3 ms·

Of course, without this process producing a lot of available nitrogen to use in making explosives during the first half of the 20th century we would probably al

by evgen 17y ago

Of course, without this process producing a lot of available nitrogen to use in making explosives during the first half of the 20th century we would probably also have avoided two world wars. Occasional famines and a lower upper-limit on human population or millions dead from guns and bombs... interesting set of choices.

piguy314 17y ago
Eh this is the classic guns kill people vs. people kill people argument. Not having guns or bombs isn't going to stop a war. Some of the bloodiest wars in history were fought using swords and spears.
AngryParsley 17y ago
Number of people people killed in major wars in the 20th century (moderately pessimistic estimate): 100,000,000 Number of people in the 20th century saved from starvation by green revolution: 1,000,000,000 Average life expectancy in 1900: 35 years Average life expectancy in 2000: 65 years Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_d... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug Net 900,000,000 lives saved? I'll take that deal any day.
- evgen 17y ago
  You don't get to claim the entirety of the green revolution here, and most of those 1 billion would not have been born in the first place if the Harber-Bosch process did not exist. If we are going to go to that particular level of sophistry then I would add the four generations of descendants from WWI deaths and three generations of WWII/Stalin-induced famines/Great Leap forward deaths, etc. Playing alternate history speculation is interesting, but trying to project any particular distance beyond the immediate point in question is a fools errand.
  - AngryParsley 17y ago
    No, 1 billion already-alive humans would have starved to death if not for the green revolution. Malnutrition plays a role in over half of all deaths today. It was even more commonplace before fertilizers and high-yield crop strains.

by evgen 17y ago

piguy314 17y ago

Eh this is the classic guns kill people vs. people kill people argument. Not having guns or bombs isn't going to stop a war. Some of the bloodiest wars in history were fought using swords and spears.

AngryParsley 17y ago

Number of people people killed in major wars in the 20th century (moderately pessimistic estimate): 100,000,000 Number of people in the 20th century saved from starvation by green revolution: 1,000,000,000 Average life expectancy in 1900: 35 years Average life expectancy in 2000: 65 years Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_d... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug Net 900,000,000 lives saved? I'll take that deal any day.

evgen 17y ago
You don't get to claim the entirety of the green revolution here, and most of those 1 billion would not have been born in the first place if the Harber-Bosch process did not exist. If we are going to go to that particular level of sophistry then I would add the four generations of descendants from WWI deaths and three generations of WWII/Stalin-induced famines/Great Leap forward deaths, etc. Playing alternate history speculation is interesting, but trying to project any particular distance beyond the immediate point in question is a fools errand.
- AngryParsley 17y ago
  No, 1 billion already-alive humans would have starved to death if not for the green revolution. Malnutrition plays a role in over half of all deaths today. It was even more commonplace before fertilizers and high-yield crop strains.