As last month’s column noted, agriculture is the most substantial, longest-running human experiment in earth systems engineering and management. It is thus not surprising that it is in agriculture that foundational questions, such as the relationship between human design and nonhuman life forms, are first arising.

The direct effects of agriculture are virtually definitional: modification of both floral and fauna to better provide human benefits, be they food, fiber, fuel, or the like. The indirect effects have been even more significant given the massive changes in human demographics and settlement patterns, infrastructure systems, consumption habits, and economic and technological systems enabled by agriculture over human history.

That it is the agricultural sector where biodiversity becomes directly mediated by humans in the form of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), with all the attendant cultural conflict, is, from a historical perspective, predictable.

But the current debate over GMOs is in some sense a look in the rearview mirror, reflecting anachronistic world-views when the future will be significantly different than even the present. Consider, for example, the question of agricul-ture’s role in the future. No doubt, it will continue to provide everything it does now; in fact, demand for agriculturally produced biomass will likely expand significantly.

This has several important implications. First, questions of integrating environmental, social, and economic efficiency in agricultural operations and technologies will increase in importance. Second, agriculture will increasingly become a critical leverage point where human and fundamental natural cycles -- hydrologic and climate systems; carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorous cycles; land use patterns; human cultural, economic, and technological systems -- integrate.

Accordingly, agriculture will in part shift from a “cause” of environmental perturbations to a management tool for natural systems. Third, this integrative role will reflexively change both technology and the culture. Thus, substantially more reliance on GMOs may become necessary as land use, production efficiency, and adaptation to changes in climate occur.

More subtly, cultural constructs may also shift. For example, “biodiversity” might evolve from being a reflection of patterns in an external environment (“what species are out there?”) to a re-flection of human design (“what life forms have we designed?”).

This is not to say such changes will be “good” or “bad,” only that current trends indicate that they are likely. We lack solid data and analytical frameworks to make assertions about the costs, benefits, and normative assessments of different kinds of agricultural practices. Is developed country organic farming “good” or “bad” compared to alternatives? The data are too sparse to support an answer.

For example, organic produce may not have pesticide residues, but may have a higher fungal load, with concomitant higher concentrations of potent toxins such as aflatoxin. Similarly, no-till agricultural practices can have environmental benefits (e.g., less erosion), which increase (significantly?) if GMOs, which reduce weed management, are used. Organic farming may be appropriate for some specialty crops, but might require much more land if used for core crops, such as corn. Economically, organic food is a luxury item, which engenders equity considerations: will “healthier” organics be only for the rich? Such questions beg entirely the implications of agricultural needs and practices in developing countries, which might be entirely different.

Ideological biases often substitute for analysis where data and comprehensive assessment don’t exist. What is needed aren’t better bumper stickers, but rigorous and systemic evaluations of biomass production processes, taking into account current and future demand and supply; technological options; and environmental, social, economic, and cultural costs and benefits.

Such studies should not try to reach normative solutions -- whether organic cotton is “better” or “worse,” for example -- but should try to identify the relevant dimensions and considerations that individuals might consider in reaching their own conclusions. The point of such an earth systems approach is not to close on any single answer, but to develop the information and wisdom critical for the successful evolution of agriculture in the anthropogenic world.

-- Brad Allenby

Allenby is Environment, Health, and Safety VP for AT&T, an adjunct professor at the University of Virginia’s Engineering School and Princeton Theological Seminary, and Batten Fellow at the University of Virginia’s Darden Business School. The views expressed herein are those of the author, and not any institution with which he is associated.