Topic: Agriculture vs oil - page 7. (Read 2152 times)

I think there are countries in the world that doing well without oil. And those countries are more peaceful than the countries that have oil. Oil is not developing the places which it is discovered but develop the places are far from the oil terrain. But those places have the oil survive from the negligence agriculture. So in normal sense. Agriculture is for the poor while oil is the rich.

Those who are rich are not interested in the Agriculture but interested only in the oil while the poor since they could not benefit from the oil they went to farm and survive from there. And agriculture is the best among all.

Oil is free money, just looked at the big oil producing countries how successful they are, apart from those nations where corruption is very high, most of the citizens of these countries have good standard of living than countries that their economies are based on Agriculture. If not for Oil, do you think Russia would be able to occupy Ukraine and be able to fund their war against Ukraine when United States and Europe are funding Ukraine, the answer is No, until there is a real substitute to Oil, and it becomes irrelevant it remains sure cash cow

Now that you have said this, this made me think. Actually you are right. If the people in charge of the system aren't capable enough to use it to their advantage and let other country influence the system in order to take advantage, then it is no good for that country. And the thing about war and all, it may not be considered as an advantage. Instead, it could be a curse for those people.

But when you have the ability and assets to mine that oil, then it is really an advantage. When it comes to this point, then The government of that country should focus on both agriculture and oil. When you have the opportunity in your hand it is foolish just to give it away. If the people who are in charge can utilize it in the best way then it is sure going to help the economy grow faster.

I think both because one can't maintain world economy. Because every country don't have agriculture or oil. You can see Bangladesh is agriculture country beside you can see Saudi Arabia which can give oil. Both country depends on both for agriculture for feeding in Bangladesh depend for oil on Saudi Arabia. Agriculture and oil both because both are depend on other country for that that's why I will go for both.

we know that oil is a resource that is becoming increasingly expensive which provides a significant impact on oil-producing countries, because they rely on oil exports for their income. if the fuel prices rise, these countries may experience the difficulty to maintain their current standard of living. this proves that the influence of agricultural sector is extremely important for the living of population of the world which means that agriculture is irreplaceable in the economic growth for the majority of countries in the world, because food is also an energy for human. this is the reason for governments to realize the essential of finding sustainable ways to meet the energy and food needs of the world's growing population. This is why renewable energy sources has become the biggest issue in the world right now.

I think there is less to worry about the oil supply since neither Israel nor Palestine are oil export countries. Saudi Arabia condemning Israel's attack also lowers the chance of further Yemeni attacks on its oil fields. It will only become a problem if rivals Saudi Arabia and Iran start their own conflict. The civil war in Yemen isn't done yet though so both Saudi and Iran are still in a proxy war as both want to establish a Yemeni government on their side.

Agriculture however is a must since people need to eat every day. Innovations won't stop so in the future, there will be less oil demand and it will die out later due to clean energy. That is why these oil-rich and desert nations are investing a lot outside of oil for long-term economic sustainability.

I expected you to have first indicated the usefulness of agriculture and the efforts that the private sector had made to harness it before talking about government intervention. I don't know your country but you might have sounded like a Nigerian that wanted the government to do everything for them. And despite many interventions of government in the agricultural sector over the years, what results have that yielded except for the serious farmers themselves? Some officials and farmers will even collude to embezzle the money while some farmers will deliberately divert the money to other use. The countries that are doing well in agriculture don't easily call the government for intervention unless there is a disaster and other things out of their control. Government intervention should be the last resort but unfortunately in the countries that are in dire need of agriculture to save them, that comes first and that is why tangible achievement will not be made.

Agriculture is very powerful to save any nation from lack and poverty but nothing will ever happen if the citizens are not willing or are pushy and believe government should do everything for them. Go and check flourishing countries, the government is not the one driving the economy it's the private sector, and willingness, versatility, resilience, good planning, management, etc. are the keys.

This is not the case for some countries that have oil resources, they do not have abundant other resources, so their only way is to develop oil as an aspect of obtaining finance. Even if they have other resources, perhaps their power is not as strong as oil, so developing them will result in a lot of things they have to do.

Without this sector you will not be able to eat and there will be no food to buy at affordable prices, that is why agriculture is considered the lifeblood of a country. But don't forget there is a country that does not have large areas of land to develop its agricultural potential and will try to carry out bilateral cooperation regarding export and import needs in this sector.

Try studying several countries that do not have agricultural resources in their country and what strategic steps they have taken. Of course, it will be quite problematic when a war occurs when the country does not have agricultural resources and the government has taken steps and preparations for that problem, although sometimes the practices that occur during war can be different.

The problem with the oil advantage is that it's not really an advantage because if you are a poor country, then it's unlikely that you will be able to fund the machines, refineries, and equipment for extraction that oil, look at what's happening in countries that are full of oil reserves, they are most likely warzones or is suffering from economical, political, and social instability not to mention that if there's oil there, US is probably meddling in your country's politics or influencing it in some way so they can get a share of that precious black gold. I wouldn't say that oil is an advantage unless the people in charge of the country is a smart one and a capable leader that knows what to prioritize. Also, you can't just focus on agriculture because that would mean that your industrial will suffer that's why I said that you should find a way to meld the two industry together if you can.

Yes, I agree with you, indeed oil is a consumption that cannot be avoided by all countries, and is the largest source of income for oil producing countries. The agricultural sector also has a big influence on the population of the country. If a country like you mentioned is Saudi Arabia, it is quite a barren country, but there are many new advanced technologies nowadays in producing or producing agricultural products such as fruit and wheat.

In my view, there is no difference between them because both are crucial to the nation and, given that our nation is nearly universal, I can compare them to twins. This is because, prior to the production of oil, agriculture produced the majority of the nation's food, so I fail to see how we can claim that they differ from one another. To be very honest, I don't think any nation could make a significant amount of money without its oil, I doubt the country will generate significant revenue.

I strongly doubt it. Because not every country that depends on agriculture as there means of survival or lively hood. There are Many countries out there that are not rich in agriculture but depends on inportation of food products. If your country is rich in agriculture does not implies that every other is also likewise. I think for so many years many countries has been dependent on other countries for there survival. What really matters is what a country is good at. If a country has oil and gas which is the primary means of survival, I think they would Chanel there energy to it and makes it more lucurative and productive. I think a country that manages it oil and gas sector very well is liable to feed it's nation well than a country that is agriculturally productive and lacks planning. I see no reason of war if there is proper planning.

Oil and gas might be a big deal when it's comes to economic strength, but that doesn't mean agriculture is neither a big deal. Like I said oil and gas which you made mention is probably not in every country, you should get that. So what so ever a country is blessed with will definitely be a source of lively hood to such country. For example if you had 3 daughters without a son, I don't think you will use because of that and said you will not train them to be useful to you in the nearest future. Whatever nature gives you you will appreciate it and make the best out of it.

In my opinion, we, as citizens of a particular state, cannot choose the importance between agriculture and the presence of oil fields. Developed agriculture in the state depends almost entirely on soil fertility and climate in the country. Oil production and profit from its sale depend on whether there are explored oil deposits in the country. But if the country has large oil reserves, then with the currency proceeds from its sale, it is quite possible to buy agricultural products, which in terms of volume are much cheaper. Therefore, the presence of oil is still preferable for the economic power of the state.

Here in our country, I saw something on the news just a while ago that there might be a problem with the supply of oil here because of the conflicts that are happening in the country of Israel, is it between IRAQ or SAUDI, as long as one of those two countries supplies the oil to us.

So it means that there will also be an oil crisis here, so it is probably a big problem now that our government is probably concerned about here, although I don't see any problem in agriculture here, to be honest.

The two are very lucrative but it depends on how they utilize it. Oil is very lucrative because it's source of energy for many things, the demand will never for once reduce in the market because it's a daily consumption natural resources. However, agriculture is also lucrative, we don't need much, just mechanize and improved farming will do the magic of heavy harvest when it's time for harvest.

The problem is that, Oil is naturally deposited organic compounds of hydrogen and carbon that are abundant, very huge that sometime they only can estimated how much a reservoir will contain and more to be in other locations, so because it's cheaply available, it makes them to rely more on the crude oil than agriculture that will require all of you and even improve way of making them in excess with less energy. You don't even need a refinery before you can sell crude oil because you can sell the barrels for other countries that want it and still generate revenue for your country.


There was a time the government forcely tell everyone to have a farm in their houses especially the vegetables just to increased the demand for vegetables and guess what, most of the people that need all they need is at home, they don't need to be waiting to buy something you can do.

Maybe you have got it mixed up. I didn't say that you should divide them into two sectors and focus on only one. Not every country is blessed with oil. So the main focus and goal should be agricultural sector. Each and every country has the population that they need to feed. Without agricultural improvement, you cannot improve your economy. Hence, it should be the first priority. Because everyone in that country needs food for survival.

But when you are blessed with oil, you need to focus on both of them. One is necessary, and the other one is advantage. In time of inflation, keeping a stable food price is the best choice in order to have a stable economy. So that should be the first priority. And with the oil thing, if you have it, you should treat it same as agricultural sector. Because it is also important for economy because you are gaining foreign income through it by exporting. When you have an advantage in your hand, you cannot improve your economy if you ignore that.

Compared to old ways of gardening, we have come a long way, and the need for food has grown tremendously as the population has grown. Farmers can now work faster and more efficiently thanks to oil. Isn't it amazing how tractors have altered agriculture? Unquestionably, they make things easier and faster. We haven't stopped to think about the long-term effects, though. Although these tools are useful, the fact that they use oil raises concerns about their long-term viability and environmental impact. How can we balance the planet's long-term health with the current need to grow more food?

Then, there is the matter of mobility. That farmers are having a hard time paying for these oil-powered tools. This is an example of a bigger problem: unjust distribution of farming resources. Aren't you surprised that small-scale farmers can't get their hands on the tools that are meant to make them more productive? This makes me think of another question: Could this gap be filled by other, easier-to-use technologies? Maybe farmers should look into using green energy sources. The pressing need for food production and being better for the environment might make this a win-win situation. Isn't it a thought that's worth exploring?

Both oil and agriculture are essential to a strong economy and both are equally important but if we talk about more economic growth then oil plays a vital role. Oil is the largest source of the country's total energy supply. No matter what is going on throughout the world but oil is always on demand replacing oil is almost impossible. Replacing oil is far away, for meanwhile there are no alternatives of oil. A country where, there are no any other income source but oil is there they are on the top most richest county for example we can see the example of United States, Saudi Arabia etc

  If it is really necessary to choose between these two, for me, I would choose agriculture because we have more resources that can be obtained from it compared to oil, because all vegetables, fruits, and paper come from here.

 The only sad thing is that other countries' governments don't care if the agriculture they have is actually being destroyed. Especially for rich people who turn farmers' farms into real estate and for other reasons besides this.

Any proof about fertilizers being derived in oil, I am curious about that because I only have heard about fertilizers containing ammonia or nitrates or other organic stuff so I have not heard of that kind of fertilizer. Also, what oil are you talking about because there's a lot of oil out there besides the black oil that this thread is talking about.
You don't make for a good economic planner because you're dividing your attention to stuff like this when you can just find a way to make this two coexist and at the same time make you more yield in both fields, if your agriculture sector is suffering it will affect the workforce of your country because the food isn't in the best levels to keep everyone fed which makes the prices rise for food and in turn make it so that your workforce have less energy for work and oil fields are pretty intensive when it comes to workforce and you don't want a low-energy workers manning your oil fields right?