The New American Farmer and Communities

John Ikerd

University of Missouri

(Presented at the Practical Farmers of Iowa Winter Workshop, Ames, IA. January 14-15, 2000.)

In a new book, "The End of Agriculture in the American Portfolio," economist Steven C. Blank envisions the coming end of the American farm - a future of agriculture undoubtedly shared by many in the conventional agricultural establishment. American agricultural production is destined to end, he argues, but this should be no cause for alarm. He contends that the end of American agricultural production is the result of a natural process that is making us all better off. He foresees a time in the not too distant future when the U.S. will import nearly all of its foodstuffs from other countries. Costs of land and labor in the U.S. will be too high for American farmers to be competitive in food production. He argues that the inevitable creeping globalization of the food system is not some corporate conspiracy but is simply the sum of individual struggles of farmers and agribusiness in America and around the world who quite logically are pursuing their individual self interests to the benefit of society in ge
neral.

The purpose for rural communities in the future will be to provide living space for a growing and increasingly affluent population fleeing the problems of urbanization. Cornfields are unable to compete with condominiums for farmland. Rural ways of life will give way to urban ways of life as farms become residential ranchettes. Virtual communities of people interconnected by the Internet will replace real communities of people who meet face-to-face in church or at the grocery store. Communities of interest will replace communities of place. Agriculture will no longer be a significant factor in the rural economy. Most people in the community will be employed elsewhere -- perhaps by companies thousands of miles away. Blank claims the only forms of truly sustainable agriculture will be those compatible with urban life - mainly golf courses, nurseries, and turf farms.

Blank's fundamental arguments are based on the premise that economic considerations ultimately will prevail over all others. He assumes that industrial agribusiness will replace family farms because they are "more efficient" and American agribusiness eventually will be displaced by even "more efficient" producers elsewhere in the global market. Residential ranchettes will replace rural farmsteads because people with high-tech jobs can pay more for land to look at than farm families can afford to pay to work it. Blank also assumes industrialization will continue its domination of agricultural production and distribution.

If these assumptions were an accurate reflection of reality, then Blank's predictions would be reasonable. If the world, at some point in the future, completely abandons common sense for some economic pseudo-reality, then Blank's predictions actually could come true. Admittedly, economics has become the dominant religion of our American society, and it is being rapidly spread around the world. But, people have not yet abandoned common sense - at least not completely. There is still hope that wisdom will prevail over the dogma of economics and there will be a future for farming in America - that the twenty-first century will bring the end of the industrial era and the emergence of the new American farm.

The Crisis in American Agriculture

American agriculture admittedly is in crisis. Until recently, the crisis had been a quiet one. No one wanted to talk about it. Thousands of farm families were being forced off the land, but we were being told by the agricultural establishment that their exodus was inevitable - in fact, was a sign of progress. Those who failed were simply the victims of their own inefficiency -- their inability to keep up with changing times, their inability to compete. But in fact, it's not inefficiency or resistance to change that is forcing families to leave their farms. It's our collective obsession with our short-run, economic self interests. It's our worship of markets as the only true arbitrators of value. It's our acceptance of corporate greed as the only road to true prosperity. The crisis in American agriculture is neither inevitable, nor is it a sign of progress.

With farm prices at record low levels for two years running, the agriculture establishment has begun to take notice. Congress has passed emergency farm legislation the past two years. But even now, the farm crisis is being blamed on such mundane things as "exceptionally good" global weather, problems in Pacific Rim financial markets, European trade restrictions, and an inadequate government "safety net." The crisis is a simple matter of supply and demand, they say. The only solutions they propose are to tinker with government policy or, better yet, to simply wait for markets to recover. The only alternatives farmers are being offered are to get big enough to be competitive, get a corporate contract to reduce risks, or get out of farming. But, getting big, giving in, or getting out are not the only alternatives.

The crisis in American agriculture is a chronic symptom of the type of agriculture we have been promoting in this country for the past fifty years -- an industrial agriculture. Reoccurring financial crises are the consequence of our encouraging farmers to industrialize - to become more specialized, standardized and larger in scale so consumers can have more cheap food. We rationalize the displacement of family farmers in the process as "freeing people from the drudgery of farming" so they can find better jobs in town.

Chronic crisis in American agriculture has meant chronic crisis in America's rural communities. As farms have become more specialized they have grown larger and fewer. The fundamental purpose of most rural communities was to support those engaged in agriculture or some other natural resource based enterprise, such as mining, timber, or fisheries in the surrounding area. But, it takes people, not just production, to support a community. The larger farms tend to bypass rural communities in buying the production inputs and marketing their products. In addition, a rural community is far more than a rural economy. It takes people to fill the church pews and school desks, to serve on town councils, to justify investments in health care and other social services, to do the things that make a community. As farms have grown larger and fewer, many rural communities have withered and died.

The promise of profits is the bait that keeps farmers on the technology treadmill. Farmers adopt new cost cutting and production enhancing technologies to increase profits, but the resulting increases in production cause prices to fall, eliminating profits of the early adopters and driving the laggards out of business. This technology treadmill has been driving farmers off the land for decades. Those remaining on the treadmill after each crisis must run faster and faster just to survive. Soon, they don't have time for their families, let alone their communities. They can't afford to care too much about their neighbor for they know soon, that to survive, they will have to have their neighbor's land.

Crisis is chronic, but the current crisis has a new dimension. The current crisis reflects a brazen attempt by the giant corporations to seize control of American agriculture, to move beyond specialization and standardization, to centralize command and control - to complete the industrialization of agriculture. This final stage of industrialization also is turning once peaceful farms into odious factories, with all of the noxious odors, environmental degradation, and inhuman working conditions that characterized heavy industry of earlier times. This final stage of industrialization could well spell the end of the American farm, and with it, the American rural community.

Once American agriculture has become fully industrialized, it will respond even more efficiently to global markets - there will be no sentimental attachment of corporate producers to any particular farm, geographic region, or nation. If costs of land and labor are less in some country other than in America, as they almost certainly will be, then that's where America's food will be produced. Capital and management can be shifted easily from America to other countries around the globe - as we have seen in the production of other industrial goods.

The food and fiber industry most certainly has a future, people will always need food, clothing, and shelter, and someone will provide them. But there will be no future of farming in American unless we challenge the conventional wisdom that food should be produced wherever on the globe it can be produced at the lowest cost and that "free markets" should be the final arbitrators of all value. In fact, there will be no future for farming anywhere - not true farming -- not unless we have the courage to challenge and disprove the conventional wisdom that farmers must get bigger, give in to corporate control, or get out. But there are better alternatives for farmers and for society, if we can find the courage to challenge the basic assumptions of a society obsessed with short-run, self-interests. All we need is the courage to use our common sense. The future of American farms and of rural communities is mainly up to us.

Challenging the Conventional Wisdom of Economics

What's happening in agriculture today is no different from what has already happened in most other sectors of the economy - at least not in concept. We are told that industrialization is the inevitable consequence of human enlightenment and technological progress. But, the industrialization of agriculture is neither enlightened nor progressive. It is being driven by the same force that now threatens the integrity of our democratic society and the health of our natural environment - a blind faith in the economics of narrow, short run, self-interest. Industrialists have a deeply held faith that the promise of more profits, no matter how small, is the best means of allocating resources - whether it is allocation of people among alternative occupations, land among alternative uses, money among investments, or people among communities. All things that are possible and profitable are done in the name of economic progress.

However, the science of economics was never meant to be limited to the pursuit of the narrow, short-run self-interest of individuals. Adam Smith, proclaimed more than 200 years ago, in his The Wealth of Nations, that each person pursuing their individual self-interests, results in the greatest good for society as a whole -- "as if by an invisible hand." Smith's words revolutionized economic thinking and remain the foundation for conventional economic thought today. But, Smith certainly did not claim that only the narrow, self-interests of individuals were important. Instead, he simply observed that the broad interest of society in general seemed to be well served in the process of individuals pursuing their own short-run self interest. Pursuit of self-interest seemed but a convenient means to a far nobler end.

Smith's invisible hand probably worked reasonably well 200 years ago - given the economy and society of that time. Most economic enterprises were small, family operations. Farming was still the dominant occupation. Few enterprises were large enough to have any impact on the marketplace as a whole. It was fairly easy for people to take on a new enterprise that seemed profitable and to drop one that seemed to be losing money. Thus, profits were quickly competed away and losses didn't persist for long in highly competitive local markets. In general, communications between individual producers and consumers were clear back then because their connections were simple and often personal. All of these things were essential in the transformation of pursuit of self-interests into societal good.

In Smith's times, human populations were small enough and technologies were sufficiently benign that people could have little permanent impact on their natural environment - at least not on a global scale. Back then, strong cultural, moral, and social values dictated the norms and standards of "acceptable" individual behavior. Smith could not conceive of a society in which the welfare of the poor and hungry would not matter, or where people in general would behave in unethical or immoral ways. "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, on which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable" (p 36).

In the environment of 200 years ago, conventional economic thinking might have served the interests of society reasonably well. But, the world has changed. Today, most sectors of the U.S. economy are dominated by large corporate enterprises. Corporations are inherently non-human entities - they have no ethics or sense of community. Corporate profits are far larger than any concept of "normal" profits envisioned in classical economics. Producers and consumers have become disconnected, geographically and conceptually, as a consequence of industrialization. Consumers no longer have any personal knowledge of where their products come from or of who is involved in their production. They must rely on a complex set of standards, rules, and regulations for product information, and today's advertising consists of "disinformation" by design. Superficial product differentiation abounds, making price competition impotent if not impossible.

In today's society there are no logical reasons to believe that pursuit of self interests is the best means of meeting the needs of society. But, powerful economic and political interests have tremendous stakes in maintaining the belief in an "invisible hand." It justifies their selfishness and greed. It legitimizes their endless accumulation of economic wealth. Thoughtful economists know the assumptions which must hold for truly competitive markets are no longer valid. But, few have the courage to speak out. The economic assumptions of 200 years ago are no longer adequate. It's time to rethink the economic foundation for our society. We need to face up to the truth.

In addition, human activities are no longer ecologically benign -- if they ever really were. The pressures of growing populations and rising per capita consumption are now depleting resources of the land far faster than they can be regenerated by nature. Wastes and contaminants from human activities are being generated at rates far in excess of the capacity of the natural environment to absorb and detoxify them. Fossil fuels, the engine of twentieth-century economic development, are being depleted at rates infinitely faster than they can ever be replenished. Human population pressures are destroying other biological species upon which the survival of humanity may be ultimately depend. The human species is now capable of destroying almost everything that makes up the biosphere we call Earth, including humanity itself. The economics of Adam Smith didn't address environmental issues, and neither do the free market economics of today.

Social and ethical values no longer constrain the expression of selfishness. The society of Smith's day was weak on economics - hunger, disease and early death were common -- but it had a strong cultural and moral foundation. However, that social and ethical foundation has been seriously eroded over the past 200 years - by glorification of greed. Civil litigation and criminal prosecution seem to be the only limits to unethical and immoral pursuit of profit and growth. Concerns of the affluent for today's poor seem to be limited to concerns that welfare benefits may be too high or that they will be mugged or robbed if the poor become too desperate. Smith's defense of the pursuit of self-interest must be reconsidered within the context of today's society - a society that is now strong on economics but weak on community and morality.

Toward a Higher Concept of Self-Interests

It's true that people, in general, will pursue their self-interest. It's an inherent aspect of being human. But, people, by nature, do not pursue only their narrow, individual self-interest. It's within the fundamental nature of being human also to care about other people and to want to take care of the earth. People are perfectly capable of rising above selfishness and greed to pursue a higher concept of self-interest - a self-interest that values relationships and stewardship as important dimensions of individual well being.

This higher self-interests includes narrow self-interest (which focuses on individual possessions), but it also includes interests that are shared (which focuses on relationships, community, and social values) and interests that are purely altruistic (which focuses on interests one pursues only out of a sense of stewardship, ethics, or morality). All three - self-interests, shared-interests, and altruistic-interests -- contribute to one's well being or quality of life, but not in the same sense that greed might enhance one's material success. Each contributes to a higher sense of quality of life explicitly recognizing that each individual is but a part of the whole of society, which in turn must conform to some higher order or code of natural laws.

Many different people today are pursuing their higher self-interests under a common conceptual umbrella of "sustainability." In farming, we talk about the sustainable agriculture movement, but there are also movements in sustainable forestry, sustainable communities, sustainable development and sustainable society in general. The sustainability movement presents a direct challenge to conventional economic thinking. Sustainability includes concern for self-interests, but it goes beyond to protecting interests shared with others, and the interests of future generations in which we have not even a share. All of the sustainability movements share a common goal, to meet the needs of the present while leaving equal or better opportunities for those to follow - to apply the Golden Rule across generations.

There is a growing consensus among those marching under the banner of sustainability that for anything to be sustainable it must be ecologically sound, economically viable, and socially responsible. All three are necessary and none alone or no pair of two is sufficient. Economic viability is about self-interest, social responsibility is a matter of shared interest, and ecological soundness ultimately is an ethical or moral responsibility that we choose to accept for purely altruistic reasons. Self-interest, shared interests, and altruistic interests are all considered positive and worthy of pursuit. Thus, the pursuit of sustainability is a pursuit of "enlightened self-interests." Without this enlightenment, we will not choose long run sustainability over short run greed.

Farmers, in general, presumably would not use chemicals in ways that destroy their health, poison their own food, or pollute their water supply. But, the sustainable farmer must be willing to make ecological investments that will benefit others solely. Sustainability requires that we consider the health and well-being of those down wind and down stream as well as ourselves. Sustainability requires that we conserve non-renewable resources - soil, energy, clean air, and clean water -- for future generations. Thus, ecological sustainability is deeply rooted in a strong sense of stewardship - our responsibility to take care of things for the benefit of others. Stewardship is economically irrational, but still makes common sense.

Farmers, in general, recognize they must make investments of time and money in family, community and society in general - that some rewards must be shared with others. However, some may make such investments for purely selfish reasons - they expect their share of the benefits to exceed their share of the costs. But, sustainable farmers must be willing to make social investments for purely altruistic reasons - investments from which they expect no direct benefit. They benefit only from fulfilling their ethical and moral responsibilities for others. Such investments are economically irrational, but still make common sense.

The contemporary economic dimension is no less important than are the social and ecological dimensions in ensuring sustainability. A sustainable agriculture requires all three - an agriculture that is ecologically sound, socially responsible, and economically viable. Aldo Leopold, in his essay on land ethics, said we must consider the economics as well as the ethics and aesthetics. We cannot be expected to take care of others unless we are first able to take care of ourselves. Economic viability is necessary if a farmer is to maintain the authority to use the resources for which they are to be good stewards. Or to put it bluntly, if a farmer goes broke, they are not sustainable.

Conflicts arise between economics and sustainability because too often economics are allowed to dominate everything else - including relationships and stewardship. Sustainability requires a measure of profitability, but short run maximization of profit invariable leads to ecological degradation and social exploitation. Sustainability requires balance and harmony among economics and the other two. Sustainability requires that we pursue our higher self-interests, it requires that we use our common sense.

Hallmarks of the New American Farm

Farming sustainably is no simple task. But, thousands of farmers are finding ways to sustain a desirable quality of life for themselves and to support their local communities while being good stewards of the land and the natural environment. They may carry the label of organic, low-input, alternative, biodynamic, holistic, permaculture, or no label at all, but they are all pursuing common economic, ecological and social goals. By their actions, these farmers are defining a new kind of American farm.

These new American farmers are a diverse lot, but they share a common pursuit of a higher self-interest. They are not trying to maximize profit, but instead are seeking sufficient profit for a desirable quality of life. They recognize the importance of relationships, of family and community, as well as income, in determining their overall well being. They accept the responsibilities of ethics and stewardship, not as constraints to their selfishness, but instead, as opportunities to lead successful lives.

These farmers, these common people, are the architects of the New American Farm and are the foundation for new American communities. These farmers, not the experts or the scientists, are the ones on the new frontier -- the explorers, the colonists, the revolutionaries, and the builders of a "New World." Life is difficult on the frontier because no one really knows how to do what these folks are trying to do - they are creating the future. They are getting little help from the government, their universities, or the agricultural establishment. They are doing it pretty much on their own. They will continue to confront hardships, frustrations, and there will be some failures along the road. But, more and more of these new American farmers are finding ways to succeed.

There are no blue prints for the New American Farm. But a few fundamental principles are beginning to emerge. In general, the new farming opportunities arise directly from exploiting the weaknesses resulting from misuses of industrialization -- specialization, standardization, and centralized decision making. The new American farm relies instead on the advantages of diversity, individuality, and decentralized networks of interdependent decision-makers.

New American farmers focus on working with nature rather than against it. The natural resource base that ultimately must sustain productivity is inherently diverse. Industrial systems have had to bend nature -- to augment, supplement, alter, and force it -- to create an allusion of conformity out of diversity in order to meet the demands of large-scale, industrial production. The ecological problems arising from industrialization are symptoms of natural resources being used in ways that are inherently degrading to their productivity. Thus, industrialization has created tremendous opportunities for farmers who learn to utilize the inherently productive capacity of a diverse natural resource base, rather than wasting time and money trying to force nature to conform.

These new American farmers utilize practices such as management intensive grazing, integrated crop and livestock farming, diverse crop rotations, cover crops, and inter-cropping. They manage their land and labor resources to harvest solar energy, to utilize the productivity of nature, and thus, are able to reduce their reliance on external purchases inputs. They are able to reduce costs and increase profits while protecting the natural environment and supporting their local communities.

New American farmers focus on value rather than costs. They realize that each of us values things differently, as consumers, because we have different needs and different tastes and preferences. Industrial methods are efficient only if large numbers of us are willing to settle for the same basic goods and services - so they can be mass produced. So, industrialization has to treat us as if we're all pretty much the same. Customers have to be persuaded, coerced, and bribed to buy the same basic things rather than the things they really want. That's why we pay more for packaging and advertising of food than we pay to the farmers who produce the food. The industrial system creates tremendous untapped opportunities for farmers who can tailor their products to conform to unique needs and preferences of individual customers, rather than try to bend the preferences of customers to conform to their products.

New American farmers market in the niches. They market direct to customers through farmers markets, roadside stands, CSAs, home delivery, or by customer pick-up at the farm. They use everything from the Internet to word of mouth to advertise their services. They market to people who care where their food comes from and how it is produced - locally grown, organic, humanely raised, hormone and antibiotic free, etc. They are often able to avoid some or all of the processing, transportation, packaging and marketing costs that make up 80 percent of the total cost of mass marketed foods. They increase value, reduce costs, and increase profits while protecting the environment and helping to build stronger local communities.

New American farmers focus on what they can do best. They realize that we are all different -- as producers as well as consumers. We have widely diverse skills, abilities, and aptitudes. Industrialization has had to "bend people" -- train, bribe, and coerce them -- to make people behave as coordinated parts of one big machine rather than as fundamentally different human beings. Many social problems of today are symptoms of people being used by industrial systems in ways that are inherently degrading to our uniquely human productive capacities. Thus, industrialization has left tremendous untapped economic opportunities for farmers and others who can use their unique capacities to be productive rather than attempt to conform to systems of production that just don't fit.

New American farmers may produce grass finished beef, pastured pork, free range or pastured poultry, heirloom varieties of fruits and vegetables, dairy or milk goats, edible flowers, decorative gourds, or dozens of other products that many label as agricultural "alternatives." They find markets for the things they want to grow and are able to grow well rather than produce for markets where they can't compete. Or they may produce fairly common commodities by means that are uniquely suited to their talents. Their products are better, their costs are less, and their life is better because they are doing the things that they do best. New American farmers focus on creating value through uniqueness -- among consumers, among producers, and within nature.

In general they link people with purpose and place. By linking their unique productive capacities with unique sets of natural resources to serve the needs and wants of unique groups of customers they create unique systems of meeting human needs that cannot be industrialized. The more unique their combinations of person, purpose, and place, the more sustainable will be the value to customers and producers alike. The sameness of industrialization creates opportunities for unique farmers who can create unique linkages with both resources and customers.

Critics argue that these new farm opportunities are limited. On the contrary, there is no limit to the diversity among people nor diversity within nature. There are as many niche markets as there are people. The question is one of how many different markets it is logical to serve, not how many different niche markets exist. Likewise, there are as many differences in production capabilities as there are producers, and as many different niches in nature as there are fields or places to produce.

Some question whether a sufficient number of people who are both willing and able to learn can be found to farm in these new ways. Admittedly, the new American farm will require a lot more knowledge, understanding, and thinking than does farming by industrial standards. However, any future occupation which offers an opportunity for a decent living will require the use of one's mind. The days when someone could earn a good living by the sweat of their brow are in the past. The industrial era is over. There will be plenty of innovative, creative, hard working people to operate the new American farms, once their promise for a more desirable quality of life -- economically, socially, and ethically -- becomes widely know.

Others question whether people can afford to pay farmers the full costs of meeting their food and fiber needs without exploiting either the natural or human resource base for agriculture. However, today's consumer, on average, spends only a dime of each dollar for food -- from which the farmer gets only one penny. Thus, most consumers can afford to pay farmers to produce the food they really want and need rather than settle for something less, particularly if that something less degrades the social and ecological systems from which consumers also much derive their quality of life.

The perceived limits to sustainable farming arise from an industrial mindset, which is rapidly losing its relevance to reality, and assumptions of contemporary economics, which are hopelessly out of date.

Sustainable Farms Sustain Rural Communities

Sustainable farming requires more intensive management - more thinking, more understanding, and more decisions per acre of land and dollar invested. Sustainable farming requires that farmers work with nature, using their unique abilities to meet the needs of their unique customers, rather than use generic technologies in efforts to dominate nature and exploit people for short-run economic gain. More-intensive management means more people per acre of land or dollar of capital, more farms rather than fewer, more farm families to buy things in town, to attend schools and churches, to volunteer for the fire department, and to run for town council.

The new American farm will need the local community as much as the community needs them. The most secure markets for the new American farm will be those based on personal relationships. Each personal relationship is different from all others. Many consumers are open to building personal relationships with farmers. They are alienated from current mass marketing systems not only because they don't meet their specific needs, but because they have lost faith in the impersonal system of mass production for mass markets. They do not believe large corporations monitored by big government will really protect the natural environment or fulfill important social responsibilities. They trust neither corporate or government assurances that foods in the supermarkets are safe and healthful. They feel more personally secure and socially responsible when they support local and regional food systems rather than rely on international markets dominated by the multinational corporations. In other words, they want to know
their farmer -- personally.

Producers who develop personal relationships with their customers need not see other producers as their competitors. They can collaborate rather than compete. No two people are alike, thus, no two producers are likely to be viewed as close competitors in the minds of their relationship customers. Fortunately, meaningful relationships can only be spread so thin. Thus, there will be natural constraints, or limits to growth, in relationship markets. The necessity of maintaining personal relationships offsets the natural tendency to get bigger, and thus, helps farmers to resist the lure of the industrial treadmill. Local and regional markets will be developed and sustained over time by people who prefer to deal with people they know. The new American farm will help rebuild the rural communities that industrialization has torn apart.

It's Mainly Up to Us

There may well be no future in farming in America, in the sense that we have known it in the past. But, that need not mean the end of the American farm. A new American farm is struggling to emerge under the conceptual umbrella of sustainable agriculture. It's success or failure, and the sustainability of American agriculture, is mainly up to us. We can sit by and pray that Adam Smith's invisible hand is still able to transform greed into good. We can allow the American farmer to become a thing of the past and rely on the rest of the world for our food and fiber. We can cover our most fertile farmland with concrete or divide our farms into ranchettes. We can allow our communities of place to become splintered by communities of interests which leave people sharing the same space without interests in common. We can allow the economics of self-interest, of greed, to continue to dominate American society. But, all of these things are matters of choice, not necessity.

Instead, we can choose to pursue our enlightened self-interests, we can demand for society a new economics of sustainability, and we can help build the new American farm and the new American community. It's contemporary economic thinking that is out of date and old fashioned - not human compassion and morality. Economics is based on assumptions of 200 years ago that no longer reflect reality. Small family farms and businesses, caring communities, loving families, nations with integrity, cultures with values - these things will never be outdated.

We have no ethical or moral obligation to accept economics as the final arbitrator of all things. Economics alone should not determine who gets a job and who doesn't, who stays in business and who doesn't, what we do in communities and what we don't, where food is produced and where it is not, whether or not we trade, or of anything else. We don't have to abandon "good" things from the past just because something "more economically efficient" comes along. We don't have to accept "bad" things in the future just because they are "more economically efficient" than some "good" alternative. We can choose what we want to keep from the past and what we want to accept in the future. The market is not God - no matter what the economic priests would lead us to believe. Economics is a creation of people. We simply cannot turn loose the thing we created for our benefit and allow it to exploit the very people it was designed to serve. It just doesn't make any sense.

Common sense demands that we rethink and directly challenge the fundamental principles that underlie conventional economic thinking - line by line, row by row, from the ground up. We don't have to submit to the industrialization of agriculture, we don't have to submit to the globalization of our food systems, and we don't have to worship the false idol of economic greed. Corporations were created to serve people, not the other way around. Trade among people should be carried out in ways that make all parties better off - that degrade neither people nor the natural resource base. Trade is not really free unless both parties are free not to trade. The economy is a creation of people to meet the needs of people, not the other way around. We can simply refuse to become the slaves of these institutions that were created to serve the public good.

There is a positive alternative to short-run, self-interest - higher self-interests, which include caring, sharing, and stewardship. And there are positive alternatives to agricultural industrialization - a sustainable agriculture, which includes social responsibility and ecological integrity in addition to economic viability. There are thousands of farmers creating dozens of models for the new American farm. These farm families are building the foundation for a new American community. But, the very real possibility of the end of America agriculture should sound a warning to us all. The time to choose between the pursuit of greed and the conscious choices for good is at hand. The time to choose between an industrial agriculture and a sustainable agriculture is at hand. The time to choose between the end of the American farm and the new American farm is at hand. The choice is ours. The future of the American farm, the American community - of America - is mainly up to us.

REFERENCES

Blank, Steven. 1999. The End of Agriculture in the American Portfolio, Quorum Books, Westport, CN. 218p.

Dali Lama, 1997. As quoted in The Wisdom Teachings of the Dali Lama, Edited by Matthew Bunson, Penguin Books Ltd, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England.

Leopold, Aldo, 1966. A Sand County Almanac, Oxford University Press, Inc., Ballantine Books, New York, NY