Learning What It Really Means to Coexist

agriculture (n.)

mid-15c., "tillage, cultivation of large areas of land to provide food," from Late Latin agricultura "cultivation of the land," a contraction of agri cultura "cultivation of land," from agri, genitive of ager "a field" + cultura "cultivation"

In a sign of just how deeply into the Twilight Zone we have drifted, the newly appointed head of Iowa’s Department of Natural Resources, Kayla Lyon, asserted in a recent interview:

“Iowa is an agricultural state, but that doesn’t mean ag and natural resources can’t coexist. And they should” (Cedar Rapids Gazette, 11/15/2019).

 Excuse me?  How could they not coexist?  Land, after all - the "agri" part of agriculture - is one of the more obvious natural resources surrounding us.  And even if modern commodity seeds owe much of their parentage to the laboratory, they are, somewhere deep down in their DNA, a natural resource. Plants - the vegetative kind, not the brick and mortar manufacturing sort - produce them.  I can no more get my head around the DNR Chief's differentiation than I could a clergy person's suggestion that "surely the church and the Bible can coexist."  Or a top chef acknowledging that vegetables and the kitchen might not be mutually exclusive. 

But somehow we have forgotten the intrinsic connection.  We have built our own philosophical border wall between the two by dividing them into separate governmental departments - "The Department of Agriculture" and the "Department of Natural Resources" - though the head of the former is elected and called a "Secretary," while the head of the latter is appointed and called "Director."  I'm not sure how to parse the semantics of all that. 

In a sane world, an "Office of Agriculture" would be a sub-category in an organizational chart of the more inclusive "Department of Natural Resources."  But that would suggest that the land and waterways, the wildlife and overall health of the planet that we cultivate - the "cultura" part of agriculture - were of larger and more primary importance.  Alas, that would grossly misrepresent the facts.  By every demonstration possible - laws, practices, attention, funding, deference - we evidence that our principle interest is in the "business" part of farming over the location, the elements, the health and the context of it. 

Once upon a more ignorant time in my life I thought of "soil" as simply that inert matrix into which seeds are poked, and where they ultimately take root for support while waiting for farmers to take care of all their more important needs.  I had no idea that living, fertile soil was, in fact, the most important resource needed by those seeds - soil supported by a healthy ecosystem of waterways, wildlife and organic matter. 

How have we come to this brittler place where waterways are simply agricultural toilets, wildlife is mere sport, and organic matter the laughable and fuzzy romanticism of liberal environmentalists? 

God only knows.  But at least in their polluted, disregarded state they are coexisting with what's really important. 

Until they - our genuinely precious natural resources - no longer can; at which time we will realize how misshapen, misguided and dis-serving our organizational chart really was - and what it really means to "coexist."