Dr Norman Borlaug 1914-2009
September 13th, 2009
|
| Share |
We have lost one of greatest figures in the history of humanitarianism and science. Norman Borlaug can be credited with saving the lives of upward of one billion people, a number so high that it’s hard to step back and really appreciate the significance of his contributions. Although Borlaug certainly did not do this all by himself, his tireless work in the promotion of modern agriculture can’t be underestimated in its effects.
Borlaug won a number of prestigious awards during his lifetime, including the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Congressional Gold Medal and numerous high awards from countries including India, Mexico and several African countries. He is best known as the single most influential figure in the Green Revolution, which should not be confused with “Green” as in “Green Party” or “Green Energy.”
Borlaug was educated in plant pathology and genetics at the University of Minnesota. He began his work at Dupont, in the 1940’s, where he worked on agricultural chemistry and microbiology, developing fungicides and other agricultural technologies to protect crops from pests and disease. In 1944 he began work on the “Cooperative Wheat Research Production Program,” a program intended to research and develop better wheat production methods and higher crop yields in Mexico. At the time, Mexico was a net importer of wheat and had suffered from a number of disastrously low seasonal harvests. This began a decades-long career of research and promotion of agricultural science throughout the world.
Borlaug lead the team that helped develop new and higher yields of wheat in Mexico, directly leading to the country becoming a net exporter of wheat and other crops. His work included pure-line genotype and other breeding methods which were guided by the science of genetics. He campaigned rigorously for high production methods that included fertilizers, irrigation and other high-input high production agricultural methods. Borlaug worked tirelessly his entire life and in later life championed newer genetic engineering methods that he had not had at his disposal during his earlier research.
Borlaug took his work to all parts of the world. Some of his most notable contributions occurred in South Asia and India in the 1960’s. At the time, these areas were in near perpetual famine, struggling to feed their rapidly growing populations. Many had theorized that India would experience a “population bomb” causing a mass die-off by the 1980’s. It was believed that the population was growing at a rate that would make it impossible for agriculture to keep up with the demand for food, thus resulting in mass starvation when the size of the population finally reached the tipping point. Borlaug was instrumental in helping to avoid this by more than doubling production in these areas.
On the environment, Borlaug tirelessly defended the use of modern farming technology, formulating what is known as the “Borlaug Hypothesis.” This hypothesis states ” increasing the productivity of agriculture on the best farmland can help control deforestation by reducing the demand for new farmland.” Although there have been detractors, Borlaug always maintained that the best way to limit ecological impacts from agriculture was to apply science and technology to produce the highest yields within a given area of land and while maintaining the best effeciency of resources and energy.
He had his detractors, many in fact. Those in the “Organic” and “natural” farming communities loath many of the things that Borlaug championed and even claims that his methods would only lead to disaster. History has shown otherwise. Even in his later years, Borlaug continued to advocate for modern agriculture and the expansion of the methods he had promoted. He never apologized to the anti-”Industrial Agriculture” side who continuously insisted that he was the problem, not the solution.
There is a hard core of activists who did not like what Nicholas Borlaug did. They felt (and many still feel) that the world has too many human beings on it, and that some of us should have the grace to not be born or to shuffle quickly off this mortal coil so as not to ruin the views or deforest the game preserves for the rest of us. The technical term for people like this is unprintable in a family publication.
Nonetheless, there is no doubt that doubling our population to 6 billion in so short a time has had an impact on this planet, and that includes the climate. The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment estimates that more land was converted to agriculture in the last 30 years than in the 150 preceding years and now reaches 24% of Earth’s terrestrial surface. Agriculture has an impact on climate and it’s considerably different from the impact that the forests that are replaced once had. Irrigating this land has an impact as well. As economic conditions improve for so many, their diet expands from grains to include meat, and raising livestock requires land, water and grain, as well as systems for managing their effluent.
While we’re worried about the negative effects of our coal-fired energy plants and how to weatherise our homes, much of the real additional CO2 emissions have actually come from the poor, who tend to cut down forests for wood and farmland. Deforestation is estimated to cause 20% of all CO2 emissions.
Astonishingly, the activists who are adamantly against population increase think the solution is to have fewer people. Obviously, the solution is really to have fewer poor people. Interestingly, the Green Revolution spearheaded by Borlaug is not even halfway finished–most farmers in India are not even as efficient as their corresponding farmers were in China thousands of years ago. As farmers across the world get up to speed, their ability to feed more people will grow and the environmental impact of agriculture will lessen.
Sadly, the author is quite right about this sentiment. Some of those who would like to see population reduced by abandoning modern agriculture are more veiled than others in their intent. Either way, the results are the same.
Indeed, the methods that Borlaug helped establish did increase population, but that is because they undermined a major factor that was keeping human population in check: death by starvation. There is certainly good reason for concern over population growth in areas like India, where the population is skyrocketing in an already crowded area with a low mean income. It is entirely reasonable to advocate for better availability of birth control, education and public awareness of the population issue in order to keep reproduction in check. However, here we see someone who believes that it is better to attack the problem from the other side: just make sure lots and lots of people die of starvation and the population is kept in check.
Is overpopulation such a concern as to justify the mass slaughter of other humans? Without the techniques that Borlaug helped establish, indeed there would be fewer people. Not only that, but those who did manage to survive through the perpetual famines and shortages would hardly be living much of a life. Many would die, some would survive, but only because their level of malnutrition was not quite severe enough to be fatal.
If the methods of the Green Revolution used in developing countries suddenly stopped being employed, chances are you would not starve to death and neither would I. If you’re reading this on a computer screen, then you almost certainly would still be fed. Food might be expensive and you might occasionally find that your favorite fruit was missing at the supermarket, due to a fungal outbreak or unfavorable weather, but you and I would generally be okay. But the poor, they would be kept at low levels.
Another question’s Borlaug statements on “organic” agriculture.
This entry was posted on Sunday, September 13th, 2009 at 2:21 pm and is filed under Agriculture, Announcements, Bad Science, Enviornment, Good Science, History, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
September 13th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Very very sad loss. I mean, the man was 95 years old, so it is hardly a unexpected or untimely death, but we need more of him. The fact that he had the Nobel prize and so many other honors under his belt and the fact that he was so well regarded made him a kind of giant who could take on the organic bastards with a lot of authority that was hard to put down. I respect him for being willing to do so, even in his later years where he was retired from most of the active research, he never stopped promoting this important issue.
Here is a segment where he is featured on Penn and Teller’s Bull**** I think it’s great that he did so much of this stuff, and I’m very glad he responded so directly to the lies being told.
Here is another quote from him: http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/03/norman-borlaug-on-organic-farming.html
There’s starting to be a backlash, I believe. People like Dr. Borlaug helped very much, and he can continue to help, even though he is no longer with us. We have his words that are on the record and we have his interviews on tape. People can still be inspired and reached by his message. All the more important for all of us to keep it from fading or going unnoticed.
Quote Comment
September 13th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
“Hero” is an overused word, but this is a man who deserves the title more than almost any other. It seems to me that the Nobel Peace Prize is almost inadequate to pay tribute to the magnitude of his impact. So many have won it for so much less.
I am really quite shocked by the article you quoted on population and the need for less “poor” people. I am not at all shocked that there are many who believe that, but I am shocked that they would come right out and say it in such a direct way. Usually when these interests make public statements, they are less blunt about this kind of thing and try to spin it in a more sympathetic way.
More commonly they don’t go directly for the overpopulation angle, because that’s too obvious as a euphemism for genocide. Words like “Sustainable” and “natural life cycle” or whatever are better and most people gloss over them without realizing what the underlying implications are.
I think that their PR editor must have been out sick when this one came out.
Quote Comment
September 13th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Paul Ehrlich famously wrote in his 1968 bestseller The Population Bomb: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over.” But Borlaug and his team were already engaged in the kind of program that Ehrlich had declared wouldn’t work. Borlaug’s, success made a lie of Ehrlich’s doomsaying but of course is unfortunately is far less well-known than his critic who became a household name and who’s works became the canonical litany of the Green Movement.
Quote Comment
September 13th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
I think you have misread Thomas Fuller of the examiner on the death of Borlaug – as I read it he “does not mourn his loss too much” only because he died peacefully at the advanced age of 95, in the knowledge that he had done much good, not because he disliked him.
Further down it is made clear that:
Quote:
”
I do have a problem with those who are using climate change as a cover for their long term campaign to reduce human populations by whatever means necessary to lessen our impact on this planet. I consider them as evil as any totalitarian memory from the 20th Century and I believe they should be fought just as vigorously. Nicholas Borlaug was the exact opposite of these cretins, and he knew that the extra mouths brought forth on this planet are accompanied by brains as well, and that the additional creativity and ingenuity of these people will provide the solutions we need to help this planet, unlike the activists who see them only as a burden.
“
Fuller is on your side on that one.
Quote Comment
September 13th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Ben said:
You might be right. When I saw the “does not mourne his loss much” I think I started off with the wrong idea.
Quote Comment
September 13th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Also I think when he says we need fewer poor people, he may not be advocating a cull but suggesting removing people from poverty will lessen their environmental footprint. as indeed Norman Bourlag said.
Quote Comment
September 13th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Andrew said:
I misunderstood the authors intentions and so I’ve changed the page so as to not acuse the author of having those sentiments but rather just citing it
Quote Comment
September 13th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
it is true that regional population explosions cause problems. India has a huge problem with their population growing faster than their economy and with too much poverty already. The solution is clear, but the government of india has been entirely ineffective. They should encourage birth control and provide condoms or other methods to the public and they should have awareness education. Many of the births are not even wanted. People have no option.
Things may get better in the long run, if the politicans of third world countries get their act together. Also, the relief organizations sadly do not do as much as they should in this area. Some of them can’t because of the influence of religious organizations or their potential loss of donations. Sad, because it is not expensive to make a difference.
RIP Dr. Borlaug
He is a true humanitarian. Anyone who blames his work for population increase is genocidal.
Quote Comment
September 13th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
I send an email to the White House suggesting a day of memoriam for Dr. Borlaug. It can’t hurt.
Dr. Norman Borlaug Passed away Saturday. His work in feeding the hungry saved the lives of a billion people. Although he was honored in his life with the Nobel Peace Prize and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, I think it would be appropriate for the President to declare a day of memoriam for a man who did so much, not just for his country, but the whole world.
Joel Upchurch
Quote Comment
September 14th, 2009 at 12:23 am
Thanks for the link, but I don’t think it’s fair to characterize it as calling Dr. Borlaug a “liar.” I just think he made some very reckless generalizations about organic techniques, when he convicted himself out of his own mouth of not knowing much about what organic techniques actually were.
Quote Comment
September 14th, 2009 at 12:55 am
Kevin Carson said:
Alright. I changed the link title, because I can see how it was too strongly worded as “liar” and certainly that was not the word directly used.
I will add that in general I disagree with you in general, but I’m not going to imply someone said something they didn’t.
Sorry about any confusion.
Quote Comment
September 14th, 2009 at 1:42 am
Jess said:
Isn’t lack of a comprehensive pension system (that’s “Social Security” to you Americans) the main reason why birth rates are so high in India, because people need children to look after them in their old age?
In one Indian state the government tried everything to reduce birth rates, but didn’t succeed until a pension was introduced.
Quote Comment
September 14th, 2009 at 2:34 am
No problem. Thanks for changing it.
Quote Comment
September 14th, 2009 at 7:50 am
The biggest obstacle we face in changing attitudes toward overpopulation is economists. Since the field of economics was branded “the dismal science” after Malthus’ theory, economists have been adamant that they would never again consider the subject of overpopulation and continue to insist that man is ingenious enough to overcome any obstacle to further growth. This is why world leaders continue to ignore population growth in the face of mounting challenges like peak oil, global warming and a whole host of other environmental and resource issues. They believe we’ll always find technological solutions that allow more growth.
But because they are blind to population growth, there’s one obstacle they haven’t considered: the finiteness of space available on earth. The very act of using space more efficiently creates a problem for which there is no solution: it inevitably begins to drive down per capita consumption and, consequently, per capita employment, leading to rising unemployment and poverty.
If you‘re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, then I invite you to visit either of my web sites at OpenWindowPublishingCo.com or PeteMurphy.wordpress.com where you can read the preface, join in the blog discussion and, of course, buy the book if you like.
Pete Murphy
Author, “Five Short Blasts”
Quote Comment
September 14th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Pete Murphy said:
I guess this would be supported by the observable fact that the inhabitants of high population density regions such as Hong Kong, Manhatten and Amsterdam consume so much less per capita than the peoples of Mongolia, Siberia and Libya.
Quote Comment
September 14th, 2009 at 8:54 am
@Pete Murphy:
Carlyle did not call Economics the dismal science because of Malthus, as 2 minutes with a search engine will show.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dismal_science
http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/LevyPeartdismal.html
Quote from the latter:
”
Carlyle attacked Mill, not for supporting Malthus’s predictions about the dire consequences of population growth, but for supporting the emancipation of slaves. It was this fact—that economics assumed that people were basically all the same, and thus all entitled to liberty—that led Carlyle to label economics “the dismal science.”
“
Quote Comment
September 14th, 2009 at 10:17 am
George Carty said:
I don’t know if that would really work. Seems a little shaky if the parents are fairly poor to begin with why would they presume that their children will have the resources to care for them much?
I don’t know that a government pension plan is even really a possibility. You’re talking about a country with a billion people and which is not exactly rich. The Indian government has more money than it once did, but in terms of GPD per person, it still ranks as poor. Providing a pension to that many people, many bellow the poverty line, would be a challenge for the richest countries in the world.
In the long run, it will be better living standards in general and better education that reduces population growth. I don’t know that they can wait that long. In general, I don’t know that I agree with Chinas methods but they do deliver results. The Indian government is a notorious for being a bureaucratic mess, so I wouldn’t hold my breath for them figuring out a viable solution.
Quote Comment
September 14th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
George Carty said:
If that is the case then there really needs to be some real campaigning to educate people over the fallacy of this whole idea. Having a lot of children in a situation where you are already in poverty, or at least limited in your financial resources, is a guarantee that things will get worse. Perhaps children will turn around and help in old age, but they cost a lot in the near term and who is to say they will have the ability to help very much? If you’re not upper class and have eight kids, they’ll likely not be educated.
It is likely cultural, as kids have traditionally taken care of their parents. It would be more wise to have fewer children in this day and age and take the savings you get and put it into focusing on those children doing as well as possible. Two children get four times as much attention and money as eight. Another good idea would be to consider investing in savings and retirement plans or elevating your social status. One could argue that not having children assures you are better taken care of if it means you can get a better job, work more time, put more money aside and so on.
This idea is more modern. It’s not the same as when large amounts of labor was needed and big families were the way to keep up the farm or to assure that at least a few survive. It might be hard to change this whole perception. They should still try.
Quote Comment
September 14th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Just to add, I don’t think pensions is necessarily a bad idea in general as a means of social change, but I also don’t know it’s realistic in a country like India. The population is just so huge and growing so fast, even if it stopped growing, it would be really hard to suddenly commit to providing for the retirement to death needs of one billion people, especially given the average income and tax revenue they can get.
Quote Comment
September 14th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Further to Russ @19, I think the key on pensions is demographic stability – an age profile that is relatively stable and expected to remain so for at least the medium term, say forty years. India, as you say, certainly does not fit this criterion – but I could argue that their situation is favorable for a limited-term early retirement, since the upcoming generation should generate enough wealth to sustain their elders. China has taken draconian steps on population but I’m not sure they could claim to have a “naturally stable” profile yet, just a controlled profile.
… threadjack …
If the work in extending human lifespan suddenly blossoms, and we can all refresh mitochondria, replenish brain cells and relubricate our joints as required, the same issue may well arise in the developed countries – but then what will retirement mean in that case anyway? And much more interestingly, how can we possibly contain population growth if people live twice, three times, ten times as long?
Quote Comment
September 14th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Joffan said:
Well, considering the situation in India, providing for any large group is going to be a challenge. The country is doing better than it used to, but lets not kid ourselves here – there are millions of Indians in need and the average income of the country is too low for the government to really start providing for the living needs of so many. The total wealth of the country is descent, but divided by the number of citizens is quite low.
We’re talking about providing pensions to a large proportion of the population in a country that still has not gotten to the point of having reliable electricity in all the urban centers. (they have electricity, but as I understand, all the big offices and factories in India have a generator system that gets used a few times a month).
Not to be down on India though, they have made great strides and hopefully they’ll get much closer to the point of having less fundamental social needs and funding problems in the next couple of decades.
Lets not forget the big point of this all though: They already have made the first enormous step toward a better society. Starvation is no longer a problem in India. Perhaps in some isolated circumstances it is, but the country does not have famine problems and it is a net exporter of food.
Any country that can’t feed its own people is generally unable to fix any other problems. If your people are starving, forget about worrying about healthcare or improving housing or transportation infrastructure. Providing a consistent secure food supply is a necessity before you can go any further. As long as there is not ample food, you will never be anything but a third world, impoverished country.
Norman Borlaug is the single most important individual when it comes to providing for this basic need and thus allowing for further improvements.
Quote Comment
September 14th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Pete Murphy said:
By the time the human population gets large enough that it would cause those problems most of the population will be living in space, not on Earth.
Malthus was wrong and Malthusians have consistently been wrong, it would be nice if people could accept that and accept that we’re developing the technology needed to ensure that we can continue to grow our population much further should the need arise (it will).
Joffan said:
The extra term that will add to the geometric growth of population will be insignificant (although those who live a very long time might not have the same need for children as mortals do).
Either way, once we get to that stage routine space travel probably won’t be far off (at which point we have effectively infinite resources).
Quote Comment
September 15th, 2009 at 4:31 am
drbuzz0 said:
A good point. In addition to feeding so many and saving so many lives, Dr. Borlaug also made it possible for whole societies to begin to move ahead in all ways.
Lets not forget that Dr. Borlaug’s work is far from finished. He was still working hard up to his last years because despite all he did, hunger remains. Here’s to keeping fighting the good fight. Dr. Borlaug’s death does not mean the death of his life’s work.
Quote Comment
September 18th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Glad you understood that, far from criticising Dr. Borlaug, I consider him a hero. Regarding finite limits for human population, Wikipedia has an entry on population density that shows the Earth’s overall density to be somewhat like Kazakhstan. Obviously there are limits to a sustainable population, but I would argue that we are nowhere near them yet, and are unlikely to approach them this century.
Quote Comment