DAVID RICHARDSON
DAVID RICHARDSON
Now is the time for all
those who derive their
income from agriculture
to pull together in an
effort to reverse
Richardsons theory of
accelerated extinction
MY bedtime reading over the harvest period has included Darwins The Origin of Species. I had not read the actual document before, although, like most people, I was aware of its main propositions concerning natural selection and the survival of the fittest.
First published more than 140 years ago, it landed like a literary bombshell into a world that believed in the literal story of creation in seven days as told in The Book of Genesis. A measure of the scale of Darwins scientific and intellectual conclusions at the time, based entirely on observation, is that the discovery and analysis of DNA, well over 100 years later, confirmed most of them.
One of his theories was that the extinction, over time, of the weakest or worst adapted species is inevitable. That as climate changes, competition for food or habitat increase, the strong survive while the weak eventually go to the wall. This, he concluded, was the explanation for surviving creatures which were similar, but not identical, to others that had disappeared. These similarities also showed how closely related species evolved in slightly different ways in different continents and climates.
Darwin, a scientific giant of his age, was courageous in publishing his theories to a world that ridiculed them and accused him of heresy. I do not claim the foresight of Darwin, but reading his book suggested satirical extensions of his ideas which, with a bit of lateral thinking, might be relevant to agriculture today.
The evolution on which Darwin theorised took place over millions of years in conditions dictated by natural phenomena. Each area of the world became separated by oceans and the then isolated species evolved in the way most appropriate to the conditions in which they found themselves. It would be interesting to speculate what would have happened to some of the worlds most attractive species if globalisation and the physical transmission of diseases between continents had occurred. Could they have competed? Would they have survived? Who knows?
Which brings me, rather clumsily, to Richardsons theory of accelerated extinction. For farmers on this tiny island have become an endangered species. The paradox is that it has happened at a time when, in spite of Darwins observations on the inevitability of extinction, the preservation of species is regarded as paramount. If you are a gorilla, a natterjack toad or a rare orchid, millions of people and dozens of governments will dip into their pockets to try to preserve your habitat and ensure your survival. But if you are a UK farmer, producing food for the nation, you are perceived as unimportant. Whats more, the extinction of such a minor species is acceptable.
Now it may be, if Darwin was right, that some animal species and UK farmers will eventually become extinct. In which case efforts to save them are a waste of money and time. But I happen to believe it worthwhile to try and save all these species if at all possible. Furthermore, in the case of UK farmers, I strongly believe, given a fair and reasonable economic climate, they can compete long-term with any farmer in the world, not least because they are capable of adapting to their environment. In addition, they are vitally necessary to the future feeding and well being of the rest of the UKs 60m inhabitants.
But there has been precious little recent public recognition of such potential benefits and UK farmers are in danger of being wiped out. Not so much because of natural phenomena over millions of years, like Darwins animals, but because of political expediency across the limited land area of Britain, over a mere handful of years. Hence my theory of accelerated extinction.
And among the factors which will bring this about, if nothing is done to stop it, is the different political climate experienced by many of the competitors of UK farmers. Most of these operate in more favourable economic environments not now experienced in this country. So, while Darwins theories speak of the survival of the fittest and natural selection, Richardsons theory instead points to the survival of the luckiest and the inordinate power of short-term, short-sighted policies.
But we must always remember that, unlike natural phenomena over which man has little or no control, economic environments created by political forces are capable of being changed. Farmers must persuade both the public and politicians that they are as valuable, if not more so, than the natterjack toad.
To do that will require the united effort of all who derive their income from agriculture – not just farmers, but the supply trade, the machinery trade, the feed industry, the food industry and so on. Farmers on their own account for less than 2% of the population. As such, they hardly register on the political Richter scale. Add in all the others and farmers find themselves at the heart of an industry employing around 14% of the population.
If all could only work together to lobby government and influence public opinion, as they should, we would be a real force to be reckoned with, capable even of reversing Richardsons theory.