In order to understand the destructive nature of agriculture we must understand the phases of ecological succession. Ecological succession refers to the phases of growth from barren rock to a climax forest. The loss of biodiversity that creates a blank slate generally occurs through a disturbance such as fire, flood, volcanic eruptions, etc.

Primary succession refers to the earliest phase of ecological succession, characterised by the growth of "pioneer plants" such as fungus, grasses and annual wildflowers. These plants love sun, barren rock and/or disturbed soil and serve to create quality, life-giving soil for secondary succession to grow in. Secondary succession refers to the later phases of ecological succession, marked by the growth of larger perennials such as shrubs and trees that need established soil that the primary succession forms. These phases work towards creating the final stage of succession, a stable ecosystem, referred to as a climax forest.

Agriculture refers to a process of cultivation that simulates natural catastrophe (i.e. burning, flooding, tilling) to inspire (mostly) annual pioneer plants, specifically grasses (i.e. corn, wheat, rice). From its foundation agriculture causes a loss of biodiversity; agricultural subsistence means keeping the land in a fixed state of primary succession. Agriculturalists have a fondness for mono-cropping. Mono-cropping sets up the perfect environment for insects who love to eat that particular plant. Slowly but surely tilling the soil to create continuous primary succession exposes soil to wind and rain until the soil erodes away entirely. So much so that in order to grow crops, our fields require the importation of mineral resources known as fertilizer.

Ecological succession show us that plant growth naturally progresses to climax forests. Agriculture involves working against this natural progression rather than working with it. Trying to stop insect populations when you have provided them the perfect habitat involves a lot of work. Making fertilizers that you would not need if you followed the flow of succession, involves a lot of work. Not only does this form of subsistence destroy the environment, it also requires a ton of labour.

These problems make agricultural subsistence easily open to crop-failure from large insect infestations, disease, climate change, etc. which leads inevitably to famine. If you put all your eggs in the agriculture basket, you die. In order to combat this agriculturalists invent food storage; aka the Granary. Initially this looks great, a little more work on their part, but in the end they don't starve to death during crop-failures. Unfortunately, food surplus effects the population growth of a species inspiring it to grow.

Any animal population that has a surplus of food, grows to match that surplus. Humans included. A population cannot grow without an increase in food availability, usually made available through an increase in "efficiency" in food production. Therefore, a population explosion implies more food production. Full time agriculturalists with a food surplus create a positive feedback loop of growing more food to feed an ever expanding population. Eventually, the soil underneath agriculturalists degrades and washes away and they either cease practicing agriculture (as we have seen with many civilisations), or they (as in the case of our civilisation) expand into neighbouring forests and keep growing.

Civilisation, a way of life characterised by the growth of cities, works as an ecological phenomenon occurring when agricultural peoples reach a certain population density due to their food surplus-induced population growth positive feedback loop. Though not a catastrophe in the "natural" sense (fires, floods, volcanic eruptions, comets), in ecological terms you can literally call civilisation a catastrophe. Perhaps a "cultural" catastrophe would serve as the best description.

What does rewilding a food system look like?

A rewilded food system would look like a progression from what we have now to what we did before we practiced agriculture. It feels worth noting that many first nations peoples and other indigenous peoples around the world heavily cultivated the lands they lived with in a manner very different than agriculture. Most, if not all, Indigenous cultures, "hunter-gatherer" or otherwise, practice involved land management.

The methods employed, have many names but I prefer the term horticulture. Horticulture refers to cultivation by means of secondary succession; perennial shrubs and trees. This still involves burning, selective harvesting and rotation, pruning, transplanting, minor tilling and weeding. While these methods can also lead to population growth, unlike agriculture, they do not necessarily lead to an overall loss of biodiversity and soil degradation because their foundation lies with using all phases of succession, rather than just the first. This also does not mean to say that horticulturalists never used agricultural practices, but that agricultural foods never formed a staple of their diet.

So how do we get rid of a culture hooked on deforesting to grow annual plant grains? The first step to rewilding our food system would involve immediately ceasing current deforestation. The second would involve dismantling all of our annual plant farms (wheat, corn, rice, soy) and transforming them back into forests, whether that happens through personal diet choices (such as buying only local and non-annual grains) or by physically stopping logging through whatever means a person feels comfortable with (whether through legislation or more underground techniques). It would look like ceasing to feed cattle with wheat, corn, rice and soy and let them graze once again. It could look like planting a perennial food garden. It could look like tossing seed balls in abandoned lots. It could look like old farmland returning to a forest. I don't expect our food system to change over night. It will work slowly, but we will have it again, or we will have desert wastelands. You decide.

Urban Scout lives a hunter-gatherer-grower lifestyle in Portland, Oregon. More information: <www.urbanscout.org>.