6 ms·

Norman Borlaug won the Nobel Peace Prize for the green revolution and understood the misguidance of efficiency as a strategy better than anyone. As a tactic it

by spodek 6y ago

Norman Borlaug won the Nobel Peace Prize for the green revolution and understood the misguidance of efficiency as a strategy better than anyone. As a tactic it works under the strategy of managing population, as he said in his acceptance speech: > "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. . . Most people still fail to comprehend the magnitude and menace of the “Population Monster”. . . Since man is potentially a rational being, however, I am confident that within the next two decades he will recognize the self-destructive course he steers along the road of irresponsible population growth." We haven't curbed population growth. It's slowing, but we're in overshoot, which leads to collapse, and most projections still show us growing through 2100. Luckily, have examples like Mechai Viravaidya in Thailand, who helped lower their population growth from around 7 children per couple to below 2 through voluntary means -- think the opposite of China's One Child Policy -- leading to greater stability and abundance. His TEDx talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/mechai_viravaidya_how_mr_condom_made_thailand_a_better_place_for_life_and_love#t-811495 https://www.ted.com/talks/mechai_viravaidya_how_mr_condom_ma....

adventured 6y ago
> Luckily, have examples like Mechai Viravaidya in Thailand, who helped lower their population growth from around 7 children per couple to below 2 through voluntary means -- think the opposite of China's One Child Policy -- leading to greater stability and abundance. South Korea, Vietnam and the Philippines follow the same general population decline curve from the 1960s to now, that Thailand has followed. They all began at close to the same change rate circa 1960, all between 2.9% and 3.3%. Thailand's drop has been more pronounced since 2000 than Vietnam, however that can properly be attributed to the huge difference in standard of living between the two (the decline in Thailand matches the decline also seen in South Korea). Did most countries in Asia have their own Mechai Viravaidya? They all simultaneously drop from 1960 onward. Or is this person getting credit for something that was happening regardless and has a lot more to do with increased economic prosperity? Which is something we already know is the primary natural change agent for lowering population expansion. Thailand's GDP per capita skyrocketed after 2001, whereas eg Vietnam and the Philippines followed slower trajectories (until recently). Thailand actually saw an increase in its population growth change rate in the 1990s (1993-2001), before the economic boom that began in 2001 pushed it back down again. The population change rate in Vietnam and Thailand were nearly identical until Thailand's economic boom began in 2001 (also, Thailand's rate wasn't much lower than Indonesia circa 1998-2000, they've split both economically and on that pop change rate from 2001 forward).
fit2rule 6y ago
>overshoot, which leads to collapse Imagine, in 50 or so years, a fairly substantial human colony is established on another planet, and it figures out how to become self-sustaining. This self-sustenance act is what we need to refine - not the going to Mars bit, of course - but what I am trying to say is that the pressure is on to find self-sustaining ways to feed humans (hint: grow local or gtfo) at the very high end of the privileged technologically elite spectrum of the human misery scale, i.e. SpaceX versus the slums. If we can get to Mars and sustain, we can change the way humans on Earth live, in extraordinary ways. I'd even be willing to wager a bet that in 100 years, ones sovereign citizenship is going to be irrelevant - what will count, is whether you can make water towers into rocketships. (I don't see SpaceX as a rich mans game - I truly believe its a human response to the human disaster you talk about. If we can move manufacturing and food production into space, we may very well have a chance to turn things off in 100 years, and let Mother Earth just grow again ..)
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  First of all, 50 years is at least an order of magnitude off for realistic colonization of another planet. Secondly, there's plenty of land here on earth that is uninhabited and hostile that we could try self-sustaining colonies in first.
- andrekandre 6y ago
  the difference between a space colony and earth is that on earth we have a global economic system that demands infinite growth, and high disparity between producer countries vs consumer countires, which is the opposite sustainability just look at how many articles about how we generate more food than we know what to do with, yet people still starve or go hungry all around the world, or the vast differences between what is called the "global south" vs "north" i highly doubt we need a colony on another planet to teach earth how to be sustainable; the problem is the existing system refuses to change fast enough to make a difference
3np 6y ago
It's worth noting that continued population growth is an inherent assumption in today's economic climate and really for the past century or two. Just look at all the alarmist headlines around Japan's stagnating population. While a huge environmental win and globally necessary, nations are incentivized to strive for continuing population growth as wellfare, pension systems and arguably the entire economy has been relying on a growing population for "sustainability".
- nicoburns 6y ago
  Well that's ironic, because a system relying on continuing population growth is inherently unsustainable.

by spodek 6y ago

adventured 6y ago

> Luckily, have examples like Mechai Viravaidya in Thailand, who helped lower their population growth from around 7 children per couple to below 2 through voluntary means -- think the opposite of China's One Child Policy -- leading to greater stability and abundance. South Korea, Vietnam and the Philippines follow the same general population decline curve from the 1960s to now, that Thailand has followed. They all began at close to the same change rate circa 1960, all between 2.9% and 3.3%. Thailand's drop has been more pronounced since 2000 than Vietnam, however that can properly be attributed to the huge difference in standard of living between the two (the decline in Thailand matches the decline also seen in South Korea). Did most countries in Asia have their own Mechai Viravaidya? They all simultaneously drop from 1960 onward. Or is this person getting credit for something that was happening regardless and has a lot more to do with increased economic prosperity? Which is something we already know is the primary natural change agent for lowering population expansion. Thailand's GDP per capita skyrocketed after 2001, whereas eg Vietnam and the Philippines followed slower trajectories (until recently). Thailand actually saw an increase in its population growth change rate in the 1990s (1993-2001), before the economic boom that began in 2001 pushed it back down again. The population change rate in Vietnam and Thailand were nearly identical until Thailand's economic boom began in 2001 (also, Thailand's rate wasn't much lower than Indonesia circa 1998-2000, they've split both economically and on that pop change rate from 2001 forward).

fit2rule 6y ago

>overshoot, which leads to collapse Imagine, in 50 or so years, a fairly substantial human colony is established on another planet, and it figures out how to become self-sustaining. This self-sustenance act is what we need to refine - not the going to Mars bit, of course - but what I am trying to say is that the pressure is on to find self-sustaining ways to feed humans (hint: grow local or gtfo) at the very high end of the privileged technologically elite spectrum of the human misery scale, i.e. SpaceX versus the slums. If we can get to Mars and sustain, we can change the way humans on Earth live, in extraordinary ways. I'd even be willing to wager a bet that in 100 years, ones sovereign citizenship is going to be irrelevant - what will count, is whether you can make water towers into rocketships. (I don't see SpaceX as a rich mans game - I truly believe its a human response to the human disaster you talk about. If we can move manufacturing and food production into space, we may very well have a chance to turn things off in 100 years, and let Mother Earth just grow again ..)

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
First of all, 50 years is at least an order of magnitude off for realistic colonization of another planet. Secondly, there's plenty of land here on earth that is uninhabited and hostile that we could try self-sustaining colonies in first.
andrekandre 6y ago
the difference between a space colony and earth is that on earth we have a global economic system that demands infinite growth, and high disparity between producer countries vs consumer countires, which is the opposite sustainability just look at how many articles about how we generate more food than we know what to do with, yet people still starve or go hungry all around the world, or the vast differences between what is called the "global south" vs "north" i highly doubt we need a colony on another planet to teach earth how to be sustainable; the problem is the existing system refuses to change fast enough to make a difference

3np 6y ago

It's worth noting that continued population growth is an inherent assumption in today's economic climate and really for the past century or two. Just look at all the alarmist headlines around Japan's stagnating population. While a huge environmental win and globally necessary, nations are incentivized to strive for continuing population growth as wellfare, pension systems and arguably the entire economy has been relying on a growing population for "sustainability".

nicoburns 6y ago
Well that's ironic, because a system relying on continuing population growth is inherently unsustainable.