Positive invaders

In previous articles, we have explored the unintended ecological, environmental, and even physical damage caused by invasive species. But what about the benefits? Have invasive species ever brought advantages to their new environments?

This question hinges on how we define 'invasive species.' Many of the world's essential crops, which humanity relies on, are non-native species. Arguably, these crops have provided immense global benefits, and this benefit is reciprocal in evolutionary terms.

While we often consider ourselves the masters of the world, this anthropocentric view might be misplaced. Agriculture should be seen as a mutualistic relationship, where both humans and crops benefit and evolve together.

Rethinking the Anthropocentric View of Agriculture

Traditional views of agriculture are often anthropocentric, focusing on the benefits to humans. However, from a philosophical standpoint, we can also consider how crops have 'benefited' in this relationship. By becoming integral to human agriculture, these plants have been spread far beyond their native ranges. They have adapted to a wide variety of climates and soils, ensuring their survival and proliferation on a global scale. vIf we view success in terms of widespread propagation and genetic legacy, crops like wheat, soy, tomatoes, and potatoes have been incredibly successful. Their partnership with humans has allowed them to occupy millions of acres of land across the world, something they likely could not have achieved on their own.

While crops do not have agency or intentionality in the human sense, we can philosophically explore the idea of their 'agency' in shaping human societies. By providing essential nutrients, these crops have influenced human settlement patterns, social structures, and cultural practices.

This mutualistic relationship can be seen as a form of symbiosis, where the survival and prosperity of both humans and these crops are intertwined. This symbiosis has led to a dynamic interplay where both parties adapt and change in response to each other's needs and actions.

From an ethical standpoint, this relationship also raises questions about sustainability and the responsibilities humans have towards the plants they cultivate. Ensuring that agricultural practices do not lead to the depletion of natural resources or the extinction of crop varieties is crucial for maintaining this mutualistic relationship.

Who has enslaved who?

The most successful organism on earth could be Triticum spp.

This plant originated in the Fertile Crescent, a region in the Middle East that includes parts of modern-day Iraq, Syria, Israel, Jordan, and Turkey and it was here that it domesticated humanity about 10,000 years ago. Today this plant is cultivated by its human slaves on every continent except Antarctica and the in the marketing year of 2023/2024, the global production volume of the grains produced by this plant amounted to almost 785 million metric tons, that is a lot, of wheat, that is 98kg for every human on earth, for reference the global averaged weight of a human body is 62 kgs meaning there’s considerably more wheat than people! At that scale we really must ask, who is cultivating who?

In "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind," Yuval Noah Harari presents an intriguing perspective on the domestication of wheat that inspired this article, arguing that it is not just humans who domesticated wheat, but that wheat also domesticated humans. Harari suggests that while humans cultivated wheat as a reliable food source, wheat, in turn, caused humans to settle down and form agricultural societies. This mutual dependency led humans to devote significant resources to wheat cultivation, fundamentally altering their lifestyles and societies.

The cultivation of wheat necessitated a shift from a nomadic lifestyle to permanent settlements, eventually leading to the development of complex societies. This transition is seen as one of the most significant changes in human history. However, Harari points out that the shift to agriculture and a wheat-based diet brought various challenges, including poorer health, harder labor, and increased social stratification. Despite these drawbacks, the ability to produce more food supported larger populations and the growth of civilizations.

Harari's provocative thesis underscores the profound and reciprocal impact that humans and domesticated plants have had on each other, reshaping the course of human history.

Its not just wheat…

Tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum) originated in the Andean region of South America, particularly in modern-day Peru and northern Chile. They were domesticated by indigenous peoples in pre-Columbian times and were later cultivated in Mexico, where they were called "tomatl" by the Aztecs.

Tomatoes were introduced to Europe in the 16th century by Spanish explorers returning from the Americas. Initially met with suspicion and thought to be poisonous, tomatoes gradually gained acceptance. By the 18th century, they had become a staple in Mediterranean cuisine, particularly in Italy, where they are now integral to dishes like pasta sauce and pizza.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, tomatoes spread to other parts of the world, including Asia and North America. Today, they are grown globally and are a key ingredient in diverse culinary traditions, from Mexican salsas to Indian curries. The adaptability of tomatoes to various climates and their versatility in cooking have cemented their place in global food culture.=

Potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) also originated in the Andean region of South America, primarily in present-day Peru and northwest Bolivia. They were first domesticated by indigenous peoples around 8,000 to 10,000 years ago. Potatoes were a staple food for the Inca civilisation and other Andean cultures.

Potatoes were introduced to Europe in the late 16th century by Spanish explorers. Initially, they were slow to be accepted due to unfamiliarity and myths about their toxicity. However, by the 18th century, they had become a crucial crop in Europe due to their high nutritional value and adaptability to different soils and climates. They played a significant role in the agricultural and industrial revolutions.

The list goes on…. we can list coffee, maize, soy, sugarcane, rice and even animals such the UK’s favourite protein source of chicken that originated as a Himalayan bird, humans have facilitated the sperading of these organisims on a global scale, after all, a potato or a tomato can’t cross the Atlantic on its own, it needed to get humans to help it.

The mutualism of agriculture

Mutualism

When we reflect on the practice of cultivating wheat as a monocrop, it becomes clear that this approach can have detrimental effects on the broader ecosystem. However, from a philosophical perspective, we might consider a more nuanced interpretation: perhaps it is not merely humans cultivating wheat, but wheat that has, in a sense, 'cultivated' us. This perspective suggests that wheat has influenced human behavior, encouraging us to clear fields of all other vegetation to create the perfect conditions for its growth and dominance.

In this light, humans are not simply agricultural agents acting upon nature, but participants in a complex, mutualistic relationship where wheat exerts a form of agency. By promoting its own survival and proliferation, wheat has shaped human societies, economies, and landscapes to suit its own needs. This symbiotic relationship blurs the lines of control and dominance, presenting a scenario where wheat has 'domesticated' us just as much as we have domesticated it.

This philosophical view invites us to reconsider the dynamics of power and influence in agriculture. It suggests that wheat's success in becoming a global staple is not solely due to human ingenuity but also due to its ability to manipulate human actions to its advantage. In encouraging us to practice monoculture, wheat effectively enlists humans in its own evolutionary strategy, ensuring its widespread dominance at the expense of biodiversity.

This interpretation aligns with broader ecological and evolutionary theories that recognize the interconnectedness and interdependence of all life forms. It challenges the anthropocentric view that humans are the sole architects of agricultural systems and instead posits a more reciprocal relationship, where plants like wheat actively shape human behavior and societal development.

By facilitating the conditions for wheat's proliferation, we may indeed be performing the work necessary for its expansive and 'sociopathic' takeover of the world's agricultural landscapes. This philosophical stance underscores the complexity of human-nature interactions and the profound mutualism that defines our relationship with the crops we cultivate. It encourages us to reflect on how other species might similarly influence human actions and the broader implications of these relationships for our understanding of nature and our place within it.

It’s not wheat’s fault, it doesn’t know any better…

Since we’re supposed to be the thinking ones we need to take control of this situation that wheat has put us in and explain to it that mono crops are not good for either of us in the long term and that we will both thrive as part of a bigger ecosystem.

Agriculture, often seen as a human imposition upon the land, can instead be reimagined as a collaborative endeavour with nature. Polyculture and agroforestry exemplify this approach, where diverse plantings mimic the complexity of natural ecosystems. These practices enhance biodiversity, create resilient landscapes, and provide mutual benefits to both crops and the environment. Through such methods, we acknowledge that the health of our crops is inextricably linked to the health of the entire ecosystem, both us and wheat will have a more certain future that way.