"The green revolution has won a temporary success in man’s war against hunger and deprivation; it has given man a breathing space. If fully implemented, the revolution can provide sufficient food for sustenance during the next three decades. But the frightening power of human reproduction must also be curbed; otherwise the success of the green revolution will be ephemeral only."

Norman Borlaug

Nobel Prize lecture [0]

[0] https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1970/borlaug/lecture...

▲

pseudo0 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

A bit ironic to quote that considering how the speech was 55 years ago, and the green revolution is going stronger than ever. If anything the crisis of the next 50 years will be the economic and societal pressures crushing the childbirth rate in Western countries.

▲

slavik81 4 days ago | parent [-]

It's terrifying that 96% of all mammalian life on Earth is now human beings and our livestock. We might be able to feed more people, but habitat destruction is already the greatest threat to most wild species. Humans are doing fine, but the toll on everything non-human has been enormous. We are living through one of the greatest mass-extinction events in Earth's history.

I don't fear famine, but I worry about what we're doing to our planet.

▲

bbarnett 3 days ago | parent [-]

You should fear famine. The biggest issues with global warming or famine, are the wars they will cause.

If large prosperous nations cannot obtain food, that is, no one has food to sell, then those nations will take food.

At whatever cost.

If they do not, then such a nation will tear itself apart from within. The options are, take from others, or take from your fellow citizens.

This is the reality, and no amount of hope or wishful dreams will change that fact. People will not let their children starve.

▲

rkomorn 3 days ago | parent [-]

You're absolutely right about the path to war.

This is why famine and access to fresh water are my two biggest worries when it comes to our climate change driven future.

	▲	bbarnett 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Even softer changes due to climate change are worrisome. Imagine if ocean currents shifted, which keep Northern California up into BC warmer, and the UK and other parts of Europe warmer. That's a lot of farmland changed. The inverse could happen too. Instead of no longer bringing warm water to those coasts, cold water currents could arrive. You could have snow in Norhern California for most of the year, even while the rest of the planet warms. So many variables. Canada has immense amounts of bog thawing, and bog/swamp is very fertile land. But it's still further North, which means short growing seasons, and too much sun for some plants per day. We should be creating crops which can handle those conditions, even if just through normal breeding. Ah well.

▲

decimalenough 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

His lecture was in 1970 and the "three decades" elapsed 25 years ago. People are still starving, but not for lack of agricultural production.

▲

XorNot 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Most countries on Earth have declining birth rates, many first world countries have negative population growth.

Overpopulation isn't a thing.

▲

gefriertrockner 4 days ago | parent [-]

Overpopulation is a thing in parts of South Asia and Africa. Climate change can affect the agricultural output in many countries and thus the land will support less people. The population growth is still very relevant in most of the affected countries. So overpopulation will definitely be a thing, unless there are real technological breakthroughs.

	▲	nemomarx 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		no break throughs needed - provide birth control and education in those regions and the rate will slow