The Man Who Defused the ‘Population Bomb’(online.wsj.com)
online.wsj.com
The Man Who Defused the ‘Population Bomb’
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574411382676924044.html
44 comments
The man achieved great things, specifically the way in which he solved the problem is phenomenal. It reveals not a just a great mind, but a great character. Not to be glib, but you'd look for something like that in a founder. Except the he didn't create yet another web 2.0 site, he saved billions of lives.
Having said that, lets keep in mind that the green revolution is not as often described a low risk/high yield deal.
Low risk/high yield things often tend to be Utopian and are most often revealed to not be at least one of those things.
The green revolutions is HIGH risk/high yield. It is high risk because it relies on very few, very genetically similar varieties. And those are at high risk for decimation due to disease.
They themselves might not be more susceptible to any one disease, but their near universal use carries a high risk of unforeseen food shortages when some fungus wipes out a sufficiently large percentage of the global wheat crop.
We should carry on Norman Borlaug's work and develop more genetically diverse strains which maintain similarly high yields.
It would also be nice if we could find a way to fertilize without creating hardpan soils or fertilizer runoff into rivers/lakes/oceans.
Having said that, lets keep in mind that the green revolution is not as often described a low risk/high yield deal.
Low risk/high yield things often tend to be Utopian and are most often revealed to not be at least one of those things.
The green revolutions is HIGH risk/high yield. It is high risk because it relies on very few, very genetically similar varieties. And those are at high risk for decimation due to disease.
They themselves might not be more susceptible to any one disease, but their near universal use carries a high risk of unforeseen food shortages when some fungus wipes out a sufficiently large percentage of the global wheat crop.
We should carry on Norman Borlaug's work and develop more genetically diverse strains which maintain similarly high yields.
It would also be nice if we could find a way to fertilize without creating hardpan soils or fertilizer runoff into rivers/lakes/oceans.
You misstate the arguments of some green farming techniques. For example, rejecting monoculture on a patch of land is low risk/high yield. 15 different crops (not 15 varieties of one crop) is much less susceptible to total failure due to a single catastrophic event than a monoculture.
Secondly, is high yield even a good thing? Many crops produce more yield but do not produce more (or produce very little more) nutritionally valuable product. Corn being the exemplary plant in this case. Germ size has barely increased, while starch has grown considerably. Which is great if you're feeding cattle, but biomass from starch doesn't necessarily mean protein-rich biomass, rather it becomes animal fat. Delicious animal fat, to be sure, but not necessarily a good yield/nutrition trade-off.
Secondly, is high yield even a good thing? Many crops produce more yield but do not produce more (or produce very little more) nutritionally valuable product. Corn being the exemplary plant in this case. Germ size has barely increased, while starch has grown considerably. Which is great if you're feeding cattle, but biomass from starch doesn't necessarily mean protein-rich biomass, rather it becomes animal fat. Delicious animal fat, to be sure, but not necessarily a good yield/nutrition trade-off.
is high yield even a good thing?
It is if you want to feed more people, More people may not be a good thing, but it often just is an inescapable reality and if you want to keep them from death by starvation you need higher yield.
And I'm not sure rejecting monoculture on a patch of land is high yield. Not if you want to harvest and distribute it all and do it before it spoils and the "patch" is large enough. Then you need machines, huge machines, and those demand monoculture.
Or you could go with human labor but then you'd need a whole other patch of land, harvested with machines, to feed the laborers harvesting the first patch.
Corn is a good example of high calorie/poor nutrition. But most other crops are not that bad.
It is if you want to feed more people, More people may not be a good thing, but it often just is an inescapable reality and if you want to keep them from death by starvation you need higher yield.
And I'm not sure rejecting monoculture on a patch of land is high yield. Not if you want to harvest and distribute it all and do it before it spoils and the "patch" is large enough. Then you need machines, huge machines, and those demand monoculture.
Or you could go with human labor but then you'd need a whole other patch of land, harvested with machines, to feed the laborers harvesting the first patch.
Corn is a good example of high calorie/poor nutrition. But most other crops are not that bad.
Methods of harvesting and distribution depend greatly on how far one wishes to distribute the crop from the source. Which is entirely another prong in the argument for green ag. I don't necessarily agree with the local food movement on all accounts, but the question of feeding the world ultimately comes down to how much total food is necessary to feed a population, not how many diverse crops can feed a population. I know that sounds like an argument for monoculture, but hear me out.
High yield is important if you want to feed people outside your locale. It becomes less an issue of feeding the masses and more a vehicle for trade. Through modern techniques and distribution, oranges from Florida can be sold in North Dakota. However, I wonder if it's necessary that North Dakotan's need many cheap oranges. There are many examples. What is the actual value of Columbian asparagus in the fall vs. the residual costs of producing and distributing that asparagus? Et cetera.
The labor issue you bring up is an important one, however, and it is a trade-off that many proponents of green agriculture too easily overlook.
High yield is important if you want to feed people outside your locale. It becomes less an issue of feeding the masses and more a vehicle for trade. Through modern techniques and distribution, oranges from Florida can be sold in North Dakota. However, I wonder if it's necessary that North Dakotan's need many cheap oranges. There are many examples. What is the actual value of Columbian asparagus in the fall vs. the residual costs of producing and distributing that asparagus? Et cetera.
The labor issue you bring up is an important one, however, and it is a trade-off that many proponents of green agriculture too easily overlook.
Clearly there's no vital need for cheap asparagus. That's another problem. As the Irish say: God gave us the potato blight, the British gave us the famine.
That is to say, whith great income disparity, even when millions of people can't get enough calories, we can be throwing away moldy oranges.
Shortages of food will only make it more expensive for us, but people around the world will starve.
And a lot of people are not eating specialty foods from far off, they are barely getting enough calories from high yield starchy local crops like rice, corn, wheat etc. I am not sure how you could provide a population center like say Kinshasa with enough calories, never mind trace nutrients, without machines. Manually harvesting wheat or corn is not a way to feed the world.
That is to say, whith great income disparity, even when millions of people can't get enough calories, we can be throwing away moldy oranges.
Shortages of food will only make it more expensive for us, but people around the world will starve.
And a lot of people are not eating specialty foods from far off, they are barely getting enough calories from high yield starchy local crops like rice, corn, wheat etc. I am not sure how you could provide a population center like say Kinshasa with enough calories, never mind trace nutrients, without machines. Manually harvesting wheat or corn is not a way to feed the world.
I find food from my garden consistently much tastier than food from the supermarket. Especially tomatoes, haricots verts, peas & lettuce. Tomatoes from the supermarket taste as if they injected 80% water. Haricots verts from the supermarket taste as if they're a month old. You wouldn't even recognize peas if you're used to frozen peas.
I don't know if the difference is because of different species of plants or different light conditions or different soil. Whether it's better for your health I couldn't say.
I don't know if the difference is because of different species of plants or different light conditions or different soil. Whether it's better for your health I couldn't say.
The store varieties are absolutely bred for yield and looks but not taste. The most common tomato is called "bulletproof" and that's because of how well it ships without bruising, not how tasty it is.
Industrial farming is a product of economy. In our society oil is cheap and labor is expensive, and our farming techniques reflect that.
As far as alternatives go, an instructive example is post-USSR Cuba. Before 1991 they were a satellite-state which sold sugar at above market prices to the USSR and in exchange received oil and farm machinery. After the collapse they had to, essentially overnight, switch over to subsistence farming. They use low-input techniques by necessity due to the high price of fossil fuels.
In almost every Cuban town there is a microbiologist who will examine the soil from your plot and recommend biological or chemical amendments. Open spaces in Havana are populated with [collectively-run] urban gardens. They're the first country applying permaculture techniques on a large scale.
Permaculture can actually be more productive per acre than industrial agriculture, but it requires more (and more educated) labor to do so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture
As far as alternatives go, an instructive example is post-USSR Cuba. Before 1991 they were a satellite-state which sold sugar at above market prices to the USSR and in exchange received oil and farm machinery. After the collapse they had to, essentially overnight, switch over to subsistence farming. They use low-input techniques by necessity due to the high price of fossil fuels.
In almost every Cuban town there is a microbiologist who will examine the soil from your plot and recommend biological or chemical amendments. Open spaces in Havana are populated with [collectively-run] urban gardens. They're the first country applying permaculture techniques on a large scale.
Permaculture can actually be more productive per acre than industrial agriculture, but it requires more (and more educated) labor to do so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture
They're also highly dependent on imports of US produced food, and so probably not a great example of something to emulate.
I don't follow Cuba-US relations too much, thus my ignorance, but how are they importing US produced food? Through Canada or Mexico and gray market intermediaries?
I am not doubting they get some US food, just questioning how much.
I am not doubting they get some US food, just questioning how much.
He didn't defuse it, he just added a few more feet to the fuse. As long as Earth's population grows exponentially (or even linearly), we'll hit a wall sooner or later.
Malthus is still right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe
Malthus is still right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe
Earth's population isn't growing exponentially or even linearly, though.
And shrinking in richer economies. You can't extrapolate out decades with those kinds of trends. Lots of developing economies will be as rich as the west is today before then.
Isn't it a law in ecology that a population will grow to the limit of its scarcest resource? In some countries that is food, in many modern societies now it seems to be time.
We know that the population can't grow exponentially forever, but other than a recent dip in fertility rates, we have seen a fairly steady exponential growth.
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/Papers/gkh1/chap1.htm
We know that the population can't grow exponentially forever, but other than a recent dip in fertility rates, we have seen a fairly steady exponential growth.
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/Papers/gkh1/chap1.htm
Isn't it a law in ecology that a population will grow to the limit of its scarcest resource?
Who says so? Why would an observation that may (or may not) apply to bacteria or even to wolves apply to human beings?
Who says so? Why would an observation that may (or may not) apply to bacteria or even to wolves apply to human beings?
Why would an observation that may (or may not) apply to bacteria or even to wolves apply to human beings?
Because it appears we're also DNA replicators.
But, let me play devil's advocate on your behalf, because I like your question. Let's assume that humans do realize their population problems and act to level growth, or reduce it. There's a strong argument that they would also act to reduce their resources, as well. Fewer people means less food necessary to feed the population; So why grow it?
Because it appears we're also DNA replicators.
But, let me play devil's advocate on your behalf, because I like your question. Let's assume that humans do realize their population problems and act to level growth, or reduce it. There's a strong argument that they would also act to reduce their resources, as well. Fewer people means less food necessary to feed the population; So why grow it?
Last I checked we were still animals that are, as a population, driven by instinct.
We do have at least one significant difference from other species in our intelligence/self-awareness, but I challenge you to find any significantly large (compared to world population) group that acts even mostly out of rationality.
We do have at least one significant difference from other species in our intelligence/self-awareness, but I challenge you to find any significantly large (compared to world population) group that acts even mostly out of rationality.
It strikes me as more of a tautology.
If a population stops growing, then clearly it's because it has run out of some resource, particularly if you go so far as to include things such as 'time' as a resource.
If a population stops growing, then clearly it's because it has run out of some resource, particularly if you go so far as to include things such as 'time' as a resource.
I think it is used more to predict how a system will respond to a change in resources. If you reduce the amount of resources available to a population, that population will shrink approximately proportionally (until there is enough for the rest to survive), and if you increase the resources the population will grow to use those resources reasonably quickly.
It also points out that it is the scarcest resource that limits growth. Increasing food will not allow the population grow if there isn't enough water, sun, etc.
My point was mostly to point out that we may have some other scarcity that isn't food which is limiting the growth rate in industrialized countries, while increasing the food in starving countries will just cause the population to grow until it hits the limit of some other resource.
I suspect that it isn't any sort of time scarcity that is limiting current human growth, but more likely the impact of contraceptives messing with our normal biological mechanisms.
It also points out that it is the scarcest resource that limits growth. Increasing food will not allow the population grow if there isn't enough water, sun, etc.
My point was mostly to point out that we may have some other scarcity that isn't food which is limiting the growth rate in industrialized countries, while increasing the food in starving countries will just cause the population to grow until it hits the limit of some other resource.
I suspect that it isn't any sort of time scarcity that is limiting current human growth, but more likely the impact of contraceptives messing with our normal biological mechanisms.
Just to be clear: that could be a sudden shift that causes starvation. At least, that is the fear.
Source? Numbers? I know that a few first-world countries like Japan have negative population growth, but is that the case everywhere? Are the countries that having negative population growth enough to offset those with positive?
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=world+population
Population growth world-wide is 1.14% per year.
Population growth world-wide is 1.14% per year.
Actually on a long enough scale population growth is exponential and has been increasing at a phenomenal rate (by such time scales). However the good news is that the time it takes for the world population to double is estimated to increase. (Ed, note that any growth on any scale can be read as exponential. On a geological scale the human population growth is akin to the big-bang, but on a daily scale it's equivalent to a lethargic snail.)
This is due to the fact that if current trends continue, it will have taken 12.3 years for the world population to go up by a billion (however it should be noted, earlier estimates -1990 IIRC- suggested it should have hit 10 billion ~2012), which is a mild increase over the last billion of 12.25 years. I believe the next billions are expected to take 13, 15 and then IIRC 18 years.
There's many relevant factors effecting population growth. Many of the diseases that plagued our ancestors are almost completely cured in the west (I've never heard of someone dying from a broken arm, however 200 years ago it was a prominent risk).
We also have food preservation techniques that no one had before. Everywhere from penicillium being used in meats to prevent bacterial growth to refrigeration, vacuum sealing, freeze drying and even vacuum freezing (where the moisture is literally sucked out of food, meaning it can last unrefrigerated for up to 10 years). There's also irradiation techniques that, given proper storage, can enable food to last indefinitely.
There are also vast misconceptions about over population that plague these discussions. For example, China is less densely populated than the UK and Japan, yet has food struggles because they don't have the economy to import food on mass. Many African countries plague by starvation are desolate compared to most countries, yet neighbouring countries have populations almost one hundred times as populated (note that this even applies in the landlocked countries interior and isn't a comparison between a country with a large ocean border and one with no border).
This is due to the fact that if current trends continue, it will have taken 12.3 years for the world population to go up by a billion (however it should be noted, earlier estimates -1990 IIRC- suggested it should have hit 10 billion ~2012), which is a mild increase over the last billion of 12.25 years. I believe the next billions are expected to take 13, 15 and then IIRC 18 years.
There's many relevant factors effecting population growth. Many of the diseases that plagued our ancestors are almost completely cured in the west (I've never heard of someone dying from a broken arm, however 200 years ago it was a prominent risk).
We also have food preservation techniques that no one had before. Everywhere from penicillium being used in meats to prevent bacterial growth to refrigeration, vacuum sealing, freeze drying and even vacuum freezing (where the moisture is literally sucked out of food, meaning it can last unrefrigerated for up to 10 years). There's also irradiation techniques that, given proper storage, can enable food to last indefinitely.
There are also vast misconceptions about over population that plague these discussions. For example, China is less densely populated than the UK and Japan, yet has food struggles because they don't have the economy to import food on mass. Many African countries plague by starvation are desolate compared to most countries, yet neighbouring countries have populations almost one hundred times as populated (note that this even applies in the landlocked countries interior and isn't a comparison between a country with a large ocean border and one with no border).
> Actually on a long enough scale population growth is exponential
This doesn't really make sense. Human population growth could potentially be modeled as a logistic curve, but I doubt that even really explains or will explain things adequately. More realistically, human population growth without new technology or social structures showing up is exponential, but those dramatically change its shape, to the point I'm not sure we can predict population more than 2-3 decades out.
This doesn't really make sense. Human population growth could potentially be modeled as a logistic curve, but I doubt that even really explains or will explain things adequately. More realistically, human population growth without new technology or social structures showing up is exponential, but those dramatically change its shape, to the point I'm not sure we can predict population more than 2-3 decades out.
Most first-world countries have zero or negative population growth when you don't account for immigration. This seems to be a result of economic development. Most countries are also economically developing over time so you can expect the population growth rate to peak and decline as this happens. It has happened, in fact.
Of course, this development is dependent upon the presence of natural resources which may interfere with the food supply (i.e. biodiesel or ethanol fuels).
Of course, this development is dependent upon the presence of natural resources which may interfere with the food supply (i.e. biodiesel or ethanol fuels).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#Human_populat...
From a peak growth rate of 2.2% on a base of 3.2 billion in 1962-1963, the world population growth rate declined to 1.2% on a base of 6.6 billion in 2007. That's about 79 million net new people in 2007.
Wikipedia elsewhere reports that 1989 was the year with the largest absolute increase in population, 87.8 million net new people. So shrughes' report of not-even-linear growth seems true, at least for the last 20 years.
From a peak growth rate of 2.2% on a base of 3.2 billion in 1962-1963, the world population growth rate declined to 1.2% on a base of 6.6 billion in 2007. That's about 79 million net new people in 2007.
Wikipedia elsewhere reports that 1989 was the year with the largest absolute increase in population, 87.8 million net new people. So shrughes' report of not-even-linear growth seems true, at least for the last 20 years.
Omce birth control becomes free or affordable, and societites move out of agrarian only production, that is untrue.
Reliable birth control pretty much leads to voluntary replacement only reproduction
Reliable birth control pretty much leads to voluntary replacement only reproduction
For a few generations. Eventually, the survival of the fittest kicks in, and those people who avoided birth control (from a stronger paternal feeling, etc) will restock the population.
This sounds like the same fallacy that the movie Idiocracy is based on – even if you pass on your genes, that doesn't mean you pass on traits like demographic fertility, or intelligence.
One of the best predictors of a woman's fertility rate is their level of education. Higher education leads to fewer children on average. This is largely independent of the fertility of their parents.
Also, if you look at the third world, there are actually some good economic arguments for having more children, related to infant mortality. Your children are your 'Social Security', so you want to ensure that some survive. Paradoxically, reducing infant mortality can actually reduce fertility. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5192204318056302269
One of the best predictors of a woman's fertility rate is their level of education. Higher education leads to fewer children on average. This is largely independent of the fertility of their parents.
Also, if you look at the third world, there are actually some good economic arguments for having more children, related to infant mortality. Your children are your 'Social Security', so you want to ensure that some survive. Paradoxically, reducing infant mortality can actually reduce fertility. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5192204318056302269
> that doesn't mean you pass on traits like demographic fertility, or intelligence.
IQ is well known to be highly heritable. I would be very surprised if proper research came up with a null result on fertility heritability.
IQ is well known to be highly heritable. I would be very surprised if proper research came up with a null result on fertility heritability.
Evolution doesn't work that quickly.
And additionally, humans have a vast ideological landscape that is "contagious" among individuals, which also happens to limit breeding. This is not something evolution can control through reasonable means.
And additionally, humans have a vast ideological landscape that is "contagious" among individuals, which also happens to limit breeding. This is not something evolution can control through reasonable means.
It's not just birth control: Even more important is education of girls, which is the number one factor reducing natality. Educated urban women (and educated urban families) just don't have the 8-15 children that rural peasant families do (before industrialization anywhere in the world, for thousands of years). Part of it is also that previously >50% of children died before age 5. Now infant mortality is extremely low in most industrialized countries.
Except for some insular subcultures (such as the Amish, to give only one example among many). These subcultures are continuing exponential growth unabated, and eventually this will affect national and world fertility rate statistics.
But such subcultures are still less than 1% of the population in the developed world, so even doubling their numbers every 20 to 25 years, it will take a while for them to have a statistically significant impact.
But such subcultures are still less than 1% of the population in the developed world, so even doubling their numbers every 20 to 25 years, it will take a while for them to have a statistically significant impact.
This appears applicable to whites in the west and Asians in east Asia. I'm not so sure this is universally true. You see big differences in fertility rates in different ethnic groups in the US.
And it may not even generally be true. It might just be how things appear right now given current circumstances. If you cut off immigration to the US, which is driving growth, I doubt the white fertility rate would stay at or below replacement. Wages for low skill labor would rise and fertility would go up. Who knows what the birth rate in Japan would be if their economic policy were not so incompetent.
And it may not even generally be true. It might just be how things appear right now given current circumstances. If you cut off immigration to the US, which is driving growth, I doubt the white fertility rate would stay at or below replacement. Wages for low skill labor would rise and fertility would go up. Who knows what the birth rate in Japan would be if their economic policy were not so incompetent.
It could be argued that by enabling growing population with diminished consequences, he made the bomb bigger. There's no argument that pouring industrial chemicals into the soil has created a dependency on those chemicals - and their manufacturers.
How much of the Green Revolution was due to improved technique and how much was due to hydrocarbon inputs?
He saved an estimated ONE BILLION people. That really puts things in perspective.
I'd like to know the methods for estimating this number. Malnutrition deaths, children that were able to be born because their parents felt secure enough to have another child, food-shortage violence deaths, there are many indirect factors when you're talking about affecting scarcity for a population.
With something like this it is impossible to really estimate, even if you are looking only at direct effects (starvation. etc.)
First when you have a chain of necessary companents: (Scientific Invention > development of agricultural techniques > NGO Deploying of techniques > Rich guy funding the deployment > ex politician who convinced the rich guy) , each one can claim full credit for the process.
Then you have to guess what would have happened if this guy didn't do it? Would Mexicans still be farming like 1824?
First when you have a chain of necessary companents: (Scientific Invention > development of agricultural techniques > NGO Deploying of techniques > Rich guy funding the deployment > ex politician who convinced the rich guy) , each one can claim full credit for the process.
Then you have to guess what would have happened if this guy didn't do it? Would Mexicans still be farming like 1824?
The estimate is nonsense. Africa's population has trebled (or whatever) yet the green revolution never happened in Africa. The continent is overwhelmingly fed on pre-green revolution crops grown in pre-green revolution ways with low fossil fuel inputs. The old ways scaled up. (Though arguably at great cost to natural habitat.)
Certainly there would be many more farmers (less efficient) without this gent's green revolution advancements and the food would be more expensive, but it's baseless to assert everyone would have starved otherwise.
Certainly there would be many more farmers (less efficient) without this gent's green revolution advancements and the food would be more expensive, but it's baseless to assert everyone would have starved otherwise.
On the flip side, he directly helped countries like ethiopia implement modern farming techniques that increased crop yields magnificently.