Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Norman Borlaug, Happy 95th Birthday!
One of the true giants of our time, plant breeder and Nobel
Peace Prize laureate, Norman Borlaug turns 95 today. Borlaug is the
person who has saved more human lives than anyone in history. How?
He was the father of the "Green Revolution" that more than doubled
crop productivity in the 1960s and 1970s thus averting the massive
global famines predicted by many doomsayers.
I had the honor of interviewing
Borlaug nine years ago for Reason. Below are just a couple
of his answers from that interview:
Reason: What do you think of organic farming? A lot of people claim it's better for human health and the environment.
Borlaug: That's ridiculous. This shouldn't even be a debate. Even if you could use all the organic material that you have--the animal manures, the human waste, the plant residues--and get them back on the soil, you couldn't feed more than 4 billion people. In addition, if all agriculture were organic, you would have to increase cropland area dramatically, spreading out into marginal areas and cutting down millions of acres of forests.
At the present time, approximately 80 million tons of nitrogen nutrients are utilized each year. If you tried to produce this nitrogen organically, you would require an additional 5 or 6 billion head of cattle to supply the manure. How much wild land would you have to sacrifice just to produce the forage for these cows? There's a lot of nonsense going on here.
If people want to believe that the organic food has better nutritive value, it's up to them to make that foolish decision. But there's absolutely no research that shows that organic foods provide better nutrition. As far as plants are concerned, they can't tell whether that nitrate ion comes from artificial chemicals or from decomposed organic matter. If some consumers believe that it's better from the point of view of their health to have organic food, God bless them. Let them buy it. Let them pay a bit more. It's a free society. But don't tell the world that we can feed the present population without chemical fertilizer. That's when this misinformation becomes destructive...
Reason: Environmentalists say agricultural biotech will harm biodiversity.
Borlaug: I don't believe that. If we grow our food and fiber on the land best suited to farming with the technology that we have and what's coming, including proper use of genetic engineering and biotechnology, we will leave untouched vast tracts of land, with all of their plant and animal diversity. It is because we use farmland so effectively now that President Clinton was recently able to set aside another 50 or 60 million acres of land as wilderness areas. That would not have been possible had it not been for the efficiency of modern agriculture.
In 1960, the production of the 17 most important food, feed, and fiber crops--virtually all of the important crops grown in the U.S. at that time and still grown today--was 252 million tons. By 1990, it had more than doubled, to 596 million tons, and was produced on 25 million fewer acres than were cultivated in 1960. If we had tried to produce the harvest of 1990 with the technology of 1960, we would have had to have increased the cultivated area by another 177 million hectares, about 460 million more acres of land of the same quality--which we didn't have, and so it would have been much more. We would have moved into marginal grazing areas and plowed up things that wouldn't be productive in the long run. We would have had to move into rolling mountainous country and chop down our forests. President Clinton would not have had the nice job of setting aside millions of acres of land for restricted use, where you can't cut a tree even for paper and pulp or for lumber. So all of this ties together.
This applies to forestry, too. I'm pleased to see that some of the forestry companies are very modern and using good management, good breeding systems. Weyerhauser is Exhibit A. They are producing more wood products per unit of area than the old unmanaged forests. Producing trees this way means millions of acres can be left to natural forests.
Happy Birthday Dr. Borlaug and many happy returns of the day!
In celebration, read Reason's interview with Norman Borlaug, "Billions Served," here.
|3.26.09 @ 10:27AM|#
Whenever I see this guy and the "well informed" liberal attitude
towards him I think of the famous Heinlein quote.
"Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man.
Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded - here and there,
now and then - are the work of an extremely small minority,
frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by
all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from
creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the
people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck."
Borlaug and the right thinking reaction to such a great man is a
living example of what Heinlein was talking about.
|3.26.09 @ 10:29AM|#
I love technology. We can hide under our desks and cower in fear, or we can make the world work just a little better for us.
|3.26.09 @ 10:33AM|#
This guy saved millions of lives. He probably saved more people than Hitler, Stalin and Mao killed. Yet, he is in some circles held in lower regard than people who have spent entrire careers apologizing and making excuses for people like Stalin and Mao.
Warty|3.26.09 @ 10:34AM|#
John, what's the liberal attitude to Norman Borlaug? I'm pretty sure I've never heard anyone say anything against the man.
|3.26.09 @ 10:36AM|#
Warty,
The liberal attitude is that the green revolution was bad for the
environment and that we would be better off with organic farming.
Anytime you hear some nitwit raging against the use of agricultural
chemicals and the rise of corporate farming, they are really going
after Borlaug.
Suki|3.26.09 @ 10:41AM|#
This is so cool! I had forgotten his name, but in grad school I
would bring him up in discussions frequently. Usually with the
undergrads who were just being introduced to The Polulation
Bomb, Future Shock and other nonsense like that (I
hope I have the titles right).
I think some of the milestones in those books had already passed
without the mess they predicted, but those facts seemed to get in
the way of the narrative the instructors taught.
|3.26.09 @ 10:51AM|#
I've heard Borlaug described as "famous for not being
famous."
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
|3.26.09 @ 11:00AM|#
It is nothing less than a sin that most people have never even heard of this great man.
|3.26.09 @ 11:07AM|#
"But there's absolutely no research that shows that organic
foods provide better nutrition."
It takes a Nobel laureate to conclude that organic food is
"ridiculous" based on "absolutely no research". Whenever highly
respected academics cite to "no research", a red flag goes up.
Mister|3.26.09 @ 11:07AM|#
While it is commendable that Mr. Borlaug prevented us from
having to "chop down our forests" for agriculture, those forests
were chopped down anyway to make room for all the sprawl from our
booming population, supported in part by his (no sarcasm, here)
laudable efforts to increase food production. While it is morally
reprehensible to claim that we shouldn't feed the hungry, I do
believe that we're digging ourselves into a rather large hole that
we may someday want to crawl out of - and we're doing it by making
growth easy. If you feed them, they will come.
I'm no "peak population" fanatic or Malthus spouting lunatic, but,
speaking practically (and globally): there will be a point at which
we cannot support everyone on this planet, provided the world
population continues to grow as it does. There is only so much
Earth to go around. Our frequent answer to this problem is, "If we
don't have the resources, let's look for ways to 'create' more of
the resources." I'm not completely against that. But we need to
start setting limits. Starvation used to keep the population in
check. Because starvation is not an ethical option when we could
prevent it (and we can), we need to find new ways to do what used
to be done biologically- keep growth in check. (Not a popular
sentiment at Reason, I'm sure.) If we're going to feed everyone, we
need to increase our family planning and contraception education
efforts (with a little prodding in the Vatican). I see no reason
why libertarians should be opposed to such an idea, provided there
is no coercion involved.
At any rate, a happy birthday to Mr. Borlaug. Thanks for saving us
some land space. I hope this is an issue on your mind.
Hacha Cha|3.26.09 @ 11:18AM|#
first saw Norman on Penn and Teller Bullshit and have been reading about him here on reason for a while. he was a genius and has helped more starving people than just about anyone else I can think of.
|3.26.09 @ 11:35AM|#
Way to completely misunderstand Borlaug's post, Lamar.
What he is saying is that it is ridiculous to believe something
that no research supports.
Anvilwyrm|3.26.09 @ 11:44AM|#
Mister,
Pretty much everything I have read lately suggests that birthrates
are falling, and that population will be peaking in the next 40-50
years. Do you have conflicting information?
|3.26.09 @ 11:46AM|#
I really hope I live to see 10 billion people on the planet. A
billion could live in America easy.
That will be awesome.
robc|3.26.09 @ 11:57AM|#
Anvilwyrm,
You are correct. That is only one of many things wrong with
Mister's post.
those forests were chopped down anyway to make room for all the
sprawl from our booming population
Also not true. Forest acreage in the US is at a very long term
peak. We are primarily building on ex-farmland that isnt needed
anymore.
|3.26.09 @ 11:58AM|#
"What he is saying is that it is ridiculous to believe
something that no research supports."
Like free markets? Or do we demand proof only when we disagree with
the premise?
|3.26.09 @ 11:59AM|#
But we need to start setting limits.
Who is this "we" of which you speak, Mister?
Because I'm quite sure it won't be you, or me, or anyone we
know.
Try this, and see if you still think it sounds like a good
idea:
But government officials, or possibly unelected UN autocrats,
need to start setting and enforcing limits on reproduction and
economic activity.
|3.26.09 @ 12:01PM|#
Lamar, perhaps you would treat us to a comparison of the
relative economic performance of market-based economies and
state-controlled economies.
From where I sit, there's plenty of evidence that free markets
work, if by work you mean increase economic output.
|3.26.09 @ 12:01PM|#
Like free markets? Or do we demand proof only when we
disagree with the premise?
nice strawman - what is your point?
robc|3.26.09 @ 12:02PM|#
Lamar,
Like free markets? Or do we demand proof only when we disagree
with the premise?
Are you saying research doesnt support free markets? I have nearly
40 years of research experience that suggests that when I trade
freely for goods or services that I get what I want at a price I
can accept.
IdiotWind|3.26.09 @ 12:58PM|#
Cow shit is not the only source of nitrogen. Thats a fallacious
argument that borders on spin. This guy must be getting a nice fat
check from Monsanto. Or maybe he's just a age-addled 95 year old
man pining away for the days when he did something that mattered.
Its also ridiculous to assume that EVERYTHING GROWN would have to
switched to Organic. Another over the top observation that borders
on spin. Really. Do the trees grown to make paper need to be
organic? How about the corn used to make plastic? The cotton in
your clothing? Trying to refute one ridiculous platitude with
another one is moronic at best.
And really, except for the die-hard nugget heads, its not the
nitrogen that anyone is concerned about, its the pesticides.
I don't now and never will accept an argument that starts with "its
too hard" or "we don't know how to do that now."
If people are demanding that their food be organic, then that is
the free market speaking. Not meeting that demand because you don't
like it is anti-free market. Or fascist. Either way its bad for
business.
|3.26.09 @ 1:06PM|#
IdiotWind is right. The constant drumbeat toward banning organic food on this board sickens me. Barely a day goes by without a Reason article calling for people to be forced to buy conventionally grown and GMO food. I'm canceling my subscription right now.
|3.26.09 @ 1:07PM|#
IdiotWind:
The case against Organic is exactly the same as the case against
CO2 or Secondhand smoke.
Your choice to eat Organic requires more farmland, more "organic
fertilizer" and more resources, it is less efficient and therefore
affects me, and my world, as well as you.
PS: Organics use pesticides they are just natural, you need a lot
more of them because they are not as effective, and result in
reduced yields.
|3.26.09 @ 1:30PM|#
I am 100% on the side of Julian Simon in the Ehrlich vs. Simon
wars. I also think that the arguments in favor of technology and
free markets over Malthusian anti-humanism are strong and
convincing. It was indeed heroic that certain individuals help put
in motion the green revolution. However, the revolution has been
going on for a long time and owes as much to the tractor and
natural gas drilling technology(the major feed stock for fertilizer
in modern agriculture) as it does to gene research(it is hard to
put all agriculture yield increases over the last 200 years on one
guy...and yes yields have been increasing for a long time and we
have had big jumps in yields before Monsanto. Yes human innovation
can help this planet support more people with a better standard of
living than most humans realize is possible, especially the
dimwitted malthusians.
I am not a luddite so please at least hear me out If you manipulate
a plants genes to produce a chemical that is very much like a
pesticide and thus are able to decrease the amount of pesticides
needed....isn't it at least possible that the same chemicals that
can kill bugs might cause some harm in humans? And isn't it
possible that Monsanto's test on this would tend to lean towards
understating/ignoring this problem?
MON863 Corn
The claims here may be 100% fake, but I have heard interviews with
Monsanto scientist saying that they were fired whent hey tried to
speak up about this problem.
|3.26.09 @ 1:57PM|#
"Are you saying research doesn't support free markets? I
have nearly 40 years of research experience that suggests that when
I trade freely for goods or services that I get what I want at a
price I can accept."
Ahh, so there we go. 40 years of research have convinced you that
free markets are the best resource allocator. If only Borlaug had
40 years of research into whether organics are healthier, then we
wouldn't have a problem. Sue me for making a distinction between,
"there's no evidence" and "the evidence suggests otherwise".
So color me unimpressed when Johnny Big Wig waltzes in and
dismisses natural food as unsupported by research. I'm not sure why
the burden is on natural to prove its worth rather than the burden
being placed on engineered foods. Just because I say there's no
evidence that my shit stinks doesn't make it so. (FYI:
jasmine).
|3.26.09 @ 1:59PM|#
"Are you saying research doesnt support free markets? I have
nearly 40 years of research experience that suggests that when I
trade freely for goods or services that I get what I want at a
price I can accept."
That was a trap. There are no free markets.
|3.26.09 @ 2:32PM|#
If only Borlaug had 40 years of research into whether
organics are healthier, then we wouldn't have a problem.
I think you need to read you're own pull-quote again.
You're conflating 2 different ideas. He didn't say less
healthy, he said that the idea of organic foods being more
nutritious is absurd and unsupported by any research. If you
have any links that show a higher nutritional content to organic
foods over foods grown conventionally, please do so.
As to healthy-er, YMMV.
|3.26.09 @ 2:44PM|#
I think there are studies that show organic food
doesn't provide more nutrition. The outstanding issue is whether
the additives, hormones, etc., make the food less healthy. Notice I
didn't say whether they make the food dangerous. I would agree with
the premise that widespread organic farming is unsustainable.
However, if there hasn't been research on the effect of consuming a
wide variety of foods 'roided up on hormones, then we can't really
say we know whether they are healthier or not. But Borlaug has his
agenda. And while he should rightfully be proud of his agenda, he
shouldn't undercut his credibility by citing to absence of evidence
like he would cite to evidence of absence.
I'm no hippie turd farmer. But when somebody who dedicates their
lives to studying a subject, then cites to "no research", I
question that conclusion. Think of it this way: Borlaug concludes
that people are stupid if they believe in organic foods. They are
stupid because (at least via RC Dean), they believe in something
without any evidence. The basis for calling those people stupid?
"No research". Just say you don't fucking know already.
|3.26.09 @ 3:24PM|#
Lamar,
considering that organics are less efficiant and downright
dangerous to less affluent places in the world, maybe it ought to
be the burden of the hippie turd farmers to show some evidence that
organic foods are in anyway safer.
where is that evidence beyond superstition?
|3.26.09 @ 3:28PM|#
IdiotWind is right. The constant drumbeat toward banning
organic food on this board sickens me. Barely a day goes by without
a Reason article calling for people to be forced to buy
conventionally grown and GMO food. I'm canceling my subscription
right now.
As I suspected. SugarFree == TofuSushi
|3.26.09 @ 3:31PM|#
gabe,
A) The gene expressed in Bt corn is extracted from a commonly used
"organic" pesticide, that comes in the form of a bacterium sprayed
on plants which is poisonous to insects, but harmless to
humans.
B) The gene isn't expressed in the edibible part of the corn
itself, but only in the leaves.
|3.26.09 @ 3:34PM|#
Lamar,
I also think people are stupid if they believe in God, Unicorns,
and the Tooth Fairy. because there's no research supporting their
existance.
|3.26.09 @ 3:39PM|#
Hazel,
As I suspected. SugarFree == TofuSushi
Wha? I can't be my ruggedly handsome and sarcastic self without
being accused of asshattery? You wound me Ms. Meade. You wound me
to the quick.
I am not TofuSushi. If I were, "he'd" be much, much funnier.
|3.26.09 @ 4:40PM|#
There's no research suggesting that thalidomide is harmful to babies. (circa 1956)
|3.26.09 @ 4:48PM|#
Borlaug concludes that people are stupid if they believe in
organic foods. They are stupid because (at least via RC Dean), they
believe in something without any evidence. The basis for calling
those people stupid? "No research".
My sister in law won't let her two year old watch TV because
"there's no evidence that TV doesn't cause Autism" It's very hard
to prove a negative. When I say that there's no evidence TV does
cause Autism - she says she'd rather be safe. I say this is stupid,
because there is no evidence that diet coke doesn't cause brain
cancer - or that getting fewer than 8 hours sleep a night doesn't
cause Alzheimers: yet most people go on about their lives. Organic
food seems oriented toward the class of people who are prone to
making this logical error. Yeah, my sis-in-law eats all organic,
too...
|3.26.09 @ 4:50PM|#
There's no research suggesting that thalidomide is harmful
to babies. (circa 1956)
yeah, but then there was, and it was pretty obvious. So it ought to
be easy to produce some damn evidence that conventional food IS
un-healthy. get to work, Lamar.
|3.26.09 @ 6:15PM|#
I never said conventional food is unhealthy. Ever. Never ever. I
even made a point to say specifically that I do not want to imply
that non-organic food is dangerous.
And I get the problem of proving a negative. I just got the feeling
that Borlaug is the kind of guy who will say organic food isn't
healthier because then people might demand large scale production,
and that would ruin his quite noble advances. Me? I prefer simple
honesty. I don't believe in God, but I don't call you stupid if you
do. It's that whole, live and let live thing.
|3.26.09 @ 11:00PM|#
There's no research suggesting that thalidomide is harmful
to babies. (circa 1956)
Shorter Lamar
Thalidomide proves that anything for which there isn't any research
suggesting it's harmful must automatically be suspected of being
harmful.
Kevin Carson|3.27.09 @ 12:43AM|#
"Even if you could use all the organic material that you
have--the animal manures, the human waste, the plant residues--and
get them back on the soil, you couldn't feed more than 4 billion
people. In addition, if all agriculture were organic, you would
have to increase cropland area dramatically, spreading out into
marginal areas and cutting down millions of acres of
forests."
This suggests Borlaug doesn't even have any idea what the available
organic techniques ARE.
First, as IdiotWind suggests, Borlaug seems never to have heard of
nitrogen-fixing cover crops (hint: they reproduce on-site without
any external inputs). And if you start with fertile soil,
closed-loop use of human waste and crop residue will minimize the
need for new external inputs.
And second, Borlaug fails to control for the big-small dichotomy in
comparing conventional to organic. Small-scale farming is, in fact,
on average more efficient in output per acre compared to mechanized
row-cropping on large tracts of land. The latter was developed
specifically to improve output per laborer through
capital-substitution, but did so at the cost of reduced efficiency
in land use. Borlaug seems to think organic is just conventional
row-cropping minus the synthetic chemicals, and never to have heard
of intensive raised bed techniques. It's like listening to an
anti-computer rant full of references to UNIVAC and punch
cards.
In fact, John Jeavons (who actually fucking KNOWS SOMETHING about
organic farming, instead of issuing dogmatic pronouncements based
on ignorance) has developed his biointensive raised bed technique
to the point where it can feed one person on 4000 sq. ft. (1/10
acre) without any external fertilizer inputs. It's a fairly spartan
diet (80% cereal grain, legumes and tubers, and only 20% fruit and
green leafy stuff), and it requires careful composting of
everything (including human waste) and returning it to the soil.
But then, that's just demonstrating the theoretical limit--in
reality, we're nowhere near a limit of one-tenth acre per
capita.
Kevin Carson|3.27.09 @ 12:59AM|#
P.S. I know someone's an ignoramus when he can't even correctly
frame the issue in dispute, and instead attacks a strawman of his
own choosing.
When a registered dietitian says anything over the RDA of Vitamic C
is wasted because you just get more ascorbic acid in your toilet,
they miss the point: each ascorbic acid molecule in your urine has
a free radical attached.
Two examples from Borlaug's spew:
1. "But there's absolutely no research that shows that organic
foods provide better nutrition."
Absolutely? What about research showing depletion of trace minerals
from the use of conventional NPK fertilizers, and higher trace
mineral content in organic vegetables. He might have a legitimate
argument that the research is *inconclusive*, but by overstating
himself in this way he just looks like an opinionated old ass who
doesn't even know what research is out there.
2. "As far as plants are concerned, they can't tell whether that
nitrate ion comes from artificial chemicals or from decomposed
organic matter."
Way to miss the point. Would Borlaug say your body treats a Vitamin
C molecule the same in food as in a synthetic pill? The molecule
itself may be the same, but in food it exists in a synergistic
relationship with numerous phytochemicals like bioflavonoids
(including many that have never yet even been isolated and
identified) that promote vitamin C absorption.
Likewise, in agriculture, a plant can *absorb* the nitrate ion more
effectively in a healthy soil ecosystem with proper friability, and
an appropriate assortment of microflora and microfauna (e.g.,
nitrogen-fixing bacteria, mycorrhizae, etc.) existing in a
symbiotic relationship with root hairs.
In short, whatever Borlaug's knowledge about the kinds of plant
breeding he practiced, his opinion on organic farming is of
precisely the same value as that of any random guy in a bar who's
never had his hands in the dirt in his life: namely somewhere
between Jack Shit and Fuck All.
Sean W. Malone|3.27.09 @ 3:01AM|#
Kevin... When you save a BILLION people from starvation and have
some 70 years as a professor of agronomy, then please come back and
insult Norman Borlaug's intelligence.
Until then, please shut the fuck up, wish this man a happy birthday
and go away.
On that note, Norman Borlaug is, and may always be my vote, for
best human being of all time.
Kevin Carson|3.27.09 @ 3:15AM|#
Sean... When you can actually answer my critique of Borlaug, or
can demonstrate that his generalizations about organic farming are
correct, or show that Borlaug anywhere demonstrates any awareness
of the points of fact I raised, then please come back and tell me
to shut the fuck up.
Until then, YOU can please shut the fuck up.
Regardless of his accomplishments as "best human being of all
time," when someone makes dogmatic assertions in a churlish manner
about those who disagree with him, and in the process displays an
ignorance of what he's criticizing, his assertions must stand or
fall on their own merit.
Suki|3.27.09 @ 6:00AM|#
Kevin,
I think I remember you from the Student Union. Do you wear mostly
black clothing?
|3.27.09 @ 7:11AM|#
many many returns of this day and Be lated Happy birth day to
Dr.N.E.Borlaug
u give your precious time for biotechnolegy and plant breeding
science to improvement in transgenic crop.
Sean W. Malone|3.27.09 @ 10:53AM|#
Here's the thing Kevin.
It's a 95 year old man's birthday. The man knows infinitely more
than you do about the subject you are criticizing him on, and if
you want to go ask him yourself why he didn't go into book-length
detail answering each and everyone of your questions, I'm sure
he'll be happy to explain in greater depth - to my knowledge he is
still on the faculty roster at Texas A&M, you could possibly go
take a class. Answers to your criticism can alsolikely be found in
many of Borlaugs books, recorded lectures & other writings or
interviews, but instead of taking the time to look into that,
you're debating a non-existent strawman and claiming yourself the
victor.
Congratulations sir. You win, Dr. Borlaug didn't answer your
questions in an interview given by someone else therefore clearly,
he's an idiot and "ignorant". Well done sir, kudos.
I however, am not going to be "debating" you on the topic because,
it's a 95 year old man's fucking birthday and what we're doing
right now, is wishing him the best.
Why? Because the man is a fucking hero.
In conclusion, quit being a jackass and thank the man for enabling
you and your family to have low-cost food and for helping millions
of people in dozens of countries avoid starvation. Go read his
books if you want him to answer your questions... or hell,
email the man, he'll probably respond. He's pretty cool like
that.
In the meantime, you can take your faulty logic, bad assumptions
and perplexing ignorance and keep it to yourself.
Kevin Carson|3.27.09 @ 1:55PM|#
Fine, Sean. This will be my last post in the exchange as
well.
But here's the thing: The blog post is not, in fact, just about a
95-year-old man's birthday. Bailey's selection of a particular
quote, out of all the things Borlaug has said, was about his own
ideological agenda: namely, getting in yet another jab in against
organic farming. And the snipes of people like John Kluge upthread,
before I ever came in, weren't just about good will and
congratulations; they were simply using a 95-year-old man's
birthday as a pretext for some cheap shots to further their
ideological agenda.
And guess what? When I see people repeating stuff that "everybody
knows" that just ain't so, that I've actually done some stufy
on--and repeating it in a calculatedly offensive and obnoxious
manner--I react viscerally. My ire is directed more at Bailey and
Kluge than at Borlaug. If Bailey wants to do an upbeat celebration
piece on Borlaug's birthday without it turning all ugly and
everything, maybe he should restrain himself from tossing in the
gratuitious "So there, you ignorant tree-hugging hippies! In your
face! Nyah nyah nyah!"
So if you want to pretend this is all about the happy occasion of
Borlaug's birthday, and not about politics or ideology, you're a
little late.
|3.27.09 @ 5:21PM|#
"Thalidomide proves that anything for which there isn't any
research suggesting it's harmful must automatically be suspected of
being harmful."
Not really the point. But thanks anyway.
|3.28.09 @ 12:54AM|#
Warty:
"John, what's the liberal attitude to Norman Borlaug? I'm pretty sure I've never heard anyone say anything against the man."
Line up some of the more notorious Nobel Peace Prize
recipients, such as Kissinger, and if you had to identify the
biggest killer of all it was probably Norman Borlaug, one of the
architects of the Green Revolution, which unleashed displacement,
malnutrition and death across the Third World.
The Real
Al Gore
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245