TheAgitator.com
The Man Who Saved a Billion Lives
Sunday, September 13th, 2009
Norman Borlaug has died.
He justly lived a long life. But his death won’t get a thousandth of the coverage, say, Michael Jackson’s did. And it won’t get a tenth of the coverage someone like Paul Ehrlich’s will.
All Borlaug did was invent modern high-yield agriculture, then teach it to the world. He likely saved a billion people from starving to death in India and Pakistan alone.
He was a great man. If one way of measuring a life is by the number of other lives a man saved or bettered, Borlaug was certainly one of the greatest human beings who ever lived.
Rest in peace.
Well said.
Godspeed, Norman.
OT, but relevant to yesterday’s child exploitation thread:
http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/11/on-why-i-dont-return-phone-calls-from-an-intrepid-cnn-producer/#more-1018
Seems the human trafficking business runs right to the White House.
Yeah, he won’t get that level of coverage, because frankly, a lot of the people who might provide that coverage don’t see him keeping those people alive as a good thing.
I do. Thanks, Mr. Borlaug.
Resquiat in pace. If humanity manages to survive its cultural and technological adolescence, it will not be because of religious and political leaders, but, rather, because of people like Norman Borlaug.
It’s not fair. This guy saves more lives than all the nasty dictators of the world killed COMBINED in the last century and yet I have barely heard of the guy.
Its because he did it all for profit, which is evil. Michael Jackson did it all for the children, which is good.
Well, I guess, feeding the population isn’t nearly as important as entertaining them.
While his death won’t attract much attention, I’ve really enjoyed the coverage this story has gotten from the more intelligent parts of the Internet regardless of the sites’ main purpose.
It’s also a safe bet that beer prices would be a lot higher without this guy.
I disagree with the statement that modern, high-yield agriculture has saved lives. The green revolution only made things worse in the countries that it was supposed to have helped. All those people in developing countries got fed but were still left without educations.
One generation had lower mortality, but family sizes were not adjusted to account for the decreased mortality because the people were just fed and were not educated. Thus populations exploded and famine returned in 1 or 2 generations.
You can’t solve hunger with food. It takes education, especially of women and girls. The #1 to reduce famine is to educate girls about their body.
It’s also a big reminder that all those people who want to mandate low-yield local organic farming are proposing to starve millions of poor people in the name of their aesthetic sensibilities.
I disagree with the statement that modern, high-yield agriculture has saved lives.
Well, you can argue that the quality of those lives was tragically low, but to say that high-yield agriculture hasn’t prevented deaths from starvation is like saying the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
Well, I guess women with PhDs would be much more useful in the fields toiling away for 5 bushel/acre wheat and corn. //sarcasm off//
Women and children don’t have time for schooling when they are toiling in the fields which have low yields. High performance grain made agriculture a less labor intensive industry, and made it possible for everyone to go to school.
Also, rich countries would have never become rich without it. The only reason anyone in the US cares about current poor countries is becuase of this man–we only spend 1/10 of our incomes on food. This gives us a lot of time to worry about the problems that exist in the world.
Reed–nothing facilitates increasing levels of education (and all the good that flows from that) than no longer having to devote all of your time, energy, and resources to not starving to death.
@ Stormy Dragon
I doubt people realize it, but you are absolutely correct. I’m sure that some people on the fringes do realize that that is, in fact, what their aiming towards but most do not. That obviously does not change that it would starve millions.
@ Reed
So your saying that we should have let a billion people starve to death? Wow.
High-yield agriculture hasn’t prevented starvation. It just delayed it for a generation or two and created larger populations with larger food shortages and higher densities with more disease.
But that is the nature of agriculture. Hunter-gather populations don’t tend to show evidence of famine because they don’t live in the boom/bust cycle of farming cultures.
Reed A. Cartwright @ #11 -
From here. We’ll be hearing much more of the same from formerly starving nations over the next few days.
Do you really have the audacity to clainm you know so much more about the effects of the green revolution and how it has affected starving nations than the Indian Minister of Agriculture?
[...] Borlaug: The Man Who Saved More Human Lives Than Any Other Has Died [↩]Radley Balko – The Man Who Saved a Billion Lives [↩] « Newspeak im 21. Jahrhundert: Der Sozialstaat Dieser Eintrag wurde von Benjamin [...]
@ David
No, I’m not saying that; I’m just stating the facts. If people think that just feeding starving population will solve hunger, they are short sighted. Sure the people of the 60s and 70s can pat themselves on the back for saving millions of people, but they just made things worse for the grand children and great grand children of these people.
Hunger will not end until family planning is practiced around the world. The quickest way to do that is to educate girls and women in developing nations.
[...] to have saved at least 250 million lives in the 20th century, and possibly many more. To quote Radley Balko (on whose blog I first learned of Dr. Borlaug’s passing): “If one way of measuring a [...]
Beautiful tribute Radley, thank you for that.
#19-
Condoms are not edible.
If you can, watch the Penn and Tellers Bullshit episode about this guy. It was fantastic.
Reed, I agree with you in principle that a DELAY was what was achieved.
Now, if nothing else changed, this would lead to greater starvation later.
But what really happened was that his effort bought precious time and resources for a large part of the world to get more modern and have exactly the opportunities for women that you want. Not everywhere due to religious issues and such but much more than if the world stayed static.
Err, Reed, I agree with you that there are likely to be long-term environmental problems as a result of industrial agriculture (and that the environmental problems that have already resulted are serious).
However, I’ll paraphrase one of my profs on this topic: in general, environmentalists don’t get taken seriously when they talk about food issues because we have a habit of making outrageous statements that are difficult, if not impossible, to support. I’m pretty sure that your assertion that hunter-gatherer populations don’t show evidence of famine is just such an assertion, and while family planning is important for many reasons, hunger in this age has a lot more to do with the distribution of the food supply than it does with the population.
I consider myself an environmentalist, and I know I’m pretty far to the left of many of the people who post here, but I for one – and most of the people I know who study these issues as well – would never try to argue that making it possible for everyone to eat was a bad thing. Concerns about population and about pollution aside, the world is a better place if people aren’t starving. It’s necessary to find ways to eliminate the associated pollution, and improve farming methods to reduce nutrient run-off, among other issues, but that basic fact has to be understood.
Think of the fawning coverage given to the life and death of Ted Kennedy, a man who fed no one and who championed the growth of the state. Compare that coverage to that given to the life and death of Norman Borlaug, and you will see the mentality of the modern American media.
Did he really “save” lives, or did he just make it possible for more people to be born?
If he is responsible for an extra billion people now living on this planet, and for an extra two or three billion in the years to come, then I’m not so sure that he was so great. A shortage of people is not exactly a pressing problem on Earth today.
Reed:
“We must recognize the fact that adequate food is only the first requisite for life. For a decent and humane life we must also provide an opportunity for good education, remunerative employment, comfortable housing, good clothing and effective and compassionate medical care.”
-Norman Borlaug, Nobel acceptance speech
He agreed with you. Now put a sock in it.
“High-yield agriculture hasn’t prevented starvation. ”
What possible definition of “starvation” and “prevent” do you have where you think that this doesn’t qualify? If I will die of starvation today, but someone feeds me and prevents this, then they have prevented my starvation. If that person does it for 1 billion people, they are a miraculously wonderful person who deserves all our accolades. What happens in the future is irrelevant, though I also disagree with what you think will happen.
“No, I’m not saying that; I’m just stating the facts. If people think that just feeding starving population will solve hunger, they are short sighted”
What the hell else solves hunger besides feeding people?
“Sure the people of the 60s and 70s can pat themselves on the back for saving millions of people, but they just made things worse for the grand children and great grand children of these people.”
You are aware, of course, that dead people rarely have grandchildren, making comparisons difficult. How exactly would someone be better off if their grandparents starved to death?
“If he is responsible for an extra billion people now living on this planet, and for an extra two or three billion in the years to come, then I’m not so sure that he was so great.”
What kind of person considers “I am responsible for a billion people being alive instead of slowly suffering to death from starvation” to be a negative feature? For those who believe that there are too many people on the planet, there are always ways to reduce that number by 1. Until the people you think are the excess are coincidentally not you and your family, it’s hard for me to take you seriously.
Monoculture. That was his ‘gift’ to us. Now with almost all the diversity in our food crops gone, we are all extremely vulnerable. Thanks. A bunch. NOT. Another side effect has been an increasing exodus from the countryside to the cities in most third world countries. Farmers leaving the land means no local production to backstop imported foods. A recipe for disaster if food imports are stopped for any reason. Of course, he prevented starvation of millions, and since that was his goal, he was successful; but at what price?
Thanks Radley…for making us aware…of this great man…who obviously valued life…and sought to sustain it…for his fellow human beings…through his immeasurable contribution….in the field of agriculture.
God bless his soul…and may he rest in eternal peace.
http://www.justiceforsal.com
Another side effect has been an increasing exodus from the countryside to the cities in most third world countries. Farmers leaving the land means no local production to backstop imported foods. A recipe for disaster if food imports are stopped for any reason.
So people moving to the city and the potential for food shortages without proper preparation are reasons why he shouldn’t be thanked for saving hundreds of millions of people from starvation? Really? Better that people stay in the country and continue to raise insufficient crops and millions die? Why, exactly, again?
Of course, he prevented starvation of millions, and since that was his goal, he was successful; but at what price?
That’s a great question. Care to answer it using documented facts instead of speculative scenarios that haven’t played out in the decades since his practices began?
I’m going to go way out on a limb here and guess that Primus doesn’t live in the countryside toiling over low-yielding crops. If I’m wrong, great. If I’m right, he needs to STFU.
“Monoculture. That was his ‘gift’ to us. Now with almost all the diversity in our food crops gone, we are all extremely vulnerable.”
Not that monoculture was created by Borlaug. Sugarcane was the only crop produced by many areas in Latin America during the colonial period.
@tariqata
“I’m pretty sure that your assertion that hunter-gatherer populations don’t show evidence of famine is just such an assertion, and while family planning is important for many reasons, hunger in this age has a lot more to do with the distribution of the food supply than it does with the population.”
It was something learned in Anthropology class, unrelated to the discussions about the green revolution. A quick Google search turned up this letter (published in a diabetes research journal) which discusses the research into different nutrition levels of hunter-gatherer and farming populations.
BTW, I don’t consider myself an environmentalist. I’m more a conservationist.
Farmers leaving the land means no local production to backstop imported foods. A recipe for disaster if food imports are stopped for any reason.
I guess it’s a good thing that the Green Revolution turned Mexico into a net food exporter, and reduced India and Pakistan’s dependence on imports then, eh?
In principle I agree with Reed.
One of the biggest problems on earth is that we have achieved the capacity to reproduce to a degree beyond what in the past would have been the normal constraints. Worse, we have achieved this well before the majority of humanity has caught up with the consequences of such actions.
Personally, I do not blame Norman for this. If Norman hadn’t done his work, other people would have come along and done so. The question is, where is the Norman Borlaug of conservation and environmental responsibility?
@Reed
First off, Norman Borlaug saved a billion lives. Whatever happened after that is irrelevant. The fact that he saved a billion lives easily makes him the most important person in modern (if not all history).
That being said, as other people have said, it is impossible to better yourself/your society if your daily struggle is against starvation. Do I agree with you that we should focus on womens rights and education? Yes I do. That being said, if their starving to death women do not have much time to focus on liberation do they?
Reed,
Saying that hunter-gatherers don’t show famine is only true in the most banal sense. They starve often, and in “unimpressive” numbers. Why is this a good thing?
Frankly, I find it very hard to take anyone seriously who sees so little value in preventing a billion starvation deaths. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the blithe dismissal the starving poor kid is what makes Ebenezer Scrooge an all-time reprehensible character at the beginning of A Christmas Carol. Treating a billion people as (primarily) an environmental problem is loathsome.
When environmentalists talk like this, it makes people rightfully question whether they care about people to any significant degree.
As others have pointed out, producing more food than you need is the foundation of all modern culture and science, since you only really produce those things when you don’t have to spend all day getting your food.
@Reed: Of course not, that’s like a city well-fare kitchen. The difference, which you obviously ignore, is that this man didn’t give them “food”, but the ability grow with few means a product that had a higher gain thus allowing to rise their standard of living. The after-effect was that less people hungered and had time to do other things, like procuring education.
Don’t equalize food with means of production of food, they are not the same. The former can be given by the catholic church in a moment of charity, while the latter is a process of industrialisation, learning and productivity gain..
They are very much different in their effects. One does further dependency, the other is increasing independency.
And so, this guy was a good guy and Mr. Balko is right, that he will never has the same amount of news coverage and national ceremony, like a Kennedy, who killed a human being and is still cheered for… Sometimes humans make me sick…
“One of the biggest problems on earth is that we have achieved the capacity to reproduce to a degree beyond what in the past would have been the normal constraints.”
Have you ever wanted to choke somebody? I’m halfway through my first morning coffee and I already have bad intentions. Good thing I have a tee time in a couple hours.
No fucking shit we’re beyond what would have been possible in the past. We do amazing stuff, us humans. We figure out how to eat plants, then we figure out how to grow them, then guess what, we figure out how to grow whatever we want almost anywhere we want.
And what the hell does it mean that it’s caught up before we see the consequences of our actions? Is this a global warming thing? I thought that was about cars and electric utilities. Or do you think there’s some great danger in producing more calories per acre? How cold-hearted does one have to be to proclaim that living humans aren’t worth some unforeseen consequences? At least take the extra 30 seconds to explain what those could be.
I wonder why those tea parties are so popular. Modern eugenicists possibly? No way, that sounds like some crazy conspiracy theory.
I agree with Mr Cartwright. The “Green Revolution” is great, except for the fact that you can only push land just so far before it starts pushing back, doing fun things like giving populations cancer. (page 7 first few paragraphs for the cancer reference.)
We as humans love to think that we live outside of nature. That idea is hubris at best.
Norman Borlaug did not save a billion lives, he created them where they shouldn’t have been. And you know what? No matter how much those people have to eat they’re still going to die. If the land won’t support your population, in the long run you have two options: die or move. Mr Borlaug staved off those options for maybe a hundred years.
By the way, Reed, are you a fan of Daniel Quinn? If you haven’t read him, you’d probably enjoy his stuff.
#40 “And what the hell does it mean that it’s caught up before we see the consequences of our actions?”
It means that, if you look at a chart of human population, and compare it to a chart of most other mammals on earth, you’ll see the human population expanding at a logarithmic rate in the past few centuries, while the number of other species steadily declining.
Yes, this is a global warming thing, but it’s more of a deforestation, sprawl and extinction thing. This is not an issue of producing more calories per acre. It is about the idea, which you probably espouse, that it is great to have more human beings at the expense of anything else living on the planet. Basically, that we as a species own it and can do what ever we like with it.
No, I am not opposed to feeding people or saving lives. I am opposed to the general conditions that allow for unfettered propagation and growth of the human species. What I am trying to point out is that this is not due to just increased food production, but to conditions such as poverty, religion, lack of birth control and lack of female education.
I’m pretty sure that Norman wasn’t responsible for the logarithmic population growth of the last few centuries espeically the ones prior to his birth.
However given that logarithmic is a current reality wouldn’t it be somewhat fair to say that someone who drastically increases the # of calories per acre has done a lot for conservation/environmentalism? If there were no Norman or equivilant I would bet that ALL of the rainforests would already be cut down to meet the food demands of the current population.
You are probably correct (at least I agree with you) that education/ birth control will be needed to stop/slow the population growth. However if a country is too poor to feed its citizens then it certainly won’t be able to afford education/birth control. Perhaps in your ideal world they would cull half the population and then use the resources that would have got food for that half to educate the other half…
“It is about the idea, which you probably espouse, that it is great to have more human beings at the expense of anything else living on the planet. Basically, that we as a species own it and can do what ever we like with it.”
I haven’t heard anybody espouse the idea that more people are a good idea. To me the tribute is about feeding people using fewer resources and if that isn’t conservation I don’t know what is. We certainly have a population growth problem but that is wholely unrelated and would exist without any high yield production.
Reed’s comment is like complaining that chemotherapy doesn’t work if you die of cancer in 30 years instead of 3. What Borlaug achieved is a prerequisite for the population structure that Reed desires.
Hell, I think one could argue that education, greater freedom for women, and smaller families all follow, almost inevitably, once mass starvation and the grinding poverty of subsistence agriculture are eliminated.
When people are not devoting 100% of their efforts to their survival they have time for education. Until then it is considered a luxury that they cannot afford. It anything Borlaug bought them that time, it isn’t his fault that the education ball was dropped.
I just read through these comments, and I have never been more disappointing in humanity. How can anyone really argue Borlaug’s contribution to the world? How sad that Julian Simon and Borlaug are gone, but Ehrlich lives on and continues to poison public opinion with his drivel.
RIP Norman
Some of these comments are mind boggling.
Ben@43 Striving to better feed human beings, thorough selective breeding of plants equals hubris. Claiming to know “where a billion people should be” not hubris.
Either you have “mother nature” on speed dial, or that might be the best example of unintentional irony I’ve ever seen.
The “Green Revolution” is great, except for the fact that you can only push land just so far before it starts pushing back, doing fun things like giving populations cancer.
Even if this wasn’t a blatantly bullshit conclusion (the article says there’s no proof increased cancer rates are from pesticides and page 8 quotes a scientist from the region who disagrees with you), you’re saying it’s better to let millions die rather than let thousands of those millions get cancer.
This thinking is a great example of environmentalism gone bad. I consider myself an environmentalist, but your attitude is not only cold and inhumane, but disingenuous, as well.
“High-yield agriculture hasn’t prevented starvation. It just delayed it for a generation or two and created larger populations with larger food shortages and higher densities with more disease.”
Yes, and modern medicine hasn’t saved lives. It has merely allowed the weak, stupid and genetically vulnerable to reproduce generation after generation.
Of course, anyone with half a brain realizes that only literary theory will save humanity.
This argument bothers me so much. You know what lets people focus on birth control? Having enough wealth to be pretty damn sure their kids will live past 3 years old – like in 1st world countries. Maybe if we focused on developing 3rd world economies up to our level — instead of willing them back to subsistence living — maybe then we’d get more people concerned about the health of ecosystems in toto.
“Yes, this is a global warming thing, but it’s more of a deforestation, sprawl and extinction thing. This is not an issue of producing more calories per acre.”
So it’s about deforastation but not about producing more calories per acre. How convenient for you.
“It is about the idea, which you probably espouse, that it is great to have more human beings at the expense of anything else living on the planet.”
Yes, I do value humans above all other living things. Next is dogs, then dolphins, then spider monkeys, then palm trees, then all fish (except gar, fuck those guys), then pot plants, then cats. That’s how I roll.
Some years ago, Kennedy toured parts of Africa to see the affects of starvation first hand. Had his handlers turned their backs long enough, he might have fed a whole village.
Well, I’m late to the posting game on this one, but:
Cheers Norman, you’re a personal hero.
That’s the moment of silence the man deserves (he deserves more, but this is the internet). Let’s hope that some of the very real concerns raised in some of the poorly argued posts above can be avoided with the help of more men like the giant that just passed. He knew what he was doing, both good and bad…let’s hope we can follow in those footsteps.