Norman Borlaug, 1914-2009

[Jester]

Hi,

Norman Borlaug, father of the green revolution, the man whose work has almost certainly saved millions upon millions of lives from a starving death, has died at the age of 95.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,

Norman Borlaug, father of the green revolution, the man whose work has almost certainly saved millions upon millions of lives from a starving death, has died at the age of 95.

-Jester

He made possible a revival of Malthusian archetypes. He made possible the salting and desertification of arable farmland the world over.

Not on purpose. of course, but the old law of unintended outcomes, as cash crops took advantage of Green Rev methods and in some cases the long term influence of adding nitrates and fertilizers became a hazard to viable acreage. SciAm had an in depth article on this problem some years ago, the salting of good soil by over treatment as yields per acre ceilings were pushed at year after year.

So, he halped take the edge off famine, but famine is still with us. He made a cheap food policy possible in my country, at a macro scale, and ironically he enabled the seeds of obesity.

Silver cloud, sure, with a nice gray lining.

But all in all, he done good. We are better off for his efforts.

[Jester]

He made possible a revival of Malthusian archetypes.

What Norman Borlaug did was to prevent, or at least long delay, a Malthusian crisis that would have killed tens, of not hundreds, of millions of people.

If the theory of demographic transition is correct, such a disaster might not have to happen at all, as birth rates drop in developing countries. But if Mr. Borlaug had not increased yields, we'd already have massive starvation in India and Africa.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

What Norman Borlaug did was to prevent, or at least long delay, a Malthusian crisis that would have killed tens, of not hundreds, of millions of people.

If the theory of demographic transition is correct, such a disaster might not have to happen at all, as birth rates drop in developing countries. But if Mr. Borlaug had not increased yields, we'd already have massive starvation in India and Africa.

-Jester

So what? Famine is as old a problem as the human race, yet somehow the human race is still around.

You seem to assume that an infinitely growing human population has inherent virtue, from what you wrote there.

Why?

I understand the theory of demographic transition, there seem to be strong correlations in Europe, and the Chinese model of population restraint is an interesting problem/solution strategy to mull over.

Breeding in excess of the land's capacity to bear the population remains a common human problem. Starvation is one symptom of that problem, conflict over scarce resources another. Thanks to our good Mr B, some nations or other warring groups can feed their troops ... perhaps better than others.

[Jester]

So what? Famine is as old a problem as the human race, yet somehow the human race is still around.

Because the only things we want to avoid are things which drive us extinct? Just because something fails to kill us all off doesn't mean we shouldn't avoid it.

You seem to assume that an infinitely growing human population has inherent virtue, from what you wrote there.

No, I regard mass starvation as an inherent evil. My ideal population for this planet is somewhere around 100 million - but if we had to get there by starving 6.4 billion, I'd say, to quote Ms. Palin, "thanks but no thanks."

There is good reason to suppose that the population of the earth will more or less stabilize in the next few decades thanks to demographic and social change. If that is the case, so long as we can get through the next while without mass starvation, we can avoid having to go through a Malthusian check on population at all. That's an enormous number of lives that don't have to be ended in a particularily painful way.

I understand the theory of demographic transition, there seem to be strong correlations in Europe, and the Chinese model of population restraint is an interesting problem/solution strategy to mull over.

It's not just Europe. Japan, North America, Australia, NZ all look much the same. So do many places in Latin America. It looks like India is also over the hump, although not in all regions, and is not yet down to the low birth rate/low death rate point. It's more or less just the extremely poor, badly governed countries that haven't seen it happen yet - Central Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Breeding in excess of the land's capacity to bear the population remains a common human problem. Starvation is one symptom of that problem, conflict over scarce resources another. Thanks to our good Mr B, some nations or other warring groups can feed their troops ... perhaps better than others.

Without him, they'd likely have already been using those desperate, starving masses to claw each others' countries apart for food resources. The greater the scarcity, the greater the conflict.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Because the only things we want to avoid are things which drive us extinct? Just because something fails to kill us all off doesn't mean we shouldn't avoid it.

Try to leave the strawmen in the cornfield, please, or in Dorothy's company.

No, I regard mass starvation as an inherent evil.

I consider it a remedy for collective stupidity.

Occhi

[Jester]

I consider it a remedy for collective stupidity.

I don't. Early death is immensely damaging to a society - and a primary cause of collective stupidity. Nothing discourages people from obtaining everything they need to rise out of ignorance, from education to institutions to proper care for children, quite like the idea that it's all going to go to waste because they're going to starve to death anyway.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I don't. Early death is immensely damaging to a society - and a primary cause of collective stupidity. Nothing discourages people from obtaining everything they need to rise out of ignorance, from education to institutions to proper care for children, quite like the idea that it's all going to go to waste because they're going to starve to death anyway.

"All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated...As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come: so this bell calls us all: but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness....No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

But...

I am a rock.

[ShadowHM]

So, he halped take the edge off famine, but famine is still with us. He made a cheap food policy possible in my country, at a macro scale, and ironically he enabled the seeds of obesity.

Silver cloud, sure, with a nice gray lining.

But all in all, he done good. We are better off for his efforts.

Agreed. All heroes have feet of clay. And the law of unintended consequences will continue to affect humanity for some time to come.

[Sir_Die_alot]

I just figured I'd stick my nose in here because its probably the one and only time I will find myself not only agreeing with Jester but disagreeing with Occhi.:rolleyes:

[Jester]

I just figured I'd stick my nose in here because its probably the one and only time I will find myself not only agreeing with Jester but disagreeing with Occhi.:rolleyes:

I will treasure this moment always. :D

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

I don't. Early death is immensely damaging to a society - .

Unproven and unsupported assertion.

You are bringing your assumptions with you, for one, and assuming all societies are worth keeping for another.

Those are not necessarily true.

[--Pete]

Ave,

I will treasure this moment always. :D

Sic transit gloria mundi. :whistling:

--Pietro

[Jester]

You are bringing your assumptions with you, for one, and assuming all societies are worth keeping for another.

Which societies in particular were you hoping would be eradicated from starvation?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Which societies in particular were you hoping would be eradicated from starvation?

Cannibals. Also, Sleestaks, and Wendigo.

Africanized bees. Definitely. And... Fire ants.

Edit: And, Assassin bugs kind of freak me out as well.

[Zingydex]

No, I regard mass starvation as an inherent evil. My ideal population for this planet is somewhere around 100 million - but if we had to get there by starving 6.4 billion, I'd say, to quote Ms. Palin, "thanks but no thanks."

There is good reason to suppose that the population of the earth will more or less stabilize in the next few decades thanks to demographic and social change.
-Jester

The problem with debating Malthus is you're debating a moot point. Even assuming the food supply to be infinite (which it's not, regardless of technological advances), the human population is around two full orders of magnitude greater than what the Earth has resources to support, at the least. Natural resources are by definition finite. Pretty soon, perhaps even before any of us die of old age, we're going to hit a point where we need to dig/drill/cut some raw material or other, and there won't be anything there to harvest.

That's not even to mention the fact that humans generate more pollution in any given year than nature can come close to compensating for.

Wiping out the vast majority of the population by whatever means may not be a very palatable option, but in the long term it's the only effective one.

[kandrathe]

Wiping out the vast majority of the population by whatever means may not be a very palatable option, but in the long term it's the only effective one.

Mmmm, palatable. My point exactly.

[Jester]

The problem with debating Malthus is you're debating a moot point. Even assuming the food supply to be infinite (which it's not, regardless of technological advances), the human population is around two full orders of magnitude greater than what the Earth has resources to support, at the least.

For what period of time? Obviously, the earth is supporting us now, or else we'd be starving to death. And we're not going to die of starvation in the next few decades. Maybe things will look different in a hundred years, but we are not in immediate danger of mass death through starvation - largely thanks to Mr. Borlaug and colleagues.

Natural resources are by definition finite. Pretty soon, perhaps even before any of us die of old age, we're going to hit a point where we need to dig/drill/cut some raw material or other, and there won't be anything there to harvest.

Earth's a big place, and we're rapidly coming to a point where it no longer restricts us. How long before we can harness solar energy from space? Before we can mine asteroids? Before we can live on Mars? These things are not right around the corner, but it's hardly inevitable that we're simply going to exhaust our resources and die off (well, it is, but that could be a billion year phenomenon, rather than "before any of us die of old age".) I'm not a polyanna about scarcity and technology, but things are not *that* dire.

That's not even to mention the fact that humans generate more pollution in any given year than nature can come close to compensating for.

I'm very concerned about AGW and other climate change phenomena, but it is unlikely to extinguish our species, especially if we get off our butts and do something about it.

Wiping out the vast majority of the population by whatever means may not be a very palatable option, but in the long term it's the only effective one.

Um... how about slowly stabilizing the birth rate to something below the rate of replacement, and slowly shrinking the population down to a manageable level while simultaneously increasing our efficiency and recovery of spent resources? Because it's looking very much like that is the future in store for us... unless something catastrophic happens that prevents the development necessary to reduce the birth rate - like massive starvation. Starvation is not a solution, unless the extinction of human civilization can be said to solve anything.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . the human population is around two full orders of magnitude greater than what the Earth has resources to support, at the least.

Interesting. While I believe that the ideal human population of the Earth is one to two orders of magnitude smaller than at present, I was under the impression that the Earth could support nearly the present population for decades, if not centuries, into future. Do you have any good references to support your claim?

Wiping out the vast majority of the population by whatever means may not be a very palatable option, but in the long term it's the only effective one.

Not really. A global effort to reduce the birth rate to a level that reduces the population by as little as 1% per year would most likely solve the problem before it becomes a catastrophe. At 1% per year reduction, it would take about 70 years to half the population.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Which societies in particular were you hoping would be eradicated from starvation?

-Jester

Hope has nothing to do with it.

The means, in terms of knowledge, to mitigate many of these problems aren't a mystery. Failure to apply them is a matter of a chosen behavior. Human stubbornness at its finest and at the same times worst manifestation. The occasional clever ones will thrive. (I note that Rwanda, for example, is making a comeback. Huzzah!)

At 1% per year reduction, it would take about 70 years to half the population.

So killing all the lawyers isn't the better course of action? Rats.