The Green Revolution is in Retreat?

There is an interesting blog entry at Marginal Revolution that points out how technology has allowed us to feed ourselves. The following picture summarizes a very key point:
Norman Borlaug, the "father of the Green Revolution", makes the following very interesting point. I would call this the "Clarence Thomas" point (note: Thomas is the black judge on the US Supreme Court who benefited from affirmative action as his ladder up but who then pulled the ladder up behind him by making judicial decisions that outlawed affirmative action):

Extremists in the environmental movement from the rich nations seem to be doing everything they can to stop scientific progress in its tracks. Small, but vociferous and highly effective and well-funded, anti-science and technology groups are slowing the application of new technology, whether it be developed from biotechnology or more conventional methods of agricultural science. I am particularly alarmed by those who seek to deny small-scale farmers of the Third World - and especially those in sub-Saharan Africa - access to the improved seeds, fertilizers, and crop protection chemicals that have allowed the affluent nations the luxury of plentiful and inexpensive foodstuffs which, in turn, has accelerated their economic development.

A commenter on the blog, "Cassandra", emphasizes a key point about the lunacy of the anti-technology, "organic", green movement:

Most people do not have any idea how much the yields have increased over the course of the 20th century. Corn yields in Nebraska now top 210 bushels per acre. Even the best organic is only able to produce about 70 bushels per acre. To produce the same amount with organic farming therefore requires more land.

I love the debate in the comment section of the blog. The greens are aghast at the praise given for growing more on less land. All they can see is "greater consumption" and "more people" and "more environmental damage". Their obvious solution is the old Roman one, decimate them (literally kill every 10th person). That certainly helps cut down on consumption. Of course, I'm waiting for the eco-nuts to fight over being that special 10th person, the one who does the necessary self-sacrifice for the good of us all. Meanwhile, pragmatists notice that humans can fix their problems without radical solutions.

This commentary about solving things with "smaller population" and "eat less meat/become vegan", etc. reminds me of the intellectual furor when I was a kid:

1. Paul Ehrlich and the "Population Bomb" eco-nuts were demanding Zero Population Growth and moaning "we are all going to die in a horrible famine". Well, it didn't happen. Neither the famine nor the Malthusian runaway population. Most first world countries today have a population deficit problem that is only solved by immigration to keep the population from falling due to the low birth rate. What does this teach us? It tells us that the solution wasn't the "decimate them!" cry of the purists. Instead it was seeking to increase wealth that, in turn, gave people the education and tools to control their own reproduction.
   
2. Similarly, visions of us dying is a miasmic swamp of pollutants hasn't happened. The solution wasn't "decimate them!" to rid the pure world of those impure souls who insist on defecating and allowing their machine exhaust to sully Mother Earth, instead it was to increase wealth that, in turn, allowed us to develop cleaner technologies that reduce pollution and/or treat pollutants rather than release them directly into the environment.
   

I get depressed by religious fundamentalists who have simplistic solutions. Similarly, I get depressed by green activists who have their set of simplistic solutions. Enough of self-appointed "messengers" telling us what to do. Let the people find their way to a solution. Most real solutions require a pragmatic "feeling your way" approach that evolves toward a solution. Beware of people who knock you over the head with simplistic solutions.