Ah, not Borlaug again.<p>Look, selective breeding and using fossil fuels for agriculture did increase output per unit of land. But the genetic specialization has weakened the previous genetic diversity of food.<p>Rendering our food supply more brittle, because we've created plants which need a very precise, artificial environment filled with external inputs.<p>Now, we've added GMOs, which have decreased genetic diversity even more. (Massive monoculture plantings all with the same genes, with even more artificial needs.)<p>The reason sexual reproduction succeeded was it creates as diverse of a genome as possible. By reducing that process, and substituting what we think of as "better", and then making it so 80% of our food supply shares the same genome, we're really setting ourselves up for a fall.<p>The mythology of Borlaug is that there are these scientists silently saving the world off in a corner, our own super hero nerds to look up to.<p>But, we're talking about massive systems here, things we really don't have a clue about. Can we outrun the adaptations of biology with our own GM technology? Can we keep using fossil fuels to outpace what we should be getting out of food?<p>And with genetic modification, we're always taking something away when we substitute something else. There is truly no free lunch there.<p>The point being, don't believe the mythology, and don't think this is a solved problem. Yes, we created a lot of cheap food using fossil fuels and brittle plant genomes, but what comes next?
Whenever I lose faith in the naive goodness of humans, I look up Norman Borlaug again. The sacrifices that man has made for the greater good might look trivial in the books of history but it saved a billion people from certain starvation. Mexico, India and Pakistan would have fallen to anarchy long ago if not for him. I agree corporations like Monsanto took his line of work to evil proportions, but I am grateful that the first hands to wield the weapon of GM crops were of Norman Borlaug. His legacy will never be forgotten and will always be a guiding light to states and statesmen for centuries to come.
I don't want anyone to starve, but lets not go overboard on the hero worshiping.<p>Increasing carry capacity of the land can "save" people in the moment, but once the population catches up to the new carrying capacity we run into the same problems again unless something has changed in the meantime. Except that all the problems are worse because the new carrying capacity is<p>* more brittle (as other commenters) have already pointed out<p>* borrowed from unsustainable approaches such as converting fossil fuels to fertilizer<p>Arguably many of the countries that implemented these approaches have been able to slow populations growth, possibly with the help of temporary food security from these approaches.<p>I am just hoping for more intelligent conversation on the issue that helps people realize the true heros are those implementing sustainable technologies.
If you are dying of hunger would you eat a Snickers bar? How about if you had to survive for a week on only Skittles? Would you die, leaving a note that says that you refuse to eat processed food?<p>Is average life expectancy longer or shorter as a result of his work? Is quality of life better or worse?
I hate all these "saved people" bits. Every person ever still dies. Nobody gets "saved" from death, we get <i>prolonged life</i> or <i>happier / healthier life</i>. We could talk about reduced suffering. That stuff matters but just be accurate. There's no billion people saved, there's (arguably) billion people suffering less. Which isn't belittling anything.
This post is a thinly veiled argument for GMOs and large scale agribusiness. Did it save billions? Obviously. Is it free from criticism because of that? Not a chance.
Although this might seem great on paper, he just created more intractable problems for future generations to have to deal with. Instead of focusing on the quantity of life, we should focus on the quality. Educate people instead of helping them make more children that will lead sad lives.
You are really believing that a man who supports GMOs and the increase of the consumption of wheat cereals saved a billion?<p>We are in an era where people are trying to avoid GMO products and also trying a "gluten-free" diet because of the health damage of those 2 things.