Does throwing rocks prove we are smart?

This article is bought to you by GE Silos and Vic Feeds.

By John Gladigau - Executive Director at Bulla Burra Operations Pty Ltd

Why is it that when we don't agree with someone, we naturally think they are not as smart as us?

I have to say that I do take it to heart when people question the intellect of farmers. There are some who think we are the cause (and don't understand) climate change, we are poisoning the planet with glyphosate, our animal husbandry practices are poor, we are not well educated, and as a result we are dragging our feet with technology and even ‘enlightenment'. Oh – and because of our backward thinking we are solely responsible for the election of conservative governments which apparently are keeping us in the 20th century. Or maybe even the 19th.

Intelligence is a funny thing. In some way it is similar to common sense. We all feel that we ourselves have enough, but everyone else should have a little bit more. So, it seems that if you disagree with someone on anything, it's because they are not quite as smart as you are. Obviously. Otherwise they would agree with our point of view!

But as farmers we also take the high moral ground. Yes, we know we are world leaders in regard to managing a changing climate. We understand soil biology and the chemical compositions we use on our farms better than anyone. We are fully focused on animal welfare because, well - it is in our best interest and that of our livestock to do so. Farmers are constantly learning, receiving training and educating themselves – and the technology we are using is mind blowing.

 .  

But the mistake we as farmers make, is that like everyone else – we also roll our eyes when we feel people take exception to, or seemingly don't understand what we do, or how, or for what reason. Some think that animal activists are raving loonies because they don't have the complex understanding of livestock that we do. Some think that many city people aren't that smart because they don't understand the chemistry of how glyphosate works and its inherent safety as we do. There are those who think the vast majority of the public have been conned by a climate change conspiracy, when a fool could see it is just a weather cycle – albeit a bad one. We are the smart ones. Or at least so we like to think.

No – this is wrong.

If we take away the extreme elements on both sides, there are still many people who have concerns around animal welfare, GMO's, chemicals and possibly believe the media hype around agriculture being the majority contributor to the warming of the planet. The majority of these are very smart, articulate people who have a considered view, are concerned about their families – and have a great heart for animals and the preservation of the environment. We may not always agree with their views, but that does not necessarily mean they are wrong. It does not mean they are not intelligent or compassionate. Insulting their intelligence by insisting that we are right and they are wrong is not the answer.

Within our agriculture bubble we keep talking about the need to educate the wider public about what we do. In some ways this is our way of insinuating that we are right, and they are wrong. However, we need to engage in order to educate. And education goes two ways. Part of the engagement process is the need for us to acknowledge that the people who eat, wear and purchase what we produce have a right to question how we go about doing this. We also need to allow the wider public to educate us on their concerns, which in turn gives us the opportunity to engage and educate them on what we do. We can only do this through mutual respect, candid conversations and a willingness to understand each other.

All very idealistic I know, but throwing rocks is not the answer.

Trying to claim the intellectual high ground is not the answer.

Being dismissive of concerns is not the answer.

In any argument the person with the greatest intelligence is always wrong, because they did not use their intelligence to avoid the argument in the first place.

 .