More questions... More Dialogue (Response #last one)

     I was super excited to get back response from Wirzba. I had really kind of forgotten that we even had done that. I must say it is quite a privilege and quite fun to be able to correspond directly with the author, and I am looking forward even more so to our time together next semester.  That being said, I would like to approach the first question asked on the sheet handed back to us in class. (I think I might have even helped to provide content for that question. I can’t really remember, but it sounds familiar and is over topics that interest me) Here is the question for those of you who haven’t read it or have already lost that sheet of paper, “People complain now at how hoard I is to get fresh produce for a lot of America and the rampant onset of food deserts. How would this scenario increase if yields were dramatically decreased due to a dearth of fertilizers? What I am trying to get at is when do the needs of humanity become more important than the needs of a herd of cattle or a field of corn or a creek?”  Wirzba replied with the fact that much of what is currently grown are “commodity crops” that “get a lot of tax-payer subsidies.” If we were to shift our focus, according to Wirzba, to healthier and more nutritional crops, then we could help begin to whittle away at the deserts. To me, this seems like a viable solution. Not only does this seem viable, but it also seems beneficial and to my own liking really. However, what would be the logistics behind all of that? Is it plausible that farmers would exchange their cash crops for something more healthy or edible or, dare I say, sustainable? Even if the demand is present and, well, demanding, is the soil even capable of producing a bountiful harvest of squashes, beets, carrots, peppers, strawberries, raspberries, sweet corn, pumpkin, apples, oranges or tomatoes (I am so hungry now)? Not all states are as blessed as California, Florida, or Michigan that have such wide crop diversity. Now, this leads me to the second follow up question I have. If, like Wirzba says, “the foundation of food production is healthy soil (that is non-negotiable)” which means, “organic farming methods are crucial for long term food safety,” then why do farmers use such potent chemicals? I’m mainly focusing on the organic aspect here because the state of the soil, like he said, is “non-negotiable.” Now, granted, I really do not know much about what earth and soils need to be fruitful and healthy. However, I would suppose some guy whose livelihood hood is dependent upon it might. What I am getting at is this, why would a landowner sabotage his own land? Especially if yields on industrial fields are going down because the soil has been so degraded by poisons and synthetic fertilizers” (like Wirzba says), then why do farmers keep it up? What people like Berry and Wirzba are claiming seems almost too obvious to miss. How could commercial farmers not see the peril in the relation of increased “poisons” and decreased harvests? I don’t know; I am just confused by all of this. I would feel much better to dialogue this out instead of typing up more confusion. Not to mention, if the farmers have any semblance of a conscience then they would probably be wary of drowning the local area in toxins.

            Speaking of toxins… that leads into the second part of question one and Wirzba’s response. First, let’s refer to the end of the question again, “…When do the needs of humanity become more important than the needs of a herd of cattle or a field of corn or a creek?” And I would add, “And do you believe that they (the needs of humanity) even do?” Wirzba responds with the idea that they are not separate, that we must strive to “promote the flourishing of all life together.” So (correct me if I am extrapolating to far), this seems to answer my add-in question. It seems from that response that maybe human needs are not essentially of the utmost importance in this world. I’m really not sure; I am just trying my best to infer what I can. To further explain Wirzba’s view, the “fundamental mistake” that the questioner makes is the assumption “that people can live without healthy creeks or fields.” To that I would say that yes, I concur, at least on the grand scale of life. Humanity surely would perish alongside the perishing or even diminishing of ecosystems and waterways and other lovely biological wonders. But, for the sake of argument, let’s look at specific instances. Irrigation is a great case for this. Damning up rivers out in California is vital for some (if not many) of the crops. Unfortunately, this results in the decline of the prosperity of the river and possible, if not inevitable, extinction of some species. What now? Is the output of crops more dire than the existence of a small fish?