FARM WITH NATURE;NOT AGAINST IT
It is a misconception to believe that mechanization alone will lower the cost of food production and make food more affordable. Imagine setting up a high-tech farm within a building in the city—equipped with central heating, air conditioning, artificial lighting, and automated systems for spraying carbon dioxide and nutrient solutions. While this form of systemized farming may look impressive and is managed by skilled technicians, can it truly deliver fresh, affordable, and nutritious food?
I believe that only food grown naturally—in sunlight and soil—can be both cost-effective and rich in nutrients.
Nature creates abundance without demanding inputs or compensation. It’s human intervention that introduces costs. The more complex the technology and infrastructure, the higher the production costs—and consequently, the higher the price of food. With humans, it becomes difficult to know when to stop adding layers of complexity.
Science cannot create something from nothing. In many cases, industrialized agriculture leads to declining productivity over time, not the increase we were promised. Consequently, this raises production costs. Families raised on food grown through artificial means often develop health issues, as their bodies have adapted to nutrient-deficient diets.
When science-based agriculture was introduced, we assumed that increasing food production simply meant increasing yield. We believed that synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and heavy machinery would allow us to grow larger, better, and more abundant crops. While these methods may seem to reduce crop loss, they have ultimately harmed long-term productivity.
These techniques only seem effective because:
- Chemical fertilizers work only when the soil is depleted or “dead.”
- Strong pesticides are useful only for plants that are already unhealthy.
- Heavy machinery is only practical for large-scale farming.
The reality is that these methods are often ineffective—or even harmful—when applied to fertile soils, healthy crops, and small-scale farms. Chemical fertilizers may temporarily boost yields on poor soils, but how sustainable is this? These chemicals are only necessary where the land has been abused, such as through slash-and-burn practices. In essence, they are a way to slow down declining yields rather than improve them.
In contrast, traditional methods—such as green manures and animal compost—were both affordable and safe for the environment. What changed?
The same applies to pesticides. Is it logical to grow unhealthy crops on poor soils and then apply powerful chemicals multiple times a year to manage pests? Before we assume that synthetic pesticides are the answer to crop loss, we must also study their broader impact. These substances not only harm ecosystems but may also be a key reason our crops are now more vulnerable than ever.
We need deeper investigation into the root causes of natural imbalances and pest outbreaks—many of which are linked to climate change. Only then can we make informed decisions about whether we truly need these strong chemical inputs or if it’s time to return to nature’s wisdom.
We have gone further to break up the soils with tillers until it hardens to the consistency of adobe, we ourselves have created conditions that make it impossible to raise crops without tilling and in the process, we have deluded ourselves into thinking this to be an effective and a necessary part of farming.
The fertilizers, pesticides as well as the machinery they all appear useful and more convenient in raising productivity. However, when all these are viewed from broader perspectives these synthetic materials kill our soils, the crops and even destroy the natural productivity of the earth.
Science, like all things, comes with its pros and cons. The methods we’ve adopted may offer short-term benefits, but they come at the cost of long-term sustainability. The true price of these scientific approaches is the destruction of nature’s balance—the very systems that enable us to grow food in harmony with the Earth.