Agriculture and Diversity: Antagonism Amongst the Biospheres

by Benjamin Shender

Agriculture uses resources. This is about as simple as it gets. Agriculture is a method by which resources are transformed into food energy with which humans can sustain their lives. Ultimately there are two kinds of resources that agriculture uses in order to achieve this: solar energy and chemicals found in the earth. Both of these resources are ultimately quite limited. We have found new ways to increase the number of resources in the Earth, specifically by using oil, which has been discussed at length. However, solar energy is also limited. Indeed, on a yearly basis the amount of solar energy that arrives on Earth does not vary exceptionally, as such we can deal with solar energy as a constant energy input per year.

Since agriculture is humanity’s main food supply and population is a function of food supply (see thesis #4). We can readily assert that humans are made of solar energy, one to three times removed. As the human population is currently continuing to increase, this would indicate that an ever increasing proportion of Earth’s yearly supply of solar energy is being apportioned to humans and the few species that the majority of humans use as food (see Unlocking the Food and Why People Starve). As such an ever decreasing proportion of this energy is available to other species. When this decrease is coupled with the amount of land desertified by agriculture and other practices and the amount of land paved for roads and cities, a disturbing pattern develops.

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that humans are not exceptional to the laws of physics. The first law of thermodynamics is quite clear: nothing can be created or destroyed. As such, as humans continue to expand we reapportion solar energy once used by other species for our own use. This causes a noticeably large increase in the extinction rate of other species, and as those species die, diversity is lost. This makes agriculture one of the leading destroyers of diversity in the world. While many would not see a problem with this, that is solely due to their own short-sightedness. The position of humanity as an omnivore makes us very adaptive to living off of many different food supplies, but that is irrelevant as we do not live off many different food supplies. The current population of Earth is maintained only through the distribution of wheat, rice, rye, and barley. Grains. Without these very closely related plants our current population would have been unachievable. And it would be impossible to maintain it without them. No other food can be grown as densely, gives us as much energy per pound, or as been so thoroughly domesticated. As with any living thing these grains are reliant on many different insects, bacteria, and other species. If the wrong combination of these species were to become extinct, grain would become extinct as well. While this may seem unlikely right now, it should be remarked upon that as the number of extinct species increases the likelihood of a “keystone� species dying off increases to the point of certainty. This would have the obvious cascade reaction on agriculture and on the majority of the human species.

To summarize:
Agriculture causes a large population of people reliant on a narrow category of plants for survival.
This extra population exists at the expense of other species.
Many of those other species become extinct.
As the number of extinct species increases, the likelihood of a cascade reaction causing the extinction of the afore mentioned plants increases.
Therefore: After X amount time agriculture tends to kill itself off.

While this would certainly mean a rather large percentage of humanity would die off, it would not necessarily mean the extinction of humanity. Omnivores have the advantage of feeding off diverse foods; however, grains are not omnivores.

Categories: Articles

Tags: , , ,

Tags

Add a Tag


Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] [The Anthropik Network sitesinden alınmıştır] […]

    Pingback by y a b a n ı l » ArÅŸiv » Tarım ve ÇeÅŸitlilik: Biyosferler arasındaki düşmanlık — 20 July 2006 @ 5:53 AM


Comments

  1. For those of you who like combining proofs to obtain further knowledge:

    Between this post and Thesis #1, Jason and I have proved that agriculture is the source of all evil.

    Comment by Benjamin Shender — 4 November 2005 @ 12:31 AM

  2. Side-note from the audience…

    Among the animists, it is believed that everything has a viable, conscious, motive force. It can be said that everything has an agenda of its own. People act like people, dogs act like dogs, etc.

    When you eat, you take that energy into yourself. You become what you eat. With a diverse diet, you are many things. You are part of the world.

    What about those who eat mostly grass? Let’s see… it’s a plant that likes to grow primarily in disaster areas. It expands as quickly as possible, sacrificing its health for the next generation (hence why its seeds are so nutritious).

    Hm. Do we know any cultures that act like that?

    Heh.

    Best

    Bill Maxwell

    Comment by Bill Maxwell — 4 November 2005 @ 12:40 AM

  3. Bill, that was great.

    Steve

    Comment by Steve Thomas — 4 November 2005 @ 3:03 PM

  4. As long as we’re mentioning members of the Poaceae Family on which we rely for food, there’s also oats, though you can’t make bread from it.

    And there’s also the grain-like vegetables, namely corn and potatoes or yams.

    Comment by Thomas Rondy — 11 September 2006 @ 1:03 PM

  5. Bill:

    So if we used seeds from the hemp plant (I mean the fibrous subspecies, not the pharmacologically active subspecies) as a nutrition source, I suppose that would make us hard-working with a great range of usefulness, vigorous, resilient, and minimally demanding upon that which sustains us. (Hemp monocropping is less hard on the soil when the leaves, which have no other potential use, are composted and returned to the soil.)

    Comment by Thomas Rondy — 11 September 2006 @ 1:12 PM

  6. Hey Thomas –

    You can make bread of oats…

    And corn is a member of poaceae as well.

    Potatoes are toxic, but sweet potatoes (american yams) are quite good for you!

    Janene

    Comment by janene — 11 September 2006 @ 2:52 PM

  7. Janene:

    So if you are what you eat, if you made sweet potatoes a staple of your diet, then you could truly say, “I yam what I yam and that’s all what I yam!”

    /ducks and runs again

    Comment by Thomas Rondy — 12 September 2006 @ 5:31 PM

  8. You Better Duck! :-)

    Janene

    Comment by janene — 12 September 2006 @ 5:54 PM

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Close
E-mail It