Seeds and Stems

Last night I read an article in National Geographic about the rising global population and its demands on food and agricultural  (The End of Plenty, Joel K. Bourne, Jr.).  Bourne credits Norman Borlaug's high-yield grain breeds of the 1960s with today's unsustainable focus on fossil-fuel based pesticides and monoculture.  With Borlaug's new strains of wheat, India ended famine in the region by tripling its crop yield.  Unfortunately, the over emphasis on the pesticides and irrigation systems required to produce this crop created an unsustainable model for food production.  

I always assumed unsustainable farming methods were rooted in greed (Monsanto being the quintessential example of an evil-giant with its cut-throat business practices).  Until now, I never realized that a scientist engineered seeds in response to widespread famine in poor countries and that the inventor saw his new grains as a means to eradicate poverty.  Borlaug even won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work.  

It's ironic that today, forty years later, countries and development agencies promote subsistence farming and discourage the used of Borlaug's seeds to fight poverty and hunger.   By avoiding the pesticide intensive grain breeds, small scale farmers eliminate contamination caused by the use of these carcinogens (Pesticides enter food networks and run off into local water sources.  Farmers and their neighbors also suffer from direct exposure).  The advocacy against the modified seeds has economic implications as well.  Critics of the seeds’ effects recognize a cycle of debt linked to their use.  Small scale farmers are forced to repeatedly borrow to constantly purchases pesticides to maintain these unsustainable crops.  

Unfortunately, due to the cyclical nature of life, when Borlaug’s gift to the poor, which was perfectly suited for the 1960s, began to cause problems, no replacement filled the void.  The Monsantos of the world cashed out on system closely resembling sharecropping and the poor are as starved and as hungry as they ever were before Borlaug.

Bourne also talks about population/labor economics.  He made a statement that is worth thinking about on your own.  War and disease are usually thought of as the large scale mechanisms for maintaining populating size.  Bourne argues that another force plays are role in population sizes as well.  He writes, "A growing workforce depresses wages, which tends to make people delay marriage until they can better support a family.  Delaying marriage reduces fertility rates, creating an equally powerful check on populations."  So he basically argues that if food and resources don’t keep population sizes down, economic factors will have a leveling off effect.  Personally, I don’t think the effect is “equally powerful,” but it does make me question the necessity of increasing human's carry capacity for survival.  If we don't make more food, will people really stop having too many kids?  It’s just a thought...

Seeds and Stems