 4, press release,
URL:
www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/stud99_e.htm
[Visited: 2010-04-10]
WTO 2010, World Trade Organization: Antidumping, Subsidies,
Safeguards: Contingencies, etc.
URL:http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm8
_e.htm [Visited: 2010-05-20]
54