Principle 1

A New Agrarian sees human life as a part of nature and believes that human and natural processes should be integrated.

To see human life as a part of nature means to believe that whatever humans do, wherever they go, they remain inextricably tied to natural processes and to the rest of the world, influenced by and influencing in turn the biology, geology, and climate of the planet. This does not mean that we should "go back" to nature, whatever that might entail; it means rather that we are already there. To see ourselves as separate from nature, let alone above it, is a conceit.
The traditional Judeo-Christian view, in which humans are the product of a separate creation and the remainder of creation is given for our dominion, to be disposed of as we see fit, fails to see human life as fully part of nature. But the view of most environmentalists fails just as badly, by supposing a "pristine" nature that existed before human occupation and that we can re-create in nature preserves or by believing that humans can minimize their "impact" on nature. Just as the conservative supposes that humans are superior to nature, the progressive supposes that we can live outside of it. To say that humans are a part of nature is not to deny the ways in which we differ from other animals or our responsibility as stewards; it is to recognize that when we steward the earth we are stewarding our own future as well.

The second half of the principle follows from the first. If we are a part of nature, it makes sense whenever possible to work with nature rather than against it. This does not mean that we should not make use of plants, animals, or natural formations and processes for our own ends—that is our own natural process, as it is the natural process of every other species on earth. It means rather that we should take advantage of natural processes for our own ends rather than defeating or circumventing them—ride piggyback on them, as it were, rather than trying to outrace them. To defeat natural processes is a form of violence that should be used as a last resort, in desperation only, not as a mode of daily living. Because humans are fundamentally part of nature, by such violence we will ultimately destroy ourselves.
A simple agricultural example is pest management: pesticide defeats nature by killing and destroying; organic methods, which focus on growing healthy plants less attractive to insects, take advantage of natural processes for human ends.
Another is hunting, which, despite the protests of environmentalists, is a natural process, one that humans, like countless other species, evolved to employ. (Dissenters may consult my cat.) It is thus superior in the agrarian view to industrial livestock operations, which defeat nature not by merely killing animals for food but by denying them the chance ever to live in the first place.

A note: This does not mean that humans must live in harmony with nature. Harmony is a word I would prefer to see stricken from the English language, save in reference to music. In reference to human affairs, it is absurdly optimistic, utopian, not reachable even as an ideal. To suggest that humans can live in harmony with one another or with nature is to flout human nature—and nature itself, for that matter. Life on earth is largely about struggle and conflict; it is in how we resolve conflicts that we demonstrate our character. Harmony may or may not await us in heaven, depending on your metaphysics. Meanwhile, it is dangerous, I believe, to take as one's goal heaven on earth: it is an ideal doomed to frustration, and frustrated idealists too easily become cynics or hypocrites.
Agrarians know that they live in an earthly garden, not the Garden of Eden; they must accept nature as they find it and cannot take on ideals towards which they do not intend to work.

>> 2. the uniqueness of agriculture