Ed. note: For the next few days, we are helping long-time regular contributor Chris Smaje highlight the UK release of his new book, Saying NO to a Farm-Free Future (available in the US on 20th July). Today we are posting a review by Crazy Town co-host Jason Bradford, who farms organically in the Pacific Northwest.
One of my pet peeves is ecomodernism. Ecomodernist authors have a knack for adeptly elucidating the polycrisis, and then offering nothing useful for dealing with it. Even if you are unfamiliar with the terms ecomodernism/ecomodernists, you are likely aware of their schtick, as it has come to dominate contemporary environmentalism. It is a groovy eco-philosophy that tells mostly urbanized, highly educated, white-collar folks that although the Earth is in danger, their lifestyles are not. Perfect for inserting a do-gooder vibe into political and business circles, and then fundraising.
For folks like me, with a background in ecology, decent awareness of the fragility of complex systems, and knowledge that the 50-year-old “Limits to Growth” model was never actually discredited, ecomodernists come across as delusional. They are classic double-downers, bumming you out with their description of reality, then telling you the same power structures, belief systems, industrial technologies, and ways of life that have led us over the cliff and into existential free fall will somehow catch us before we go splat. This trick is performed without any sense of irony or humility, and instead often reeks of condenscension towards those, such as author and farmer Chris Smaje, who suggest practical, albeit norm-challenging, ideas to keep the worst from happening.
Smaje is one of my favorite writers on farming and food system futures, with frequent blog posts published here on Resilience. His last book, A Small Farm Future, was a hit in my view, so I was eagerly anticipating his new release, Saying NO to a Farm Free Future. It didn’t disappoint.
The foil of the book is none other than the progressive and much-loved Guardian columnist George Monbiot, who recently authored his own treatise on the food system, Regenesis. Reluctantly, Smaje goes after Monbiot’s ideas while doing his best to avoid ad hominem attacks. Sadly, our favorite Guardian columnist has gone full ecomodernist, and while one can continue to believe in his good intentions and understanding of our predicament, he is promoting ill-advised, not-in-a-million-years-gonna-work, waste-of-our-finite-time-and-precious-resources schemes that are the opposite of what we ought to do.
Historically, Monbiot has not blinked from challenging the powerful, entrenched interests undermining long-term ecological stability, and he has often asked people to live by their values, even if doing so requires substantial sacrifice. Suddenly, he seems okay letting a centralized, industrialized, corporatized food system become even more so, applying manufactured food technologies that further dissociate people from the natural systems we all depend upon. In Monbiot’s utopia, 90% of us live in the city, and machines somehow take care of us while protecting nature.
Smaje explains, in modest technical detail, that the manufactured meal system at the heart of Monbiot’s techno-scheme is unlikely to succeed or even get off the ground. In a nutshell, we are talking about bioreactors, in which nutrients and an energy supply are fed to microbes (Monbiot’s favorite being the bacterium Cupriavidus necator), and they produce a mostly edible slurry. The proposed advantage with these technologies is that we no longer need farming to feed ourselves, thus freeing land for nature restoration.
If you aren’t technically proficient in one of several relevant disciplines, it may be difficult to rebut Monbiot. The premise is compelling and the promoters have marketing savvy and surface-level credibility. But wanting to believe something doesn’t make it true, and manufactured food appears to be part of a package of “green industrialism” arriving just in time to save high-energy modernity. For example, whereas ecosystems derive their energy supply from the sun via photosynthesis, the bioreactors are fed hydrogen and oxygen produced via electrolysis, which uses electricity. To supposedly make this eco-groovy, the electrolysis must be powered by “renewables.”
Step back and envision the full picture here. On the one hand we have farming, which has fed people for thousands of years using domesticated plants and animals that reproduce themselves via seeds, eggs, and uteri. On the other hand we have a proposal to mostly eliminate farms and replace them with massive arrays of solar panels, wind turbines, steel vats, pumps, and various other equipment that will continually break and need rebuilding. I am honestly dumbfounded that this unproven-at-scale, energy-hogging, and technically complex scheme is finding any traction. I encourage you to read Smaje’s book to get a full dismantling of manufactured food.
Saying NO to a Farm Free Future does more than just take down Monbiot and the broader ecomodernist philosophy. It presents, in a condensed form, much of what Smaje covers in A Small Farm Future.
Farming takes up a lot of space on Earth, and this is space that displaces other creatures. We have a biodiversity crisis, and we have agricultural soils that are losing carbon and leaching over-applied nutrients and toxins. Smaje is not a defender of this system, and so there are wide areas of agreement between him and Monbiot on the problems with agriculture. But whereas Monbiot says no farms, Smaje says small farms using agroecological techniques. Whereas Monbiot says spare land for nature, Smaje says share land with nature while we farm, and become more productive while getting more people onto small farms.
I find Smaje’s argument refreshing here. There has been a false “sparing vs sharing” dichotomy, especially in the UK, with the notion that we have a choice between less-productive farms that are nature-friendly, and more-productive farms that are nature-harming. But this argument has been applied almost exclusively to industrial farms, which are large, highly mechanized, and ecologically simplified relative to traditional and some modern systems that are more intensively managed by people. This intensity of management at a small scale often leads to yield productivity on a per area basis (area efficiency being the fetish of ecomodernists) that exceeds most industrialized systems. Of course area is just one of many input factors in farming, others being applied external nutrients, exosomatic energy, equipment, money, and human labor. If you see the future as being much like the recent past, where human labor is the most expensive factor of production, then you can only imagine farming with less human labor. However, as Smaje argues, more human labor is probably our future by necessity, and this changes what is possible, or even likely to evolve, with farming and food systems.
In Smaje’s view, sparing and sharing are not necessarily in conflict when people reconnect with the natural world, a notion Monbiot seems to scoff at. There appears to be an unbridgeable divide between worldviews: the ecomodernists who see humans as separate from nature, and the ecologically minded who see themselves as part of nature. Terms are being trialed such as “neo-agrarian” and “neo-peasanthood” that may be jarring to some who imagine humanity riding on some kind of techno-progress train. But for others, these terms acknowledge the liminal period we inhabit, as modernity and industrialization peak and wane. How do those raised in a culture of separation from nature, with abundant exosomatic energy from fossil fuels and vast transportation networks, develop the knowledge, skills, and new culture that draws from the past while preparing for a very different future? It would be nice if more of us were asking this question and seeking answers, and although it is a shame George Monbiot isn’t helping us out here, I am sure glad Chris Smaje is.
Comments
Welcome to the new Resillience commenting system!
We have moved from the former Disqus commenting system to a new system as of September 10, 2026.
We made this change because of privacy concerns regarding Disqus. It's also part of a set of changes to bring more services to the Resilience community under a single login: commenting, (coming September 2026), and online courses (coming 2027). Unfortunately, your old Disqus comments may not reliably link to your account in this new system. Please contact us if you have any questions or concerns.
Yea this realization hit me in about 2003 I believe, when I first put the pieces together thanks to folks like Heinberg, Meadows, and Daly. So I decided to learn how to farm. It is a huge learning curve. I am just decent at this point, after 20 years, still with much to learn and improve upon. But maybe someday I will be one of those teaching others when they will really be paying attention.
Well, there is farming and then there is farming. What most folks understand as “farming” is a business — an agricultural production business in which salable commodities for the market are produced (grown) for “the market”. As you know, Jason, the smaller such a farming operation is, the greater the likelihood that the “independent” farmer will be making self-paid wages at the bottom of the labor market, in terms of dollars per hour. This is why so few people want to be “farmers”.
Very often farmers are making less than minimum wage, when all costs of production are calculated, including land taxes, land payment, etc. Even when land has been inherited, it’s still a very tough business to be in.
As you know, the small farm future which Smaje is advocating for involves — mostly — self-provisioning, with perhaps a bit of sales of produce on the side. But he’s not really advocating for farming as a business in the usual sense. He sees what I see coming, a time when (and not too far off) the economy will fundamentally shift toward a necessity of a massive amount of self-provisioning.
As I see it, self-provisioning exists on a spectrum from individual s.p. to family s.p. through to what I call “community” s.p., with neibhborhoods to villages functioning as communities which s.p. together, and distribute the produce mostly outside of the market economy, as s.p. implies.
In my personal opinion, the ideal form of s.p. is community s.p. within a gift economy. Labor is given. Land (where possible) is given. Materials and tools are given. And food circulates within a gift economy. In such local cultures, no one need go hungry, or be unsheltered. Money becomes less necessary, but still needed in a transition away from having money mediate every action and transaction.
Now, I’m speaking as one deeply inside a communalistic orientation, rooted in a communalistic relation to land — as I’m culturally indigenous in this way, even if most of my blood is caucasion. I truly, and deeply believe that I belong to the land and the land does not belong to me. So while Smaje and I agree on almost everything, he is probably less committed to gift economy and communalism than I. For me, the basic unit of human organization is — or aught to be — not the individual or family, but the village. Provided the village is agrarian (and thus settled, as opposed to nomadic foragers)….
In the coming economic lean times, we’re going to have to share resources of every kind a lot more, and this includes labor … giving into community, as it were. All other ways will fail. So I’m speaking here about becoming essentially like indigenous people around the world have always been, prior to what we like to call ‘civilization’. Ours will be a hybrid culture, both ‘civilized’ and not-so-civilized. At least for a while. And then gawed only knows what might happen later.
Money is not all its cracked up to be, and far less necessary — as is property and real estate.
By the way, I see David Holmgren’s concept of retrosuburbia as a model not only for suburbs but also for many towns and cities, in which neighborhoods can function essentially like agrarian villages, if we so choose. And it goes without saying that in the more densely populated towns, cities and suburbs there will be need of more land than is present in the immediate, to meet basic food and shelter needs. That’s why towns and cities which survive will need to be adjacent communal farm land, just out of town. And that’s why millions will have to leave these densely populated places for more rural ones.
Brilliant piece. I’ve despaired Monbiot of late – nice fellow, but as Nate Hagens would say: energy blind.
Displace using the sun by using renewable energy which comes from the sun. Cram people so much that they have to go ‘up’. Service them with roads made from fossil feedstock. What could possibly go wrong?
Good article!
Whether because of an involuntary process of energy descent, a voluntary one, or some combination of these two (which is the most likely path we’re going to take), what we call “the economy” is going to get smaller and leaner and less focused on meeting luxury-oriented desires — and more focussed on meeting legitimate human needs. And this will occur at a time in which floods, droughts, heatwaves, heatdomes and other serious disruptions to food production (and everything else) will be amplifying, as it already is. The amplifications are themselves amplifying, which means it’s all going to get more difficult for everyone, human or otherwise.
In short, there will be many fewer of what we call “jobs” in the near-term future economy. (I partly explain why here: https://www.resilience.org/stories/2022-10-31/energy-transition-the-luxury-economy/ ). Money will become increasingly scarce. And the need for access to livelihoods rooted in local production for local use, with a vast proportion of such “production” being self-provisioning of, by and for local communities, will increase dramatically. This is unavoidable–inevitable–baked into the cake. It’s what our fulture can only be, as the energy transition we’re being sold by the ecomodernists will not come to pass. It was never meant to come to pass, after all. It’s a can-kicking exercise and a ruse. It’s a narrative to keep us from paying close attention.
I believe that anyone who understands the logic of this argument will not be far from realizing that very many millions among the world’s population will very soon require access to more land for community self-provisioning of basic necessities — food, shelter, water… — than presently have access to sufficient land for doing so. This will not merely be a situation for the poor in the Global South (poor countries), but will be the case for coundless people in the Global North (rich countries). People living in presently rich countries have to eat, too. And there will be few jobs and not a lot of money circulating, so you do the math.
I predict this will be among the top political topics of the near future. But at the moment, this topic is far under the radar, and is almost never openly discussed — not even among readers of Resilience, and its ilk.
This is a problem, this lack of discussion of this urgent topic, because the time to smooth the passage to a low carbon (and low energy, and low capital, and cash poor) economy is well before the system crashes and forces the shift under duress, at risk of social chaos and breakdown.
So let me be the Court Jester to get that conversational ball rolling. I’ll play the clown and say, indeed, the Emperor is quite naked, and terribly ignorant, and not very honest at all.
That’s quite a partizan review… Are you sure we’re talking about the same George Monbiot here? Because I think it’s quite a stretch to call him an ecomodernist. From his recent piece “The Hunger Gap” (https://www.monbiot.com/2023/03/09/the-hunger-gap/ , 9th March 2023):
“[…]it is just as important that the UK Government, in conjunction with others, acts at the global level to restore resilience to the global food system. […] Environmental resilience means farming systems that are simultaneously high-yield and low-impact. One route to developing them is support, especially through research and extension, for high-yield agroecology. High-yield agroecology depends in turn on a much richer knowledge of soil. […] There is also great potential to enhance food security by developing alternative protein sources. [about precision fermentation]”
So yes, he talks about exploring a technological solution to replace the breeding of livestock. But he also talks about enlarging our knowledge of soil for better agroecology. That’s not quite your typical ecomodernist techno fix, and I would be surprised if you could find one ecomodernist who is that concerned with soil.
I have no idea why, but Chris Smaje seems on a mission to portray Monbiot in the worst way possible. And I’m a bit disappointed that Jason Bradford goes along with it so easily in this review. I was quite annoyed by Smajes recent piece on here, where he tried to compile a list of answers he was tired of repeatedly giving his critics, but in the end it turned into little more than a series of attacks on Monbiot.
I think the straw-manning of Monbiot comes from a basic misunderstanding of where he stands on ecology. According to Bradford “There appears to be an unbridgeable divide between worldviews: the ecomodernists who see humans as separate from nature, and the ecologically minded who see themselves as part of nature.” I think what Bradford misses, is the possibility of a third option: You can be ecologically minded and see yourself apart from nature. And I say this as an organic farmer.
I know the feeling of working in the fields: Birdsong all around, the beauty of nature with all its splendid colors and variations. You try to steer things as best as possible, but in the end you are at the mercy of the weather, the soil, the insects and other animals. It’s a humbling and at the same time empowering experience. It makes you feel part of something bigger, moving to a rhythm you can’t control, only follow. But I have no illusion that what I do makes me part of nature. Farming works by disturbing nature, it’s not natural. Some forms more than others, but unless you settle for low yields (most of permaculture and agroforestry), you have to work against the grain of nature.
Monbiot seems to fall in this category as well: Nature is best done by nature. And not by farmers. I remember seeing a spreadsheet from a leading Dutch agro-university which listed which nematodes could be found in local soils, how damaging they could be to which crops, and which crops could be used to suppress certain nematodes. What struck me is that 80% of the spreadsheet was filled with question marks, meaning we have no clue what is going on. To me that was the perfect illustration that we know next to nothing about our soils, a point Monbiot also makes. But if we know next to nothing about our soils, why should we be able to make wise decisions about other ecosystems? Do we really think a rural sprawl of small scale farmers can take better care of ecosystems than nature itself?
Monbiot is aiming for a future with the most room for Nature, with capital N (so not the watered down version we call farming). Ecomodernists want this too, so that’s possibly where the confusion comes from. But that’s where the comparison stops. Only not for Bradford, who claims: “But whereas Monbiot says no farms, Smaje says small farms using agroecological techniques.” One only has to read Monbiots recent quote at the beginning of this comment again to see that Bradford (and possibly Smaje as well) somehow completely misses what Monbiot is really saying.
Monbiot has never indicated he got the physics of – well, got the physics. The reality is that we expend several calories of finite fossil energy, to produce one calorie of food. Some say 10:1, but if I start counting the manufacture of the oil-filters on the tractors, I can get to 30 FF calories in, to one food calorie out. Easily. We’re eating our way through the b—dy stuff. In fact, we’d be better working out a way to eat oil directly (Bunker Macs? KeroseneFC?) than what we do, it’s so inefficient. And temporary.
That energy-blindness was fully evident in this Monbiot article:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/08/lab-grown-food-destroy-farming-save-planet
and incidentally, the headline belies the comments made here already (I presume it was his). Nowhere does he ask where the calories are coming from – and calories sure don’t come from nowhere, the laws of thermodynamics are fairly immutable. Electricity? How garnered, where? Over what acreage? Not a skerrick. Hagens has it right; energy blind.
I had noticed the shift in Monbiot’s writing and I don’t bother to read him any more. Small farms, intensively managed, will put many more people back on the farm. This will compensate for the loss of jobs to automation. Appropriate technology will remove most of the drudgery from farming. Humans need some kind of work to be happy and healthy.