Less can be more
By Kim Deans
We often find ourselves approaching change in terms of adding more. We tend to add a new input, a new technology, and invest more resources (time, energy and money) as the first step in making change. Or we keep applying the same inputs at higher rates. Adding more does not always deliver more. Adding more can be good for other people’s businesses at the expense of our own, and can be the reason our problems persist or that the change we know is possible is not occurring.
Behavioural science suggests that we have a bias towards addition when solving problems, rather than subtraction. A series of problem-solving experiments showed that people are more likely to consider solutions that add features than solutions that remove them, even when removing features is more efficient.[1]
I saw an example of this when I was facilitating an Ecological Weed Management workshop. Several people were heavily invested in fighting against African Lovegrass. Even though they had invested lots of time, energy and money spraying the Lovegrass, it was getting worse, and they were looking for funding for more chemicals to continue in the fight, even though this approach was not delivering the results they were looking for.
As this example shows, our thinking patterns can get stuck in familiar grooves. The culture we live in is always selling us solutions to our problems, so it is no wonder it becomes easier to add things or to continue doing more of the same instead of looking for what we need to stop doing. Well-established thinking patterns can mean it takes more mental energy and effort for us to consider subtraction, and it can put us out of our comfort zone when we approach the problem from the opposite perspective.
When we focus only on addition, we can keep ourselves busy finding different ways to do the same things that created the problem, without creating different results. If nothing changes, nothing changes. If we don’t let go of something, nothing new can be created. Addition still has a place, but when used without subtraction only surface level changes can occur where we create different versions of the same problem.
Subtraction can help us to achieve deeper, whole systems change. It frees up resources (time, energy and money) and makes processes more effective. This is not subtraction for subtractions sake, to be effective subtraction requires that we look more deeply at the issue to find and address the root causes of the problem.
“Addition focuses on overcoming barriers, subtraction focuses on removing barriers”, - Kasper Benjamin Reimer Bjorkskov
In terms of regenerative agriculture transitions it’s common to see people want to start with adding new inputs. I have never had anyone ask me, ‘what do I need to stop doing?’ Most people start by asking me, ‘what do I need to do?’ We can change the inputs all we like but if we don’t address the root cause of the soil health challenges in our situation, we will not see improved soil health outcomes. After a thorough assessment of soil health, establishing goals and allocating resources (see: Where do I start) the next step I work on when designing a soil health strategy is how we can do less harm. We look at subtraction before we look at addition.
Doing less harm means we start by strategically reducing actions that harm soil health. This might involve developing a strategy to gradually reduce synthetic fertilisers or pesticides over time. It might include reducing monocultures, stopping herbicide fallows between crops, or it could involve preventing overgrazing plants.. Doing less harm always works best when care is taken to develop a strategy that fits the individual situation and it is approached gradually over time, rather than pulling the rug out and crashing the system. We want farming businesses to stay viable during a transition period.
Transitions always start with an ending, if we don’t let something go, nothing new can be created, and it will just be another version of the old system. Transitions then involve what William Bridges calls a neutral zone, the time it takes for changes to occur before we reach a new beginning.[2] We often want to go straight to the new beginning, avoiding letting things go and avoiding the time needed for the change process to take us from the old to the new. Trying to fast track our way through the transition process often only sets us back. Transition is built into natures designs and nature has some good reminders for us to trust this process of letting go and navigating the neutral, in-between zone before we get to the new. Remember this is how a caterpillar becomes a butterfly, tadpoles become frogs, acorns grow into oak trees, and eggs become chickens.
Subtraction is the doorway to transition. It shifts us from more to better, from production to profitability, from addressing symptoms to root causes and from killing life to growing life in agricultural ecosystems. Where can you start subtracting (strategically and gradually if need be) to move you towards a healthier, profitable agricultural ecosystem?
This blog explains step two of the soil health spiral process I use for developing soil health strategies - doing less harm. My next blog will explore step three- letting plants grow to restore soil health, because we can’t buy soil health in a bag!
[1] T Meyvis & H Yoon, ‘Adding to our problems’, Nature, Vol 592, 2021.
[2] W Bridges and S Bridges, ‘Transitions: Making sense of life’s changes’, 2020.