After 10,000 Years, Farming No Longer Dominates

Peter S. Magnusson writes "As reported widely in business and mainstream press, the ILO recently released world market employment statistics. Most outlets focused on US economic competitiveness vs. China and Europe. Few noticed the gem hidden away in the ILO report: for the first time since the invention of agriculture, farming is not the biggest sector of the global economy — services is. (Aggregate employment numbers often divide the economy into agriculture, industry, and services.) Workers are now moving directly from agriculture to services, bypassing the traditional route of manufacturing."

Comments

To me, the really sad thing is...

[AltGrendel]

...once you take land out of agricultural use, it is never used for agriculture again. By that I mean the growing of crops. Once a building is there, that's it.

Re:To me, the really sad thing is...

[AKAImBatman]

I can fix that!

--

10,000 years of incredible human engineering isn't going to end with something as simple as "we've developed all the farmland".

Re:To me, the really sad thing is...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Not necessarily. You can always put a green roof on the building. You can also use corner offices for greenhouses. Especially Southwest and Southeast corners.

What really disturbs me though is that we've gone from a race of creators, creating goods with agriculture or manufacturing, to a world wide economy of McJobs that pay minimum wage and create NOTHING.

Re:To me, the really sad thing is...

[MyLongNickName]

And, yet, starvation rates world wide are going down. Perhaps the issue is distribution, not supply? Also, the fact that food is a smaller percentage of the economy does not mean that the amount of food is decreasing. If the rest of the economy per capita is increasing by a positive rate, then it will naturally outstrip food which is not going to be consumed at an every increasing per capita rate.

Re:To me, the really sad thing is...

[Gospodin]

I don't care to go into details right now, but the "global economy" is destroying our food supply.

I don't care to go into details right now, but you're wrong.

Re:To me, the really sad thing is...

[gomiam]

I would like you to explain why do you say that. AFAIK, current crops and current agricultural methods provide more food per surface unit (and I'm not even getting into account hidroponics): mechanization of the work allows to plant and seed at the optimum growth distance, and current crops usually require less space per plant to grow and produce the same amount.

Re:To me, the really sad thing is...

[bigdavex]

That's certainly not true for grains. What are kind of crops are you thinking of?

Wilson Quarterly

Since 1900, U.S. farmers have more than tripled wheat production per acre to 40 bushels in 1997, up from 12. For corn, the gains have been even larger--127 bushels per acre in 1997 versus 28 in 1900. But in the previous century, crop yields barely improved at all. In 1800, wheat yields were 15 bushels per acre and corn yields 25 bushels per acre.

Re:To me, the really sad thing is...

[AKAImBatman]

People will knock down some building and plant crops long before they'll starve.

While true, it's unlikely it will ever happen. Barring a collapse of civilization (did someone mention Huns at the door?) humankind will continue to engineer itself forward. Something "complicated" like an Indoor Farm may seem like an overkill, but it does have a lot of advantages over farmland. Not the least of which is control. We've already been engineering our crops and the soil. (Even the "organic" variety still use modern farming techniques.) Thus the next logical step is to engineer the farmland itself to better meet our needs.

Reducing the distance between the farms and the consumers could have a lot of direct benefits. One of which is being able to control and recycle the farm wastes means that open lands are cleaner and better smelling. Future city engineers may even look at ways of pumping filtered CO2 from the city's air into the crops, while pumping the resultant oxygen back to the city.

Lots of possibilities. :)

(And yes, I've been watching too much "Engineering an Empire" off of iTunes. Excellent show!)

Re:To me, the really sad thing is...

[TykeClone]

For corn, much of the improvements have come in the genetics of the seed (hybridization in the 50's and gmo's now) and in the application of ag chemicals for fertilizer and pest control. This year, the USDA is estimating that corn yields will be in the 150 bushels per acre range (but that might be a bit high).

Re:To me, the really sad thing is...

[E 99]

Since 1900, U.S. farmers have more than tripled wheat production per acre to 40 bushels in 1997, up from 12. For corn, the gains have been even larger--127 bushels per acre in 1997 versus 28 in 1900. But in the previous century, crop yields barely improved at all. In 1800, wheat yields were 15 bushels per acre and corn yields 25 bushels per acre.

There are a whole lot of factors that contribute to those increases, though. Probably one of the simplest is the affordability of irrigation. One of the most frequently overlooked is the 30% increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Re:To me, the really sad thing is...

[gstoddart]

Developed land is replacing farmland because agriculture gets more and more efficient, not because of some law of thermodynamics.

No, it replaces farmland because cities grow out into previously rural places, and smaller farms sell out because they can make more money by selling the land than farming it. On the industrial scale, farming is more efficient. But it doesn't account for most of the loss of farm-land.

If what you were saying, farms in rural areas would simply congeal into a big mega farm.

I know both Toronto and Ottawa in Ontario (Canada) have steadily been expanding into what was once some of the best farmland in the country. There's an ever-diminishing number of farmers who haven't sold out. For the most part, it goes away due to subdivision growth, not anything to do with the efficiency of farming.

When you get many miles of subdivision occupying what used to be very arable land, that farmland is taken out of the pool. Increasingly in the west, food comes from rather far away since we're using the land for roads and houses instead of farming.

I can only imagine that if you look around the western world, you'll find lots of places which used to be good farmland have suffered the same fate. Unfortunately, it would take a massive amount of upheaval to cause people in suburbs to start tearing down their homes and streets to start on subsistence farming.

Cheers

Re:To me, the really sad thing is...

[mikael]

It's not too difficult to convert a garden lawn into an allotment or a greenhouse. That's what many people do in the UK. Even if they don't have a garden they can rent an allotment from the city council (much to the dismay of land developers). People were encouraged to do this during World War II. By growing their own vegetables, fuel used to transport produce from the countryside to the cities could go towards the war effort instead. Even after rationing was removed, people still insisted on growing their own food, as it tastes fresher than the produce from the supermarkets.

As an example of a shortage in food supply, you only have to look at the milk shortage the UK faces. The major supermarket chains (Tesco, Sainsbury, ...) all employ "negotiators" to keep the price of commodity items down while keeping the price of other items high. As a consequence, they drove a good many dairy farms into bankruptcy, so they bought milk on the international market instead. Now that China has announced that all children should get at least half a glass of milk a day, the international market cannot satisfy demand.

Source Sunday Times

Re:I for one...

[snowraver1]

Question: Are Chinese gold farmers in the service or agriculture industry?

Nice blog to get hits, but...

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Here's the important info, from the actual report: Here (PDF)

You'll note, from this article:

Caution should be used, however, where the information refers only to employees or only to urban areas. For some years in certain countries, the sectoral information relates only to urban areas, so that little or no agricultural work is recorded. Also, there is no data culled for the vast majority of African nations, where the sector of choice would be agriculture. So, to sum it up - your blog about the rise of services vs. agriculture could only be considered partially correct, at best.

grammar nazi time

[curmudgeous]

Yes, I did RTFA, and I think the following is only one example in the blog of why one should proofread one's works or at least get an editor to do so.

(sic) "If you licked this posting, then please click here..."

I don't know about the rest of you, but I've never felt the urge to lick someone's blog.

Impossible...

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as games like WoW exist.

Farming will always be there.

But is it only a Bubble like the Dot Bomb era?

[abb3w]

Semi-seriously. I'm not sure the services-dominant model is sustainable.

less agricultural folks is NOT a good thing

[cats-paw]

fewer people making food makes the agricultural system more sensitive to disruption whether due to political upheaval, new and exciting crop pests, weather misfortunes, etc... Many folks on slashdot realize the advantages of decentralized, i.e. distributed systems, and it's an especially good thing for food production.

Also, the argicultural "miracle" we are currently seeing, is borrowing from the future to pay for itself in terms of environmental damage. You should really be worried when growing food hurts the environment, it really shouldn't be that way.

The Third Wave

[Doc Ruby]

Read Alvin Toffler's 1980 book _The Third Wave_ which predicted with uncanny accuracy just how this would play out. Stay ahead of the next 10,000 years.

Ignorance is not an excuse

[pkbarbiedoll]

Ethanol is most criticized, and with due cause. Traditional methods of ethanol production (for instance) deserve criticism. Using only corn kernels is horribly inefficient, particularly when corn is a food source.

But the old ways are changing. The State of Georgia will host the nation's first cellulosic ethanol production facility. Cellulosic ethanol production is more than 15 times more efficient than traditional production methods. Any green biomass can be used: corn kernels, corn stalks, corn roots, switchgrass, cane sugar, tree chips, industrial green waste, and even pig shit. This is the future of biofuels.

Range Fuels is building the new facility in Georgia. They do not use any biomass also used as a food source for humans or animals. The Georgia plant will use industrial tree waste from the many paper mills in the region.

Guess you'd like to clean your own hotel room?

[ShatteredArm]

Since there is no real value to having someone clean your hotel room, you might as well do it, right? And cook your own burgers? Why do they have chefs, why not just have the customers cook their own etouffee? Maybe if we drive to Iowa to pick up our own corn, we won't have to push money around without adding value. From now on, I'm going to roll my own sushi!

Give them more credit

[paladinwannabe2]

Our entertainers, doctors and teachers all count as 'service' jobs. So are the graphic artists who design our toys and the advertisers who sell them to us. So are the truckers that bring us our food, the McMinions that cook it for us, and the lawyers that sue for us when we eat too much of it. Just because someone's in a 'service' job doesn't mean they aren't useful, valued, and improve the human condition. It also certainly doesn't mean they make minimum wage. (Sure, the McMinions will make minimum wage, but it's not like the assembly line workers or grunt farmers are doing any better for themselves).

It's already being done

[Anonymous Coward]

However, it's being done by people growing illegal crops - marijuana. Growing marijuana outside has many disadvantages; pests (both insect and law enforcement), seeds, thieves (both pot smokers and pot law enforcers), weather, etc.

Pot grown inside has little chance of being discovered; the only way to be found out is by letting someone know it's being grown there.

Outdoors, insects are a problem. Indoors the insect problem is easily controllable.

Pot grown outdoors has seeds, which weigh far more than the pot itself, taste bad, and produce no high. Indoors the male plants can be pulled befors they produce pollen.

Outdoor crops are prone to drought and overwatering, even floods. If indoor pot is overwatered, it's the farmer's fault.

Indoors, pot is easily cloned. One can find one great plant and clone it, producing what toiday's potheads call "hydro". It's believed by smokers that pot grown hydroponically is of higher quality than pot grown in dirt, but given the same genetics, either farming method will produce the exact same quality, and the clones are exectly the same potency as their parent plant (given the same amount of light, water, and fertilizer).

OT for the subject but on topic for this post, It's ironic that the War On (some) Drugs has produced more potent drugs! Today's pot is all seedless bud, while 1970s pot had stems, seeds, and leaf. And the bud itself, even without the seeds, is up to four times as potent as the 1970s bud. And without the "war", it's possible that crack cocaine might never been invented (or been invented yet). Prohibition not only doesn't work, it exacerbates the problems it is supposed to solve. Alcohol prohibition had America in a domestic, gang-fueled bloodbath, and often the illegal hooch had very harmful impurities, often produced by the government itself. Likewise, reefer prohibition had the Feds spraying paraquat on outdoor crops, sickening and killing American potsmokers (there is no lethal dose for unadulterated reefer) and contributing to pot's being grown indoors. Cocaine prohibition is producing the same gang-fueled bloodbath as alco hol prohibition did, and possiby was the cause of crack being invented.

When my daughters were in high school, one made the astute observation that you could buy pot, coke, and crack in school. I asked if you could buy beer in school? The answer is "no". So please think of the children and legalise drugs!

-anonymous coward

To Anyone Horrified By This Development:

[aquatone282]

Get up at 4:00 a.m., slop the pigs, milk the cows, brush the horses, feed the chickens, cook breakfast, eat breakfast, hook up a plow to the tractor, plow the north 40 acres, meet the vet to see that sick heifer, drive to town and plead for another loan, buy feed for the animals and groceries for the family, drive home, cook dinner, eat dinner, pay bills, balance the checkbook, go to bed (9:00 p.m.)

Then get up the next day and repeat. And continue to repeat for two weeks (except Sundays - go to the church of your choice on Sunday and pray to God you survive another year). Then come back and complain.

Re:6 Billion+

[ThosLives]

Programming is an "industry" or "manufacturing" job since it produces a final, tangible product (a program).

Actually, the jury is still out on this one, and most people consider programming to, in fact, be a service job.

The ultimate question is this: is a program real wealth or is it just something that has value? A piece of food or a building is real wealth in that it is something which can be used to directly keep a person alive or directly change matter/energy. The value of a piece of wealth may change, but its inherent utility does not (if we neglect things like aging and falling apart). A 1000 square foot house will still be a 1000 square foot house whether people are willing to pay $50000 or $500000 for it. An apple is still an apple regardless of its price.

Software is an admittedly difficult-to-classify area, because in one sense software is indeed a tool: it allows fast computation for design, or accurate control of machinery. In another sense, though, software itself is a unique type of good in that it is not economically scarce: once a particular bit of software is created, there are no practical physical limitations on the number of simultaneous uses of that software. This is the argument against considering software to be wealth.

I think the best way to divide "service" from "not service" is: is the result of the activity new wealth, or just shifting around of wealth? I understand that services create value, but that is different than wealth. Manufacturing and agriculture definitely create wealth; programming may or may not depending on how you look at it. Everything else is clearly a service, because it just shifts the wealth of manufacturing and agriculture around.

My take on the matter is simply this: I cannot eat a haircut, nor will readily-available newsfeeds keep the cold winter air away. An economy must produce wealth to survive; just providing services means that you're just a slave to whomever does in fact produce the actual wealth.

For now ...

[ScrewMaster]

After 10,000 Years, Farming No Longer Dominates

A temporary aberration. After the Great Collapse of 2027, everybody that survived was learning how to grow food again.