While the media might be focusing on the death of Patrick Swayze, we’d like to draw your attention to the death of a man who was a truly influential and positive force in the world. Norman Borlaug, father of the “Green Revolution” and winner of the 190 nobel peace prize, died Saturday at the age of 95.
Borlaug’s accomplishments involved the tremendous work he did in revolutionizing agriculture. By recognizing that organic farming could not exclusively feed the world’s population, Borlaug developed genetically modified foods. These foods, among other things, could resist disease, had a higher yield with fixed inputs, and utilized “dwarfing”.
The results were higher yields and food being grown in places where it wasn’t before – more people were eating because there was more food. As the Wall Street Journal points out:
Today, famines—whether in Zimbabwe, Darfur or North Korea—are politically induced events, not true natural disasters.
Borlaug’s only obstacle to universally renowned heroism comes from environmentalists. Some environmentalists claimed that growing more food would mean roads would be built over wilderness. I don’t think I need to address the elitism of that argument. But also, because of the unknown consequences of using chemicals like non-organic pesticides and genetically modifying foods, environmentalists saw Borlaug as a figure who introduced dangerous food into every agricultural industry in the world.
It’s true that we don’t know all the consequences of Borlaug’s work – just like we don’t yet know the consequences of society staring at computer screens for 7 hours a day. But we need to weigh the possible risks with the enormous benefits. Borlaug was credited with saving the lives of 1 billion people. Not a typo – billion. Those are 1 billion people that would have starved to death. As Borlaug said, it’s easy for people to criticize his work for being possibly dangerous because they all have “full bellies”.
Upset Patterns 
September 19, 2009 at 5:59 am
It should be noted that the criticisms of Borlaug’s Green Revolution go way beyond protesting new roads through wilderness, as mentioned above. For example, the use high-yielding variety crops creates a crippling dependence of small, third-world farmers on multi-national agribusinesses such as Monsanto. HYV crops require high inputs of expensive fertilizers and pesticides, both of which are beyond the reach of many poor farmers, to say nothing of their known negative consequences on local ecosystems. This causes a cycle of borrowing and debt and a collapse of self-sufficiency among the rural poor, leading to a high number of suicides in recent decades. Many activists in third-world countries who previously praised the Green Revolution have turned against it because of the destructive cycle it has created. Although Borlaug was a great scientist with the best intentions, it is not right to gloss over the consequences of his work.
September 19, 2009 at 9:54 am
The dependence of third world countries on these crops is certainly not as desirable as those countries having a diversified portfolio of cops. But the consequences you speak of are trivial compared to the good he has done. Why should we focus on the suicides, dependency, and deforestation when, as the nobel prize committee figured, he saved 1 billion lives?
The automobile helped the vast majority of humanity achieve increased mobility for work and independence. Should we remember Henry Ford’s legacy for all the people who died in car crashes, or for the existence of car bombs?
There are downsides to any innovation. No progress is ever made with no negative unintended consequences. But we have to put everything into perspective. Having dependency or high levels of debt is better than starving.
September 20, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Agree to disagree, bucko.