3 ms·

Probably the most consequential outcome of US-China cordiality in the early 1970s was that China contracted with US firms to build ammonia-fertilizer factories:

Probably the most consequential outcome of US-China cordiality in the early 1970s was that China contracted with US firms to build ammonia-fertilizer factories: > "In the early 1970s, China negotiated contracts with foreign firms for construction of thirteen large nitrogenous-fertilizer plants. By 1980 all thirteen plants had been completed, and ten were fully operational." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_and_industrial_history_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_and_industrial_h... By the early 1980s, China's food production was finally on a stable footing, and this was largely due to the import of "Green Revolution" technology enabled by the opening up of trade with the West: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture_in_China#Reform_of_the_agricultural_economy_in_the_1980s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture_in_Chin... It can be said with a fair degree of certainty that both the Soviet and Chinese systems of Communist authoritarianism prevented the kind of innovative approaches to agricultural production that the more open academic research environment in the United States encouraged. The contrast between Norman Borlaugh and Trofim Lysenko is somewhat instructive in that regard, and it seems Mao's China had no shortage of Lysenko types. Of course, the consequences of the Green Revolution, i.e. steep population growth and increased reliance on fossil fuels, were not really understood at the time, either. Now we sort of have the tiger by the tail, while steadily increasing climate stress is starting to undercut agricultural production, in China, India, Africa, Europe, the USA...

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
> Of course, the consequences of the Green Revolution, i.e. steep population growth The Green Revolution didn't cause population growth. That happens on its own. It did prevent massive famines. You have to be pretty far out in whackadoodle land (or a psychopath, or perhaps both) to think that's a bad thing. As an atheist, I can't really tell the Pope how to run his religion, but if there's anyone who deserves to be canonized I think it's probably Borlaug. He's even got a miracle under his belt.
- wahern 3y ago
  How does China's Yuan Longping (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_Longping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_Longping) stack up against Borlaug, in your opinion?
- photochemsyn 3y ago
  "The Wizard and the Prophet" is a very good read in that respect. It's about the contrasting views and results of these two scientists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Vogt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Vogt > "According to Charles C. Mann, "Vogt...laid out the basic ideas for the modern environmental movement. In particular, he founded what the Hampshire College population researcher Betsy Hartmann has called 'apocalyptic environmentalism'—the belief that unless humankind drastically reduces consumption and limits population, it will ravage global ecosystems." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug > "...an American agronomist who led initiatives worldwide that contributed to the extensive increases in agricultural production termed the Green Revolution. Borlaug was awarded multiple honors for his work, including the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal." Was one right, and the other wrong? Or perhaps there is a broader understanding, one that can incorporate both viewpoints.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    Environmental alarmists might not always be wrong, but they have been so far. I don't know why they hate their own species and wish to see it extinct, but then I am not a psychiatrist. Do you want the Star Trek future we've all dreamed about since we were kids? People like Borlaug will get us there if anyone can. They deserve your attention, not the likes of Vogt and Erlich and the others. The idea that somehow the maximum population of humans should be limited to single digit billions or even hundreds of millions should be disgusting to reasonable people.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

> Of course, the consequences of the Green Revolution, i.e. steep population growth The Green Revolution didn't cause population growth. That happens on its own. It did prevent massive famines. You have to be pretty far out in whackadoodle land (or a psychopath, or perhaps both) to think that's a bad thing. As an atheist, I can't really tell the Pope how to run his religion, but if there's anyone who deserves to be canonized I think it's probably Borlaug. He's even got a miracle under his belt.

wahern 3y ago
How does China's Yuan Longping (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_Longping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_Longping) stack up against Borlaug, in your opinion?
photochemsyn 3y ago
"The Wizard and the Prophet" is a very good read in that respect. It's about the contrasting views and results of these two scientists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Vogt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Vogt > "According to Charles C. Mann, "Vogt...laid out the basic ideas for the modern environmental movement. In particular, he founded what the Hampshire College population researcher Betsy Hartmann has called 'apocalyptic environmentalism'—the belief that unless humankind drastically reduces consumption and limits population, it will ravage global ecosystems." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug > "...an American agronomist who led initiatives worldwide that contributed to the extensive increases in agricultural production termed the Green Revolution. Borlaug was awarded multiple honors for his work, including the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal." Was one right, and the other wrong? Or perhaps there is a broader understanding, one that can incorporate both viewpoints.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  Environmental alarmists might not always be wrong, but they have been so far. I don't know why they hate their own species and wish to see it extinct, but then I am not a psychiatrist. Do you want the Star Trek future we've all dreamed about since we were kids? People like Borlaug will get us there if anyone can. They deserve your attention, not the likes of Vogt and Erlich and the others. The idea that somehow the maximum population of humans should be limited to single digit billions or even hundreds of millions should be disgusting to reasonable people.