The 1968 book 'The Population Bomb', by Paul Ehrlich, as I've written before, warned bluntly that humanity was on a path to mass starvation. In the 1960s it looked likely a plausible scenario given global population had peaked while many developing nations were undergoing food shortages.
Earlier, Thomas Malthus, in a 1798 book - An Essay on the Principle of Population- argued that food production increases linearly while population increases exponentially - ultimately leading to disaster. This has been borne out by work. Ehrlich derived many of his own predictions from this work.
Ehrlich was 100 percent correct when he said (in a 1970 broadcast) that humans face: "An utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity,"
This is best illustrated in the concept of Earth
overshoot, as embodied in the graphic below which shows humans are
currently consuming the equivalent resources of 2 EARTHS per year, e.g.
The interpretation of the graph (upward) is straightforward. By June, 2030 TWO full Earths - that is the resources therein - will be needed to support the then population. By 2050 it will be 2.5 Earths. Where will these 'Earths' come from? They won't! We are left with one and only one planet.
Back in the 1970s salvation seemed at hand when American agricultural scientist
Norman Borlaug began experimenting with novel strains of wheat in the 1940s,
using induced genetic mutation and selective breeding techniques to create
disease-resistant plants that could tolerate harsh climates.
At a research station in Mexico in the 1950s, Borlaug
developed short-stemmed (“dwarf”) strains of wheat that could withstand the
weight of heavier heads caused by chemical fertilizer without breaking. He bred
these shorter varieties with other strains he had developed earlier that were
resistant to a common fungal disease called stem rust, creating extremely
productive “semi-dwarf” wheat.
Borlaug’s new varieties dramatically boosted Mexican wheat
production, turning the country into a net exporter. In 1963, Mexico’s wheat
harvest was six times larger than 19 years earlier, when Borlaug began
work there.
Borlaug’s discovery gave us a bit of breathing space but that is all. It was not a panacea and he never intended it to be. While Borlaug’s work is credited with saving hundreds of millions of people from starvation (he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970), there is a dark side that even Borlaug acknowledged.
That is, high-yield crops require large amounts of chemical fertilizer and pesticides, however, and there are limits to how much productivity gains selective breeding and genetic engineering can achieve. Norman Borlaug himself made it clear that he believed his innovations were just a temporary solution to avert the worst-case scenarios and give humanity “breathing space.”
Borlaug was deeply concerned about overpopulation, and his Nobel Prize acceptance speech focused heavily on the dangers of unrestricted or EXPONENTIAL growth. But it wasn’t until the 21st century that the late Univ. of Colorado physicist Albert Bartlett - a relentless critic of the popeyed population Pollyannas – made the nature exponential growth crystal clear. This was in one lecture still available online,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZA9Hnp3aV4
Bartlett's points were best summed up in one lecture slide I show here:
Bartlett's point in his Youtube lecture is that if there is
an inadequate energy, water, ancillary resources supply - because
of ongoing climate change and too many competing for them- then the skills
can't materialize because the education can't occur. It can't occur
because the affected populations can't thrive or sustain themselves because
they will never get enough to eat in a depleted world. They won't get enough
water (needed for crops), nor enough energy to transport the crops. Nor will
they have the resources to erect the infrastructure required for a population
to further develop.
Decades earlier Norman Borlaug underscored the same point in his Nobel Prize lecture. He cautioned that “the frightening power of human reproduction must also be curbed; otherwise the success of the Green Revolution will be ephemeral only." In his Nobel Peace Prize lecture he was blunt:
"The Green Revolution is a change in the right direction, but it has not transformed the world into utopia. None are more keenly aware of its limitations than those who started it and fought for its success.”
The name “Green Revolution” itself is deceptive considering
the term “green” is widely used to describe something that is environmentally
friendly. Unfortunately, there is nothing sustainable about modern agriculture.
In 1970, when Borlaug received his Nobel Prize, the global
population stood at just under 3.7 billion. Today, it is estimated to be more
than twice that size, at 8.3 billion, and is still growing. To meet increasing
food demand, agricultural production has continued to boom, using ever more
land, water, fertilizer, and pesticides, causing enormous amounts of greenhouse
gas emissions and pollution, fueling the extinction crisis, depleting soils,
and compromising human health. All of these negatively impacting on the sustainability Prof. Bartlett warned was essential for our survival.
Other downsides exist:
- The global extinction crisis is still accelerating, and modern food systems are the number one driver of biodiversity loss and deforestation.
- Agriculture alone is contributing to the endangerment of 86% of the species that have so far been classified as at risk of extinction.
- Agriculture uses almost half of all habitable land on Earth and is continuing to expand, destroying nature and the habitats wild species need to survive.
- Pesticide use has negative impacts on all groups of non-target organisms and is a major driver of insect decline — a crisis that has severe implications for ecosystem health and food security.
- Agriculture contributes to biodiversity loss indirectly as well, by destroying carbon sinks and emitting greenhouse gases that cause climate change. (Modern agriculture also consumes vast amounts of fossil fuels — 99% of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides are derived from fossil fuels
- Meat and dairy production are particularly problematic, using as much as 80% of all agricultural land. Wild species now make up only 5% of mammal biomass on Earth, while 59% is livestock and 36% is humans.
- Wild
birds account for just 29% of bird biomass, while 71% is farmed poultry.
Unless the 'dark side' of the Green Revolution can be brought into synch with sustainability it will be as if it never existed. Human numbers will simply overwhelm whatever temporary gains were made. Here a series of graphs showing extent of global population growth is instructive:
See Also:
Brane Space: WSJ Editors Boff It Again On Paul Ehrlich 'Losing A Bet' On Overpopulation
And:
Brane Space: The "Population Bomb Is A Dud" ? Don't Believe It!
And:
"To Breed Or Not To Breed?" The Answer Ought To Be Obvious By Now!
No comments:
Post a Comment