Sami, I have some thoughts about technology in agriculture. This comes from 40+ years of participating in the food and ag space.
I continue to be underwhelmed by how short a distance we've come in the ag tech space. Agriculture is unique because, unlike most other production systems, it takes place outdoors. Vertical/indoor farming notwithstanding, the majority of variables that need to be dealt with in agriculture are in the realm of Natural Systems. Yet virtually every ag tech "solution" is really just a point solution, not a system's-level concept. And virtually all of these solutions are designed to work against, not with, natural systems. Battles may be won, but the war is already lost.
Unless and until "technologists" in agriculture develop a systems-level view, we will never get beyond
the First Order of point solutions. In logic systems, First Order logic incorporates "for all elements" into the syntax (i.e. point solutions) whereas Second Order logic incorporates "for all properties" (i.e. moving towards a systemic view). Second Order precedes Higher Order, and can include Set Theory. But that's getting ahead of ourselves. Right now we are stuck in the First Order box. Maybe we need the imagination of mathematicians to show us that there is much, much more to the world than what is being thought about today in agriculture?
Eric - thank you for weighing in here with your valuable perspective! I understand your sentiment, and I'm curious how we might dive in with a tangible example. Do you know of any technologists or farmers applying this systems-level view today? Or, outside of agriculture, are there examples of automated technologies operating at a systems level?
Thanks Sami. In agriculture, I am not aware of anyone connecting technology potential to the Second Order systems view...therein lies the problem. In all honesty, I have not studied other sectors because the variables for manufacturing are far fewer than agriculture, and mostly do not directly involve natural systems. I am an economist who values the systemic view, and I am perpetually frustrated by the lack of an accounting system that accurately portrays value...True Cost Accounting is the current nomenclature. The economic equations that are currently popular completely ignore Natural Capital and Social Capital. A simple example, water is worth nothing, both in terms of quality and quantity, as far as the economic equations are concerned. Same with soil. Same with pollinators. Same with biodiversity. Same with communities. Go on down the line and you will find that all the ecological and social things that we are now concerned about have no expressed value in any economic terms.
The typical role for technology is to create efficiency. But there is a serious tension between efficiency and resilience which all markets today completely ignore. Efficiency reigns. So the technologists continue to develop First Order fixes because the shallow financial markets (in terms of systems understanding) continue to reward that behavior. We are stuck. I'm trying to figure out how to unstick it.
There are plenty of examples of farming/consulting groups who are addressing a systemic approach to agriculture. It is not "technology" based, other than to recognize that many who have gone before us understood the "technology" of the natural systems...maybe didn't put specific "value" to things in economic terms...but understood the value in terms of resilience and survival. Understanding Ag is an easy example, but there are many others around the globe. It's not sexy and "investable" using our current ROI models.
All that said, I'm hopeful. I wouldn't trade my forty years of experience, but I would love to have another forty to help craft a new understanding. That's the journey on which I am embarked.
Sami, I have some thoughts about technology in agriculture. This comes from 40+ years of participating in the food and ag space.
I continue to be underwhelmed by how short a distance we've come in the ag tech space. Agriculture is unique because, unlike most other production systems, it takes place outdoors. Vertical/indoor farming notwithstanding, the majority of variables that need to be dealt with in agriculture are in the realm of Natural Systems. Yet virtually every ag tech "solution" is really just a point solution, not a system's-level concept. And virtually all of these solutions are designed to work against, not with, natural systems. Battles may be won, but the war is already lost.
Unless and until "technologists" in agriculture develop a systems-level view, we will never get beyond
the First Order of point solutions. In logic systems, First Order logic incorporates "for all elements" into the syntax (i.e. point solutions) whereas Second Order logic incorporates "for all properties" (i.e. moving towards a systemic view). Second Order precedes Higher Order, and can include Set Theory. But that's getting ahead of ourselves. Right now we are stuck in the First Order box. Maybe we need the imagination of mathematicians to show us that there is much, much more to the world than what is being thought about today in agriculture?
Eric - thank you for weighing in here with your valuable perspective! I understand your sentiment, and I'm curious how we might dive in with a tangible example. Do you know of any technologists or farmers applying this systems-level view today? Or, outside of agriculture, are there examples of automated technologies operating at a systems level?
Thanks Sami. In agriculture, I am not aware of anyone connecting technology potential to the Second Order systems view...therein lies the problem. In all honesty, I have not studied other sectors because the variables for manufacturing are far fewer than agriculture, and mostly do not directly involve natural systems. I am an economist who values the systemic view, and I am perpetually frustrated by the lack of an accounting system that accurately portrays value...True Cost Accounting is the current nomenclature. The economic equations that are currently popular completely ignore Natural Capital and Social Capital. A simple example, water is worth nothing, both in terms of quality and quantity, as far as the economic equations are concerned. Same with soil. Same with pollinators. Same with biodiversity. Same with communities. Go on down the line and you will find that all the ecological and social things that we are now concerned about have no expressed value in any economic terms.
The typical role for technology is to create efficiency. But there is a serious tension between efficiency and resilience which all markets today completely ignore. Efficiency reigns. So the technologists continue to develop First Order fixes because the shallow financial markets (in terms of systems understanding) continue to reward that behavior. We are stuck. I'm trying to figure out how to unstick it.
There are plenty of examples of farming/consulting groups who are addressing a systemic approach to agriculture. It is not "technology" based, other than to recognize that many who have gone before us understood the "technology" of the natural systems...maybe didn't put specific "value" to things in economic terms...but understood the value in terms of resilience and survival. Understanding Ag is an easy example, but there are many others around the globe. It's not sexy and "investable" using our current ROI models.
All that said, I'm hopeful. I wouldn't trade my forty years of experience, but I would love to have another forty to help craft a new understanding. That's the journey on which I am embarked.
Thanks for listening.
https://open.spotify.com/track/3LueS3mbuB1yaJNN0Ale6U?si=42eb84fd811446ef
Must have for a punk garden playlist