#106 - Resilience in Agriculture – Part 3: If Nature Had a Voice

How Might Farming Business Change if Nature Had a Voice?

This question, posed by Prof. Julia Wright at the Resilience Seminar in Juchowo, opened one of the most profound discussions of the event.

Perhaps we would change entirely the way we interact with nature and the more-than-human world—becoming more harmonious, balanced, and collaborative instead of exploitative?

Interestingly, there is already a company that has given Nature a seat on its board of directors (see video below). However, this is still an exception rather than a sign of systemic change. Transforming our relationship with nature requires a radical shift in how knowledge is developed and applied.

Two Knowledge Systems

Industrial farming relies on knowledge systems focused on maximizing yields. These systems emphasize chemical inputs and tight control over ecosystems. This reductionist, nature-disconnected mechanistic worldview resembles the functioning of the brain's left hemisphere: analytical, highly segmented, and focused on control.

By contrast, ecological farming aligns with a more holistic worldview. It draws on systems thinking, embraces complexity, and values intuition and diversity. This corresponds more closely with right-hemisphere thinking: integrative, intuitive, and open to ambiguity. Ecological agriculture emphasizes yield optimization, crop diversification, and synergy with natural processes.

However, this worldview is much harder to capture using modern scientific tools. Science tends to favor what can be measured and proven, often excluding what is experiential, intuitive, or difficult to quantify.

The key differences between these two paradigms are outlined below [1]:

Subtle Agroecologies

Subtle Agroecologies seeks to bridge the gap between these paradigms by recognizing that:

• "all of nature is animate,

• life processes are cyclical, and

• grounded in the lived experiences of humans working on and with the land over thousands of years to the present." [1]

Prof. Wright advocates for a knowledge system that values both intuition and experimentation. We must acknowledge that not all truths can be scientifically proven, and yet many are real, based on generations of lived agricultural experience. Dismissing knowledge simply because it is unprovable by current scientific methods is a form of epistemological blindness.

Rational, modernist science—and the capitalism that emerged from it—has existed for only a blink of an eye in human history. It is impressive, but far too short-lived to fully understand the long-term processes inherent in natural systems. Most ecosystems operate on timescales far beyond a single human lifetime. Humility should be the guiding principle in designing holistic knowledge systems for agriculture.

Can We Measure Holistic Success?

Industrial agriculture measures success with yield and profitability. But what would be a similarly simple measure for ecological farming?

What Could Be the One Number That Rules Them All?

I am a passionate advocate for identifying a single guiding metric for any enterprise. A clear, shared measure can help eliminate noise and align collective efforts. Of course, this is risky: choosing the wrong metric can drive an organization in the wrong direction. But if chosen well, it can be transformative.

As an example, Elon Musk focused SpaceX around the cost of delivering one kilogram of cargo to Earth orbit [2]. This singular focus drove innovation and alignment.

Could such a metric exist for ecological agriculture? Would it oversimplify too much? Perhaps. But if it helps society focus on harmony and sustainability, it could be worth exploring. A single number, more meaningful than the 100+ indicators in the Sustainable Development Report, might offer clarity.

Pawel Bietkowski proposed the price of an apple as the ultimate measure of success in ecological farming. If consumers are willing to pay more for a high-quality apple grown in harmony with nature, that suggests growing awareness and a closing of the knowledge gap. It means consumers are beginning to understand the conflict between high-yield, low-cost production and ecologically balanced cultivation.

This consumer awareness may be the most crucial element in transforming the entire knowledge system. Without it, agroecology may remain a niche movement with limited impact on global food systems.

Notes

1. Wright, J. (2021). Subtle agroecologies: Farming with the hidden half of nature (p. 384). Taylor & Francis.

2. Isaacson W. (2023) - Elon Musk.