White backlash, white rage, whitelash, and white grievance are terms used by some scholars and commentators to describe reactions by certain white individuals or groups to social, economic, or political changes related to race. It is often discussed in connection with perceptions of declining relative status, changes in cultural influence, or shifts in political power following efforts to expand civil rights and economic opportunities for other racial or ethnic groups.
George Yancy, Robin DiAngelo and other writers have used the term to characterize strong negative reactions to discussions of racial inequality or the concept of white privilege. In this framing, such reactions may include hostility, resistance to critique, or, in more extreme cases, racist rhetoric or threats of violence. These interpretations are sometimes contrasted with concepts such as white fragility, which focuses more narrowly on defensive responses rather than overt hostility.
Discussions of white backlash most commonly focus on the United States, particularly in relation to the social, economic and political status of African Americans. However, similar dynamics have also been examined in other national contexts, including the United Kingdom and South Africa, especially in analyses of racial politics during and after apartheid, the system of legally enforced racial segregation and discrimination against black South Africans by the minority Afrikanerherrenvolk government.
Sociology
Concerns among some whites about immigration and demographic change have been identified by researchers as factors associated with political and social opposition to these trends. Political scientist Ashley E. Jardina spoke about how perceptions of shifting social structures influence attitudes, noting that some white Americans perceive changes in the country's demographic composition as altering long-standing cultural and political arrangements, including the historical prominence of white Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) norms.
A 2018 study conducted at the University of California, Riverside found that awareness of the growth of Hispanic and Latino populations can lead some non-Hispanic white Americans to perceive existing racial hierarchies as being challenged, which may affect political attitudes and behavior. Similarly, research published in the European Journal of Social Psychology reported that informing white British participants about rising immigration levels increased their likelihood of supporting political candidates with restrictive immigration policies.
Commentator Kevin Drum has observed that as the proportion of residents in the United States who are not non-Hispanic white increased from 25 percent in 1990 to 40 percent in 2019, this demographic change may have produced a "short-term white backlash in recent years.".
Historian Lawrence Glickman, writing in The Atlantic in 2020, situates such political responses within a broader historical context. He argues that political reactions labeled as "backlashes" became more prominent in the 1960s but reflect earlier patterns in American political history, including those following Reconstruction. Glickman suggests that these responses often emerge in anticipation of social change and that narratives emphasizing perceived disadvantage have played a role in shaping various political movements over time.
One early example of this concept occurred when Hiram R. Revels became the first African-American to serve in the United States Senate in 1870 after he was selected by a vote of 81 to 15 in the Mississippi legislature to finish the term of one of the state's two seats in the US Senate, which had been left vacant since the American Civil War. This was before the ratification of the 17th Amendment to the constitution of the United States in 1913, which introduced direct elections for the office of senator. The backlash to this event ultimately helped to derail Reconstruction, which ended after the contested presidential election in 1876. The Compromise of 1877 led to the withdrawal of federal troops from the American South, effectively leaving the region to the hands of Jim Crow racial segregation policies and the effective disenfranchisement of black Americans in the region.
Similarly, the 1898 massacre in Wilmington, North Carolina occurred as a backlash by white Democrats to significant political changes in the city at the time, when the city was governed by a legally elected, biracial coalition supported by blacks and white Republicans. This arrangement was strongly opposed by the white Democratic leadership and their supporters, who viewed the existing government as illegitimate and destabilizing to the political and social order they favored. This ultimately contributed to the backlash that ultimately led to the forced removal of elected officials. The events that followed involved violence, the suppression of black political influence, and the imposition of a new municipal leadership aligned with the insurrection's leaders, contributing to the broader pattern of disfranchisement of black Americans in the South.
Another backlash happened after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Many Democrats in Congress, as well as President Lyndon B. Johnson himself, feared that such a backlash could develop in response to the legislation, and Martin Luther King Jr. popularized the "white backlash" phrase and concept to warn of that possibility. The backlash that they had warned about occurred and was based on the argument that whites of immigrant descent did not receive the benefits that were given to African Americans in the Civil Rights Act. After signing the Civil Rights Act, Johnson grew concerned that the white backlash would cost him the 1964 presidential election later that year. Specifically, Johnson feared that his opponent, Barry Goldwater, would harness the backlash by highlighting the black riots that were engulfing the country. Despite the fears, Johnson won the election by a landslide, only losing South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Goldwater's home state of Arizona. Eventually, white southerners switched to the Republican Party.
From then on, Republican politicians have been accused of carrying out dog-whistle politics, and examples of this arguments include the phrase "welfare queen" and the Willie Horton ad during the 1988 election.
Following the election of Barack Obama as the first black president of the United States in 2008, some commentators later argued that political and cultural reactions to demographic and social change led to a backlash, and influenced subsequent electoral outcomes such as the 2010 and 2014 midterms.
In this context, many pundits saw the election of Donald Trump as president in 2016 as an example of whitelash. CNN contributor Van Jones coined the term whitelash (a portmanteau of "white" and "backlash") during the 2016 election night coverage by the network to describe what he viewed as a backlash to these changes, including opposition to Obama's presidency. He said: "This was a whitelash. This was a whitelash against a changing country. It was a whitelash against a black president in part. And that's the part where the pain comes." Jones used the term to describe one of the reasons he thought Trump won the election, and he characterized Trump's victory as partly reflecting this reaction, a view that has been discussed but not universally accepted.
During Trump's first presidency he used the example of Luis Bracamontes, a man convicted of killing two police officers in Sacramento in 2014 and sentenced to death, to migrant caravans with the slogans "Democrats let him into our country" and "Democrats let him stay".
After the 2020 election, which was won by Joe Biden, Trump and his allies carried out attempts to overturn his election loss, with many participating in the so-called "Stop the Steal" movement, which culminated in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. These events have been interpreted by some scholars and commentators as reflecting broader historical narratives in American politics. Certain analysts have drawn parallels between these events and the Lost Cause myth after the Confederacy lost the American Civil War. Historian Joseph Ellis has argued that overlooking the role of race in Trump's political support echoes earlier historical tendencies to downplay racial factors in major national conflicts, including the disputed argument made by Lost Cause advocates, who attributed the American Civil War to a clash over constitutional issues while downplaying the role of slavery. These interpretations, however, remain subjects of debate among historians and political analysts.
South Africa
Throughout the latter half of the 20th century, South Africa’s apartheid system faced growing political, social, and moral pressure, both domestically and internationally. The Afrikaner government's actions during this period frequently reflected concern over potential backlash from segments of the white electorate, particularly among Afrikaners, whose political dominance apartheid was designed to protect.
In 1975, reports indicated that the government was slow to approve the desegregation of residential areas due to fears of resistance from conservative Afrikaner communities. This reluctance underscored the extent to which apartheid policies were maintained to preserve racial privilege rather than to promote equality. Similarly, in 1981, The New York Times reported that Prime MinisterP. W. Botha's cabinet, wary of a white backlash, publicly emphasized statistics showing disproportionately higher per capita spending on education for white children than for Black children—figures that highlighted the systemic inequalities at the core of apartheid.
During the 1980s, electoral trends reflected growing divisions within the white population. Support for the ruling National Party declined among white Afrikaners, while the Conservative Party gained traction by advocating for even stricter racial separation. At the same time, a significant number of white South Africans - including clergy, journalists, academics, business leaders, and members of liberal political parties - actively opposed apartheid, participated in protests, supported reform, or worked with anti-apartheid movements despite social and legal risks.
As apartheid began to be dismantled, resistance from parts of the white population persisted. In 1990, political commentator Jeane Kirkpatrick observed that PresidentF. W. de Klerk was aware that opinion polls showed substantial white opposition to his reform policies. Nevertheless, de Klerk proceeded with negotiations that led to a 1992 referendum which ultimately led to the end of apartheid. In 1994, South Africa held its first multiracial democratic election, resulting in Nelson Mandela being elected president of South Africa (the first black president in South African history), the African National Congress winning a majority in the South African Parliament, and marking the formal end of institutionalized racial segregation.
In the years following apartheid, concerns about Afrikaner identity and political marginalization continued to surface. By the late 1990s, some Afrikaner groups warned of backlash unless cultural autonomy initiatives, such as the proposed so-called Volkstaat at Orania, were recognized. Former president P. W. Botha also cautioned against threats to the Afrikaans language, framing them as potential sources of unrest. These debates occurred alongside efforts by the post-apartheid government to redress historical injustices and promote inclusion.
More recently, discussions of historical memory and transformation have continued to provoke controversy. In 2017, scholar John Campbell suggested that opposition, particularly among Afrikaners, to the removal of colonial-era statues, the renaming of places, and the increased use of English at historically white universities was, to some extent, predictable. These debates reflect the ongoing challenge of reconciling cultural identity with the legacy of a system widely condemned for its racial oppression and denial of basic human rights.
Since 1870, the amount of hours of waged work has decreased and GDP per capita has increased.
Critique of work or critique of labour is the critique of, or wish to abolish, workas such, and to critique what the critics of work deem wage slavery.
Critique of work can be existential, and focus on how labour can be and/or feel meaningless, and stands in the way for self-realisation. But the critique of work can also highlight how excessive work may cause harm to nature, the productivity of society, and/or society itself.The critique of work can also take on a more utilitarian character, in which work simply stands in the way for human happiness as well as health.
History
Many thinkers have critiqued and wished for the abolishment of labour as early as in Ancient Greece. An example of an opposing view is the anonymously published treatise titled Essay on Trade and Commerce published in 1770 which claimed that to break the spirit of idleness and independence of the English people, ideal "work-houses" should imprison the poor. These houses were to function as "houses of terror, where they should work fourteen hours a day in such fashion that when meal time was deducted there should remain twelve hours of work full and complete."
Views like these propagated for in the following decades by e.g. Malthus, which led up to the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834.
The battle of shortening the working hours to ten hours was ongoing between around the 1840s until about 1900. However, establishing the eight-hour working day went significantly faster, and these short-hour social movements aligned against labour, managed to get rid of two working hours between the mid-1880s to 1919. During this epoch, reformers argued that mechanization was not only supposed to provide material goods, but to free workers from "slavery" and introduce them to the "duty" to enjoy life.
While the productive capacity rose enormously with industrialization, people were made busier, while one might have expected the opposite to occur. This was at least the expectation among many intellectuals such as Paul Lafargue. The liberal John Stuart Mill also predicted that society would come to a stage where growth would end when mechanization would meet all real needs. Lafargue argued that the obsession society seemed to have with labour paradoxically harmed the productivity, which society had as one of its primary justifications for not working as little as possible.
In Lafargue's book The Right to Be Lazy, he claims that "it is sheer madness, that people are fighting for the 'right' to an eight-hour working day. In other words, eight hours of servitude, exploitation and suffering, when it is leisure, joy and self-realisation that should be fought for – and as few hours of slavery as possible".
Automation, which had already come a long way in Lafargue's time, could easily have reduced working hours to three or four hours a day. This would have left a large part of the day for the things which he would claim that we really want to do – spend time with friends, relax, enjoy life, be lazy.
The machine is the saviour of humanity, Lafargue argues, but only if the working time it frees up becomes leisure time. It can be, it should be, but it rarely has been. The time that is freed up is according to Lafargue usually converted into more hours of work, which in his view is only more hours of toil and drudgery.
Russell's book In Praise of Idleness is a collection of essays on the themes of sociology and philosophy. Russell argues that if the burden of work were shared equally among all, resulting in fewer hours of work, unemployment would disappear. As a result, human happiness would also increase as people would be able to enjoy their newfound free time, which would further increase the amount of science and art. Russell for example claimed that "Modern methods of production have given us the possibility of ease and security for all; we have chosen, instead, to have overwork for some and starvation for others. Hitherto we have continued to be as energetic as we were before there were machines; in this we have been foolish".
Contemporary era
David Graeber
The anthropologist David Graeber has written about bullshit jobs, which are jobs that are meaningless and do not contribute anything worthwhile, or even damage society. Graeber also claims that bullshit jobs are often not those with the lowest pay.
Man with sign that roughly translates to: Bullshit job example from nature: President of the Republic of Slovenia
The bullshit-jobs can include tasks like these:
Watching over an inbox which received emails merely to copy and paste them into another form.
Roles that exist merely because other institutions employ people in the same roles.
Employees that merely solve issues that could be fixed once and for all, or automated away.
People who are hired so that institutions can claim that they do something, which in reality they are not doing.
Jobs where the most important thing is to sit in the right place, like working in a reception, and forwarding emails to someone who is tasked with reading them.
Frédéric Lordon
In Willing Slaves of Capital: Spinoza and Marx on Desire, the French economist and philosopher Frédéric Lordon ponders why people accept deferring or even replacing their own desires and goals with those of an organization. "It is ultimately quite strange", he writes, "that people should so 'accept' to occupy themselves in the service of a desire that was not originally their own." Lordon argues that surrender of will occurs via the capture by organizations of workers' "basal desire" – the will to survive.
But this willingness of workers to become aligned with a company's goals is due not only to what can be called "managerialism" (the ways in which a company co-opts individuality via wages, rules, and perks), but to the psychology of the workers themselves, whose "psyches… perform at times staggering feats of compartmentalization." So consent to work itself becomes problematic and troubling; as captured in the title of Lordon's book, workers are "willing slaves."
Franco "Bifo" Berardi
Franco Berardi, an Italian Autonomist thinker, suggests in The Soul at Work: From Alienation to Autonomy, that capitalism has harnessed modern desires for autonomy and independence:
No desire, no vitality seems to exist anymore outside the economic enterprise, outside productive labour and business. Capital was able to renew its psychic, ideological and economic energy, specifically thanks to the absorption of creativity, desire, and individualistic, libertarian drives for self-realization.
Knowledge workers, or what Berardi calls the "cognitariat" are far from free of this co-option. People in these jobs, he says, have suffered a kind of Taylorization of their work via the parceling and routinization of even creative activities.
George Alliger
In the 2022 book Anti-Work: Psychological Investigations into Its Truths, Problems, and Solutions, work psychologist Alliger proposes to systematize anti-work thinking by suggesting a set of almost 20 propositions that characterize this topic. He draws on a wide variety of sources; a few of the propositions or tenets are:
Work demands submission and is damaging to the human psyche.
The idea that work is "good" is a modern and deleterious development.
The tedious, boring, and grinding aspects of work characterize most of the time spent in many and probably even all jobs.
Work is subjectively "alienating" and meaningless due to workers' lack of honest connection to the organization and its goals and outcomes.
Alliger provides a discussion of each proposition and considers how workers, as well as psychologists, can best respond to the existential difficulties and challenges of work.
Guy Debord
One of the founders of the Situationist International in France (which helped inspire the student revolt of 1968), Guy Debord wrote the influential The Society of the Spectacle (La société du spectacle). He suggested that since all actual activity, including work, has been harnessed into the production of the spectacle, that there can be no freedom from work, even if leisure time is increasing. That is, since leisure can only be leisure within the planned activities of the spectacle, and since alienated labour helps to reproduce that spectacle, there is also no escape from work within the confines of the spectacle. Debord also used the slogan "NEVER WORK", which he initially painted as graffiti, and henceforth came to emphasize "could not be considered superfluous advice".
Anti-work ethic
"Anti-work" redirects here. For the subreddit, see r/antiwork.
Friedrich Nietzsche rejected the work ethic, viewing it as damaging to the development of reason, as well as the development of the individual etc. In 1881, he wrote:
The eulogists of work. Behind the glorification of 'work' and the tireless talk of the 'blessings of work' I find the same thought as behind the praise of impersonal activity for the public benefit: the fear of everything individual. At bottom, one now feels when confronted with work—and what is invariably meant is relentless industry from early till late—that such work is the best police, that it keeps everybody in harness and powerfully obstructs the development of reason, of covetousness, of the desire for independence. For it uses up a tremendous amount of nervous energy and takes it away from reflection, brooding, dreaming, worry, love, and hatred; it always sets a small goal before one's eyes and permits easy and regular satisfactions. In that way a society in which the members continually work hard will have more security: and security is now adored as the supreme goddess.
The American architect, philosopher, designer, and futurist Buckminster Fuller presented a similar argument which rejected the notion that people should have to earn a living.
We must do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian-Darwinian theory, he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.
—Buckminster Fuller, The New York Magazine Environmental Teach-In, 1970
Contemporary era
Particularly in anarchist circles, some believe that work has become highly alienated throughout history and is fundamentally unhappy and burdensome, and therefore should not be enforced by economic or political means. In this context, some call for the introduction of an unconditional basic income and/or a shorter working week, such as the 4-day workweek. The anarchist/situationist writer Bob Black wrote a well-regarded manifesto in 1985, The Abolition of Work.
Media
The Idler is a twice-monthly British magazine dedicated to the ethos of "idleness." It was founded in 1993 by Tom Hodgkinson and Gavin Pretor-Pinney with the intention of exploring alternative ways of working and living.
The largest organized anti-work community on the Internet is the subredditr/antiwork on Reddit with (as of November 2023) over 2.8million members.
In art
The Swedish Public Freedom Service is a conceptual art project which has been running since 2014, promoting an anti-work message. One of the artists involved argued in relationship to the project that "changes in the last 200 years or so have always been shifts in power, while not much that is fundamental to the construction of society has changed. We are largely marinated in the belief that wage labour must be central."
In the philosophy of mind, innatism is the view that the mind is born with already-formed ideas, knowledge, and beliefs. The opposing doctrine, that the mind is a tabula rasa (blank slate) at birth and all knowledge is gained from experience and the senses, is called empiricism.
Innatism and nativism are generally synonymous terms referring to the notion of preexisting ideas in the mind. However, more specifically, innatism refers to the philosophy of Descartes, who assumed that God or a similar being or process placed innate ideas and principles in the human mind. The innatist principles in this regard may overlap with similar concepts such as natural order and state of nature, in philosophy.
Nativism represents an adaptation of this, grounded in the fields of genetics, cognitive psychology, and psycholinguistics. Nativists hold that innate beliefs are in some way genetically programmed in our mind—they are the phenotypes of certain genotypes that all humans share in common. Nativism is a modern view rooted in innatism. The advocates of nativism are mainly philosophers who also work in the field of cognitive psychology or psycholinguistics: most notably Noam Chomsky and Jerry Fodor (although the latter adopted a more critical attitude toward nativism in his later writings).The nativist's general objection against empiricism is still the same as was raised by the rationalists; the human mind of a newborn child is not a tabula rasa but is equipped with an inborn structure.
History
Although individual human beings vary in many ways (culturally, ethnically, linguistically, and so on), innate ideas are the same for everyone everywhere. For example, the philosopher René Descartes theorized that knowledge of God is innate in everybody. Philosophers such as Descartes and Plato were rationalists. Other philosophers, most notably the empiricists, were critical of innate ideas and denied they existed. The debate over innate ideas is central to the conflict between rationalists (who believe certain ideas exist independently of experience) and empiricists (who believe knowledge is derived from experience). Many believe the German philosopher Immanuel Kant synthesized these two early modern traditions in his philosophical thought.
Plato
Plato argues that if there are certain concepts that we know to be true but did not learn from experience, then it must be because we have an innate knowledge of it and that this knowledge must have been gained before birth. In Plato's Meno, he recalls a situation where his mentor Socrates questioned a slave boy about geometry. Though the slave boy had no previous experience with geometry, he was able to answer correctly. Plato reasoned that this was possible because Socrates' questions sparked the innate knowledge of math the boy had from birth.
René Descartes
Descartes (1596–1650) conveys the idea that innate knowledge or ideas is something inborn such as one would say, that a certain disease might be 'innate' to signify that a person might be at risk of contracting such a disease. He suggests that something that is 'innate' is effectively present from birth and while it may not reveal itself then, is more than likely to present itself later in life. Descartes’ comparison of innate knowledge to an innate disease, whose symptoms may show up only later in life, unless prohibited by a factor like age or puberty, suggests that if an event occurs prohibiting someone from exhibiting an innate behaviour or knowledge, it doesn't mean the knowledge did not exist at all but rather it wasn't expressed – they were not able to acquire that knowledge. In other words, innate beliefs, ideas and knowledge require experiences to be triggered or they may never be expressed. Experiences are not the source of knowledge as proposed by John Locke, but catalysts to the uncovering of knowledge.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) contends that we are born with certain innate ideas, the most identifiable of these being mathematical truisms. The idea that 1 + 1 = 2 is evident to us without the necessity for empirical evidence. Leibniz argues that empiricism can show us that concepts are true in the present; the observation of one apple and then another in one instance, and in that instance only, leads to the conclusion that one and another equals two. However, the suggestion that one and another will always equal two requires an innate idea, as that would be a suggestion of things unwitnessed.
Leibniz called such concepts as mathematical truisms "necessary truths". Another example of such may be the phrase, "What is, is" or "It is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be". Leibniz argues that such truisms are universally assented to (acknowledged by all to be true); this being the case, it must be due to their status as innate ideas. Often some ideas are acknowledged as necessarily true but are not universally assented to. Leibniz would suggest that this is simply because the person in question has not become aware of the innate idea, not because they do not possess it. Leibniz argues that empirical evidence can serve to bring to the surface certain principles that are already innately embedded in our minds. This is similar to needing to hear only the first few notes to recall the rest of the melody.
John Locke
The main antagonist to the concept of innate ideas is John Locke (1632–1704), a contemporary of Leibniz. Locke argued that the mind is in fact devoid of all knowledge or ideas at birth; it is a blank sheet or tabula rasa. He argued that all our ideas are constructed in the mind via a process of constant composition and decomposition of the input that we receive through our senses. Locke, in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, which he published in 1690 under his own name, contends that the concept of universal assent, in fact, proves nothing, except perhaps that everyone is in agreement. In short universal assent proves that there is universal assent and nothing else. Locke goes on to suggest that, in fact, there is no universal assent. Even a phrase such as "What is, is" is not universally assented to; infants and severely mentally disabled adults do not generally acknowledge this truism. Locke also attacks the idea that an innate idea can be imprinted on the mind without the owner realizing it. For Locke, such reasoning would allow one to conclude the absurd: "All the Truths a Man ever comes to know, will, by this account, be, every one of them, innate." To return to the musical analogy, we may not be able to recall the entire melody until we hear the first few notes, but we were aware of the fact that we knew the melody and that upon hearing the first few notes we would be able to recall the rest.
Locke ends his attack on innate ideas by arguing that the mind is a tabula rasa or "blank slate", and that all ideas come from experience. All our knowledge is founded in sensory experience. Essentially, the same knowledge thought to be a priori by Leibniz is, according to Locke, the result of empirical knowledge, which has a lost origin [been forgotten] in respect to the inquirer. However, the inquirer is not cognizant of this fact; thus, he experiences what he believes to be a priori knowledge.
The theory of innate knowledge is excessive. Even innatists accept that most of our knowledge is learned through experience, but if that can be extended to account for all knowledge, we learn color through seeing it, so therefore, there is no need for a theory about an innate understanding of color.
No ideas are universally held. Do we all possess the idea of God? Do we all believe in justice and beauty? Do we all understand the law of identity? If not, it may not be the case that we have acquired these ideas through impressions/experience/social interaction.
Even if there are some universally agreed statements, it is just the ability of the human brain to organize learned ideas/words, that is, innate. An "ability to organize" is not the same as "possessing propositional knowledge" (e.g., a computer with no saved files has all the operations programmed in but has an empty memory).
Noam Chomsky
In his Meno, Plato raises an important epistemological quandary: how is it that we have certain ideas that are not conclusively derivable from our environments? Linguistics scholar Noam Chomsky (born 1928) has taken this problem as a philosophical framework for the scientific inquiry into innatism. His linguistic theory, which derives from 18th-century classical-liberal thinkers such as Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835), attempts to explain in cognitive terms how we can develop knowledge of systems which are said, by supporters of innatism, to be too rich and complex to be derived from our environment.
It is claimed one such example is our linguistic faculty. According to Chomsky, our linguistic systems contain a systemic complexity which supposedly could not be empirically derived: the environment seems too poor, variable and indeterminate, to explain the extraordinary ability to learn complex concepts possessed by very young children. Essentially, their accurate grammatical knowledge cannot have originated from their experiences as their experiences are not adequate. It follows that humans must be born with a universal innate grammar, which is determinate and has a highly organized directive component, and enables the language learner to ascertain and categorize language heard into a system. Chomsky contends that the ability to learn how to properly construct sentences or know which sentences are grammatically incorrect is an ability gained from innate knowledge. Noam Chomsky cites as evidence for this theory, the apparent invariability, according to his views, of human languages at a fundamental level. In this way, linguistics may provide a window into the human mind, and establish scientific theories of innateness which otherwise would remain merely speculative.
One implication of Chomsky's innatism, if correct, is that at least a part of human knowledge consists in cognitive predispositions, which are triggered and developed by the environment, but not determined by it. Chomsky suggests that we can look at how a belief is acquired as an input-output situation. He supports the doctrine of innatism as he states that human beliefs gathered from sensory experience are much richer and complex than the experience itself. He asserts that the extra information gathered is from the mind itself as it cannot solely be from experiences. Humans derive excess amount of information from their environment so some of that information must be pre-determined.
A hypothetical example: A disabled single mother with two kids in Pennsylvania earning $30,000 receives government support that increases their effective income to $80,000 in 2012. She hits a welfare cliff when her income increases to $31,000, losing several welfare benefits and tax credits, making their effective less than $50,000. At an earned income of $45,000, she would hit a bigger cliff, paying additional taxes while losing more benefits, taking the effective income below $40,000.
The welfare trap (aka the welfare cliff, unemployment trap, or poverty trap in British English) theory asserts that taxation and welfare systems can jointly contribute to keep people on social insurance because the withdrawal of means-tested benefits that comes with entering low-paid work causes there to be no significant increase in total income. According to this hypothesis, an individual sees that the opportunity cost of getting a better paying job is too great for too little a financial return, and this can create a perverse incentive to not pursue a better paying job.
Different definitions
The term used for this concept varies depending on country. In the United States, where government benefit payments are colloquially referred to as "welfare", the welfare trap often indicates that a person is completely dependent on benefits, with little or no hope of self-sufficiency. The welfare trap is also known as the unemployment trap or the poverty trap, with both terms frequently being used interchangeably as they often go hand-in-hand, but there are subtle differences.
In other contexts, the terms "welfare trap" and "poverty trap" are clearly distinguished. For example, a Southern African Regional Poverty Network report on social protection clarifies that "poverty trap [means] a structural condition from which people cannot rescue themselves despite their best efforts. A welfare trap in this context, by contrast, refers to the barrier created by means-tested social grants that have in-built perverse incentives." The South African definition is typically used with regard to developing countries.
This concept may include other adverse effects of welfare such as on the family structure: it may encourage the increase in the numbers of single-mother families and divorce rates, as individuals see a distinct benefit in such a lifestyle.
In the UK, there is a distinction between two concepts within the welfare trap:
The unemployment trap occurs when the net income difference between low-paid work and unemployment benefits is less than work-related costs (bus pass, work clothes, daycare), discouraging movement into work;
The poverty trap is the position when means-tested benefit payments are reduced as income rises, combined with income tax and other deductions, with the effect of discouraging work with a higher income, longer hours or acquiring skills. In some cases, if a recipient's wage income rises too much, they may lose some or all of their social assistance.
Causes of welfare traps
There are two predominant views which look to examine how recipients can become stuck in such traps. The first view examines the behavioural traits of recipients and their inability to climb the socio-economic ladder. This view holds that recipients' lack of necessary traits is a result of their decision-making or individual psychology.
The other view examines analyses of labour supply wherein individuals will act to maximise their utility. This utility acts as a function of the amount of goods and services they can enjoy (their real disposable income) and the amount of non-working time available to them. For example, if a worker is free to choose the amount of hours they work, they will continue to offer more labour until an additional hour of leisure forgone is worth more than the goods and services attained through the additional work. Thus, people strive for a utility maximisation in which individuals may deliberately choose to continue receiving employment benefits, as the opportunity cost of employment is too high for the reduction in means-tested support they would otherwise receive.
Example 1: If a person on welfare finds a part-time job that will pay the minimum wage of $5 per hour for eight hours per week (totaling $40), and, of the amount earned per week, $20 is deducted from welfare, there is a net gain of only $20. If the government imposes taxes on the $40, at say 15% ($6), and there may be extra child-care and commuting costs as well since that the person can no longer remain at home all day, the person is now worse off than before getting the job. This result occurs despite performing eight hours of work per week that is productive to society.
Example 2: Consider a hypothetical welfare program that guarantees a minimum income level to welfare recipients, so that an increase in earnings results in a dollar-for-dollar decrease in benefits up to the income threshold. As shown in the diagram below, this creates a "spiked" budget constraintOABC. Indifference curve analysis reveals that a welfare recipient's utility may be higher if they don't work and earn the guaranteed minimum income (curve U1) than if they do work and earn slightly more (curve U0).
Welfare traps in practice
Range of Marginal Tax Rates Between the 10th and 90th Percentiles for Low- and Moderate-Income Taxpayers, by Earnings Group, 2016
Many western countries have developed complex social safety nets that act to protect vulnerable families and individuals experiencing poverty and destitution.As these individuals aim to move off of welfare, the complex labyrinth of programs and policies - such as the 80 federal anti-poverty programs currently available in the United States - create confusion in the process to understand effects of increased income to means-tested payments.
In the United States, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that median marginal tax rates will rise sharply for taxpayers in the lowest quartile who earn less than 150 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). For a taxpayer earning less than 50 percent of the FPL, the median marginal tax rate would increase from 14 percent to 34 percent when they find work that places their earnings at just above the poverty line (100-149 percent of the FPL). Following the second view on welfare traps posited earlier, recipients are rational actors and would likely experience material losses in access to goods and services when taxes, loss of leisure time, and support for dependents is factored in.
High "effective marginal tax rates" (EMTRs) can identify welfare traps or poverty traps. EMTRs are affected by the combination of the increments of an individual's gross income and disposable income. The phenomenon of welfare traps or poverty traps appears when individuals lack encouragement to seek new jobs in the labour market due to the net growth in disposable incomes being too low. This low increasing disposable income is related to the interaction of social security and income taxation systems. The strength of poverty traps rises as the length of non-transfer-income ranges is subject to high EMTRs growth. So, understanding which factors lead to high EMTR can help people understand more about how to reform tax and welfare policy. In Australia, welfare traps have been improved by the Social Security (Poverty Trap Reduction) Act of 1985, for example, reforming pension policy, which does not charge tax to people with full-rate pensions, and integrating child family payments to welfare receipts. Another tax policy reform was conducted by the Coalition Parties that increased the annual threshold for income taxes and reduced the minimum percentage rate. After the Howard government introduced goods and services taxation (GST), welfare payments increased to respond to these taxes. All these political initiatives indirectly ameliorated welfare traps—however, they did not inhibit high EMTR.[16]
Another measure called RRs (replacement rates) compares income from a person when he does not work and income from this person when he does work. RTR is the third measure which means the Participation Tax Rate. It means the proportion between the net influence of working with gross salary. RRs and RTR are used to compare the incentive between work and not work. In reality, it is difficult for people to choose how many hours more to work (no active option), and it is easy for people to choose between working or not working. So, compared with EMTRs, RRs and PTRs are more appropriate for measuring welfare traps.
Avoiding welfare traps
An incentive to get out of the welfare trap is that the return to the labour market gives a person chances of moving up the career ladder, improving old and acquiring new job skills, etc., thus eventually improving standard of living. Policies that allow for the continued receipt of benefit payments for a period of time after entering work or up to a specific earnings ceiling may also eliminate the welfare trap. For example, for UK claimants of Incapacity Benefit or Employment Support Allowance, "permitted work" arrangements allow for paid work up to either 16 hours or £95 per week without the withdrawal of the disability benefit payments, leading to a net overall increase in income. However, any earnings over £20 may be taxed, and additional earnings may affect receipt of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, which is an example of the welfare trap remaining potentially in effect. To eliminate the welfare trap entirely would require a policy that permanently continues benefit payments regardless of any conditions, with no income from paid work being withdrawn. One example of this would be unconditional basic income. Addressing the affordability of education and healthcare is a way to escape the welfare trap. In the US, for some families on welfare, the high cost of healthcare and higher education drives them to remain in the welfare trap, even though being in the welfare trap reduces their health status and access to credit. Without welfare support, they would have difficulty affording the high cost of healthcare. If the provision of healthcare and education could be improved, this could encourage some welfare families to find work and escape the welfare trap.
In the UK, where single-parent families' reliance on benefits has been on the rise, welfare reformers argue that if the unemployed who are stuck in the benefit trap are taught skills that match their job prospects, then they will be more likely to seek work rather than remain in the benefit trap. They believe that there should be reciprocal obligations between the government and the individual, and that this will encourage welfare recipients to be more active in acquiring job skills and finding work, in order to prepare them for employment. In the United States, the government believes that the unemployed are not motivated to work, so they have taken steps to support work, such as raising the minimum wage, reducing taxes on low-income groups, and providing more health care to working families. However, the main measure that proved effective was the compulsory work scheme, wherein people could only receive benefits if they worked. This has led to a significant increase in the number of people employed and a reduction in the number of unemployed people caught in the welfare trap. In Australia, the government saw low work motivation as a barrier to the unemployed finding new jobs and moved away from helping the unemployed with skills training to motivating the unemployed to find work. The ultimate aim of these reforms is to reduce the number of unemployed people caught in the welfare trap.
Shade-grown coffee, a form of polyculture (an example of sustainable agriculture) in imitation of natural ecosystems. Trees provide resources for the coffee plants such as shade, nutrients, and soil structure; the farmers harvest coffee and timber.
Sustainable agriculture is farming in a way that reduces environmental harm, aids and expands natural resources and ensures that non-renewable resources are harnessed for productive purposes. It can be based on an understanding of ecosystem services. There are many methods to increase the sustainability of agriculture. When developing agriculture within the sustainable food systems, it is important to develop flexible business processes and farming practices.
Agriculture has an enormous environmental footprint, playing a significant role in causing climate change (food systems are responsible for one third of the anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions),water scarcity, water pollution, land degradation, deforestation and other processes; it is simultaneously causing environmental changes and being impacted by these changes. Sustainable agriculture consists of environment friendly methods of farming that allow the production of crops or livestock without causing damage to human or natural systems. It involves preventing adverse effects on soil, water, biodiversity, and surrounding or downstream resources, as well as to those working or living on the farm or in neighboring areas. Elements of sustainable agriculture can include permaculture, agroforestry, mixed farming, multiple cropping, and crop rotation. Land sparing, which combines conventional intensive agriculture with high yields and the protection of natural habitats from conversion to farmland, can also be considered a form of sustainable agriculture.
Developing sustainable food systems contributes to the sustainability of the human population. For example, one of the best ways to mitigate climate change is to create sustainable food systems based on sustainable agriculture. Sustainable agriculture provides a potential solution to enable agricultural systems to feed a growing population within the changing environmental conditions. Besides sustainable farming practices, dietary shifts to sustainable diets are an intertwined way to substantially reduce environmental impacts. Numerous sustainability standards and certification systems exist, including organic certification, Rainforest Alliance, Fair Trade, UTZ Certified, GlobalGAP, Bird Friendly, and the Common Code for the Coffee Community (4C).
Definition
The term "sustainable agriculture" was defined in 1977 by the USDA as an integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific application that will, over the long term:
satisfy human food and fiber needs
enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agriculture economy depends
make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls
sustain the economic viability of farm operations
enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole.
Yet the idea of having a sustainable relationship with the land has been prevalent in indigenous communities for centuries before the term was formally added to the lexicon.
Aims
A common consensus is that sustainable farming is the most realistic way to feed growing populations. In order to successfully feed the population of the planet, farming practices must consider future costs–to both the environment and the communities they fuel. The risk of not being able to provide enough resources for everyone led to the adoption of technology within the sustainability field to increase farm productivity. The ideal result of this advancement is the ability to feed ever-growing populations across the world. The growing popularity of sustainable agriculture is connected to the wide-reaching fear that the planet's carrying capacity (or planetary boundaries), in terms of the ability to feed humanity, has been reached or even exceeded.
Key principles
There are several key principles associated with sustainability in agriculture:
Using decreased amounts of non-renewable and unsustainable inputs, particularly environmentally harmful ones.
Using the expertise of farmers to both productively work the land as well as to promote the self-reliance and self-sufficiency of farmers.
Solving agricultural and natural resource problems through the cooperation and collaboration of people with different skills. The problems tackled include pest management and irrigation.
It considers long-term as well as short-term economics because sustainability provides benefits that are indefinite, that is, agricultural environments that are designed to promote endless regeneration". It balances the need for resource conservation with the needs of farmers pursuing their livelihood.
It is considered to be reconciliation ecology, accommodating biodiversity within human landscapes.
Oftentimes, the execution of sustainable practices within farming comes through the adoption of technology and environmentally-focused appropriate technology.
Technological approaches
Sustainable agricultural systems are becoming an increasingly important field for AI research and development. By leveraging AI's skills in areas such as resource optimization, crop health monitoring, and yield prediction, farmers might greatly advance toward more environmentally friendly agricultural practices. AI-controlled irrigation systems optimize water consumption by using sensors to monitor soil moisture levels and weather conditions to distribute water accordingly. This water management technology can lower water consumption up to 30%.
Artificial intelligence (AI) mobile soil analysis enables farmers to enhance soil fertility while decreasing their ecological footprint. This technology permits on-site, real-time evaluations of soil nutrient levels. Intelligent systems can detect weeds, pests, and plant disease to alert and develop strategies for increasing farming productivity.
A 2023 review article found that agroecology, a study on the biodiversity and ecological practices of farming, can become a mainstream model for transforming agriculture only if it integrates farming practices with regional and global scales, ensures economic viability for producers, and uses ecological methods with technologies such as digitalization and precision breeding. Agrivoltaics enhances sustainable agriculture by optimizing land use—allowing crops to be grown alongside solar panels, which generate clean energy. This dual-use approach conserves land resources, improves microclimates, and can promote more resilient, eco-friendly farming practices.
Environmental factors
Practices that can cause long-term damage to soil include excessive tilling of the soil (leading to erosion) and irrigation without adequate drainage (leading to salinization).
The most important factors for a farming site are climate, soil, nutrients and water resources. Of the four, water and soil conservation are the most amenable to human intervention. When farmers grow and harvest crops, they remove some nutrients from the soil. Without replenishment, the land suffers from nutrient depletion and becomes either unusable or suffers from reduced yields. Sustainable agriculture depends on replenishing the soil while minimizing the use or need of non-renewable resources, such as natural gas or mineral ores.
A farm that can "produce perpetually", yet has negative effects on environmental quality elsewhere is not sustainable agriculture. An example of a case in which a global view may be warranted is the application of fertilizer or manure, which can improve the productivity of a farm but can pollute nearby rivers and coastal waters (eutrophication). The other extreme can also be undesirable, as the problem of low crop yields due to exhaustion of nutrients in the soil has been related to rainforest destruction. In Asia, the specific amount of land needed for sustainable farming is about 12.5 acres (5.1ha) which include land for animal fodder, cereal production as a cash crop, and other food crops. In some cases, a small unit of aquaculture is included (AARI-1996).
Nutrients
Nitrates
Nitrates are used widely in farming as fertilizer. Unfortunately, a major environmental problem associated with agriculture is the leaching of nitrates into the environment. Possible sources of nitrates that would, in principle, be available indefinitely, include:
industrial production of nitrogen by the Haber process uses hydrogen, which is currently derived from natural gas (but this hydrogen could instead be made by electrolysis of water using renewable electricity)
genetically engineering (non-legume) crops to form nitrogen-fixing symbioses or fix nitrogen without microbial symbionts.
The last option was proposed in the 1970s, but is only gradually becoming feasible. Sustainable options for replacing other nutrient inputs such as phosphorus and potassium are more limited.
Other options include long-term crop rotations, returning to natural cycles that annually flood cultivated lands (returning lost nutrients) such as the flooding of the Nile, the long-term use of biochar, and use of crop and livestock landraces that are adapted to less than ideal conditions such as pests, drought, or lack of nutrients. Crops that require high levels of soil nutrients can be cultivated in a more sustainable manner with appropriate fertilizer management practices.
Phosphate
Phosphate is a primary component in fertilizer. It is the second most important nutrient for plants after nitrogen, and is often a limiting factor. It is important for sustainable agriculture as it can improve soil fertility and crop yields. Phosphorus is involved in all major metabolic processes including photosynthesis, energy transfer, signal transduction, macromolecular biosynthesis, and respiration. It is needed for root ramification and strength and seed formation, and can increase disease resistance.
Phosphorus is found in the soil in both inorganic and organic forms and makes up approximately 0.05% of soil biomass. Phosphorus fertilizers are the main input of inorganic phosphorus in agricultural soils and approximately 70%–80% of phosphorus in cultivated soils is inorganic. Long-term use of phosphate-containing chemical fertilizers causes eutrophication and deplete soil microbial life, so people have looked to other sources.
Phosphorus fertilizers are manufactured from rock phosphate. However, rock phosphate is a non-renewable resource and it is being depleted by mining for agricultural use: peak phosphorus will occur within the next few hundred years, or perhaps earlier.
Potassium
Potassium is a macronutrient very important for plant development and is commonly sought in fertilizers. This nutrient is essential for agriculture because it improves water retention, nutrient value, yield, taste, color, texture and disease resistance of crops. It is often used in the cultivation of grains, fruits, vegetables, rice, wheat, millets, sugar, corn, soybeans, palm oil and coffee.
Potassium chloride (KCl) represents the most widely source of K used in agriculture, accounting for 90% of all potassium produced for agricultural use.
The use of KCl leads to high concentrations of chloride (Clˉ) in soil harming its health due to the increase in soil salinity, imbalance in nutrient availability and this ion's biocidal effect for soil organisms. In consequences the development of plants and soil organisms is affected, putting at risk soil biodiversity and agricultural productivity. A sustainable option for replacing KCl are chloride-free fertilizers, its use should take into account plants' nutrition needs, and the promotion of soil health.[60]
Soil
Walls built to avoid water run-off, Andhra Pradesh, India
Land degradation is becoming a severe global problem. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: "About a quarter of the Earth's ice-free land area is subject to human-induced degradation (medium confidence). Soil erosion from agricultural fields is estimated to be currently 10 to 20 times (no tillage) to more than 100 times (conventional tillage) higher than the soil formation rate (medium confidence)." Almost half of the land on earth is covered with dry land, which is susceptible to degradation. Over a billion tonnes of southern Africa's soil are being lost to erosion annually, which if continued will result in halving of crop yields within thirty to fifty years. A comparative study of two adjacent wheat farms—one using sustainable practices and the other conventional methods—found that the sustainable farm had significantly better soil quality, including higher organic matter, microbial populations, and nutrient content, while also showing 22.4% higher net returns due to lower input costs, despite slightly lower yields.
Improper soil management is threatening the ability to grow sufficient food. Intensive agriculture reduces the carbon level in soil, impairing soil structure, crop growth and ecosystem functioning, and accelerating climate change. Modification of agricultural practices is a recognized method of carbon sequestration as soil can act as an effective carbon sink.
As the global population increases and demand for food increases, there is pressure on land as a resource. In land-use planning and management, considering the impacts of land-use changes on factors such as soil erosion can support long-term agricultural sustainability, as shown by a study of Wadi Ziqlab, a dry area in the Middle East where farmers graze livestock and grow olives, vegetables, and grains.
Looking back over the 20th century shows that for people in poverty, following environmentally sound land practices has not always been a viable option due to many complex and challenging life circumstances. Currently, increased land degradation in developing countries may be connected with rural poverty among smallholder farmers when forced into unsustainable agricultural practices out of necessity.
Converting big parts of the land surface to agriculture has severe environmental and health consequences. For example, it leads to rise in zoonotic disease (like the Coronavirus disease 2019) due to the degradation of natural buffers between humans and animals, reducing biodiversity and creating larger groups of genetically similar animals.
Land is a finite resource on Earth. Although expansion of agricultural land can decrease biodiversity and contribute to deforestation, the picture is complex; for instance, a study examining the introduction of sheep by Norse settlers (Vikings) to the Faroe Islands of the North Atlantic concluded that, over time, the fine partitioning of land plots contributed more to soil erosion and degradation than grazing itself.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimates that in coming decades, cropland will continue to be lost to industrial and urban development, along with reclamation of wetlands, and conversion of forest to cultivation, resulting in the loss of biodiversity and increased soil erosion.
Energy
In modern agriculture, energy is used in on-farm mechanisation, food processing, storage, and transportation processes. It has therefore been found that energy prices are closely linked to food prices. Oil is also used as an input in agricultural chemicals. The International Energy Agency projects higher prices of non-renewable energy resources as a result of fossil fuel resources being depleted. It may therefore decrease global food security unless action is taken to 'decouple' fossil fuel energy from food production, with a move towards 'energy-smart' agricultural systems including renewable energy. The use of solar powered irrigation in Pakistan is said to be a closed system for agricultural water irrigation.
The environmental cost of transportation could be avoided if people use local products.
Water
In some areas sufficient rainfall is available for crop growth, but many other areas require irrigation. For irrigation systems to be sustainable, they require proper management (to avoid salinization) and must not use more water from their source than is naturally replenishable. Otherwise, the water source effectively becomes a non-renewable resource. Improvements in water well drilling technology and submersible pumps, combined with the development of drip irrigation and low-pressure pivots, have made it possible to regularly achieve high crop yields in areas where reliance on rainfall alone had previously made successful agriculture unpredictable. However, this progress has come at a price. In many areas, such as the Ogallala Aquifer, the water is being used faster than it can be replenished.
According to the UC Davis Agricultural Sustainability Institute, several steps must be taken to develop drought-resistant farming systems even in "normal" years with average rainfall. These measures include both policy and management actions:
providing incentives for selection of drought-tolerant crop species
using reduced-volume irrigation systems
managing crops to reduce water loss
not planting crops at all.
Indicators for sustainable water resource development include the average annual flow of rivers from rainfall, flows from outside a country, the percentage of water coming from outside a country, and gross water withdrawal. It is estimated that agricultural practices consume 69% of the world's fresh water.
Farmers discovered a way to save water using wool in Wyoming and other parts of the United States.
Social factors
Rural economic development
Sustainable agriculture attempts to solve multiple problems with one broad solution. The goal of sustainable agricultural practices is to decrease environmental degradation due to farming while increasing crop–and thus food–output. There are many varying strategies attempting to use sustainable farming practices in order to increase rural economic development within small-scale farming communities. Two of the most popular and opposing strategies within the modern discourse are allowing unrestricted markets to determine food production and deeming food a human right. Neither of these approaches have been proven to work without fail. A promising proposal to rural poverty reduction within agricultural communities is sustainable economic growth; the most important aspect of this policy is to regularly include the poorest farmers in the economy-wide development through the stabilization of small-scale agricultural economies.
Dr. Carver teaching farmers from a Jesup Wagon.
In the early 1900's in rural America, Dr. George Washington Carver attempted to address rural poverty by teaching sustainable agricultural practices. He invented the Jesup Wagon, an agricultural school on wheels so Dr. Carver could reach the rural farmers and teach them sustainable farming at their own farms, giving the farmers hands-on practice and experience. Some of the teachings Dr. Carver brought to rural areas were breaking monoculture farming practices, typically of cotton, and teaching the importance of crop rotation, composting, and nutrients in the soil like nitrogen. Dr. Carver's teachings and impact lead to much of the modern day agricultural movements in the United States. His legacy continues as a part of the USDA's Agricultural Research Service (ARS) headquarters, which was named after him. There, they continue to expand upon Dr. Carver's focus on soil health and conservation in order to mitigate the causes and impacts of climate change.
In 2007, the United Nations reported on "Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa", stating that using sustainable agriculture could be a tool in reaching global food security without expanding land usage and reducing environmental impacts. There has been evidence provided by developing nations from the early 2000s stating that when people in their communities are not factored into the agricultural process that serious harm is done. The social scientist Charles Kellogg has stated that, "In a final effort, exploited people pass their suffering to the land." Sustainable agriculture mean the ability to permanently and continuously "feed its constituent populations".
There are a lot of opportunities that can increase farmers' profits, improve communities, and continue sustainable practices. For example, in Uganda, Genetically Modified Organisms were originally illegal. However, with the stress of banana crisis in Uganda, where Banana Bacterial Wilt had the potential to wipe out 90% of yield, they decided to explore GMOs as a possible solution. The government issued the National Biotechnology and Biosafety bill, which will allow scientists that are part of the National Banana Research Program to start experimenting with genetically modified organisms. This effort has the potential to help local communities because a significant portion live off the food they grow themselves, and it will be profitable because the yield of their main produce will remain stable.
Not all regions are suitable for agriculture. The technological advancement of the past few decades has allowed agriculture to develop in some of these regions. For example, Nepal has built greenhouses to deal with its high altitude and mountainous regions. Greenhouses allow for greater crop production and also use less water since they are closed systems.
Desalination techniques can turn salt water into fresh water which allows greater access to water for areas with a limited supply. This allows the irrigation of crops without decreasing natural fresh water sources. While desalination can be a tool to provide water to areas that need it to sustain agriculture, it requires money and resources. Regions of China have been considering large scale desalination in order to increase access to water, but the current cost of the desalination process makes it impractical.
Women working in sustainable agriculture come from numerous backgrounds, ranging from academia to labor. From 1978 to 2007, in the United States, the number of women farm operators has tripled. In 2007, women operated 14 percent of farms, compared to five percent in 1978. Much of the growth is due to women farming outside of the "male dominated field of conventional agriculture".
The practice of growing food in the backyard of houses, schools, etc., by families or by communities became widespread in the US at the time of World War I, the Great Depression and World War II, so that in one point of time 40% of the vegetables of the USA was produced in this way. The practice became more popular again in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. This method permits to grow food in a relatively sustainable way and at the same time can make it easier for poor people to obtain food.
Economic factors
Costs, such as environmental problems, not covered in traditional accounting systems (which take into account only the direct costs of production incurred by the farmer) are known as externalities.
Triple bottom line frameworks include social and environmental alongside a financial bottom line. A sustainable future can be feasible if growth in material consumption and population is slowed down and if there is a drastic increase in the efficiency of material and energy use. To make that transition, long- and short-term goals will need to be balanced enhancing equity and quality of life.
According to the report of United Nations from 2025, hunger increases globally for 6 years in a row. As funding become scarce, a possible solution is "investment in sustainable agriculture, which is four times more cost-effective than direct food assistance but only accounts for three percent of humanitarian funds."[102]
Challenges and debates
Barriers
The barriers to sustainable agriculture can be broken down and understood through three different dimensions. These three dimensions are seen as the core pillars to sustainability: social, environmental, and economic pillars. The social pillar addresses issues related to the conditions in which societies are born into, growing in, and learning from. It deals with shifting away from traditional practices of agricultural and moving into new sustainable practices that will create better societies and conditions. The environmental pillar addresses climate change and focuses on agricultural practices that protect the environment for future generations. The economic pillar discovers ways in which sustainable agriculture can be practiced while fostering economic growth and stability, with minimal disruptions to livelihoods. All three pillars must be addressed to determine and overcome the barriers preventing sustainable agricultural practices.
Social barriers to sustainable agriculture include cultural shifts, the need for collaboration, incentives, and new legislation. The move from conventional to sustainable agriculture will require significant behavioural changes from both farmers and consumers. Cooperation and collaboration between farmers is necessary to successfully transition to sustainable practices with minimal complications. This can be seen as a challenge for farmers who care about competition and profitability. There must also be an incentive for farmers to change their methods of agriculture. The use of public policy, advertisements, and laws that make sustainable agriculture mandatory or desirable can be utilized to overcome these social barriers.
Pesticide use remains a common practice in agriculture.
Environmental barriers prevent the ability to protect and conserve the natural ecosystem. Examples of these barriers include the use of pesticides and the effects of climate change. Pesticides are widely used to combat pests that can devastate production and plays a significant role in keeping food prices and production costs low. To move toward sustainable agriculture, farmers are encouraged to utilize green pesticides, which cause less harm to both human health and habitats, but would entail a higher production cost. Climate change is also a rapidly growing barrier, one that farmers have little control over, which can be seen through place-based barriers. These place-based barriers include factors such as weather conditions, topography, and soil quality which can cause losses in production, resulting in the reluctance to switch from conventional practices. Many environmental benefits are also not visible or immediately evident. Significant changes such as lower rates of soil and nutrient loss, improved soil structure, and higher levels of beneficial microorganisms take time. In conventional agriculture, the benefits are easily visible with no weeds, pests, etc..., but the long term costs to the soil and surrounding ecosystems are hidden and "externalized". Conventional agricultural practices since the evolution of technology have caused significant damage to the environment through biodiversity loss, disrupted ecosystems, poor water quality, among other harms.
The economic obstacles to implementing sustainable agricultural practices include low financial return/profitability, lack of financial incentives, and negligible capital investments. Financial incentives and circumstances play a large role in whether sustainable practices will be adopted. The human and material capital required to shift to sustainable methods of agriculture requires training of the workforce and making investments in new technology and products, which comes at a high cost. In addition to this, farmers practicing conventional agriculture can mass-produce their crops, and therefore maximize their profitability. This would be difficult to do in sustainable agriculture which encourages low production capacity.
Community gardening is a promising method of sustainable agriculture.
The author James Howard Kunstler claims almost all modern technology is bad and that there cannot be sustainability unless agriculture is done in ancient traditional ways. Efforts toward more sustainable agriculture are supported in the sustainability community, however, these are often viewed only as incremental steps and not as an end. One promising method of encouraging sustainable agriculture is through local farming and community gardens. Incorporating local produce and agricultural education into schools, communities, and institutions can promote the consumption of freshly grown produce which will drive consumer demand.
There is a debate on the definition of sustainability regarding agriculture. The definition could be characterized by two different approaches: an ecocentric approach and a technocentric approach. The ecocentric approach emphasizes no- or low-growth levels of human development, and focuses on organic and biodynamic farming techniques with the goal of changing consumption patterns, and resource allocation and usage. The technocentric approach argues that sustainability can be attained through a variety of strategies, from the view that state-led modification of the industrial system like conservation-oriented farming systems should be implemented, to the argument that biotechnology is the best way to meet the increasing demand for food.
One can look at the topic of sustainable agriculture through two different lenses: multifunctional agriculture and ecosystem services. Both of these approaches are similar, but look at the function of agriculture differently. Those that employ the multifunctional agriculture philosophy focus on farm-centered approaches, and define function as being the outputs of agricultural activity. The central argument of multifunctionality is that agriculture is a multifunctional enterprise with other functions aside from the production of food and fiber. These functions include renewable resource management, landscape conservation and biodiversity. The ecosystem service-centered approach posits that individuals and society as a whole receive benefits from ecosystems, which are called "ecosystem services". In sustainable agriculture, the services that ecosystems provide include pollination, soil formation, and nutrient cycling, all of which are necessary functions for the production of food.
It is also claimed sustainable agriculture is best considered as an ecosystem approach to agriculture, called agroecology.
Ethics
Most agricultural professionals agree that there is a "moral obligation to pursue [the] goal [of] sustainability." The major debate comes from what system will provide a path to that goal because if an unsustainable method is used on a large scale it will have a massive negative effect on the environment and human population.
Methods
Countries' evaluation of trends in the use of selected management practices and approaches.
Other practices include polyculture, growing a diverse number of perennial crops in a single field, each of which would grow in separate seasons so as not to compete with each other for natural resources. This system would result in increased resistance to diseases and decreased effects of erosion and loss of nutrients in the soil. Nitrogen fixation from legumes, for example, used in conjunction with plants that rely on nitrate from the soil for growth, helps to allow the land to be reused annually. Legumes will grow for a season and replenish the soil with ammonium and nitrate, and the next season other plants can be seeded and grown in the field in preparation for harvest.
Sustainable methods of weed management may help reduce the development of herbicide-resistant weeds. Crop rotation may also replenish nitrogen if legumes are used in the rotations and may also use resources more efficiently.
There are also many ways to practice sustainable animal husbandry. Some of the tools to grazing management include fencing off the grazing area into smaller areas called paddocks, lowering stock density, and moving the stock between paddocks frequently.
Within the realm of sustainable agriculture methods, the integration of different farming practices is gaining recognition for its potential to enhance efficiency and reduce environmental impact. For example, research on integrated wheat-fish farming in Egypt has demonstrated increased overall productivity and potential for reduced reliance on external inputs. This approach, aligning with principles seen in other integrated systems like rice-fish culture, underscores the value of diversifying the combing farming activities for greater sustainability.
An increased production is a goal of intensification. Sustainable intensification encompasses specific agriculture methods that increase production and at the same time help improve environmental outcomes. The desired outcomes of the farm are achieved without the need for more land cultivation or destruction of natural habitat; the system performance is upgraded with no net environmental cost. Sustainable Intensification has become a priority for the United Nations. Sustainable intensification differs from prior intensification methods by specifically placing importance on broader environmental outcomes. By 2018; it was predicted in 100 nations a combined total of 163 million farms used sustainable intensification. The amount of agricultural land covered by this is 453 million ha of land. That amount of land is equal to 29% of farms worldwide. In light of concerns about food security, human population growth and dwindling land suitable for agriculture, sustainable intensive farming practises are needed to maintain high crop yields, while maintaining soil health and ecosystem services. The capacity for ecosystem services to be strong enough to allow a reduction in use of non-renewable inputs whilst maintaining or boosting yields has been the subject of much debate. Recent work in irrigated rice production system of east Asia has suggested that – in relation to pest management at least – promoting the ecosystem service of biological control using nectar plants can reduce the need for insecticides by 70% whilst delivering a 5% yield advantage compared with standard practice.
Vertical farming is a concept with the potential advantages of year-round production, isolation from pests and diseases, controllable resource recycling and reduced transportation costs.
Drought resistant crops have been researched extensively as a means to overcome the issue of water shortage. They are modified genetically so they can adapt in an environment with little water. This is beneficial as it reduces the need for irrigation and helps conserve water. Although they have been extensively researched, significant results have not been achieved as most of the successful species will have no overall impact on water conservation. However, some grains like rice, for example, have been successfully genetically modified to be drought resistant.
Soil and nutrients
Soil amendments include using compost from recycling centers. Using compost from yard and kitchen waste uses available resources in the area.
Abstinence from soil tillage before planting and leaving the plant residue after harvesting reduces soil water evaporation; It also serves to prevent soil erosion.
Crop residues left covering the surface of the soil may result in reduced evaporation of water, a lower surface soil temperature, and reduction of wind effects.
A way to make rock phosphate more effective is to add microbial inoculates such as phosphate-solubilizing microorganisms, known as PSMs, to the soil. These solubilize phosphorus already in the soil and use processes like organic acid production and ion exchange reactions to make that phosphorus available for plants. Experimentally, these PSMs have been shown to increase crop growth in terms of shoot height, dry biomass and grain yield.
Phosphorus uptake is even more efficient with the presence of mycorrhizae in the soil. Mycorrhiza is a type of mutualistic symbiotic association between plants and fungi, which are well-equipped to absorb nutrients, including phosphorus, in soil. These fungi can increase nutrient uptake in soil where phosphorus has been fixed by aluminum, calcium, and iron. Mycorrhizae can also release organic acids that solubilize otherwise unavailable phosphorus.
Pests and weeds
Sheet steaming with a MSD/moeschle steam boiler (left side)
Soil steaming can be used as an alternative to chemicals for soil sterilization. Different methods are available to induce steam into the soil to kill pests and increase soil health.
Solarizing is based on the same principle, used to increase the temperature of the soil to kill pathogens and pests.
Certain plants can be cropped for use as biofumigants, "natural" fumigants, releasing pest suppressing compounds when crushed, ploughed into the soil, and covered in plastic for four weeks. Plants in the Brassicaceae family release large amounts of toxic compounds such as methyl isothiocyanates.
Location
Relocating current croplands to environmentally more optimal locations, whilst allowing ecosystems in then-abandoned areas to regenerate could substantially decrease the current carbon, biodiversity, and irrigation water footprint of global crop production, with relocation only within national borders also having substantial potential.
Plants
Sustainability may also involve crop rotation. Crop rotation and cover crops prevent soil erosion, by protecting topsoil from wind and water. Effective crop rotation can reduce pest pressure on crops, provides weed control, reduces disease build up, and improves the efficiency of soil nutrients and nutrient cycling. This reduces the need for fertilizers and pesticides. Increasing the diversity of crops by introducing new genetic resources can increase yields by 10 to 15 percent compared to when they are grown in monoculture. Perennial crops reduce the need for tillage and thus help mitigate soil erosion, and may sometimes tolerate drought better, increase water quality and help increase soil organic matter. There are research programs attempting to develop perennial substitutes for existing annual crops, such as replacing wheat with the wild grass Thinopyrum intermedium, or possible experimental hybrids of it and wheat. Being able to do all of this without the use of chemicals is one of the main goals of sustainability which is why crop rotation is a very central method of sustainable agriculture.
Landscape management strategies
Sustainable agriculture is not limited to practices within individual plots but can also be considered at the landscape scale. This broader approach is particularly relevant for reconciling biodiversity conservation while maintaining sufficient agricultural production. In this context, two landscape management strategies are traditionally opposed: land sparing and land sharing. These two strategies have generated intense debate within the scientific community for over a decade, with no clear consensus emerging on their relative effectiveness in balancing biodiversity conservation with food production and rural livelihoods. A literature review of empirical studies indicates that land sparing is generally favored for conserving tropical forestbiodiversity (67% of relevant studies), whereas land sharing (58% of studies) is more often considered more beneficial for the food security and livelihoods of farmers in developing countries. Recently, a third alternative has been introduced to the debate: the so-called land blending strategy, an intermediate approach between the two traditional ones, as the effectiveness of both strategies appears to vary depending on the landscape context.
Schematic representation of the landscape management strategies considered in the land sharing vs. land sparing debate. Black frames represent landscapes and green shapes indicate biodiversity (i.e.nature elements).
Land sparing
Land sparing is a strategy that involves strictly separating land dedicated to agricultural production from land dedicated to conservation of natural habitats. This strategy promotes increasing the yield of agricultural land, particularly through intensive farming. This is done to preserve areas of major biodiversity interest from agricultural expansion. This has been the dominant strategy in developed countries for over 150 years.
Land sharing
Land sharing, also known as "wildlife-friendly agriculture", involves integrating biodiversity into agricultural production areas. This approach focuses on the combination of agriculture and biodiversity by reducing the intensification of farming practices. This is illustrated notably by agroecological practices such as agroforestry and mixed crop-livestock systems.
Land blending
Previously described as a "mixed strategy", a term considered too ambiguous in ecology, land blending is an intermediate approach between land sparing and land sharing. Unlike these two traditionally opposed strategies, land blending offers a flexible combination of the two approaches, adapted to the specific landscape features. This third strategy has only recently emerged as a credible and viable alternative to the traditional land sparing and land sharing. Recent research has highlighted its potential for effectively reconciling biodiversity conservation and agricultural production, while enhancing resilience in the face of change and uncertainty.
an integrated farming system that strives for sustainability, the enhancement of soil fertility and biological diversity whilst, with rare exceptions, prohibiting synthetic pesticides, antibiotics, synthetic fertilizers, genetically modified organisms, and growth hormones.
Some claim organic agriculture may produce the most sustainable products available for consumers in the US, where no other alternatives exist, although the focus of the organics industry is not sustainability.
In 2018 the sales of organic products in USA reach $52.5 billion. According to a USDA survey, two-thirds of Americans consume organic products at least occasionally. Recent syntheses estimate that carbon dioxide emissions from land-use change and forestry are about 3–4 GtCO2 per year, contributing roughly 10–12% of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions in recent years.
Ecological farming
Ecological farming is a concept that focused on the environmental aspects of sustainable agriculture. Ecological farming includes all methods, including organic, which regenerate ecosystem services like: prevention of soil erosion, water infiltration and retention, carbon sequestration in the form of humus, and increased biodiversity. Many techniques are used including no-till farming, multispecies cover crops, strip cropping, terrace cultivation, shelter belts, pasture cropping etc.
There are a plethora of methods and techniques that are employed when practicing ecological farming, all having their own unique benefits and implementations that lead to more sustainable agriculture. Crop genetic diversity is one method that is used to reduce the risks associated with monoculture crops, which can be susceptible to a changing climate. This form of biodiversity causes crops to be more resilient, increasing food security and enhancing the productivity of the field on a long-term scale. The use of biodigestors is another method which converts organic waste into a combustible gas, which can provide several benefits to an ecological farm: it can be used as a fuel source, fertilizer for crops and fish ponds, and serves as a method for removing wastes that are rich in organic matter. Because biodigestors can be used as fertilizer, it reduces the amount of industrial fertilizers that are needed to sustain the yields of the farm. Another technique used is aquaculture integration, which combines fish farming with agricultural farming, using the wastes from animals and crops and diverting them towards the fish farms to be used up instead of being leeched into the environment. Mud from the fish ponds can also be used to fertilize crops.
Organic fertilizers can also be employed in an ecological farm, such as animal and green manure. This allows soil fertility to be improved and well-maintained, leads to reduced costs and increased yields, reduces the usage of non-renewable resources in industrial fertilizers (Nitrogen and Phosphorus), and reduces the environmental pressures that are posed by intensive agricultural systems. Precision Agriculture can also be used, which focuses on efficient removal of pests using non-chemical techniques and minimizes the amount of tilling needed to sustain the farm. An example of a precision machine is the false seedbed tiller, which can remove a great majority of small weeds while only tilling one centimeter deep. This minimized tilling reduces the amount of new weeds that germinate from soil disturbance. Other methods that reduce soil erosion include contour farming, strip cropping, and terrace cultivation.
Benefits
Ecological farming involves the introduction of symbiotic species, where possible, to support the ecological sustainability of the farm. Associated benefits include a reduction in ecological debt and elimination of dead zones.
Ecological farming is a pioneering, practical development which aims to create globally sustainable land management systems, and encourages review of the importance of maintaining biodiversity in food production and farming end products.
One foreseeable option is to develop specialized automata to scan and respond to soil and plant situations relative to intensive care for the soil and the plants. Accordingly, conversion to ecological farming may best utilize the information age, and become recognised as a primary user of robotics and expert systems.
Challenges
The challenge for ecological farming science is to be able to achieve a mainstream productive food system that is sustainable or even regenerative. To enter the field of ecological farming, location relative to the consumer, can reduce the food miles factor to help minimise damage to the biosphere by combustion engine emissions involved in current food transportation.
Design of the ecological farm is initially constrained by the same limitations as conventional farming: local climate, the soil's physical properties, budget for beneficial soil supplements, manpower and available automatons; however long-term water management by ecological farming methods is likely to conserve and increase water availability for the location, and require far fewer inputs to maintain fertility.
Principles
Certain principles unique to ecological farming need to be considered.
Food production should be ecological in both origin and destiny (the term destiny refers to the post-harvest ecological footprint which results in getting produce to the consumer).
Integration of species that maintain ecosystem services whilst providing a selection of alternative products.
Minimise food miles, packaging, energy consumption and waste.
Define a new ecosystem to suit human needs using lessons from existing ecosystems from around the world.
Apply the value of a knowledge-base (advanced data base) about soil microorganisms so that discoveries of the ecological benefits of having various kinds of microorganisms encouraged in productive systems such as Forest Gardens can be assessed and optimised; for example in the case of naturally occurring microorganisms called denitrifiers.
Some traditional systems combine polyculture with sustainability. In South-East Asia, rice-fish systems on rice paddies have raised freshwater fish as well as rice, producing an additional product and reducing eutrophication of neighboring rivers. A variant in Indonesia combines rice, fish, ducks and water fern; the ducks eat the weeds that would otherwise limit rice growth, saving labor and herbicides, while the duck and fish manure substitute for fertilizer.
Raised field agriculture has been recently revived in certain areas of the world, such as the Altiplano region in Bolivia and Peru. This has resurged in the form of traditional Waru Waru raised fields, which create nutrient-rich soil in regions where such soil is scarce. This method is extremely productive and has recently been utilized by indigenous groups in the area and the nearby Amazon Basin to make use of lands that have been historically hard to cultivate.
Other forms of traditional agriculture include agro forestry, crop rotations, and water harvesting. Water harvesting is one of the largest and most common practices, particularly used in dry areas and seasons. In Ethiopia, over half of their GDP and over 80 percent of their exports are attributed to agriculture; yet, it is known for its intense droughts and dry periods. Rain water harvesting is considered to be a low-cost alternative. This type of harvesting collects and stores water from roof tops during high-rain periods for use during droughts. Rainwater harvesting has been a large practice to help the country survive by focusing on runoff irrigation, roof water harvesting, and flood spreading.
Indigenous Agriculture in North America
Indigenous agriculture
Native Americans in the United States practiced sustainable agriculture through their subsistence farming techniques. Many tribes grew or harvested their own food from plants that thrived in their local ecosystems. Native American farming practices are specific to local environments and work with natural processes. This is a practice called Permaculture, and it involves a deep understanding of the local environment. Native American farming techniques also incorporate local biodiversity into many of their practices, which helps the land remain healthy.
Many indigenous tribes incorporated intercropping into their agriculture, which is a practice where multiple crops are planted together in the same area. This strategy allows crops to help one another grow through exchanged nutrients, maintained soil moisture, and physical supports for one another. The crops that are paired in intercropping often do not heavily compete for resources, which helps them to each be successful. For example, many tribes utilized intercropping in ways such as the Three Sisters Garden. This gardening technique consists of corn, beans, and squash. These crops grow in unity as the corn stalk supports the beans, the beans produce nitrogen, and the squash retain moisture. Intercropping also provides a natural strategy for pest management and the prevention of weed growth. Intercropping is a natural agricultural practice that often improves the overall health of the soil and plants, increases crop yield, and is sustainable.
One of the most significant aspects of indigenous sustainable agriculture is their traditional ecological knowledge of harvesting. The Anishinaabe tribes follow an ideology known as "the Honorable Harvest". The Honorable Harvest is a set of practices that emphasize the idea that people should "take only what you need and use everything you take." Resources are conserved through this practice because several rules are followed when harvesting a plant. These rules are to never take the first plant, never take more than half of the plants, and never take the last plant. This encourages future growth of the plant and therefore leads to a sustainable use of the plants in the area.
Native Americans practiced agroforestry by managing the forest, animals, and crops together. They also helped promote tree growth through controlled burns and silviculture. Often, the remaining ash from these burns would be used to fertilize their crops. By improving the conditions of the forest, the local wildlife populations also increased. Native Americans allowed their livestock to graze in the forest, which provided natural fertilizer for the trees as well.
Regenerative agriculture is a conservation and rehabilitation approach to food and farming systems. It focuses on topsoilregeneration, increasing biodiversity, improving the water cycle, enhancing ecosystem services, supporting biosequestration, increasing resilience to climate change, and strengthening the health and vitality of farm soil. Practices include, recycling as much farm waste as possible, and adding composted material from sources outside the farm.In recent years this regenerative approach to agriculture has been gaining momentum across food system actors such as farmers and industries.
Alternative methods
Permaculture
A garden cultivated on permaculture principles
Permaculture is an approach to land management and settlement design that adopts arrangements observed in flourishing natural ecosystems. It includes a set of design principles derived using whole-systems thinking. It applies these principles in fields such as regenerative agriculture, town planning, rewilding, and community resilience. The term was coined in 1978 by Bill Mollison and David Holmgren, who formulated the concept in opposition to modern industrialized methods, instead adopting a more traditional or "natural" approach to agriculture.
Multiple thinkers in the early and mid-20th century explored no-dig gardening, no-till farming, and the concept of "permanent agriculture", which were early inspirations for the field of permaculture. Mollison and Holmgren's work from the 1970s and 1980s led to several books, starting with Permaculture One in 1978, and to the development of the "Permaculture Design Course" which has been one of the main methods of diffusion of permacultural ideas. Starting from a focus on land usage in Southern Australia, permaculture has since spread in scope to include other regions and other topics, such as appropriate technology and intentional community design.
Several concepts and practices unify the wide array of approaches labelled as permaculture. Mollison and Holmgren's three foundational ethics and Holmgren's twelve design principles are often cited and restated in permaculture literature. Practices such as companion planting, extensive use of perennial crops, and designs such as the herb spiral have been used extensively by permaculturists.
Permaculture as a popular movement has been largely isolated from scientific literature, and has been criticised for a lack of clear definition or rigorous methodology. Despite a long divide, some 21st-century studies have supported the claims that permaculture improves soil quality and biodiversity, and have identified it as a social movement capable of promoting agroecological transition away from conventional agriculture.
There is limited evidence polyculture may contribute to sustainable agriculture. A meta-analysis of a number of polycrop studies found that predator insect biodiversity was higher at comparable yields than conventional in certain two-crop systems with a single cash crop combined with a cover crop.
One approach to sustainability is to develop polyculture systems using perennial crop varieties. Such varieties are being developed for rice, wheat, sorghum, barley, and sunflowers. If these can be combined in polyculture with a leguminous cover crop such as alfalfa, fixation of nitrogen will be added to the system, reducing the need for fertilizer and pesticides.
Hydroponics is an alternative to agriculture that creates the ideal environment with water for optimal growth without using a dormant medium. This innovative farming technique produces higher crop yields without compromising soil health. The most significant drawback of this sustainable farming technique is the cost associated with development.
Standards
Certification systems are important to the agriculture community and to consumers as these standards determine the sustainability of produce. Numerous sustainability standards and certification systems exist, including organic certification, Rainforest Alliance, Fair Trade, UTZ Certified, GlobalGAP, Bird Friendly, and the Common Code for the Coffee Community (4C). These standards specify rules that producers, manufacturers and traders need to follow so that the things they do, make, or grow do not hurt people and the environment. These standards are also known as Voluntary Sustainability Standards (VSS) that are private standards that require products to meet specific economic, social or environmental sustainability metrics. The requirements can refer to product quality or attributes, but also to production and processing methods, as well as transportation.
VSS are mostly designed and marketed by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or private firms and they are adopted by actors up and down the value chain, from farmers to retailers. Certifications and labels are used to signal the successful implementation of a VSS. According to the ITC standards map the mostly covered products by standards are agricultural products. Around 500 VSS today apply to key exports of many developing countries, such as coffee, tea, bananas, cocoa, palm oil, timber, cotton, and organic agri-foods. VSS are found to reduce eutrophication, water use, greenhouse gas emissions, and natural ecosystem conversion. And thus are considered as a potential tool for sustainable agriculture.
The USDA produces an organic label that is supported by nationalized standards of farmers and facilities. The steps for certification consist of creating an organic system plan, which determines how produce will be tilled, grazed, harvested, stored, and transported. This plan also manages and monitors the substances used around the produce, the maintenance needed to protect the produce, and any nonorganic products that may come in contact with the produce. The organic system plan is then reviewed and inspected by the USDA certifying agent. Once the certification is granted, the produce receives an approval sticker from the USDA and the produce is distributed across the U.S. In order to hold farmers accountable and ensure that Americans are receiving organic produce, these inspections are done at least once a year. This is just one example of sustainable certification systems through produce maintenance.
Policy
Delaware Valley University's "Roth Center for Sustainable Agriculture", located in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
Sustainable agriculture is a topic in international policy concerning its potential to reduce environmental risks. In 2011, the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change, as part of its recommendations for policymakers on achieving food security in the face of climate change, urged that sustainable agriculture must be integrated into national and international policy.
The Commission stressed that increasing weather variability and climate shocks will negatively affect agricultural yields, necessitating early action to drive change in agricultural production systems towards increasing resilience. It also called for dramatically increased investments in sustainable agriculture in the next decade, including in national research and development budgets, land rehabilitation, economic incentives, and infrastructure improvement.
At the global level
During 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, 45 countries pledged to give more than 4 billion dollars for transition to sustainable agriculture. The organization "Slow Food" expressed concern about the effectivity of the spendings, as they concentrate on technological solutions and reforestation in place of "a holistic agroecology that transforms food from a mass-produced commodity into part of a sustainable system that works within natural boundaries."
Additionally, the Summit consisted of negotiations that led to heavily reducing CO2 emissions, becoming carbon neutral, ending deforestation and reliance on coal, and limiting methane emissions.
In November, the Climate Action Tracker reported that global efforts are on track to for a 2.7°C temperature increase with current policies, finding that the current targets will not meet global needs as coal and natural gas consumption are primarily responsible for the gap in progress. Since, like-minded developing countries, like those in Africa, asked for an addendum to the agreement that removed the obligation for developing countries to meet the same requirements of wealthy nations.
In May 2020 the European Union published a program, named "From Farm to Fork" for making its agriculture more sustainable. In the official page of the program From Farm to Fork is cited Frans Timmermans the Executive Vice-President of the European Commission, saying that:
The coronavirus crisis has shown how vulnerable we all are, and how important it is to restore the balance between human activity and nature. At the heart of the Green Deal the Biodiversity and Farm to Fork strategies point to a new and better balance of nature, food systems, and biodiversity; to protect our people's health and well-being, and at the same time to increase the EU's competitiveness and resilience. These strategies are a crucial part of the great transition we are embarking upon.
The New Deal implemented policies and programs that promoted sustainable agriculture. Under the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933, it provided farmers payments to create a supply management regime that capped production of important crops. This allowed farmers to focus on growing food and not competing in the market based system. The New Deal also provided a monetary incentive for farmers that left some of their fields unsown or ungrazed to order to improve the soil conditions. The Cooperative Extension Service was also established that set up sharing funding responsibilities amongst the USDA, land-grant universities, and local communities.
The 1950s to 1990s was when the government switched its stance on agriculture policy which halted sustainable agriculture. The Agricultural Act of 1954 passed which supported farmers with flexible price supports, but only to commodity programs. The Food and Agricultural Act of 1965 had new income support payments and continued supply controls but reduced priced supports. Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 removed price supports and instead introduced target prices and deficiency payments. It continued to promote commodity crops by lowering interest rates. Food Security Act of 1985 continued commodity loan programs. These policies incentivized profit over sustainability because the US government was promoting farms to maximize their production output instead of placing checks. This meant that farms were being turned into food factories as they became bigger in size and grew more commodity crops like corn, wheat, and cotton. From 1900 to 2002, the number of farms in the US decreased significantly while the average size of a farm went up after 1950. The U.S was almost annually setting new records in crop-production and labor efficiency for 40 years after WWII.
Current policies
In the United States, the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA) provides technical and financial assistance for those interested in pursuing natural resource conservation along with production agriculture. With programs like SARE and China-UK SAIN to help promote research on sustainable agriculture practices and a framework for agriculture and climate change respectively.
Future policies
Currently, there are policies on the table that could move the US agriculture system into a more sustainable direction with the Green New Deal. This policy promotes decentralizing agrarian governance by breaking up large commodity farms that were created in the 1950s to 1980s. Decentralized governance within the farming community would allow for more adaptive management at local levels to help focus on climate change mitigation, food security, and landscape-scale ecological stewardship. The Green New Deal would invest in public infrastructure to support farmers transition from industrial food regime and acquire agroecological skills. Just like in the New Deal, it would invest in cooperatives and commons to share and redistribute resources like land, food, equipment, research facilities, personnel, and training programs. All of these policies and programs would break down barriers that have prevented sustainable farmers and agriculture from taking place in the United States.
Current movements in the U.S.
In the United States there has been a movement with key advocates like Leah Penniman for sustainable agriculture. Leah Penniman has been a science teacher, farmer, writer, and Co-Founder of Soul Fire Farm. Soul Fire Farm uses regenerative agriculture and many of the techniques invented by George Washington Carver. Penniman wrote the book Farming While Black: Soul Fire Farm's Practical Guide to Liberation on the Land which guides African-heritage farmers on Afro-Indigenous sustainable farming practices while highlighting their historical contributions to sustainable agriculture as well. The community farm built by Penniman is also a training center whose goal is to end racism in agriculture.
Like Penniman, Dr. Monica M. White has been advocating for the use of more sustainable agriculture. Her focus has been on the expansion of urban agriculture and how it's more sustainable in a food desert, such as Detroit. Members of the community in Detroit, referred to as D-Town, offer workshops about healthy food choices, composting, and "the importance of sustainable agriculture."
Asia
China
In 2016, the Chinese government adopted a plan to reduce China's meat consumption by 50%, for achieving more sustainable and healthy food system.
In 2019, the National Basic Research Program or Program 973 funded research into Science and Technology Backyard (STB). STBs are hubs often created in rural areas with significant rates of small-scale farming that combine knowledge of traditional practices with new innovations and technology implementation. The purpose of this program was to invest in sustainable farming throughout the country and increase food production while achieving few negative environmental effects. The program was ultimately proven to be successful, and the study found that the merging of traditional practices and appropriate technology was instrumental in higher crop yields.
India
In collaboration with the Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU), CEEW (council for energy, environment and water), has given an overview of the current state of sustainable agriculture practices and systems (SAPSs) in India. India is aiming to scale-up SAPs, through policymakers, administrators, philanthropists, and other which represent a vital alternative to conventional, input-intensive agriculture. In idea these efforts identify 16 SAPSs–including agroforestry, crop rotation, rainwater harvesting, organic farming and natural farming–using agroecology as an investigative lens. In a conclusive understanding it is realised that sustainable agriculture is far from mainstream in India. Further proposals for several measures for promoting SAPSs, including restructured government support and rigorous evidence generation for benefits and implementation of sustainable farming are ongoing progress in Indian Agriculture.
An example of initiatives in India towards exploring the world of sustainable farming has been set by the Sowgood foundation which is a nonprofit founded by educator Pragati Chaswal. It started by teaching primary school children about sustainable farming by helping them farm on small farm strips in suburban farmhouses and gardens. Today many government and private schools in Delhi, India have adopted the sowgood foundation curriculum for sustainable farming for their students.
Other countries
Israel
In 2012, the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture found itself at the height of the Israeli commitment to sustainable agriculture policy. A large factor of this policy was funding programs that made sustainable agriculture accessible to smaller Palestinian-Arab communities. The program was meant to create biodiversity, train farmers in sustainable agriculture methods, and hold regular meetings for agriculture stakeholders.
History
In 1907, the American author Franklin H. King discussed in his book Farmers of Forty Centuries the advantages of sustainable agriculture and warned that such practices would be vital to farming in the future. The phrase 'sustainable agriculture' was reportedly coined by the Australian agronomistGordon McClymont. The term became popular in the late 1980s. There was an international symposium on sustainability in horticulture by the International Society of Horticultural Science at the International Horticultural Congress in Toronto in 2002. At the following conference at Seoul in 2006, the principles were discussed further.
This potential future inability to feed the world's population has been a concern since the English political economist Thomas Malthus in the early 1800s, but has become increasingly important recently. Starting at the very end of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, this issue became widely discussed in the U.S. because of growing anxieties of a rapidly increasing global population. Agriculture has long been the biggest industry worldwide and requires significant land, water, and labor inputs. At the turn of the twenty-first century, experts questioned the industry's ability to keep up with population growth. This debate led to concerns over global food insecurity and "solving hunger".
