
Norman Borlaug - wr1472
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
======
burningion
Ah, not Borlaug again.

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.

Rendering our food supply more brittle, because we've created plants which
need a very precise, artificial environment filled with external inputs.

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.)

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.

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.

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?

And with genetic modification, we're always taking something away when we
substitute something else. There is truly no free lunch there.

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?

~~~
antris
_using fossil fuels_

Can you explain what does fossil fuels have to do with this?

 _And with genetic modification, we 're always taking something away when we
substitute something else_

What does this mean? Really. I don't understand this at all.

 _Rendering our food supply more brittle, because we 've created plants which
need a very precise, artificial environment filled with external inputs_

Can you name examples of this "brittleness", how it is caused and how it has
affected the food supply when compared to another way of farming (and what
that other way exactly is)?

 _making it so 80% of our food supply shares the same genome, we 're really
setting ourselves up for a fall_

Can you explain how having 80% of our food supply sharing the same genome is
setting ourselves up for a fall?

~~~
burningion
Sure thing!

Here's a link from Oregon State giving a brief overview of the usage of fossil
fuels in agriculture:
[http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/fossfuel.htm](http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/fossfuel.htm)

Basically, we use nitrogen fertilizers derived from oil, pesticides derived
from oil, harvesters which run on oil, herbicides derived from oil, irrigation
which runs on oil, and the transporting infrastructure to delivery all of that
food.

As for the taking away something when we substitute something else:

Biological organisms have a general amount of energy their capable of taking
in and processing. Whenever you substitute another gene "part" into an
organism, you lose your net output of energy. It means that "cost" of energy
is spent in producing that side effect, and not elsewhere. IE not in defense
against other organisms.

As for the "brittleness" of genes:

The entire point of sexual reproduction is to make it so there is as much
diversity in the genome as possible. This makes it so one bacteria or virus
can't unlock the genome of an entire species and wipe it all out.

I think this also explains the last piece. We're exposed to a virus getting
the code for a specific piece of that gene and wiping out all of that system
very rapidly.

~~~
burningion
Being downvoted for not enough citations, I guess:

For the energy load incurred by adding to the gene sequence:

[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/07349750950...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/073497509500004A)

Brittleness of genes:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_diversity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_diversity)

Potato famine in general.

------
realrocker
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.

------
gregwebs
I don't want anyone to starve, but lets not go overboard on the hero
worshiping.

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

* more brittle (as other commenters) have already pointed out

* borrowed from unsustainable approaches such as converting fossil fuels to fertilizer

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.

I am just hoping for more intelligent conversation on the issue that helps
people realize the true heros are those implementing sustainable technologies.

------
pessimizer
The headline seems to be invented from whole cloth. Wikipedia doesn't have
propagandistic headlines.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
Yeah, if you do a search for "Borlaug saved a billion" you'll find a lot of
editorials with that title. There is a documentary too on YT. He is lionized
for his contributions to agriculture in the developing world. I don't know the
source of this sentiment, but it may well be deserved.

[http://yellowmagpie.com/norman-borlaug-
about/](http://yellowmagpie.com/norman-borlaug-about/)

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1213295/Norma...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1213295/Norman-
Borlaug-father-green-revolution-saved-billion-starvation-dies-aged-95.html)

------
IgorPartola
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?

Is average life expectancy longer or shorter as a result of his work? Is
quality of life better or worse?

------
quadrangle
I hate all these "saved people" bits. Every person ever still dies. Nobody
gets "saved" from death, we get _prolonged life_ or _happier / healthier
life_. 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.

------
ianstallings
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.

~~~
derleth
But GMO and agribusiness also gets a lot of flak it doesn't deserve, based on
faulty argumentation and outright lies.

~~~
ianstallings
I agree 100%. I fight that daily. My brother is staunchly against genetics
manipulation and agribusiness in general. I'm just for using science and
having some peer oversight myself :D

------
Sagat
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.

------
_random_
So, he is to blame for overpopulation? Thanks very much!

~~~
MayankGoyal
Yes, he impregnated every woman who wasn't already pregnant.

~~~
_random_
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2419858/Africas-
popu...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2419858/Africas-population-
set-double-2-4billion-2050-better-medicine-improved-health-care.html)

------
rochacbruno
You are really believing that a man who supports GMOs and the increase of the
consumption of wheat cereals saved a billion?

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.

~~~
varjag
..yes?

For people dying from famine, the hipster nutrition trends are not on the
radar.

~~~
slm_HN
Well, mankind didn't eat wheat for around a million years. Then after eating
wheat for around 10,000 years we've only been eating Frankenwheat during the
last century.

So the "hipster fad" is actually the eating of wheat. It's not a natural food
for mankind to be consuming.

~~~
bendmorris
"Natural" food is not necessarily good. "Unnatural" food is not necessarily
bad.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature)

