**3.1 Implications of change**

For instance, to be successful in producing massive yields per hectare, modern commercial agricultural activities may require heavy commitments for capital and services that are investments based on forecasts of future production. To grow a specific crop may require specific tools, equipment, pesticides, fertilizers, minimum volumes of water, and other inputs. The fiscal nature of farming necessitates financial planning to survive each year and to survive in the long run. When the circumstances (both intrinsic—environmental, social, personal conditions, et al.—and extrinsic—conditions of markets, competition, labor and supply costs, consumer demand, et al.) of farming change, reevaluation of the plans is necessary. How these changes are occurring and what the long-term picture for the array of conditions may evolve are important aspects of the information that industrial agricultural producers desire for their decisions to continue, to modify their plans, or to quit the activity because they can expect it to fail, before they end up in debt. What if we can no longer be confident about our (old) assumption that "next year" will be much like this year, weather-wise? The extrinsic context of farming, in this example, is the foundation of the activity in which farmers participate. Most of these intrinsic and extrinsic conditions are anthropogenic and can be manipulated by people, by businesses, by trade, or by government actions and policies. But the environment is different—many environmental conditions, like seasonal or annual weather conditions, particularly extremes and changes to the periodicities and durations of conditions (growing seasons and plant phenology, for instance), may become insurmountable if they are continuing to change, particularly if the changes are unexpected or unpredictable [12]. Decisions may need to be made quickly, particularly if crop production is diminishing [13].

In the United States and Canada, as in many other parts of the world, the national and regional patterns of many economic sectors have evolved over several hundred years to fit into and thrive in specific environmental conditions, particularly regions' climates. More recently, agricultural development has used technological advancements and mechanical and economic efficiencies to reduce costs and increase profits and to establish roots in new places. We have seen the emergence of agricultural regions dedicated to specific crops (the Corn Belt, the Wheat Belt, the citrus-growing regions, fresh fruits and vegetables, wine growing) or to specific activities (dairying, cattle ranching) that coincide with climatic conditions that fit production best.

Modern societies and modern economies have been developed on assumptions about consistency in the patterns of nature, on the stability of natural systems, on the unwavering resilience of nature. But what happens when there are no longer patterns to depend upon?

### **3.2 Responding to change**

It was observed during the development of the epistemological paradigm "systems analysis" in the 1960s that ecological communities can be stable in numerous alternative states [14]. Assuming the undisturbed landscape is the "ideal" state for a natural landscape, what happens when it is disturbed by humans' activities undertaken to live in or exploit that landscape? That disturbance of an ecosystem's conditions may lead to ecosystem responses, either returning to its "original" condition (i.e., a resilience response) or shifting to a new state with a new equilibrium of ecological relationships. The upshot of the revolution in thought was to clarify that there is extensive evidence of interactions between "systems" that produce positive and negative feedbacks. The experiences of pioneers, settlers, loggers, farmers, and landscape engineers demonstrate that people can have a profound influence on nature and that, though extinction of species or wholesale transformation of environments may not always result, human activities can cause significant disequilibria in the world [15].

Sudden change can be surprising and can disturb a system, particularly human economic and social systems. If it is only temporary change and the conditions return to the perceived "normal," the surprise may only have been troubling, not debilitating and destructive. Permanent change to a new condition, as some conceive of climate change, requires adaptation and the fomentation of resilience. Purveyors of this expectation think that they will only need to spend more money to cool their homes or that they will have to pay more for water because of the warming and drying of their weather patterns. But if the change to a new condition is only temporary and that change continues to move away from normal, perhaps even in nonlinear ways, then adaptation will need to be constant and resilience may be impossible. Conditions in the future may become unbearable and places may become uninhabitable because not only is climate changing, but so too are all of the other systems that are connected to and influenced by climates, like the changes that we continuously make to catch up to the new circumstances. What if the directions of the shifting conditions are not predictable? What if the changes seem to be chaotic, with rates of change constantly changing, and perhaps with retrograde shifts in some of the systems? The possibilities may become vast and unfathomable. Which adaptations will enable safety and survival? The information may be overwhelming, but systemsthinking can provide methods to understand how decisions about response to change can be made [16].

**9**

*Introductory Chapter: Climates, Change, and Climate Change*

As soils are products of and are imprinted by the climate conditions of the geological past – it may take hundreds, if not thousands, of years to form a few centimeters of topsoil. A sudden shift in the climate at a location can create mismatches between weather regimes and soils. To survive, a farmer could shift to a different crop that fits the new meteorological reality, but that might have devastating economic financial impacts and there may be practical challenges [17]. Relocating the production of a specific agricultural crop to chase the "moving" climate may be a possibility if the land is accessible and free for the taking; this is how wildlife species occasionally respond to such changes [18]. But it is likely more difficult than one might imagine, particularly if the new location, with the right temperature and moisture regime, has inadequate soils (produced under dramatically different past climates) or soils that necessitate significant quantities of artificial inputs to grow the crop. Following the climate may be very difficult and unrealistic. Land ownership is an impediment to relocation of farming practices. Legal boundaries, political boundaries, social and cultural boundaries, and the logistical, infrastructural, and economic consequences and challenges in starting over, may prove to be insurmountable barriers. The choice may be to simply remain in place and change crops (i.e., adjust) or relocate and find ways to carry on (i.e., adapt). It is important to stress that even wild plants and animals cannot simply "move" and adapt with the changes [19]. There is often too much in their way, too. Clearly, climate change would cause major interruptions in food production, globally. Completely giving in to the change and finding new ways to survive (because one rationally disposes of the luxuries and desires one had and accepts that it is most important to meet basic needs to survive) may be the most realistic use of human ingenuity to cope with new and evolving conditions if we choose not to mitigate the causes. This is an example of developing resilience. It used to be only the impoverished, landless, powerless, and desperate people who have lived this way for decades and centuries, but it may become reality for even those who were not impoverished, owned land, had power, and were not living in desperation [20]. Resilience at its most profound is the condition of learning to accept change by becoming immune to the threats, perhaps by simplifying life—coming to understand the difference between need and want, to have the fewest vulnerabilities possible, to survive by bending with the wind and flowing with the current, whichever directions they take you, to keep your head above the water until you find solid ground again. Change may affect everybody and may impact every aspect of every life. The change to which one may be responding (like global warming-induced conditions, for instance) will also be impacting communities, societies, governments, other states of the world. There may be diminishing availability of assistance from friends, countrymen, strangers. The governments upon whom many depend for help may lack the resources to provide it. The structures of societies may begin to crumble. It may be every family, man, woman, and child for themselves as starvation, famine, poverty, dislocation, insecurity, and devolution ensue. An extreme future is no longer just science fiction. We are catching a glimpse of such a future in 2020 as the novel coronavirus "COVID-19" spreads around the world, disrupting

normality. Perhaps it is a symptom of the changes that we have wrought.

An alternative may be to prevent what can be prevented before the changes become inevitable. We may preempt them so that they might not occur or will be muted. Instead of waiting for the forewarned changes, we could strive to understand their causes, and if possible, attenuate them. The prospects of forced adjustment, adaptation, and resilience may be so bleak and worrisome that the alternative, changing behaviors now to promote less future change, may be the preferred discomfort.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92192*

**3.3 Ways not to respond to change**

## **3.3 Ways not to respond to change**

*Global Warming and Climate Change*

production best.

patterns to depend upon?

**3.2 Responding to change**

libria in the world [15].

change can be made [16].

In the United States and Canada, as in many other parts of the world, the national and regional patterns of many economic sectors have evolved over several hundred years to fit into and thrive in specific environmental conditions, particularly regions' climates. More recently, agricultural development has used technological advancements and mechanical and economic efficiencies to reduce costs and increase profits and to establish roots in new places. We have seen the emergence of agricultural regions dedicated to specific crops (the Corn Belt, the Wheat Belt, the citrus-growing regions, fresh fruits and vegetables, wine growing) or to specific activities (dairying, cattle ranching) that coincide with climatic conditions that fit

Modern societies and modern economies have been developed on assumptions about consistency in the patterns of nature, on the stability of natural systems, on the unwavering resilience of nature. But what happens when there are no longer

It was observed during the development of the epistemological paradigm "systems analysis" in the 1960s that ecological communities can be stable in numerous alternative states [14]. Assuming the undisturbed landscape is the "ideal" state for a natural landscape, what happens when it is disturbed by humans' activities undertaken to live in or exploit that landscape? That disturbance of an ecosystem's conditions may lead to ecosystem responses, either returning to its "original" condition (i.e., a resilience response) or shifting to a new state with a new equilibrium of ecological relationships. The upshot of the revolution in thought was to clarify that there is extensive evidence of interactions between "systems" that produce positive and negative feedbacks. The experiences of pioneers, settlers, loggers, farmers, and landscape engineers demonstrate that people can have a profound influence on nature and that, though extinction of species or wholesale transformation of environments may not always result, human activities can cause significant disequi-

Sudden change can be surprising and can disturb a system, particularly human economic and social systems. If it is only temporary change and the conditions return to the perceived "normal," the surprise may only have been troubling, not debilitating and destructive. Permanent change to a new condition, as some conceive of climate change, requires adaptation and the fomentation of resilience. Purveyors of this expectation think that they will only need to spend more money to cool their homes or that they will have to pay more for water because of the warming and drying of their weather patterns. But if the change to a new condition is only temporary and that change continues to move away from normal, perhaps even in nonlinear ways, then adaptation will need to be constant and resilience may be impossible. Conditions in the future may become unbearable and places may become uninhabitable because not only is climate changing, but so too are all of the other systems that are connected to and influenced by climates, like the changes that we continuously make to catch up to the new circumstances. What if the directions of the shifting conditions are not predictable? What if the changes seem to be chaotic, with rates of change constantly changing, and perhaps with retrograde shifts in some of the systems? The possibilities may become vast and unfathomable. Which adaptations will enable safety and survival? The information may be overwhelming, but systemsthinking can provide methods to understand how decisions about response to

**8**

As soils are products of and are imprinted by the climate conditions of the geological past – it may take hundreds, if not thousands, of years to form a few centimeters of topsoil. A sudden shift in the climate at a location can create mismatches between weather regimes and soils. To survive, a farmer could shift to a different crop that fits the new meteorological reality, but that might have devastating economic financial impacts and there may be practical challenges [17]. Relocating the production of a specific agricultural crop to chase the "moving" climate may be a possibility if the land is accessible and free for the taking; this is how wildlife species occasionally respond to such changes [18]. But it is likely more difficult than one might imagine, particularly if the new location, with the right temperature and moisture regime, has inadequate soils (produced under dramatically different past climates) or soils that necessitate significant quantities of artificial inputs to grow the crop. Following the climate may be very difficult and unrealistic. Land ownership is an impediment to relocation of farming practices. Legal boundaries, political boundaries, social and cultural boundaries, and the logistical, infrastructural, and economic consequences and challenges in starting over, may prove to be insurmountable barriers. The choice may be to simply remain in place and change crops (i.e., adjust) or relocate and find ways to carry on (i.e., adapt). It is important to stress that even wild plants and animals cannot simply "move" and adapt with the changes [19]. There is often too much in their way, too.

Clearly, climate change would cause major interruptions in food production, globally. Completely giving in to the change and finding new ways to survive (because one rationally disposes of the luxuries and desires one had and accepts that it is most important to meet basic needs to survive) may be the most realistic use of human ingenuity to cope with new and evolving conditions if we choose not to mitigate the causes. This is an example of developing resilience. It used to be only the impoverished, landless, powerless, and desperate people who have lived this way for decades and centuries, but it may become reality for even those who were not impoverished, owned land, had power, and were not living in desperation [20]. Resilience at its most profound is the condition of learning to accept change by becoming immune to the threats, perhaps by simplifying life—coming to understand the difference between need and want, to have the fewest vulnerabilities possible, to survive by bending with the wind and flowing with the current, whichever directions they take you, to keep your head above the water until you find solid ground again.

Change may affect everybody and may impact every aspect of every life. The change to which one may be responding (like global warming-induced conditions, for instance) will also be impacting communities, societies, governments, other states of the world. There may be diminishing availability of assistance from friends, countrymen, strangers. The governments upon whom many depend for help may lack the resources to provide it. The structures of societies may begin to crumble. It may be every family, man, woman, and child for themselves as starvation, famine, poverty, dislocation, insecurity, and devolution ensue. An extreme future is no longer just science fiction. We are catching a glimpse of such a future in 2020 as the novel coronavirus "COVID-19" spreads around the world, disrupting normality. Perhaps it is a symptom of the changes that we have wrought.

An alternative may be to prevent what can be prevented before the changes become inevitable. We may preempt them so that they might not occur or will be muted. Instead of waiting for the forewarned changes, we could strive to understand their causes, and if possible, attenuate them. The prospects of forced adjustment, adaptation, and resilience may be so bleak and worrisome that the alternative, changing behaviors now to promote less future change, may be the preferred discomfort.
