The phrase "points of irrelevance" refers to the common sense business advice that you shouldn't promote all the stuff about your business that nobody cares about, because it won't convert to sales. Why put effort into something if it doesn't convert to sales? It seems like an apt title for this section of the website, which explores social, political, and economic issues related to farming. Not very relevant if you're looking for some veggies, but it does provide some background to our farming philosophy.
This page will take shape over time, but for now we have put up a short description of why an ecological approach to farming is important.
There is a lot of positive change happening in agriculture right now. There are numerous ecological methods of farming being explored, such as bio-intensive farming, agroecology, natural farming, regenerative agriculture, permaculture, etc. Among these approaches there is much overlap with different emphases, but they all recognize that the "conventional" way of farming – what became standard from the early 20th century and especially as economies became more globalized in the mid-80s – has failed.
The proliferation of small farms and new farmers markets in recent years is a part of the response to the problems inherent in our North American systems of food production. Even some large-scale producers are moving toward relatively more ecological practices (e.g., organic certification, using cover crops, and/or tilling less), recognizing that the conventional model is unsustainable.
But despite these positive notes, the majority of food consumed in North America is conventionally grown, and complicit in a long list of ethical and ecological crises we face today: the many negative consequences of using pesticides and chemical fertilizers, deforestation, unnecessary packaging, excessive fossil fuel emissions, reduced biodiversity, the appalling treatment of livestock, and so on.
This state of North American food production and distribution is especially supported in an economy dominated by large corporations. Exploitation for profit is the ethos driving most decisions, and questionable government policies make it easy for corporations to maintain the status quo.
A small number of companies control the vast majority of food distribution systems. This control secures a massive amount of buying power, forming close connections between large farms and distributors–connections now taking place on a global scale. These large companies have certainly optimized efficiency in a narrow sense, but such efficiency does not consider the whole cost of these practices. The efficiency is realized by exploitation of places, people, animals, and resources.
Perhaps the most significant reason for the success of these systems is the unprecedented conveniences for consumers. Almost any produce is available when desired, detached from seasons, climate, etc. Novelty makes way for habit, habit for expectation. And consumers are usually far removed from the devastating consequences of these conveniences.
Now most North Americans are dependent on these food distribution systems for most or all of their produce. It is generally taken for granted that that’s what you do: buy groceries at the grocery store (or big box everything store). Even living on a farm, we are still dependent on grocery stores for many things. It’s hard to get on in life without a decent tortilla chip.
On the scale of human history, outsourcing food production and preservation is a relatively recent phenomenon. Especially as industrialization spread around the globe, labour became more specialized, and more traditional human occupations needed to be outsourced to other specialists.
I’m not suggesting a return to peasantry, although it is worth noting that most peasants were forced into a wage-earning economy rather than drawn to it for any particular benefit. A certain level of specialization is beneficial, but there is merit in rethinking what a healthy balance between specialization and outsourcing might look like.
Contemporary North America has become something altogether different from, say, specialized labour on a community level. We as individuals are not specialized within a community of human beings; we are specialized in the service of corporations or other large organizations, and most of our met material needs are mediated through corporations, not human relationships. This should be disconcerting.
The past few generations are the first in human history that have not assumed the importance of passing on knowledge of food production and preservation. This only deepens our dependence on these corporate food systems, which are more fragile than they appear.
Our extremely busy lives often require the convenient produce, among other goods and services, being offered us. These systems trap people in a loop designed to keep them spending rather than creating. It really is an ideal arrangement for a consumer capitalist economy, and that is not an accident.
As public perception has shifted regarding conventional agriculture, large grocery retailers have responded by promoting a natural foods section and substantially increasing the amount of organic produce they sell. These retailers likely have genuine ecological concerns, but no doubt they are motivated more out of a response to consumer demand. They want to keep these systems ingrained in consumer habits.
Again, Sam and I buy these sorts of products, too, but it is almost impossible for something happening on such a large scale to be truly ecological. Many of these products still depend on large scale production, forest depletion, monoculture, fuel-intensive farming and distribution, etc., though there are exceptions.
Globalized trade makes sense for certain products, but not for basic human sustenance, and not when alternative, more beneficial systems could take shape all around us.
With respect to food production, growing more of your own (or cooperatively) is ideal, and supporting local markets is good, too. The main problem is how limited we all are for time.
Of course, our food systems are symptomatic of underlying socio-economic problems we face, and the benefits of a more decentralized economy could extend well beyond merely food production systems. Localism is in part about avoiding excessive transportation for goods, but it also directly challenges the growing power of multinational corporations. Challenging these power structures accomplishes much more than just reducing fossil fuel consumption.
By forming more businesses, industries, and supply chains on a community level rather than a national/global level, we could reestablish a sense of human community that has been eroded by corporate (and government) domination; decentralize the distribution of profits; and create systems that do not rely on the exploitation of people, places, animals, and resources. It is possible to work toward a more circular economy that involves food, furniture building, pottery, sustainable lumber, textiles, clothing, toys, tools, innovative retail spaces, and so on, harnessing a creative energy and spontaneity that is absent from the stifling systems of globalized mass production.
These concerns and interests prompted us to approach life differently and start a small farm. Hopefully we can all work toward a more positive future.