Agriculture vs oil

[Synchronice]

We know the oil market is booming and countries with oil resources are really making a huge fund out of it and sometimes they do it at the negligence of another local natural resource.

But, of course, the agricultural sector, though not given the proper recognition and the required investment is one sector that contributes seriously to the development and dependence of most nations .

No matter how blessed a country is with oil minerals, if its agricultural sector isn't working and she has to rely on other country for her food and agricultural resources then in event of war or political differences they might suffer.

Agriculture vs oil, which is the big deal when it comes to the economic strength of a country?

You pose a false dichotomy, especially since agriculture today is highly dependent on oil. Fields are tilled with power tillers or tractors, grass is cleared with weed cutters, many crops are mechanized, like modern olive harvesting which is picked by machine, many fertilizers are derived from oil, etc. Without oil, agriculture would not have even 20% of its current productivity.

Seems, both of you, probably unintentionally, missed that oil and agriculture can't work at its best without scientists, including chemists, physicists and engineers. In order to have qualified personnel, you have to run great universities and do scientific researches. So, what's the best economical strength? Agriculture, Oil or Education? Then there is a manpower, no one wants to work in agriculture or in oil, also, it's very hard and requires talent/willingness to become a scientist. So, we have four power/advantage right now instead of only oil and agriculture. Every country lacks at least one of them, so, as you see, economic strength of each country still depends on other countries.
Probably, right now, the most advantage has Norway when it comes to all of these four. According to food safety index, they are number 3, according to oil reserves, they have plenty for themselves and export it in another countries, then comes education, they are highly educated and have great universities and manpower, they are vikings!

[1714691125]

1714691125

[philipma1957]

We know the oil market is booming and countries with oil resources are really making a huge fund out of it and sometimes they do it at the negligence of another local natural resource.

But, of course, the agricultural sector, though not given the proper recognition and the required investment is one sector that contributes seriously to the development and dependence of most nations .

No matter how blessed a country is with oil minerals, if its agricultural sector isn't working and she has to rely on other country for her food and agricultural resources then in event of war or political differences they might suffer.

Agriculture vs oil, which is the big deal when it comes to the economic strength of a country?

You pose a false dichotomy, especially since agriculture today is highly dependent on oil. Fields are tilled with power tillers or tractors, grass is cleared with weed cutters, many crops are mechanized, like modern olive harvesting which is picked by machine, many fertilizers are derived from oil, etc. Without oil, agriculture would not have even 20% of its current productivity.

Seems, both of you, probably unintentionally, missed that oil and agriculture can't work at its best without scientists, including chemists, physicists and engineers. In order to have qualified personnel, you have to run great universities and do scientific researches. So, what's the best economical strength? Agriculture, Oil or Education? Then there is a manpower, no one wants to work in agriculture or in oil, also, it's very hard and requires talent/willingness to become a scientist. So, we have four power/advantage right now instead of only oil and agriculture. Every country lacks at least one of them, so, as you see, economic strength of each country still depends on other countries.
Probably, right now, the most advantage has Norway when it comes to all of these four. According to food safety index, they are number 3, according to oil reserves, they have plenty for themselves and export it in another countries, then comes education, they are highly educated and have great universities and manpower, they are vikings!

USA has plenty of oil food labor and scientists
China has plenty of coal food labor and scientists.

They are possibly the top two in the world 🌎.

Russia has fuel food labor and scientists.

They are likely number three.

[DVlog]

We know the oil market is booming and countries with oil resources are really making a huge fund out of it and sometimes they do it at the negligence of another local natural resource.

But, of course, the agricultural sector, though not given the proper recognition and the required investment is one sector that contributes seriously to the development and dependence of most nations .

No matter how blessed a country is with oil minerals, if its agricultural sector isn't working and she has to rely on other country for her food and agricultural resources then in event of war or political differences they might suffer.

Agriculture vs oil, which is the big deal when it comes to the economic strength of a country?

Why are we making this comparison? Both are essential for our economy. When agriculture grows and cultivates crops for our economy on the other hand oil keeps the wheel of the economy running. Some people think extracting natural resources from the ground is damaging our environment and reducing farmland. This can be partially true but that doesn't mean our food cultivation has decreased. Technological advancement and research in the agricultural sector give us highly productive seed for crops.

[royalfestus]

It's important to recognize that not all countries can engage in agriculture as a primary economic activity, especially those reliant on oil revenue. Limited arable land is a key factor, and some nations have a unique advantage in this regard. Take Singapore, for example, which boasts one of the world's strongest economies, despite a minimal GDP contribution from agriculture due to its limited farming areas. In situations like these, governments often compensate by using revenue generated from excess exports to purchase essential food items in bulk that they are unable to produce domestically. This strategy allows them to provide discounted food to their citizens.

[Uruhara]

Humans can survive even without oil. But humans will not survive without food obtained from agricultural products.

In my area, or more precisely, in my hometown, farming is still done using simple or classic methods, namely without machines. So we here will not be disturbed at all even without oil. So for us agriculture is more important.

And yes, if a country only depends on income from petroleum. and their agricultural sector is poor. Which means they rely on food from abroad. So, when there is a war and when every country stops selling food between countries, it is the country that is worst in the agricultural sector that will have the most food-related difficulties first.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

We know the oil market is booming and countries with oil resources are really making a huge fund out of it and sometimes they do it at the negligence of another local natural resource.

This is not entirely true, just because they're not putting attention on agriculture doesn't mean they're forgetting about it. When there's natural resources that's more profitable and the strength of a nation, more attention is been given to that resources and that's what the oil producing national are doing. The money gotten from the sales of the oils is used to develop other sectors of the country including the agricultural sector because to work effectively on agriculture, you need funding and this funds can't be printed unlimitedly or you'll bring about inflation to your country's currency. Other countries that focus on agriculture and exportation of their goods need others to buy it and that's what the money gotten from selling oil is used for by the country that has oil as their main export. The needs for balance in the world is necessary, every nation can't have everything, importation and exportation is necessary among nations for human survival.

No matter how blessed a country is with oil minerals, if its agricultural sector isn't working and she has to rely on other country for her food and agricultural resources then in event of war or political differences they might suffer

During those war times there'll still be importation and exportation going on between countries that are allies, as Russian and Ukraine are fighting, while it seems every nation is cancelling Russia, they still have countries that they're allies to and trades are going on between the two or more nations. As a country you have to focus on the national resources that you have as your strength and develop it to the point that it gives you leverage. The Arab nation have been able to turn the fate of their nation around because they built on the oil they found, others can do the same with the national resources they have. Both agriculture and oil is important until something else takes over. Agriculture though is more important for human survival and every nation has a little bit of it but we have nations that agriculture is their main export.

[goaldigger]

Agriculture vs oil, which is the big deal when it comes to the economic strength of a country?

You don’t have to choose on this as long as you have this kind of resources, and the government support is there then this can be your biggest strength. Just like in Middle east where there is no agriculture but they have the Oil resources and their economic status is still high because of this. In my country, Agriculture is very important but our government always fail to prioritize this and that’s why we are being forces to import goods despite of having a good land for Agriculture.

[flipme]

You can regulate your agricultural policy according to the geographical and climatic conditions of your country, but you cannot regulate your oil needs in any way. If you have oil, you have it or you don't. I think oil is a more important item. Also, you can build advanced industrial cities with petroleum products and you can compete more easily with your competitors in the world because you have the raw materials. I think oil is more important, but oil resources are dwindling and one day they will run out. That's why Arab countries are investing in many sectors, including football.

[panganib999]

Agriculture isn't as profitable as oil right now, let's just face it. It's weird how it wasn't and all that stuff but once you realize why it's going to start to make sense.

Oil may need refinement and all that processes to become valuable and usable, but Agriculture isn't only full of processes and activities, it's also a very cumbersome process that requires years of experience, months of preparation, and maintenance that not only makes it even more hard to come by compared to oil, but it also shoots the value of agriculture by an astronomical amount. It's also worth noting that agriculture is completely dependent on Oil to be processed and used, transportation for export uses oil and petroleum to happen, and if we don't do it that way food would spoil and would cause even greater problems.

All of this delicate processes make Agriculture unbelievably harder to process compared to oil, that's why countries that are agricultural aren't specifically well-off either.

[kingvirtus09]

The title of this topic says that even if the person is not educated, if it is a matter of survival, the choice is, of course, agriculture. Where does the food of all the people in the world come from? It's just common sense that we already know the answer to that.

Yes, oil helps us and helps nature, or so-called climate change, but can it provide food for billions of people around the world? The answer is no, but agriculture can do that. We also know that agriculture is also a source of renewable energy. That means it is important because all countries depend on it.

[AmoreJaz]

Agriculture vs oil, which is the big deal when it comes to the economic strength of a country?

You don’t have to choose on this as long as you have this kind of resources, and the government support is there then this can be your biggest strength. Just like in Middle east where there is no agriculture but they have the Oil resources and their economic status is still high because of this. In my country, Agriculture is very important but our government always fail to prioritize this and that’s why we are being forces to import goods despite of having a good land for Agriculture.

and also, it depends on how the country is exhausting their resources, whether in the oil or agricultural sector. if the government is good in developing their resources to cater the needs of its people, then, you don't need to choose which one is best for the country. somehow, it depends on the people who are leading its people. most are corrupt, hence, they can't implement what is really needed for their countrymen.

[poodle63]

both dependent to each other, agricultures depends on oil to boost its production, meanwhile agriculture also needed for the whole nation to get their basic needs fulfilled so it could mine oil.
its just as simple as that, there's reason why both are really sought after, because with both a country could boost whatever production and industrial it has.
so basically both are just something that can't be underestimated and what bridges them in the middle are the technology invented by many experts.
therefore if your country want to become strong country that are highly productive you need agriculture, technology, and oil as energy source though there are also other energy sources even better renewable energy but oil so far is most widely used.

[0t3p0t]

You pose a false dichotomy, especially since agriculture today is highly dependent on oil. Fields are tilled with power tillers or tractors, grass is cleared with weed cutters, many crops are mechanized, like modern olive harvesting which is picked by machine, many fertilizers are derived from oil, etc. Without oil, agriculture would not have even 20% of its current productivity.

I agree with you mate because I am living in an agricultural area that in an absense of oil in agriculture will result in not productive. Nowadays heavy machineries were involve in most activity in agriculture that replaced the traditional way of cultivating the land. Buffalos were replaced by tractors and harvesters as well.

[dothebeats]

You pose a false dichotomy, especially since agriculture today is highly dependent on oil. Fields are tilled with power tillers or tractors, grass is cleared with weed cutters, many crops are mechanized, like modern olive harvesting which is picked by machine, many fertilizers are derived from oil, etc. Without oil, agriculture would not have even 20% of its current productivity.

Was about to mention this. Perhaps OP is forgetting how much agriculture today is dependent on oil. Farmers are able to do their work faster and produce more products due to it and yet they are being compared. There is of course no doubt both are important as they affect each other in various different ways, hence why comparison isn't necessary.

[Natsuu]

the economy is currently so tangled that it does not matter in which sector a country specializes. It's important that there's $$ in it. As the poker player pointed out. Without oil, there are no combine harvesters in the fields and without natural gas, there are no fertilizers. Without this, no matter how large the fields are, it will still be cheaper to buy grain from a neighboring country with money from the sale of processors than to collect grain by hand and sow new crops without fertilizers.

It's just that one commodity affects the other. Like here in my country, the price of grain bought from the farmers was just too cheap, it's the processing to rice and importing it to other places makes it expensive like 4x time the price from being grain. If only the government truly cares to the farmer and how rich in resource the philippine island is, i probably would be living in a great country and economy.

[Suzume]

According to me there are two major contributions to make the economy of a country work. Because there is no single contribution behind the economic development of a country. There are many countries that maintain their economy between agriculture and oil, and there are many countries that depend on oil and others on agriculture. Countries determine their economic status by looking at their country's production from their geographical location. There are many countries which due to geographical conditions do not have agriculture but they have many oil mine. Again many countries do not have oil mines. They are improving their economy through agricultural work. For this reason agriculture and oil are important behind a country's economy due to their geographical location.

[Pejoh Asu]

Now more and more machines or factories are switching from oil to alternative sources, oil reserves are decreasing which of course makes oil prices more expensive and many countries are providing policies to support alternative energy, some oil countries are currently rich countries, but I'm sure 100 or In 200 years, countries that still survive on agriculture will be able to control the world.

[mamesso]

The mutualistic symbiosis is very close between the two, I mean, countries that have abundant oil resources need results from the agricultural sector to meet the food needs of their countries. Countries that produce food from agriculture need oil resources to keep their economies running. A country's economic strength results from resources that are abundant and have long-term reserves. Middle Eastern countries have great economic power, they are able to export agricultural products from other countries with the power of money they have.
Oil and agricultural products are both needed in human life, but they both have different ways of determining the economic strength of a country.

[Sayeds56]

Now more and more machines or factories are switching from oil to alternative sources, oil reserves are decreasing which of course makes oil prices more expensive and many countries are providing policies to support alternative energy, some oil countries are currently rich countries, but I'm sure 100 or In 200 years, countries that still survive on agriculture will be able to control the world.

It is true that popularity of green energy is growing globally, and both factories and individuals for their domestic requirements are switching to sources of alternative energy due to depleting oil resources and concerns about environment. Consequently, the counties heavily reliant on oil resources are likely to encounter economic challenges as its paramount significance diminishes.Hence, it is essential for these nations to divert their financial resources towards development of agriculture, a sector poised to retain its role in ensuring human survival.

[Mr. Magkaisa]

        -   Since they are both equally vital, it may not be appropriate to highlight one over the other. Because they are equally needed by people all across the world. However, we are aware that we require agriculture more than ever because it, of course, plays a significant role in assisting people in all nations in their daily lives.

In addition to what I just said, agriculture may aid not only in human survival but also in the provision of jobs for people and even in the economy, which benefits both our nation and every other nation in the globe. .Therefore, agriculture truly makes a significant contribution.