What's The New GDP?

Many claim that we have become a culture with a decreasing knowledge of our natural landscapes.  This is not a farfetched claim for most of us could probably name more corporate logos than trees or plant species in our backyards.  However, there is a vast amount of knowledge about our environment preserved by farmers, conservations, and environmentalists alike.  Although most of us may not know this knowledge, it still exists.  And it is a curious thing that we do not take that knowledge into account when determining the measurements for our economic standards.  Pollan dedicates several paragraphs to the benefits of the surrounding forest of Polyface Farm, the external costs that are not taken into consideration, and the almost endless benefits that forest provides. Thompson also discusses how during the colonial revolutions Jefferson and others alike viewed agriculture and ecosystem services as a crucial tool for the revival of the colonies.  I cannot help but wonder how or when this shift from agrarian standards to gross domestic product took place. 

I assume it was a gradual process with the implementation of capitalistic ideals.  But why is it that our economic standards do not take into consideration natural elements and ecosystem services?  Especially considering that the most economists would secretively agree that GDP is not accurate in presenting true numbers.  As Pollan discusses, industrial agriculture on the surface is cheap, but only because it does not take into consideration the costs of pollution, deforestation, soil erosion, etc. Even on a broader sense, there is something to be said about a system that sees an oil spill as more economically beneficial than if that oil tanker had arrived to ports safely (discussed in the video "What is the Economy Worth Anyway" with Dave Batker of Earth Economics). 

 Nevertheless, we have laboriously talked about the faults of GDP measurement systems in other classes, so why is GDP still the reigning economic measuring system?  Is developing a system based on the overall health of a landscape, while still allowing humans to cultivate that land,  plausible?  If so, what would that look like?  Would we run the risk of further commodifying nature by putting a monetary value on it?

What Are We Non-Farmers Supposed To Do?

With all this agricultural revolution talk, what are we non-farmers supposed to do?  With this push for more local farms we will need more farmers.  Where are these farmers coming from?  After each reading I feel an almost moral obligation to take up the role of small organic farmer, but it is not something I want to make my life.  Because we are learned individuals are we the ones who need to take the first step and fulfill this obligation regardless of our own interests?  Maybe there is a vast storage of farmers who are waiting to get an opportunity that will relieve us non-farmers.  I don't know.

But nevertheless there is a cognitive dissonance felt, at least for me personally, when I realize I don't want to be a farmer despite being told otherwise by writers like Wendell Berry.  As of now my justification is that I take part in a CSA.  I find this to be a necessary step for those who  don't see themselves going further than gardner.  I won't go into the perks of a CSA because we have laboriously discussed them in class.  But what else can be done to lessen this moral tension? What is it that we non-farmers ought to do? 

Where Are All The Small Farms?

I understand all the arguments for industrial agriculture, but I have yet to fully grasp why industrial agriculture is the reigning champ when it comes to our food system. If there were no other farming alternatives known I could see the extraneous costs of IA as almost justifiable, and the limited products produced as just a simple consequence of trying to feed such a high population.  But obviously this is not the only way to farm.  McKibben suggests, with convincing numbers, that smaller farms produce more food on all fronts and are more efficient in both an economic and environmental sense.  If this is the case, why are smaller farmers pushed to the back burners?  

Have small operating farms been left in the dark because the consumer, when it comes down to it, only wants cheap food?  I have yet to see a study that shows organic food in the long run is actually more expensive, so why does the "organic" label come with the stereotype of high class fine dining?  Why aren't small farms the big powerhouses they should be?

McKibben attempts to answer this question, but his answer is mediocre at best; One paragraph that mentions subsidies, monopolized corporate dealings.  His answer?  "We have substituted oil for people (pg. 67 of Deep Economy)." Valid answer.  Better than mine because I don't even have one.  But can it really be as simple as our addiction to oil? On the one hand it may be nice for it to be true because then that means only one major problem to solve.  But on the other, what does that make us humans if we are so easily thwarted by one industry?  Seems a bit disheartening if you ask me.  

So maybe we must look deeper.  Yes oil is a major player in this game, but what are the others?