A Tribute to Dr. Norman Borlaug and Man's Capacity to Shape Nature
September 12th should be a global day of mourning. For that is the day that one of mankind’s greatest heroes and benefactors passed away, though barely a whisper of his passing has been heard since the weekend. Each one of us who is glad to be alive should find a way to commemorate the life of Dr. Norman Borlaug, who died Saturday at the age of 95. Dr. Borlaug is the father of the Green Revolution. “Green” here refers not to the environmental movement, but instead to the overflowing cereal crops that swept the world in the 1960s. While environmentalists warned of impending doom from worldwide starvation, Dr. Borlaug silently worked to develop high-yield, short-strawed, disease-resistant wheat through his research of genetics, plant breeding, and soil science. And in doing so, he has saved hundreds of millions worldwide from starvation over the years.
Despite Dr. Borlaug’s monumental success, environmentalists never supported his work. Why? Because Borlaug’s entire career was predicated on the idea that mankind can—and should—find ways to modify and engineer the materials present in nature to our advantage. While environmentalists may seem to be in favor of making the Earth a better place to live, they consistently advocate against things that improve our welfare. They support limiting the freedom of individuals and companies in countless ways, including how we use our land and energy, and even whether scientists like Dr. Borlaug should be allowed to develop and grow “unnatural” plants with life-saving potential. In short, they insist that man be forced to adapt to nature. But whether it be diseases prevented by vaccines, blackouts solved by atomic power, or food shortages solved by genetically modified food, time and again we have been shown that man survives—not by adapting himself to nature—but by adapting nature to himself.
Dr. Borlaug’s life’s work is a shining example of this principle.
Click here to read one of the few other tributes written about Dr. Borlaug’s life over the last few days.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Facebook
TechnoratiFollow us
We're Writing About...
Distribute The Undercurrent
The last issue of The Undercurrent was distributed in the following locations:
Don't see your area on the map? Find out how you can distribute.
Read the Latest Print Issue
Recent comments
Bil Danielson commented on...
Do not confuse hedonism with selfishness.. The key here is to clearly understand that all of the...
Anonymous commented on...
"There is nothing implicit in the definition of selfishness that requires a person to have a clear...
Kris Barnett commented on...
Regarding the comment by "Anonymous" below, I don't see how free immigration involves any kind of...
Comments
There is rationalism in this article. Be careful not to set out to make a philosophical point (man should live, man must alter nature in order to live, therefore man should alter nature) and in the process make a scientific one (man is healthier by getting adequate calories consisting of carbohydrate than he is from getting inadequate consisting of protein and fat). If one lives below sea level near the coast, he should alter nature by constructing a system of dykes and levees. Not so if his coast line consists of 1000 foot cliffs. The biological fact is that the human genome is not adapted to exist on a high carbohydrate diet. Doing so, even if it means staving off hunger for years, will result in the same threatening medical damage as chronic undernourishment does. What good is it to avoid starvation one decade, only to die of the metabolic syndrome the next?
There are plenty of ways in which man can - and should - alter his environment which still respects his body's dietary requirements. Altering how those around him live - political change - would be the single biggest thing man could do to alleviate food shortages. It is a lack of individual rights-respecting government, coupled with the theft of donated food by thugs whom is wasn't intended for, that is the major cause of starvation in underdeveloped countries. While, ultimately, it is up to the people living in those countries to make the necessary political changes, engaging in diplomacy, military action, and setting an example by how we conduct our own affairs are the most effective things we in the West could do to help.
However, even if those facts were not true - if it were simply a fact of nature that people in underdeveloped countries cannot get their political situation correct and thus they cannot feed themselves - and if necessarily followed that the responsibility of feeding them fell to us, that still doesn't require the production of high levels of carbohydrate. Men in the West could alter their own environment in very different ways than they currently do, and the same amount of food would still be produed. Just different types. Replacing farm land with ranch land, opening up government-protected "wilderness areas" for vegetable and livestock production would meet all of our "requirements" for feeing the world, while still respecting the biological requirements of our bodies.
While Dr. Borlaug's work was certainly well intentioned (ie: he, impliticly, held the same view of man - able, rational, heroic, valuable - as this article's author does explicitly), because it didn't take into consideration the actual causes of food shortages, and actually confounded the problem by creating an abundance of carbohydrate that is ultimately just as deadly as famine, I cannot agree that, overall, he was a benefactor of mankind.
A friend of mine has a tribute post that includes a video with an interview of Borlaug.
http://davidthemachine.org/salute-to-norman-borlaug/