11 ms·

Norman Borlaug

95 points by wr1472 13y ago

rochacbruno 13y ago
You are really believing that a man who supports GMOs and the increase of the consumption of wheat cereals saved a billion? We are in an era where people are trying to avoid GMO products and also trying a "gluten-free" diet because of the health damage of those 2 things.
- varjag 13y ago
  ..yes? For people dying from famine, the hipster nutrition trends are not on the radar.
  - slm_HN 13y ago
    Well, mankind didn't eat wheat for around a million years. Then after eating wheat for around 10,000 years we've only been eating Frankenwheat during the last century. So the "hipster fad" is actually the eating of wheat. It's not a natural food for mankind to be consuming.
    - jcborro 13y ago
      What species are you including in mankind? Cause homo sapiens (sapiens) haven't been around nearly that long...
    - bendmorris 13y ago
      "Natural" food is not necessarily good. "Unnatural" food is not necessarily bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
    - nkoren 13y ago
      Well, mankind didn't use medicine for around a million years. Then after using herbal medicines for around 10,000 years, we've only been using antibiotics during the last century. So the "hipster fad" is actually the using of medicine. It's not a natural thing for mankind to be doing. Well, mankind practiced almost universal cannibalism for around a million years [note: this is true]. Then after restricting cannibalism to certain tribes and certain occasions for around 10,000 years, we've only ceased cannibalism entirely during the last century. So the "hipster fad" is actually the lack of cannibalism. It's not a natural thing for mankind to not be consuming the brains of its vanquished enemies. Wash, rinse, and repeat.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  Borlaug won his Nobel based on selective breeding of crops. Do you really expect Borlaug to have known in the sixties what you know today about wheat / gluten? Gluten intolerance is a nice health problem to have for people who were previously starving.
- Luyt 13y ago
  A few related skeptoid episodes, with a few excerpts: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4239 http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4239 "Are gluten free diets really good for your general wellness?" Gluten free diets actually are necessary for some people, and advisable for others. [...] Yet those whose business is the sale of gluten free products would often have us believe that many more of us should buy them. [...] So think of gluten sensitivities in the same way you'd think of bee stings or peanut allergies: of great and very real concern to a small number of people, of some concern for a few more, and of no concern to the rest of us. Don't let anyone tell you that gluten is harming you in some way that's so far not supported by any science, or that you should avoid it for the purpose of general wellness. For most of us, gluten is our friend; but never forget that it is also, like many compounds, definitely harmful to some. http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4112 http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4112 "Are GMO crops dangerous, or a boon to mankind?" Nature's method of genetically hybridizing plants is cross pollination, and for most of human history, this is how farmers and scientists have created new and improved species of crops. [...] When it comes to food crops, the idea is to take the strengths of one plant strain, such as an immunity to a certain disease or a hardiness to certain adverse conditions, and transfer that strength to another plant strain that needs it. [...] and by 1962, a new strain of rice called IR8 was feeding people all over the world. IR8 was the first really big modified crop to make a real impact on world hunger.
  - pipeweed 13y ago
    1) So, the vast difference between a modern hybrid high-gluten version of wheat and the grain crops human's have adapted to is dismissed with an uncited "gluten is our friend". 2) Er, no, the question was about genetic modification, which is not the same as hybridization. Interesting how many people, who quite clearly know nothing about what they're writing, revel in the supposed scientific credibility the word "skeptic" gives them. This kind of drivel gives skeptics a bad name, making them look as ignorant as the unquestioning who blindly accept the opposite story.
    - ars 13y ago
      > So, the vast difference between a modern hybrid high-gluten version Modern wheat is not high gluten. It's actually probably lower gluten than what our ancestors had. They even invented https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorleywood_bread_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorleywood_bread_process in order to manage to work with the low gluten wheats that are common.
- w1ntermute 13y ago
  The only people who are avoiding GMOs because of "health damage" are hipsters like yourself without an ounce of scientific knowledge.
  - maxharris 13y ago
    Check out Amanda Maxham's GMOMonday. She writes about advances and setbacks in GMOs on a weekly basis with a level of clarity and flair I have not been able to find anywhere else: http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/author/amaxham/ http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/author/amaxham/
- guard-of-terra 13y ago
  I don't know about USA but in Russia people who avoid GMO are the older, perennialy scared of life, intolerant and homophobic demography who vote for Putin or who ever he brings forth. I mean, why would you do that if you actually took biology classes?
- jccalhoun 13y ago
  I was going to make a joke post about how he was really killing all those people with gluten but you beat me to it. Well done.
- Tuna-Fish 13y ago
  Gluten causes absolutely no health damage for 99%-99.5% of the population. If you are trying to avoid it without being diagnosed as a celiac, you are an idiot, as it is rather healthy unless your immune system has an adverse reaction to it.
  - simplethird 13y ago
    I'd like to know from what evidence you can state this so confidently. We live in a world where it is well understood that our understanding of human health and what substances are good / bad is not well understood. That's without saying anything in regards to how nutrition relates to how the body is being used, which complicates the matter considerably. How incredibly arrogant. And why is it "rather" healthy? I thought it causes "absolutely no health damage" for 6.9 of the 7 billion people out there?
    - Tuna-Fish 13y ago
      Well, let's put it this way. It is in no way any less healthy than anything else you eat. Gluten is a mixture of proteins that are all useful to the body, and while you can get those proteins from other sources, none are as cheap and plentiful as wheat. The beginning of agriculture caused an overall loss in lifespans, but in different agricultural societies the reduction was inversely correlated with primary crop protein content. If you restrict yourself to grass crops, high-gluten wheat is one of the most healthy things you can eat. (Only surpassed by properly cooked quinoa, because it has even more proteins than wheat.) > And why is it "rather" healthy? What is this, the fifth grade? I in no way implied any downside to gluten (to non-celiac people). > I thought it causes "absolutely no health damage" for 6.9 of the 7 billion people out there? And that would be correct.
      - simplethird 13y ago
        It's tempting to slice the reality of biology into over-simplistic models, but it's better to realize we have a ways to go. My intent was to point out that much to our chagrin, there is no set of food in which its members are "in no way any less healthy than anything else". What goes in this set and why are you so confident that they can be equated? Just trot out the line "mixtures of protein are all useful to the body"? Biology has only relatively recently established that not all proteins are created equal when held against the metabolic capabilities of a human. That even the context of those proteins matter. The field is only now experiencing an explosion in the ability to make truly meaningful models. I encourage you to look into the fields of life-extension to reinforce the fact that our bodies and ecologies like them are in no way perfect. There is currently no food that causes absolutely zero health damage. I only mentioned your use of rather (i.e. "to a certain degree") because it seemed funny to then in the same breath claim an absolute---that there is no degree to even consider. Where gluten lies in all of us this is up for debate because meaningful evidence interpreted in a dependable framework has yet to happen, as much as you'd like to think it's an utterly settled matter.
pessimizer 13y ago
The headline seems to be invented from whole cloth. Wikipedia doesn't have propagandistic headlines.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  Yeah, if you do a search for "Borlaug saved a billion" you'll find a lot of editorials with that title. There is a documentary too on YT. He is lionized for his contributions to agriculture in the developing world. I don't know the source of this sentiment, but it may well be deserved. http://yellowmagpie.com/norman-borlaug-about/ http://yellowmagpie.com/norman-borlaug-about/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1213295/Norman-Borlaug-father-green-revolution-saved-billion-starvation-dies-aged-95.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1213295/Norma...
- widdershins 13y ago
  The first paragraph of the article notes that he is often known as "The Man Who Saved A Billion Lives", and gives a citation.
_random_ 13y ago
So, he is to blame for overpopulation? Thanks very much!
- MayankGoyal 13y ago
  Yes, he impregnated every woman who wasn't already pregnant.
  - _random_ 13y ago
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2419858/Africas-population-set-double-2-4billion-2050-better-medicine-improved-health-care.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2419858/Africas-popu...
burningion 13y ago
Ah, not Borlaug again. Look, selective breeding and using fossil fuels for agriculture did increase output per unit of land. But the genetic specialization has weakened the previous genetic diversity of food. Rendering our food supply more brittle, because we've created plants which need a very precise, artificial environment filled with external inputs. Now, we've added GMOs, which have decreased genetic diversity even more. (Massive monoculture plantings all with the same genes, with even more artificial needs.) The reason sexual reproduction succeeded was it creates as diverse of a genome as possible. By reducing that process, and substituting what we think of as "better", and then making it so 80% of our food supply shares the same genome, we're really setting ourselves up for a fall. The mythology of Borlaug is that there are these scientists silently saving the world off in a corner, our own super hero nerds to look up to. But, we're talking about massive systems here, things we really don't have a clue about. Can we outrun the adaptations of biology with our own GM technology? Can we keep using fossil fuels to outpace what we should be getting out of food? And with genetic modification, we're always taking something away when we substitute something else. There is truly no free lunch there. The point being, don't believe the mythology, and don't think this is a solved problem. Yes, we created a lot of cheap food using fossil fuels and brittle plant genomes, but what comes next?
- zeckalpha 13y ago
  GMO does not force one to use monoculture farming techniques. In fact, there is work being done on using GMO to develop better polyculture species (like the three sisters). The future of farming is polyculture, organic, and GMO.
  - derleth 13y ago
    Ah, but GMO means Large Corporations, and Large Corporations are Inherently Evil. And that, I believe, is where their chain of logic pretty much stops.
- Tuna-Fish 13y ago
  Ah, not this stupid argument again. It's really easy to talk about decreasing genetic diversity when you have never known hunger. In India alone, the work of Norman Borlaug and his co-workers saved at least a hundred million lives. Before his intervention, large-scale famine and starvation in India was widely considered inevitable. Those are real people, whose lives you seem to weigh very little when you consider them against the still theoretical disadvantages of modern selective breeding.
realrocker 13y ago
Whenever I lose faith in the naive goodness of humans, I look up Norman Borlaug again. The sacrifices that man has made for the greater good might look trivial in the books of history but it saved a billion people from certain starvation. Mexico, India and Pakistan would have fallen to anarchy long ago if not for him. I agree corporations like Monsanto took his line of work to evil proportions, but I am grateful that the first hands to wield the weapon of GM crops were of Norman Borlaug. His legacy will never be forgotten and will always be a guiding light to states and statesmen for centuries to come.
IgorPartola 13y ago
If you are dying of hunger would you eat a Snickers bar? How about if you had to survive for a week on only Skittles? Would you die, leaving a note that says that you refuse to eat processed food? Is average life expectancy longer or shorter as a result of his work? Is quality of life better or worse?
ianstallings 13y ago
This post is a thinly veiled argument for GMOs and large scale agribusiness. Did it save billions? Obviously. Is it free from criticism because of that? Not a chance.
- derleth 13y ago
  But GMO and agribusiness also gets a lot of flak it doesn't deserve, based on faulty argumentation and outright lies.
  - ianstallings 13y ago
    I agree 100%. I fight that daily. My brother is staunchly against genetics manipulation and agribusiness in general. I'm just for using science and having some peer oversight myself :D
Sagat 13y ago
Although this might seem great on paper, he just created more intractable problems for future generations to have to deal with. Instead of focusing on the quantity of life, we should focus on the quality. Educate people instead of helping them make more children that will lead sad lives.
gregwebs 13y ago
I don't want anyone to starve, but lets not go overboard on the hero worshiping. Increasing carry capacity of the land can "save" people in the moment, but once the population catches up to the new carrying capacity we run into the same problems again unless something has changed in the meantime. Except that all the problems are worse because the new carrying capacity is * more brittle (as other commenters) have already pointed out * borrowed from unsustainable approaches such as converting fossil fuels to fertilizer Arguably many of the countries that implemented these approaches have been able to slow populations growth, possibly with the help of temporary food security from these approaches. I am just hoping for more intelligent conversation on the issue that helps people realize the true heros are those implementing sustainable technologies.
quadrangle 13y ago
I hate all these "saved people" bits. Every person ever still dies. Nobody gets "saved" from death, we get prolonged life or happier / healthier life. We could talk about reduced suffering. That stuff matters but just be accurate. There's no billion people saved, there's (arguably) billion people suffering less. Which isn't belittling anything.

95 points by wr1472 13y ago

You are really believing that a man who supports GMOs and the increase of the consumption of wheat cereals saved a billion? We are in an era where people are trying to avoid GMO products and also trying a "gluten-free" diet because of the health damage of those 2 things.

varjag 13y ago
..yes? For people dying from famine, the hipster nutrition trends are not on the radar.
- slm_HN 13y ago
  Well, mankind didn't eat wheat for around a million years. Then after eating wheat for around 10,000 years we've only been eating Frankenwheat during the last century. So the "hipster fad" is actually the eating of wheat. It's not a natural food for mankind to be consuming.
  - jcborro 13y ago
    What species are you including in mankind? Cause homo sapiens (sapiens) haven't been around nearly that long...
  - bendmorris 13y ago
    "Natural" food is not necessarily good. "Unnatural" food is not necessarily bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
  - nkoren 13y ago
    Well, mankind didn't use medicine for around a million years. Then after using herbal medicines for around 10,000 years, we've only been using antibiotics during the last century. So the "hipster fad" is actually the using of medicine. It's not a natural thing for mankind to be doing. Well, mankind practiced almost universal cannibalism for around a million years [note: this is true]. Then after restricting cannibalism to certain tribes and certain occasions for around 10,000 years, we've only ceased cannibalism entirely during the last century. So the "hipster fad" is actually the lack of cannibalism. It's not a natural thing for mankind to not be consuming the brains of its vanquished enemies. Wash, rinse, and repeat.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
Borlaug won his Nobel based on selective breeding of crops. Do you really expect Borlaug to have known in the sixties what you know today about wheat / gluten? Gluten intolerance is a nice health problem to have for people who were previously starving.
Luyt 13y ago
A few related skeptoid episodes, with a few excerpts: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4239 http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4239 "Are gluten free diets really good for your general wellness?" Gluten free diets actually are necessary for some people, and advisable for others. [...] Yet those whose business is the sale of gluten free products would often have us believe that many more of us should buy them. [...] So think of gluten sensitivities in the same way you'd think of bee stings or peanut allergies: of great and very real concern to a small number of people, of some concern for a few more, and of no concern to the rest of us. Don't let anyone tell you that gluten is harming you in some way that's so far not supported by any science, or that you should avoid it for the purpose of general wellness. For most of us, gluten is our friend; but never forget that it is also, like many compounds, definitely harmful to some. http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4112 http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4112 "Are GMO crops dangerous, or a boon to mankind?" Nature's method of genetically hybridizing plants is cross pollination, and for most of human history, this is how farmers and scientists have created new and improved species of crops. [...] When it comes to food crops, the idea is to take the strengths of one plant strain, such as an immunity to a certain disease or a hardiness to certain adverse conditions, and transfer that strength to another plant strain that needs it. [...] and by 1962, a new strain of rice called IR8 was feeding people all over the world. IR8 was the first really big modified crop to make a real impact on world hunger.
- pipeweed 13y ago
  1) So, the vast difference between a modern hybrid high-gluten version of wheat and the grain crops human's have adapted to is dismissed with an uncited "gluten is our friend". 2) Er, no, the question was about genetic modification, which is not the same as hybridization. Interesting how many people, who quite clearly know nothing about what they're writing, revel in the supposed scientific credibility the word "skeptic" gives them. This kind of drivel gives skeptics a bad name, making them look as ignorant as the unquestioning who blindly accept the opposite story.
  - ars 13y ago
    > So, the vast difference between a modern hybrid high-gluten version Modern wheat is not high gluten. It's actually probably lower gluten than what our ancestors had. They even invented https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorleywood_bread_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorleywood_bread_process in order to manage to work with the low gluten wheats that are common.
w1ntermute 13y ago
The only people who are avoiding GMOs because of "health damage" are hipsters like yourself without an ounce of scientific knowledge.
- maxharris 13y ago
  Check out Amanda Maxham's GMOMonday. She writes about advances and setbacks in GMOs on a weekly basis with a level of clarity and flair I have not been able to find anywhere else: http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/author/amaxham/ http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/author/amaxham/
guard-of-terra 13y ago
I don't know about USA but in Russia people who avoid GMO are the older, perennialy scared of life, intolerant and homophobic demography who vote for Putin or who ever he brings forth. I mean, why would you do that if you actually took biology classes?
jccalhoun 13y ago
I was going to make a joke post about how he was really killing all those people with gluten but you beat me to it. Well done.
Tuna-Fish 13y ago
Gluten causes absolutely no health damage for 99%-99.5% of the population. If you are trying to avoid it without being diagnosed as a celiac, you are an idiot, as it is rather healthy unless your immune system has an adverse reaction to it.
- simplethird 13y ago
  I'd like to know from what evidence you can state this so confidently. We live in a world where it is well understood that our understanding of human health and what substances are good / bad is not well understood. That's without saying anything in regards to how nutrition relates to how the body is being used, which complicates the matter considerably. How incredibly arrogant. And why is it "rather" healthy? I thought it causes "absolutely no health damage" for 6.9 of the 7 billion people out there?
  - Tuna-Fish 13y ago
    Well, let's put it this way. It is in no way any less healthy than anything else you eat. Gluten is a mixture of proteins that are all useful to the body, and while you can get those proteins from other sources, none are as cheap and plentiful as wheat. The beginning of agriculture caused an overall loss in lifespans, but in different agricultural societies the reduction was inversely correlated with primary crop protein content. If you restrict yourself to grass crops, high-gluten wheat is one of the most healthy things you can eat. (Only surpassed by properly cooked quinoa, because it has even more proteins than wheat.) > And why is it "rather" healthy? What is this, the fifth grade? I in no way implied any downside to gluten (to non-celiac people). > I thought it causes "absolutely no health damage" for 6.9 of the 7 billion people out there? And that would be correct.
    - simplethird 13y ago
      It's tempting to slice the reality of biology into over-simplistic models, but it's better to realize we have a ways to go. My intent was to point out that much to our chagrin, there is no set of food in which its members are "in no way any less healthy than anything else". What goes in this set and why are you so confident that they can be equated? Just trot out the line "mixtures of protein are all useful to the body"? Biology has only relatively recently established that not all proteins are created equal when held against the metabolic capabilities of a human. That even the context of those proteins matter. The field is only now experiencing an explosion in the ability to make truly meaningful models. I encourage you to look into the fields of life-extension to reinforce the fact that our bodies and ecologies like them are in no way perfect. There is currently no food that causes absolutely zero health damage. I only mentioned your use of rather (i.e. "to a certain degree") because it seemed funny to then in the same breath claim an absolute---that there is no degree to even consider. Where gluten lies in all of us this is up for debate because meaningful evidence interpreted in a dependable framework has yet to happen, as much as you'd like to think it's an utterly settled matter.

pessimizer 13y ago

The headline seems to be invented from whole cloth. Wikipedia doesn't have propagandistic headlines.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
Yeah, if you do a search for "Borlaug saved a billion" you'll find a lot of editorials with that title. There is a documentary too on YT. He is lionized for his contributions to agriculture in the developing world. I don't know the source of this sentiment, but it may well be deserved. http://yellowmagpie.com/norman-borlaug-about/ http://yellowmagpie.com/norman-borlaug-about/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1213295/Norman-Borlaug-father-green-revolution-saved-billion-starvation-dies-aged-95.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1213295/Norma...
widdershins 13y ago
The first paragraph of the article notes that he is often known as "The Man Who Saved A Billion Lives", and gives a citation.

_random_ 13y ago

So, he is to blame for overpopulation? Thanks very much!

MayankGoyal 13y ago
Yes, he impregnated every woman who wasn't already pregnant.
- _random_ 13y ago
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2419858/Africas-population-set-double-2-4billion-2050-better-medicine-improved-health-care.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2419858/Africas-popu...

burningion 13y ago

Ah, not Borlaug again. Look, selective breeding and using fossil fuels for agriculture did increase output per unit of land. But the genetic specialization has weakened the previous genetic diversity of food. Rendering our food supply more brittle, because we've created plants which need a very precise, artificial environment filled with external inputs. Now, we've added GMOs, which have decreased genetic diversity even more. (Massive monoculture plantings all with the same genes, with even more artificial needs.) The reason sexual reproduction succeeded was it creates as diverse of a genome as possible. By reducing that process, and substituting what we think of as "better", and then making it so 80% of our food supply shares the same genome, we're really setting ourselves up for a fall. The mythology of Borlaug is that there are these scientists silently saving the world off in a corner, our own super hero nerds to look up to. But, we're talking about massive systems here, things we really don't have a clue about. Can we outrun the adaptations of biology with our own GM technology? Can we keep using fossil fuels to outpace what we should be getting out of food? And with genetic modification, we're always taking something away when we substitute something else. There is truly no free lunch there. The point being, don't believe the mythology, and don't think this is a solved problem. Yes, we created a lot of cheap food using fossil fuels and brittle plant genomes, but what comes next?

zeckalpha 13y ago
GMO does not force one to use monoculture farming techniques. In fact, there is work being done on using GMO to develop better polyculture species (like the three sisters). The future of farming is polyculture, organic, and GMO.
- derleth 13y ago
  Ah, but GMO means Large Corporations, and Large Corporations are Inherently Evil. And that, I believe, is where their chain of logic pretty much stops.
Tuna-Fish 13y ago
Ah, not this stupid argument again. It's really easy to talk about decreasing genetic diversity when you have never known hunger. In India alone, the work of Norman Borlaug and his co-workers saved at least a hundred million lives. Before his intervention, large-scale famine and starvation in India was widely considered inevitable. Those are real people, whose lives you seem to weigh very little when you consider them against the still theoretical disadvantages of modern selective breeding.

realrocker 13y ago

Whenever I lose faith in the naive goodness of humans, I look up Norman Borlaug again. The sacrifices that man has made for the greater good might look trivial in the books of history but it saved a billion people from certain starvation. Mexico, India and Pakistan would have fallen to anarchy long ago if not for him. I agree corporations like Monsanto took his line of work to evil proportions, but I am grateful that the first hands to wield the weapon of GM crops were of Norman Borlaug. His legacy will never be forgotten and will always be a guiding light to states and statesmen for centuries to come.

IgorPartola 13y ago

If you are dying of hunger would you eat a Snickers bar? How about if you had to survive for a week on only Skittles? Would you die, leaving a note that says that you refuse to eat processed food? Is average life expectancy longer or shorter as a result of his work? Is quality of life better or worse?

ianstallings 13y ago

This post is a thinly veiled argument for GMOs and large scale agribusiness. Did it save billions? Obviously. Is it free from criticism because of that? Not a chance.

derleth 13y ago
But GMO and agribusiness also gets a lot of flak it doesn't deserve, based on faulty argumentation and outright lies.
- ianstallings 13y ago
  I agree 100%. I fight that daily. My brother is staunchly against genetics manipulation and agribusiness in general. I'm just for using science and having some peer oversight myself :D

Sagat 13y ago

Although this might seem great on paper, he just created more intractable problems for future generations to have to deal with. Instead of focusing on the quantity of life, we should focus on the quality. Educate people instead of helping them make more children that will lead sad lives.

gregwebs 13y ago

I don't want anyone to starve, but lets not go overboard on the hero worshiping. Increasing carry capacity of the land can "save" people in the moment, but once the population catches up to the new carrying capacity we run into the same problems again unless something has changed in the meantime. Except that all the problems are worse because the new carrying capacity is * more brittle (as other commenters) have already pointed out * borrowed from unsustainable approaches such as converting fossil fuels to fertilizer Arguably many of the countries that implemented these approaches have been able to slow populations growth, possibly with the help of temporary food security from these approaches. I am just hoping for more intelligent conversation on the issue that helps people realize the true heros are those implementing sustainable technologies.

quadrangle 13y ago

I hate all these "saved people" bits. Every person ever still dies. Nobody gets "saved" from death, we get prolonged life or happier / healthier life. We could talk about reduced suffering. That stuff matters but just be accurate. There's no billion people saved, there's (arguably) billion people suffering less. Which isn't belittling anything.