I’ve been watching an interesting and important discussion play out for a number of years now within the environmental movement and ecological farming community. It appears that on one hand we have a group that is convinced by the data that farming to feed a population which is growing exponentially through traditional land based means is doomed to be an ecological detriment. Our current system should instead be replaced with high tech solutions such as vertical farms and laboratory processes to create the nutrition this population needs. As a result we could return much of our farmland to rewilding efforts to recover the natural environments and biodiversity that we've lost, in no small part due to modern agriculture.

On the other side we have people who are convinced by the data (often the same data) that we need to return to a deeper and more compassionate relationship with the earth, one that allows for us to produce a yield without compromising the ability of all other life forms to exist and thrive. In this way we can both feed the population and restore our role as environmental stewards. Rather than returning many farms to rewild, we could incorporate habitat and biodiversity into our production methods and foster the recovery of wild species in a way that enhances the resilience of our production methods. 

Instead of isolating human activity from a pristine concept of the natural world and permitting destructive actions in the remaining space, we could consider all of our necessary functions within a globally connected landscape for their potential to enhance all forms of life, not just our own.

George has been an outspoken critic of this position, especially in how it relates to the management of livestock in farming, arguing that there is no potential for beneficial ecological outcomes in livestock farming, and that in order to combat the climate crisis and mass biodiversity loss, high efficiency farming must be leveraged, along with technologies such as precision fermentation, to produce plant based protein alternatives to meat. 

I’ve linked to the video recording of the debate in the show notes for this episode on the website, in order to let you make up your own mind about which side you support. I also want to express that I don’t consider these two positions, certainly not in their rigidity, as the only positions in the broader discussion. At the same time I know that anyone who has listened to more than a few episodes of this show will know which direction I lean personally.

In our conversation we start by identifying the sources and advocacy of industrially produced food and farm alternatives. We break down the manipulation of data and reductionist thinking that results in conclusions that technological fixes are our only solutions. 

Chris also paints a picture of his ideas for a brighter alternative to these conclusions and what is possible in a more locally based and decentralized configuration of our sources of sustenance. 

We also dig into the active role that all of us can play in creating this alternative future and accelerate a transformation in the role of farming as well as supply and production of food to one that serves the broader community of life that we’re all connected to.