Sarah Mulberg

Professor Lee

English 102

12/07/2022

It’s the End of the World as We Know It

What a beautiful day it is in 2100! The sea levels rising have taken hold of many coastal

regions, temperatures fluctuate from sweltering to freezing, the rainstorms are relentless, the

droughts are even worse, the air is toxic, and we are running out of clean water and viable land to

grow food. If this is a future you never want to come to fruition, then we have some work to do.

Sustainable practices and methodologies regarding the conservation and restoration of natural

resources and landscapes, especially in relation to agriculture, must be implemented in order to

prevent the further decline of our global environment. This can be accomplished through

addressing the issues of industrialized agriculture which include implementing sustainable

agriculture practices, conservation and restoration, addressing soil erosion, and the exclusion of

indigenous peoples in the conversation and plans for mitigating human caused environmental

damages.

To understand the issue of implementing sustainable practices in agriculture and its

effects, we must first dive into the long and muddled past of what sustainability is. According to

Bozeman III and Theis, “sustainability is a harmonious balance of human needs with resource

consumption over an extended period of time”. The term sustainability values the importance of

resource management for the success of current and future generations. This is a crucial aspect of
 Mulberg 2

everything that will be further discussed in this essay. From the article, “Three Pillars of

Sustainability: In Search of Conceptual Origins”, it is said that “the modern concept, along with

the language of sustainability in a global sense did not emerge… until the late 20th century,”

(Purvis et al.). However, the introduction of the discussion surrounding sustainability was not

regarding its applications in agriculture, but more specifically for sustainable development. Eco-

development/ sustainable development was “defined by Ignacy Sachs in 1978 as ‘an approach to

development aimed at harmonizing social and economic objectives with ecologically sound

management, in a spirit of solidarity with future generations’,” (Purvis et al.). Sustainable

development adheres to the core of sustainability because it focuses on actions that the present

population can take to secure a future that will be positive for generations to come.

While sustainable development may seem innocent, as it has the underlying ideals of

general sustainability, there is a deeper more menacing connotation when you address its use in

past documentation. Philosophically, there is a difference between the industrialized Western

World and other societies that remain around the globe. With the assertion from Descartes of

mind-body separation, many people resonated with this idea, and it took hold of how we view

ourselves in the world. Our perspectives shifted from viewing humans as a part of our natural

environment, to something that worked outside of natural phenomena. Instead of accepting what

the planet gave to us and understanding that if we took care of the planet, it would take care of

us, we were greedy and used these resources to distance ourselves from our natural surroundings.

As the Industrial Revolution took hold, and we secured our position separating ourselves from

our environment, our greed continued. We viewed any society that did not attain our “first

world” success, as a failure that required our intervention to become our ideal society. It is

summarized well by Bandopadhyay from their article “An Other History of Knowledge and
 Mulberg 3

Decision in Precautionary Approaches to Sustainability” that “…not all societies accepted this

modern dichotomy equally or uncritically, and the variance in attitudes has often coincided with

how people relate to their environment”.

With this knowledge of the philosophy of Americans, and the knowledge of how

American government consistently inserts itself into other societies goings on, we can predict

what may be coming next. “Soon after the Second World War, there emerged a consensus in the

Western World that there was an urgent need for international efforts to aid the ‘development’ of

‘less advanced countries’. It was during this time that the notion of ‘economic development’…

evolved from specifically denoting the exploitation of natural resources in a colonial context, to

refer to a rise in material well-being indicated by an increase in the flow of goods and services,

and growth per capita income. Thus, from the 1950s, ‘economic development’ became almost

synonymous with ‘economic growth’, which in turn had become a major goal of Western

economic policy,” (Purvis et al.). Sustainable development itself was proposed as a solution to

alter other global societies, that we deemed necessary to help attain our standards, in a veiled

attempt at colonialism. Not only was sustainable development not focused on sustainability or

helping people and societies, but it was also an attempt at creating economic growth for the

United States. This probably does not come as a surprise seeing as essentially every action the

government takes is focused on economic prosperity over the health and well-being of actual

people. It has also been stated that terms such as sustainable development are oxymoronic at

their core due to the inherent destruction of environment that comes from modern economic and

industrial growth which focus on profitability rather than sustainability.

In addition to the use of terminology such as sustainable development, there are also

documents that include vocabulary such as “The Precautionary Principle”. This is introduced
 Mulberg 4

into policy “[when] there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, [but] lack of full scientific

certainty…,” Hannson states. This “…shall not be used as reason for postponing cost-effective

measures to prevent environmental degradation,” (Hannson). In other words, “precautionary

principles bridge the gap between weakly understood causes of potentially either grave or

irreversible environmental damages and potentially costly policy interventions. These principles

provide a moral justification for acting even though causation is unclear,” (Ricci and Zhang).

The precautionary principle comes into effect especially in cases of global climate change and

other environmental degradation that has been linked to human actions. Coupling the oxymoron

of sustainable development and its focus on economic growth with the precautionary principle

that requires action to be taken in cases of extreme natural degradation without full scientific

explanation, there is vague direction for the government that they must take action to reverse its

own desired goals. This is the foundation that has ultimately caused a stale mate for any

beneficial government legislation regarding environmental health and how we impact it. The

precautionary principle asserts that solutions found must be cost effective, however no solution

can be found without government funded research. So, for the best economic growth we can

ignore what is required of us, action to protect the environment, because it is too expensive to

fund, and the only solutions we can implement must be low in cost. This is the issue that

underlies the arguments for the implementation of sustainable practices in any industry.

Overall, the history of sustainability and all the components under its umbrella have been

long discussed with the main issue being vague terminology. This issue of government proposed

solutions with out of date and confusing terminology has been the main factor halting any action

towards a solution for the deterioration of our environment due to human impact. This coupled

with a philosophical separation of humans from their environment has altered our ability to
 Mulberg 5

successfully work with our environment to create a renewable society. However, the one

commonality throughout all sources that cover the issue of sustainability is that action is

necessary to protect against the continual degradation of our environment and resources for the

success of future generations. So, if we take what the precautionary principle is ultimately about,

what is required of us is action. Any action must be taken that we think will be beneficial to our

environmental situation. This is imperative to our current and future success as a global society.

The clearest way to implement sustainable practices to benefit our environment would be

in the industry of agriculture. Agriculture is the science or practice of farming, including

cultivation of the soil for growing crops and the rearing of animals to provide food and other

products. Sustainable agriculture “integrates traditional farming techniques with modern

scientific advances, as well as using on-farm renewable resources instead of imported and

nonrenewable resources,” (Reganold et al.). Renewable resources are “natural materials, which

can replenish themselves in a limited time (months to years) used as feedstocks for industrial

processes,” (Princen) and nonrenewable resources are “resources that are replaced over geologic

time scales of tens of millions of years,” (Reid). The main components of sustainable agriculture

include the utilization of renewable resources in a responsible manner, conservation efforts to

protect biodiversity, and integrating cooperation, participation, and leadership from native and

indigenous peoples.

Some “examples of practices and principles emphasized in sustainable agriculture

systems include: crop rotations that mitigate weed, disease, insect, and other pest problems,

integrated pest management (IPM) that reduces the need for [chemical] pesticides by crop

rotations, scouting weather monitoring, use of resistant cultivated varieties, timing of planting,

and biological pest controls, soil and water conservation, and animal production systems that
 Mulberg 6

emphasize disease prevention through health maintenance,” (Blanchfield). Conservation is

defined as “the collective measures and actions concerned with the preservation and restoration

of animal and plant species and their habitats,” (Harding), while soil conservation more

specifically focuses on “the practice of arresting or minimizing artificially accelerated soil

deterioration,” (Patton), and biodiversity relates to “the number of different plant and animal

species living in a defined ecosystem or study area; a contraction of biological diversity,”

(Marvier and Linzey).

Sustainability and conservation and restoration go hand in hand, as “the goal of

conserving natural resources is to ensure that both current and future generations will have the

resources required for basic goods and services, such as food, water, clean air, and energy,”

(Reid). It is understood that the way industrialized agriculture produces its products ignores the

needs of the resources it uses, which diminishes the resources available for use. For example,

traditional tilling practices, which turns over soil after crops have been harvested, interrupts

natural interactions of microorganisms in the soil which decreases the likelihood of growing

substantial amounts of crops due to nutrient depletion in the soil. “Conventional farming systems

have greatly increased crop production and labor efficiency, but serious questions are being

raised about their energy-intensive nature and their adverse effects on soil productivity,

environmental quality, farm profitability, and human and animal health. This concern has led to

an increasing interest in sustainable farming systems because they have the potential to reduce

some of the negative effects of conventional agriculture,” (Reganold et al.). In addition to

destructive agriculture practices, the growing population and over consumption “threatens both

the supply of nonrenewable resources and the sustainability of renewable resources,” (Reid).

Therefore, the “identification of appropriate management strategies and regulations to ensure

sustainability of renewable resources requires involvement of the scientific community” to

pressure governments into implementing legislation for sustainable agriculture practices.

Additionally, conservation efforts such as creating safe habitats would also be beneficial

to keeping native species populations thriving. “Humans are inadvertently altering the

atmospheric chemical composition on a global scale, which has led to an unprecedented warming

of the global atmosphere. This rapid warming is changing the biomes of the world, which in turn

will affect the survival of all plant and animal species, including humans,” (Reid). The

introduction of more established protected areas for native species is extremely important in

preventing extinctions and maintaining biodiversity (Reid). In conjunction with conservation and

restoration efforts, “sustainable agriculture improves wildlife habitats by reducing the possibility

of pesticide poisoning and by increasing crop diversity,” (Reganold et al.).

Another key component in restoring our environmental landscapes is soil conservation

practices and preventing soil erosion. “The use of crop rotations and green-manure legume crops

in sustainable agriculture on sloping, erodible soil generally produces much less erosion than

conventional agriculture,” (Reganold et al.). The reason soil erosion is such an issue is because

that is the medium in which all our crops grow, and if we have insufficient amounts of healthy

soil, we will not be able to produce enough crops to feed our ever-growing global population.

“Tilling farmland is a key contributor to erosion and has played a role in the loss of billions of

tons of soil in the US Midwest, a new study finds. No till farming reduces soil erosion, increases

biological activity, and increases soil organic matter [that allows crops to grow healthily],”

(Crowell). “One of the chief causes of erosion-inducing agriculture practices in the United States

has been ignorance of their consequences. The cultivation methods of the settlers of western

European stock who set the pattern of land use in the United States came from physical
 Mulberg 8

environments which, because of the mild nature of their rainstorms and the prevailing soil

textures, were in general far less susceptible to erosion than were the environments into which

they migrated in North America,” (Patton). The presumption of a colonial mindset in which

settlers deemed their past ways to be the best ways to manage agriculture was ultimately their

downfall. “Measures of soil management designed to reduce the effects of accelerated erosion

have been known in both the Western world and in the Far East since long before the beginning

of the Christian Era,” (Patton).

The importance of ancient knowledge regarding the connection between humans and

their environment has long been cast away since even before settlers first came to the Americas.

However, “around the globe, indigenous peoples and local communities have long protected

their lands and waters in reciprocity with nature, often guided by deep connections to place,

culture, and ways of knowing,” (The Nature Conservancy). It has been shown that “their

stewardship and management often achieve greater conservation results and sustain more

biodiversity than government protected areas,” (The Nature Conservancy). With this

acknowledgement, it seems quite clear how imperative it is to not only include, but to allow

leadership, from indigenous communities to create successful conservation measures. We must

actively involve our efforts with “people and partners whose lives and livelihoods are linked to

the natural systems we seek to protect. Their visions and voices need to be at the center of what

we do,” (The Nature Conservancy). “Socially just nature conservation is possible under two

main conditions: Indigenous and rural communities have concrete stakes in protecting those

resources and can participate in policy decisions,” (Kashwan).

Many of the opponents of implementing sustainable practices, especially in agriculture,

claim that these actions will take a long time to see any positive results and the actions can be
 Mulberg 9

costly and involve change from almost every sector of industry which will take too much time to

provide the benefits we need now. It is also common for researchers, who are proponents for

sustainable practices, to negate their stance by including that solutions they have found cannot

for certain provide the beneficial impacts they predict because there has never been any

implementation of these proposed solutions. There have been some instances of proposed

solutions like the Green New Deal, which includes some of the desired actions conservationists

have touted as solutions to our environmental debacle. However, as we have learned,

government intervention for the betterment of society is likely laced with the susceptibility of

corruption. “The Green New Deal focuses on green business investment, green research funds,

and green employment. Unfortunately, this federal funding fantasy would stifle the free market,

which is the driving force behind most great innovations and technological revolutions. Not only

is this plant subject to rampant corruption, but it eliminates profit incentives and puts our

economic future in the hands of federal bureaucrats,” (Talgo).

In addition to the unlikelihood of success for most government proposed solutions to our

environmental situation, there are people who have already given up hope that our actions would

be able to reverse the damage we have already inflicted or provide any benefit to coming

generations. Goodchild claims that “sustainability is a myth” and “unrestrained population

growth will tax the planet’s resources” to the extent that “there is no point in talking about

sustainability”. He says, “What will happen… is not sustainability but disaster. The future will

be one in which the reciprocal effects of overpopulation, resource consumption, and

environmental destruction reach a cataclysmic maximum, resulting in a massive die-off of the

human species,” (Godchild).

Lastly, the viability of our environment not only relies on sustainable practices

implemented in agriculture, but eventually in every other industry as well. “Addressing climate

and environmental challenges, clearly requires natural scientific knowledge as well as

engineering expertise concerning the various technical solutions that can be adopted to mitigate

the negative impacts. However, pursuing sustainable technological change is also a societal,

organizational, political, and economic endeavor that involves several non-technological

challenges,” (Söderholm). This further lengthens the process of creating a sustainable society

because there must be change from every aspect.

It is easy, in this age of information, to be inundated with dramatic exposure to the doom

and gloom of the current world situation. This leads people to adopt the perspective of having no

hope for the future. It causes people to give up and not even try to find a solution because they

have already made up their minds on what the future will hold. The only good this does is

securing a future that contains disaster. If we all believed that our attempts were futile then

nobody would try anything. However, if we put aside our ego and allowed ourselves to try, even

though it may seem like there will be no difference, we may just be surprised at what happens.

We cannot be perfectionists, only attempting what we know will succeed. There is no point in

that. To find new solutions, you must try new things. Only then will we know for sure if

something will work. This is also very narrow-minded, only thinking about the success of the

human species, when in fact our actions have not only affected us, but everything that inhabits

our planet. In this case, it is our responsibility to try; not for us, but for everyone. If disaster is

truly inevitable, then there is no harm in trying. Additionally, the benefits of natural climate

solutions such as reforestation, cover crops, improved agricultural management, and restoration
 Mulberg 11

efforts are immediate (Access Science Editors). So even if we see no impact in our lifetime, we

know there will be change in the more distant future to come.

Sustainability should be the goal in all aspects of life. The only way one industry will

succeed in becoming sustainable is if all other sectors follow suit, or else the aspiration to adapt

our ways to more sustainable efforts will collapse. First and foremost, sustainable agriculture is

the leading sector that can pave the way for everyone to take responsibility in the fight against

our degrading global environment. Sustainable agriculture has already piqued the interest of

people who are not in this industry because of the new information that we have access to that

shows how we exploit our natural resources. In addition to this access of information, there is

also a plethora of news that showcases the impending apocalypse that will come to fruition if we

do not change our ways. Now that we understand how our actions as a society are impacting our

surroundings, it is time to act. Although we may not see immediate changes in our surroundings,

at least we can say that we tried. Overall, sustainable agriculture will be a great first step into our

new sustainable future. In closing, whether or not the end is near, it is never acceptable to simply

give up. It’s especially heinous to give up on the planet that provides us with the resources we

need and a place we call home. It is our responsibility to take care of it and each other. If we do

not work together as a collective to protect our planet it may just be the end of the world as we

know it.
 Mulberg 12

Works Cited

Bandopadhyay, Saptarishi. “An Other History of Knowledge and Decision in Precautionary

Approaches to Sustainability.” Forham Environmental Law Review, vol. 25, 2014.

Blanchfield, Deirdre S., editor. Sustainable Agriculture. Gale, 5 Dec. 2011, https://link-gale-

com.montgomerycollege.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/CV2644151340/SCIC?

u=rock77357&sid=bookmark-SCIC&xid=da7989d9.

Bozeman III, Joe F., and Thomas L. Theis. Sustainability. McGraw Hill, Dec. 2020,

doi:10.1036/1097-8542.671906.

Crowell, Rachel. More than 57 Billion Tons of Soil Have Eroded in the U.S. Midwest. McGraw

Hill, 2022, doi:10.1036/1097-8542.SN2204142.

Editors, AccessScience. The Potential for Natural Climate Solutions in the United States.

McGraw Hill, 2018, doi:10.1036/1097-8542.BR1126181.

Goodchild, Peter B. T. Countercurrents. or. Peak Oil and the Myth of Sustainability. 2006,

https://link-gale-com.montgomerycollege.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/EJ3010710213/OVIC?

u=rock77357&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=13bb7782.

Hansson, Sven Ove. “Risk and Safety in Technology.” Philosophy of Technology and

Engineering Sciences, North-Holland, 2009, pp. 1069–102, doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-

51667-1.50043-4.

Harding, Elaine K. Conservation of Species. McGraw Hill, Dec. 2019, doi:10.1036/1097-

8542.157580.

Kashwan, Prakash B. T. The Conversation. American Environmentalism’s Racist Roots Have

Shaped Global Thinking about Conservation. The Conversation, 2020, https://link-gale-

com.montgomerycollege.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/IPIVWN674517241/OVIC?
 Mulberg 13

u=rock77357&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=dfdd11bd.

Marvier, Michelle A., and Donald W. Linzey. Biodiversity. McGraw Hill, Dec. 2021,

doi:10.1036/1097-8542.757491.

Patton, Donald J. Soil Conservation. McGraw Hill, Dec. 2021, doi:10.1036/1097-8542.631800.

Princen, L. H. Renewable Resource. McGraw Hill, Dec. 2018, doi:10.1036/1097-8542.580950.

Purvis, Ben, et al. “Three Pillars of Sustainability: In Search of Conceptual Origins.”

Sustainability Science, vol. 14, no. 3, Springer Japan, 2019, pp. 681–95,

doi:10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5.

Reganold, John P., et al. Agricultural Soil and Crop Practices. McGraw Hill, Dec. 2019,

doi:10.1036/1097-8542.016000.

Reid, Walter V. Conservation of Resources. McGraw Hill, Dec. 2020, doi:10.1036/1097-

8542.157900.

Ricci, P. F., and J. Zhang. “Benefits and Limitations of the Precautionary Principle.”

Encyclopedia of Environmental Health, Elsevier, 2011, pp. 276–85, doi:10.1016/B978-0-

444-52272-6.00230-0.

Söderholm, Patrik. “The Green Economy Transition: The Challenges of Technological Change

for Sustainability.” Sustainable Earth, vol. 3, no. 1, Sustainable Earth, 2020,

doi:10.1186/s42055-020-00029-y.

Talgo, Chris B. T. American Thinker. Green New Deal Is Bad Deal for All Americans. American

Thinker, 2018,

https://link-gale-com.montgomerycollege.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/FKFZJJ834408179/OVIC?

u=rock77357&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=07e31cb8.

Wikle, Thomas A. Desertification. McGraw Hill, Dec. 2019, doi:10.1036/1097-8542.187900.