In Pursuit of Happiness

The Cost of Prosperity and the Future of Agriculture

John Ikerd

 

America has achieved a level of prosperity unprecedented in human history. Some Americans live in poverty, but most have a material standard living that is the envy of much of the rest of the world. However, there is growing evidence that our economic prosperity has been achieved at great ecological and social costs. While most concerns have focused on the environmental consequences of our pursuit of wealth, the social costs are perhaps even higher. As America has become increasingly wealthy, it has become an increasingly unhappy nation.

Even classical economists, such as Adam Smith, who claimed free markets would guide an economy toward greater wealth, never claimed that this wealth would necessarily bring greater happiness. They understood that individual, material well-being is but one dimension of human happiness. It was not until early in the twentieth century, when neoclassical economists began to proclaim economic growth as the overriding goal of human society, that pursuit of wealth was equated with pursuit of happiness.

The Founding Fathers of the United States proclaimed “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” to be “inalienable rights” bestowed upon all by the Creator. Some early philosophers, called Hedonists, believed pursuit of happiness was a matter of individuals seeking sensory pleasure and avoiding sensory pain. However, most philosophers, including Aristotle, believed that happiness was inherently social in nature; that it could be realized by individuals only within the context of human relationships, friendship, family, and community. They believed we are inherently social beings, and thus, we need personal relationships with other people to make us happy. These philosophers also believed that happiness cannot be actively pursued, but instead, is the natural consequence of “right” relationships. They believed we are inherently moral beings, and thus, we are happy only if our thought and actions are ethically and morally “right.”

If the Hedonists were right, Americans would be the happiest humans ever to walk this planet. No people in human history have ever spent more money in the pursuit of sensory, individual pleasures. But there is growing evidence that the advocates of a social and moral philosophy of happiness were correct. As our pursuit of wealth has diminished our personal connectedness and our sense of moral purpose, we have become an increasingly unhappy people.

Robert Putnam, a Harvard University political scientist, documents the growing disconnectedness among Americans in his book, Bowling Alone. Many statistical measures of social connectedness—voting in elections, joining political movements, writing letters to editors, participating in civic and social organizations, belonging to labor unions, attending church, visiting in other peoples’ homes, etc.—indicate that Americans are only about half as socially interconnected today as in the 1950s. Another set of statistics shows the likely consequences of this growing disconnectedness. Dramatic increases in per capita expenditures for law enforcement, prisons, lawyers, and courts reflect a nation increasingly unable to resolve personal conflicts. Dramatic increases in suicides, clinical depression, and malaise, including headaches, indigestion, and sleeplessness are the logical physical symptoms of growing personal isolation. Each generation of Americans reaching adulthood since the 1960s has indicated they are less satisfied with life, less happy, than the previous generation.   

This growing disconnectedness and unhappiness is not merely a coincidence with America’s increasing wealth. The means we chose for our pursuit of wealth was industrial economic development. The fundamental principles of industrialization are specialization, standardization, and consolidation of control. By specializing in doing specific things, each thing can be done more efficiently. However, each specialized activity must fit with the others to achieve efficiency for the total production process; thus, each activity must be standardized. Once activities have been standardized, they can be routinized and mechanized, allowing decision making to be consolidated in larger enterprises, achieving further economies of scale. The principles of industrialization are the same, regardless of whether they are employed in factories, farms, bureaucracies, schools, or churches, as has been common in America.

In the early stages, industrialization brings people together, as they learn to cooperate and share work, carrying out tasks more efficiently working together than alone. Beyond the early stages, however, it becomes more efficient to coordinate activities through markets, rather than through personal relationships. Specialized producers begin to buy and sell standardized products, working for others or hiring workers, rather than working together on collaborative economic ventures. Beyond this point, relationships are defined by transactions and contracts rather than by shared interests and commitments. One such relationship is readily exchanged for another, depending on the economic benefits. Personal caring and connectedness are sacrificed to achieve greater economic efficiency.

We see symptoms of this growing disconnectedness in families, where family members once worked together for their mutual well-being. Today, most family members have specialized tasks, adults working outside the home and children going to daycare or school. The material goods and services that were once produced together at home—food production and preparation, learning, recreation, etc.—are now purchased rather than produced. Communities of people who once worked together, played together, and prayed together now only live in geographic proximity. They work, play, and pray elsewhere. They share but a very small part of their lives with anyone, either within or outside of their communities of place.

Nowhere are the consequences of economic industrialization more apparent or more significant that in agriculture. The specialization and standardization of American agriculture has resulted in fewer, larger farming operations. Small, diversified family farms have been replaced by large, specialized industrial farms—commonly called factory farms. Fewer family farms meant fewer farm families in many rural communities. Fewer families meant not only fewer people to buy groceries, shoes, and haircuts in town, but also fewer students to support local schools, fewer families to fill church pews, and fewer people to provide leadership for local civic activities. The industrialization of agriculture not only destroyed the quality of family life on farms, but also led to the decline and decay of economic and social life of people in rural communities. Industrialization may have increased the productivity of agriculture, but is has taken the happiness out of farming and out of farm communities.

George Naylor, a family farmer who has been raising corn and soybeans in Iowa since 1976, speaks first-hand of the “problems of wasteful and destructive fencerow-to-fencerow farming, of giant hog factories polluting our streams and water supplies, and of boarded-up small towns.” These problems, he says, “can also be described in many personal stories of anguish by many family farmers and rural residents. Our school district had to close an elementary school last year because of declining enrollment.” Like many farmers these days, Naylor sees a need for “fundamental changes in the economic and cultural framework that can bring sanity to our rural economy.”

Equally important and equally troublesome, the industrialization of agriculture has disconnected people from the earth. We are still as dependent upon the earth, upon farmland, for our physical survival as when all people were hunters and gathers. Our dependence is less direct and our connections more complex, but human life is still critically connected to life in the soil and to the farmers who help nurture life from the soil. With industrialization, farmers came to rely on commercial chemicals rather than the natural health and fertility of the land. These agrichemicals now threaten the natural productivity of the soil, and pollute the natural environment. Perhaps more important, the productivity of industrial agriculture now depends upon non-renewable sources of energy, rather than the self-renewing photosynthetic capacity of living organisms. Such an agricultural system is fundamentally incapable of sustaining human life on earth. In our pursuit of wealth, we have sacrificed our ethical and moral responsibility to the Creator to be good stewards of the earth.

Thankfully, a new approach to farming is emerging to meet the challenge of agricultural sustainability. The farmers who are creating this paradigm may call themselves organic, biodynamic, holistic, ecological, practical, innovative, or just true family farmers. However, they are all pursuing a way of farming that is ecologically sound and socially just, as a means of sustaining long run productivity and economic viability.

This new way of farming requires a recommitment and reconnection of farmers to each other, to their neighbors, to their customers, and to the land. As Wendell Berry writes in his book, What Are People For?, “Farming by the measure of nature, which is to say the nature of the particular place, means that farmers must tend farms that they know and love, farms small enough to know and love, using tools and methods they know and love, in the company of neighbors they know and love.”

Kim Seeley is one of these new sustainable farmers.  Kim and his wife Ann run a dairy farm in northeastern Pennsylvania. The family cares for 180 dairy cows using organic practices because they “care about the quality of their milk.” The Seeleys have their own store on the farm, which was started 40 years ago by Kim's parents. They sell milk products directly to their neighbors, but they also sell milk to local supermarkets, a local county jail, and a nearby culinary school. Kim and Ann's son is currently studying agriculture. When he returns to the farm, he will become the fourth generation of Seeley family farmers. He wanted to be a sportscaster when he was younger, but his parents’ philosophy of growing healthy food to make the world a better place has inspired him.

In restoring personal connections and commitments to the land and to people, the Seeleys and thousands of like-minded farmers all across the land are finding ways to sustain themselves and to sustain humanity. Equally importantly, they are rediscovering the happiness of “right relationships,” among people within families and communities and between people and the earth.  They are achieving a more desirable quality of life—socially and spiritually, as well as physically. These farmers, and other people who are pursuing sustainable lifestyles, are showing the way for all who are ready to abandon the pursuit of wealth and return to the pursuit of happiness.

John Ikerd was raised on a small dairy farm in Missouri and is a retired professor of agricultural economics.