What is agrarianism? Use given material. Your thoughts on agrarianism.
Berry indicates that the competition between industrialism and agrarianism is currently the definition not only of the most basic difference in humanity as it concerns the division of two almost contradictory perceptions of agriculture and the use of land as but also of two almost contradictory techniques through which humans understand themselves and other creatures. Technological advancements are responsible for industrialism. On the other hand, agrarianism starts with what is already on the planet: land, plants, creatures, the climate, starvation, and an understanding of the concept of agriculture. Industrialists are willing to overlook, put up for sale, or destroy the past in an attempted to earn higher profits and in the process become more comfortable and happy in the years to come. Agrarians, however, appreciate the fact that their identity is determined by their ability to receive thankfully and pass down the inheritance in a way that is both intact and response. They understand the need to take good care of the things that occur naturally and those they are not able to make.
Through the effectiveness of standard means such as folk tradition, agrarians have managed to pass down an agrarian theme from the ancient times to the current period. Such individuals, according to Berry, can be learnt about in books. They are neither in possession or need of massive areas of land, and the amount of land under their occupation is normally small. They are involved in subsistence farming, a practice that a majority of agricultural economists and other educated individuals look down on with the coming of the industrial age and they are always associating thriftiness with abundance (Berry, 2015).
One of the most important issues concerning agrarianism is a limitation. All agrarian farmers endeavour always to live within their means. The phrase “this much and no more” is quite applicable to their situation. Some of the factors that determine the activities being carried out in an agrarian farm are the appreciation that land is limited in its availability, accessibility of a water source, the quantity of hay in the burn, and the availability of food for later consumption and firewood. The observation and adherence to these rules are what can encourage frugality, the unity of the family, good relations between neighbours, and stimulate the local economy. These principles are considered necessary when they are applied within recognized limits. Agrarians have the ability to derive the feeling of abundance from the experienced conceivability of thriftiness as well as revival inside the set limits.
Such views are a sharp contradiction of the industrial perception that abundance is the result of the breaching of restrictions by individual mobility, the use of extractive equipment, transportation of goods across long distances as well breakthroughs made I the scientific or technological fields. The perception is the exhaustion of the available resources at a particular place will lead to the need to import those resources from a different place or will make it necessary to relocate to a different place. The industrial sector has no patience and is willing to expedite the release of a natural resource from within the planet if the process proves to be slow.
In contemporary periods, it is futile and possibly incorrect to think that a most of the people in the urban area should relocate to the rural regions of their respective nations and engage in farming or homesteading. However, it is right to suggest that people in metropolitan areas should engage in agricultural activities as part of their being citizens. The size of the population of agrarians in the current time is on a steady increase and is composed of more than just a small number of farmers and individuals living in the countryside. Berry points out that the number is similarly made up of farmers located in urban areas, consumers in cities who are purchasing agricultural products from local agriculturalists, participants in the local food economy, consumers who have increasingly suspicious of the safety, the health benefits and the reliance of food promoted by big companies (Berry, 2015).
Proponents of industrial agriculture depend on two points to support their case. The first one is that the progress towards the industrialization of farming and the fact it is largely dominated by the organization was an inevitable event. It was brought about and is preserved by the advancement made in the technological field. The inevitability of the process made it impossible for anybody to interfere with it. The second argument is that industrial farming has been the result of choice, encouraged by consideration and generosity. Players in the sector such as the food conglomerates, corporations specializing in making machinery, chemical corporations, the seed corporations and other interested organizations saw the shadow of mass hunger approaching and have used every mean so as to find a solution to the challenge that is hunger.
According to Wirzba, an important question that not only the corporations but also the consumers have to deal with is not where the food to feed the world will come from but who will be in control of the world and consequently its wealth. The corporations will be in control of the lands of the world and the entirety of its wealth in the situation that inhabitants of the planet agree with the industrial arguments that are in favour of hugeness, centralization, and earning big profits. If, on the other hand, the people in the world can appreciate the benefits of the local economies, in which they are residents, so far as they are capable of doing so, from the topography of their homes, and are determined to achieve that goal, minimising or getting rid of waste and the negative emotions associated with the non-ownership of neither land nor a home, then, the author supposes, inhabitants of the planet might be in a better position to find solutions the challenges presented by hunger and numerous other challenges also. The agricultural industrialists are known to point frequently out their agrarian challengers are only emotional protectors of the methods of carrying out agricultural activities that are unfortunately traditional and out-date, and reasonably phasing out. Berry points out that the agricultural industrialists consider agrarians to be victims of a non-existent nostalgia for a lifestyle that did not exist (Wirzba, 2003).
Berry points out that the most appropriate response to the claims made by the agricultural industrialists is to stand firmly on their basic foundation, which is not only environmental but also democratic. They consider land to be a present that has wealth that is beyond measure. Because it is a gift, agrarians argue that it should be beneficial to all the living irrespective of the time. To prevent others from having it is equal to destroying it for all people. It is, therefore, wrong, the author contends, for it to be under the ownership or control of a few people, who are also able to decide its fate.
The most important question that concerns the agrarian agenda and which the agrarians are most interested in is the most appropriate use of land. They recognize the fact that such a question can attract several answers and that no single answer is sufficient. Their question is not the best method of farming in all parts of the world, or in all places within the United States, or in places in Kentucky or Iowa. The question is concerned with the best method of farming in all the numerous places, as is determined by topography, the type of soil, the climate of the respective places, environment, history, social customs, and requirements of the local people. Agrarians recognize that the standard can be affected by several other factors other than the market demand or the levels of productivity or success or technological abilities, or through the application of just one strategy, irrespective of its importance. The agrarian principle, unavoidably, is local variation, which makes it necessary that there should be harmony between the local inhabitants, the economy, as well as the traditional customs.
Berry Donahue points out that is will be crucial that agrarianism can prosper in the rural regions occupied predominantly by people who engage in other economic activities other than farming. The challenge Donahue is contending with is the method to use in getting these suburbanites to understand and adopt a lifestyle that is consistent with agrarian values. According to Donahue, the most important of all the values held by the agrarians is their respect and care for the land. Caring for land, as explained by Wendell Berry, involves ensuring that the use is not only sustainable but does not result to the erosion of the soil or degradation of waterways. Consequently, flushing of essential nutrients or consistent organic contaminants into the surrounding environment should not take place. Furthermore, land use needs to have an extensive environmental margin such that it should encourage the continued existence of biodiversity by offering sufficient naturally-occurring habitats for instance plants, grasslands and wetlands. Land that is put to proper use manages to preserve its productivity and offer some environmental advantages. Donahue points out that land that is well-taken care provides additional value that is more than just environmental integrity, which is the beauty. Open lands and well-designed constructions, supported by the presence of forests, trigger a deep feeling of natural harmony in a majority of people all over the world (Wirzba, 2010).
The second most important agrarian value is the accessibility to good food. The farms need therefore to be productive, and people need to be eating the sweetest and pure food. The food should not only be in plentiful, but its pricing should also fair and without pathogens or poisons but complete with taste and vitamins. The third agrarian value concerns the ownership of land. Donahue points out the ownership of land is wrong and is not convinced that land should be privately owned by any person. He recommends the overhauling of the Jeffersonian principle on which the point of land ownership is based, after considering the effects it has had in the history of America, the place the world is currently as a result and where the world would like to be in the coming years. Donahue points out that the values that control the lives of agrarians need to make up a system of morals. Morals function as limits on direct selfishness that are believed to be eventually for the good of the entire society. They are adopted by people, confirmed by philosophies, and imposed by rules. The author points out that it is helpful to explore instances in the history of agrarianism in which principles and land and society have managed to detain the determination for private return. The best recognised is obviously the Amish, amongst whom numerous choices about the way work is to be completed are decided by the audience. Restrictions are decided to that are adjudicated to be in the best interest of the society.
In conclusion, agrarians understand the need to take good care of the things that occur naturally and those they are not able to make. They are involved in subsistence farming, a practice that a majority of agricultural economists and other educated individuals look down on with the coming of the industrial age and they are always associating thriftiness with abundance. One of the most important issues concerning agrarianism is the limitation. All agrarian farmers endeavour always to live within their means. The phrase “this much and no more” is quite applicable to their situation. Some of the factors that determine the activities being carried out in an agrarian farm are the appreciation that land is limited in its availability, accessibility of a water source, the quantity of hay in the barn, and the availability of food for later consumption and firewood. The most important of all the values held by the agrarians is their respect and care for the land and good food.
Bottom of Form