Norman Borlaug died Sept 12, 2009 - If anyone ever deserved to be remembered
Posted on: September 17, 2009 - 3:58am
Offline
Norman Borlaug died Sept 12, 2009 - If anyone ever deserved to be remembered
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
Just wanted people to know. Heard about it on Atheist Experience. Knew about him from Penn & Teller Bullshit.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
- Login to post comments
Increasing the world's food supply by that amount is no small feat.
Seems like he made great contributions...thanks for letting us know!
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Yeah the father of the green revolution is dead. Sad Really
P.S. that Penn & Teller Bullshit thing on him is a bit biased in case you didn't notice. But over all great man.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Yeah, I've had Michael Jackson thrown in my face for several weeks, Patrick Swayze is already all over the place, and the man who did more single-handedly to end world hunger than probably anyone else in history got one lousy sound bite over here.
Great priorities, civilization.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Or we could view him as the man most responsible for increasing global overpopulation. Malthus still rules even if he's not PC.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
That's still a big accomplishment.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
"He attributes his decision to leave the farm and pursue further education to his grandfather, Nels Olson Borlaug (1859 to 1935), who strongly encouraged Borlaug's learning, once saying, "You're wiser to fill your head now if you want to fill your belly later on."
Good thing he didn't live in a society where food, health care, housing, etc... were all human rights provided by the government.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Meh im sorta with EXC here, if to much is given to you, people tend not to care if they succeed as either way they are provided for. I mean why go to university if you can live a comfortable life with out it.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Exactly. We hear about Princess Di or Michael Jackson, and this guy, who actually had more impact on the world than most world leaders, gets nada.
Of course, he IS pretty much responsible for fattening America and setting up India for a fall. But he couldn't have known that, strictly speaking. He was trying to end world hunger. Turns out food isn't the problem -- go figure.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Fuck the anti-green revolution. He caused more harm than good.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
And he multiplied the food without a magic wand like Jesus.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
In your's and EXC mind what would help the world? Mass murder? I see you place value on doing things like going to college, but why do things when you really are not helping anything. Whatever advances you make from your education will only lead to more problems right. You can't make more food because that creates overpopulation. You cannot increase technology because it creates lazyness as you so point out. If you work in the health industry you are helping those who should have died live thus allowing their defective genes to pass on to next generation.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
And then he implemented it in both North America and Europe, both of which were better off without it in every single conceivable way. No dice.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Yeah and I don't care to much about any of that. Education = money = better standard of living = better life. Only reason I value going to university. Why go if it won't help you? Why do things... because it helps you?
The hell if I know what would help the world. My best guess? A reality check? How about if the IMF wasn't run by a couple pricks? or if there were no corrupt leaders in Africa? Hmm maybe If the UN actually did its job? Who knows im sure there are millions of things.
What I do know is that more food in the world isn't the reason for over population, the reason is lack of education. Just think about where the population growth is happening? is it first world or third world? First world has education and plenty food, third world has less education and less food. hmmm I wonder why it is that population growth is mainly in the third world, sorry that is wrong... mainly with poor people witch is mainly third world. So if food was the reason for overpopulation well I cannot figure out how, unless people are referring to that people need food to eat so thats how food equals over population then that is just silly, then the extra food just helped stop mass starvation witch is good i think? Food is not the real culprit. The extra food just allowed the increase in people not cause it. Norman Borlaug is indeed a good man although there were some draw backs to his work, overpopulation isn't one of them.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
To be fair, though, those are all different things. The only real reason the green revolution actually worked was because the energy input from petroleum and natural gas is so high. The actual yield improvement from genetically modified crops is controversial, and increasing wheat yield in Mexico is equally controversial because corn is more of a staple crop there.
A sudden capacity to create more food based on energy sources that will inevitably fail could be construed as murder if intentional, but here, I think it's merely manslaughter. The people really pushing for the green revolution created an unfortunate kind of Frankenstein monster.
Technology actually has an equal problem of energy input, but to a lesser extent, because some of the technology improves efficiency. Of course, more efficient technology is not necessarily adopted. The electric motor is more efficient by a large margin than combustion engines, and (again) because petrochemicals have been more readily available than any other source of energy, battery technology had to wait for micro-electronics for any serious developments in that technology.
The only technologies I can think of that make people lazy are things that do physical or mental heavy-lifting. So calculators, escalators, computers or cars. You'd have to be clearer on what "lazy" meant.
As for healthcare, keeping people who are already alive healthy isn't merely keeping people alive who would otherwise be dead. If that were the only thing that could be done with healthcare, that would be pretty sad. Medical science is probably the most incredible advance our species has made. Just because time is spent on dubious things like Viagra doesn't mean scientists in the field aren't doing a fair amount good work.
It's also extremely difficult to keep those people who have genuinely doomed genes alive. On the other hand, we don't know what mutations will have an adaptive advantage in the future, so it's not like we can say we're keeping selection from happening, when we can't predict future selective environments.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
The only tiny problem with that argument is that "overpopulation" is inherently linked to "too little food". If there's plenty of food, then people don't generally argue that there's an overpopulation problem, because the food is there to feed them. Food production is invariably linked to population. It has been since the beginning of agriculture.
The Romans were heavily dependant upon food supplies, as were Phillip II and Alexander the Great, who mastered the art of logistics more than they mastered any military strategy. The Romans had the benefit of crop rotation, which, when transferred to British culture, certainly had an impact on population figures.
The whole cause of the dust bowl in the states could be seen as poor adherence to crop rotation, leading to soil exhaustion and erosion. If the same thing happened in an era (or area) without gasoline and coal-powered transportation, then it would have been mass starvation. Instead, the process of agriculture was (understandably) turned industrial, having reduced the farming population dramatically (by a change of profession). The green revolution activists jump in, with the dust bowl still fairly fresh in most people's minds (behind world war two), and "conquer" what had destroyed families just 20 years earlier. In the flush of success that came with being on the winning team in the second world war, why would anyone suggest that unsustainable agriculture wasn't a good idea? It would be an unpopular contention, to say the least.
But it's still unsustainable agriculture. The only truly positive thing about the "organic" movement in farming (in my opinion) is in stepping away from modern techniques of applying fertilizer and pesticides. North America has tons of arable land, so it's not like the end of cheap oil would screw us over. It's countries like China and India, who together make up over 1/3 of the world's population who are going to feel the sting.
The problem is that in allowing for all this population growth, it's asking for what's known in the financial world as a "correction": a sudden and powerful dip in value (in this case, population). It's not like it's murder, it's just an unfortunate impending eventuality.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I think one needs to view the natural world and economics in terms of equilibrium. Unfortunately, we live in a world where lack of food is one of the primary means of population control. Obviously we would have to go to some form of mandatory birth control if we wanted other means of controlling the population growth.
I think the right food, health care and housing must be balanced with the right to breed. The problem is you've got people saying these are all rights. I might be convinced to make health care and food a human right if it was balanced with controls on the right to breed and the right not to work. Everything is a trade-off.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen