4 ms·

This is strange take. Yes, there were several reasons why the country got into financial difficulties, however the decision to switch from nitrogen fertilizer t

by NoPie 4y ago

This is strange take. Yes, there were several reasons why the country got into financial difficulties, however the decision to switch from nitrogen fertilizer to organic one was clearly predictable to cause even more problems. More than a century ago people feared Malthusian catastrophe, that food crops won't be able to feed growing global population. What saved us was the invention of Haber-Bosch process, chemical synthesis of nitrogen fertilizer from air nitrogen. If globally there was enough organic fertilizer available, we would have never need for synthesized nitrogen fertilizer. That's not the case however. Fertilizer costs money but if you wanted to switch 100% to organic fertilizer, due to global shortage it would cost even more. The problem with toxic deliveries of Chinese organic fertilizer were fully predictable – if they offered to sell it for prices that were too good to be true, then most surely they were. The economics with inorganic fertilizer is simple: you buy it for X dollars and then you get crops that you can sell for Y dollars where Y > X. Save X dollars by not buying the fertilizer and lose Y dollars. By switching to organic fertilizer you would have to spend Z dollars where Z > X. How can it be a reasonable advice? It is the same as saying: if you right now cannot afford high gas prices, buy an electric car. Obviously, a person who cannot even afford to pay for gas clearly cannot afford to buy more costly electric car.

sampo 4y ago
> What saved us was the invention of Haber-Bosch process, chemical synthesis of nitrogen fertilizer from air nitrogen. Of equal importance is Norman Borlaug, who bred new wheat and corn varieties that were able to make use of the fertilizers and grow large harvests. https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2020/04/norman-borlaug-legacy-documentary/ https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2020/04/norman-b...
- eesmith 4y ago
  And who, in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, pointed out it was "a temporary success in man’s war against hunger and deprivation ... But the frightening power of human reproduction must also be curbed; otherwise the success of the green revolution will be ephemeral only." This is long-term view is shared with Ehrlich, whose "Population Bomb" appears (based on the cut-off for non-subscribers) to be ridiculed by the author of this essay.
- NoPie 4y ago
  Good point. I am reading about him on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug This is really crazy stuff: >> Western European governments were persuaded to stop supplying fertilizer to Africa. According to David Seckler, former Director General of the International Water Management Institute, "the environmental community in the 1980s went crazy pressuring the donor countries and the big foundations not to support ideas like inorganic fertilizers for Africa."[36]
  - sampo 4y ago
    And later the Western elites did it again: Quite successfully persuaded the 3rd world countries to not make use of the improved crop varieties that were bred with the assistance of gene technology.
Arnt 4y ago
When you put it like that, it sounds as if there was some other decision that same government could realistically taken at that time that would have improved Sri Lanka's state significantly. I think not. It was already close to disaster and not heading away. That government didn't have the ability (intellectual and/or financial resources) to turn around. The precise details of the decisions made shortly before the final disaster don't matter very much, and IMO definitely aren't the most significant reason. IMO that sudden organic lurch didn't help. But that single lurch didn't turn a sort of tropical Switzerland into a disaster zone.
- NoPie 4y ago
  The government could have tried to borrow money internationally to buy fertilizer. If properly presented the issue (such as great risk of starvation), the IMF or World Bank would have helped. Then they could export some crops and give the country more time to deal with debts and crises. And when covid is over, influx of tourists would have helped again. While there were many factors, it is quite possible that this one wrong decision was the straw that broke camel's back. But because currently green ideas are quite fashionable, the king was able to convince the government to accept this ill-fated deal about the switch to organic farming.

by NoPie 4y ago

sampo 4y ago

> What saved us was the invention of Haber-Bosch process, chemical synthesis of nitrogen fertilizer from air nitrogen. Of equal importance is Norman Borlaug, who bred new wheat and corn varieties that were able to make use of the fertilizers and grow large harvests. https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2020/04/norman-borlaug-legacy-documentary/ https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2020/04/norman-b...

eesmith 4y ago
And who, in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, pointed out it was "a temporary success in man’s war against hunger and deprivation ... But the frightening power of human reproduction must also be curbed; otherwise the success of the green revolution will be ephemeral only." This is long-term view is shared with Ehrlich, whose "Population Bomb" appears (based on the cut-off for non-subscribers) to be ridiculed by the author of this essay.
NoPie 4y ago
Good point. I am reading about him on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug This is really crazy stuff: >> Western European governments were persuaded to stop supplying fertilizer to Africa. According to David Seckler, former Director General of the International Water Management Institute, "the environmental community in the 1980s went crazy pressuring the donor countries and the big foundations not to support ideas like inorganic fertilizers for Africa."[36]
- sampo 4y ago
  And later the Western elites did it again: Quite successfully persuaded the 3rd world countries to not make use of the improved crop varieties that were bred with the assistance of gene technology.

Arnt 4y ago

When you put it like that, it sounds as if there was some other decision that same government could realistically taken at that time that would have improved Sri Lanka's state significantly. I think not. It was already close to disaster and not heading away. That government didn't have the ability (intellectual and/or financial resources) to turn around. The precise details of the decisions made shortly before the final disaster don't matter very much, and IMO definitely aren't the most significant reason. IMO that sudden organic lurch didn't help. But that single lurch didn't turn a sort of tropical Switzerland into a disaster zone.

NoPie 4y ago
The government could have tried to borrow money internationally to buy fertilizer. If properly presented the issue (such as great risk of starvation), the IMF or World Bank would have helped. Then they could export some crops and give the country more time to deal with debts and crises. And when covid is over, influx of tourists would have helped again. While there were many factors, it is quite possible that this one wrong decision was the straw that broke camel's back. But because currently green ideas are quite fashionable, the king was able to convince the government to accept this ill-fated deal about the switch to organic farming.