G.K. Chesterton, an English author from the early 20th century, urged reformers to be cautious with a parable:
There exists … a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
In other words, wisdom dictates that we fully understand why an existing system is in place before we seek to change it. We need to beware the unintended consequences of any reform — “progress” may not move us forward.
Here’s a recent example from agricultural of the casual disregard of a Chestertonian fence. Potatoes and other plants naturally produce chemicals called steroidal glycoalkaloids (SGAs), which are what turn out-of-the-ground parts of potato tubers green. These green bits can’t be consumed by humans — they’re toxic — so scientists have discovered a way to remove SGAs.
But SGAs protect potatoes from insect pests. So, the researchers want to genetically engineer the potato so that SGAs are only produced in the leaves of the plants, and not in the tubers. They claim that the plant has “evolved ingenious ways to balance growth, reproduction, and defense.” Besides the fact that this granting of agency to the plant makes no sense — evolution is supposed to be based on random genetic mutation combined with natural selection — if the system is so ingenious (something the scientists only discovered the other day), why do they think they can successfully mettle with it to make it better?
Chesterton’s fence is an inherently small-c conservative idea (“small-c” meaning apolitical — not something that only one modern political party would, or should, agree with). Charles Walters, the founder of this magazine, once famously said, “We are in a revolution! But it is a revolution where the side that fires the first shot loses. We will not fire any shots, because our weapon is uncommon, good sense.” While revolution may sound like the opposite of the small-c conservative idea of Chesterton’s fence, the type of revolution Charles Walters had in mind wasn’t radical.
He desired to conserve the type of farming that made good sense. He wanted to reform synthetic chemical agriculture — but only because he had an uncommon understanding of the goodness of creation. He knew that the original fence — the one that prevented humans from revolting against nature itself — was there for a wise purpose.
Above all, he knew that for agriculture to make sense economically, it needed ecological guardrails.
And that’s the view from the country.
