The Impact of Intermediacy on Problem-Solving: Ecological Subsistence and the Disconnect from Nature
The way individuals and communities relate to a problem can profoundly shape their perception of whether it is solvable and the degree to which they attempt to address it. When people are intermediated from a problem—that is, when the problem is distanced from their immediate experience or involvement—the likelihood of addressing the issue diminishes. The perception of solvability becomes abstract, and the sense of urgency weakens. This concept holds particularly true in ecological subsistence practices and the modern disconnection many communities experience from natural cycles, especially in food procurement. The advent of industrial farming has further intermediated communities from the ecological processes that sustain them, contributing to a distancing that has both cultural and environmental ramifications.
This article explores how being intermediate from ecological problems, particularly in the realm of subsistence, influences the likelihood of engagement and action. It also highlights key contributors to the study of ecological subsistence and explores how forms of immediate and delayed subsistence have shaped human-environment interactions throughout history. Finally, we will delve into the case of industrial farming as an example of how communities have become intermediated from the ecological world, making it harder for individuals to perceive their direct connection to environmental degradation and climate change.
The Role of Intermediacy in Problem-Solving
To understand how intermediacy affects problem-solving, it is important to first define what intermediacy entails. When people are intermediate from a problem, they are either physically or psychologically distanced from the issue. This distance can manifest in various ways, such as through reliance on technology, bureaucratic systems, or external institutions to mediate the interaction between individuals and their environment.
In the context of ecological problems, intermediacy often takes the form of technological systems that buffer humans from the immediate consequences of their actions. For instance, industrial farming, large-scale energy grids, and water purification systems have all created layers of separation between communities and the natural resources they depend on. This separation weakens people's awareness of how their actions affect ecological systems, reducing the urgency they may feel to address environmental issues like soil degradation, water pollution, or biodiversity loss.
Research on problem-solving in ecological systems, particularly within the framework of ecological psychology, shows that people are more likely to engage with problems that are perceived as immediate and directly relevant to their lives. Ecologist and environmental philosopher Aldo Leopold, in his seminal work A Sand County Almanac (1949), argued that modern humans have become so far removed from the natural world that they have lost a sense of personal responsibility for ecological stewardship. This loss of connection, he argued, has profound consequences for how environmental problems are understood and addressed.
Immediate vs. Delayed Subsistence: The Role of Ecological Subsistence Practices
The study of ecological subsistence offers a useful lens through which to examine how intermediacy affects problem-solving and environmental awareness. Scholars such as Tim Ingold and Marshall Sahlins have explored how different subsistence strategies shape human-environment interactions and influence perceptions of ecological problems.
Immediate-return subsistence refers to subsistence strategies in which resources are obtained and consumed shortly after being harvested or gathered. This form of subsistence is typical of hunter-gatherer societies, where people directly engage with their environment to meet their daily needs. For example, foragers in Indigenous communities often live in close reciprocity with their local ecosystems, harvesting only what they need and adjusting their activities based on ecological feedback. This immediate engagement with nature fosters a sense of immediacy and responsibility for the health of the environment, as the consequences of overharvesting or ecological damage are directly felt by the community.
Delayed-return subsistence, on the other hand, involves systems in which resources are stored, processed, or cultivated over time, creating a buffer between the act of procuring resources and their consumption. Agriculture is one of the earliest examples of delayed subsistence, with crops being planted, grown, and harvested months later. As societies transitioned to farming, this delay between labor and resource consumption led to greater control over food production, but also created a psychological distance from the immediate impact of ecological degradation. The advent of larger, more complex agricultural systems further distanced communities from direct engagement with their environment, creating layers of intermediacy in how people experience and respond to environmental changes.
Marshall Sahlins, in his work on economic anthropology, explored how the shift from immediate to delayed subsistence impacted social structures and human-environment relations. He argued that in many ways, the introduction of agriculture created the conditions for ecological exploitation, as people began to accumulate surpluses and pursue resource extraction at scales far beyond the immediate needs of their communities. This shift, Sahlins noted, also contributed to the development of hierarchies and inequalities, as those who controlled food production gained power over others.
Industrial Farming: A Case of Intermediacy from the Ecological World
One of the most striking examples of how intermediacy shapes perceptions of ecological problems is the case of industrial farming. Industrial agriculture has transformed how food is produced, distributed, and consumed, creating vast networks of intermediaries that separate individuals from the land, water, and biological processes that sustain them. This separation has profound consequences for how people perceive and respond to environmental challenges.
Prior to industrialization, many communities practiced small-scale, localized farming, where the consequences of soil depletion, water shortages, or pest infestations were directly felt by farmers and their families. These farmers were intimately aware of the health of their soil, the needs of their crops, and the seasonal patterns that dictated their livelihoods. The feedback loops between farming practices and ecological health were immediate and visible.
With the rise of industrial farming in the 20th century, however, these immediate feedback loops were replaced by complex systems of mechanized agriculture, chemical inputs, and global supply chains. Monoculture farming, which involves planting vast areas with a single crop, became the norm, reducing biodiversity and making ecosystems more vulnerable to pests and diseases. To counteract these vulnerabilities, industrial farming relies on heavy inputs of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, which further degrade soil and water quality. These processes occur on such a large scale that the environmental consequences—such as nutrient runoff, soil erosion, and loss of pollinators—are often distant and abstract to the average consumer.
The intermediation created by industrial farming not only distances people from the environmental impacts of their food systems but also diminishes their sense of agency in solving these problems. Consumers in urban areas, for instance, may have little understanding of the ecological damage caused by the food they consume. The act of buying food from a supermarket obscures the complex web of ecological interactions that underlie food production, making it harder for individuals to feel personally responsible for issues like climate change, deforestation, or water scarcity.
Several scholars have critiqued industrial farming's role in distancing communities from ecological awareness. Vandana Shiva, an Indian scholar and environmental activist, has written extensively about the dangers of industrial agriculture, particularly in relation to its effects on biodiversity and local food systems. Shiva argues that the centralization of food production under industrial farming systems has disempowered local communities and disconnected them from their traditional knowledge of sustainable farming practices. She advocates for a return to local, regenerative agriculture, where communities can reconnect with the land and take responsibility for its health.
Similarly, Michael Pollan, in his book The Omnivore's Dilemma (2006), highlights how industrial food systems create layers of intermediation between consumers and the environmental costs of food production. Pollan explores how modern consumers are often unaware of the environmental impact of their dietary choices, from the use of fossil fuels in industrial farming to the depletion of natural resources like water and soil. He calls for a more transparent food system that reconnects people with the origins of their food and encourages more sustainable choices.
Perceived Solvability and Psychological Distance
When individuals are intermediated from ecological problems, the perception of solvability often diminishes. This is largely due to the psychological phenomenon known as temporal and spatial discounting. When a problem feels distant in time or space, people tend to discount its importance and delay taking action. This is evident in the way people approach climate change: although the consequences of climate change are severe, many people perceive it as a problem that will primarily affect future generations or distant regions, rather than something that requires immediate action.
Psychologists Elke Weber and Paul Slovic have conducted research on how people perceive environmental risks, showing that when environmental problems are perceived as abstract or distant, individuals are less likely to feel a sense of personal responsibility or urgency. In contrast, when environmental problems are framed as proximal—occurring here and now—people are more likely to engage in behaviors that mitigate the problem.
This principle also applies to how people perceive the solvability of environmental issues. When the problem is seen as distant or disconnected from their immediate experience, individuals are more likely to feel powerless to solve it. For example, urban residents may feel overwhelmed by the idea of solving global climate change, but they may be more willing to take action to address local air quality or urban heat islands—problems that have more immediate and visible consequences in their daily lives.
Reconnecting Communities with Ecological Problems
One of the most effective ways to overcome the intermediacy that separates people from ecological problems is to reconnect communities with their local environments. This can be achieved through practices that emphasize local food systems, community-based conservation, and environmental education that fosters a sense of ecological stewardship.
For instance, community-supported agriculture (CSA) programs allow consumers to directly engage with local farmers, providing them with a deeper understanding of how their food
