Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Father of Green Revolution, Norman Borlaug, Dies at 95

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the a-billion-here-a-billion-there dept.

Biotech 227

countincognito writes "Norman Borlaug, a genuinely remarkable man and the father of the Green Revolution in agriculture, has died of cancer at his Dallas home aged 95. His life's work on developing high-yield, disease-resistant crops has been credited with having saved an estimated one billion people from famine, and one billion hectares of forest and rainforest from being cleared for agricultural production."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

In his memory (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29406713)

He will be eaten by his friends and family later this evening.

Re:In his memory (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 5 years ago | (#29406781)

No, he will be eaten by his far descendants. And one day, you, too, shall be recycled. Soylent Green is medieval people!

Father of First Post, Anonymous Coward, fps at 95 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29406715)

eat my asshole, fags.

Public Enemy #1 (5, Insightful)

bluesatin (1350681) | more than 5 years ago | (#29406731)

And probably now heralded by most 'green' supporters as some sort of horrific monster that messed with nature to create these crops.

Re:Public Enemy #1 (-1, Troll)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 5 years ago | (#29406761)

Nice straw man argument used to attack environmentalists at the expense of eulogizing a truly great man.

Re:Public Enemy #1 (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29407247)

"Nice straw man argument used to attack environmentalists"

Bullshit. Norman Borlaug was attacked by these (self proclaimed) environmentalists from the moment his innovations started saving millions lives. From the wikiedpia entry:

"...Of environmental lobbyists he stated, "some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things""

Re:Public Enemy #1 (3, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407361)

A shame this guy posted as AC.

I have to admit - this story was published at the Houston Chronicle last night. I saw "green" in the title, and I clicked on it, intending to post some smart ass comments. As I read the story, I realized who was being discussed, and what he had accomplished. I do recall reading about him in the past - Mr. Borlaug was a truly remarkable man, worthy of all our respect.

That wasn't enough to make him a hero to some of the "green" movement's that are out to scalp you and I of our hard earned money to pay for "carbon credits" and assorted other bullshit.

Whatever - rest in peace, Mr Gorlaug. You have my respect and gratitude.

Re:Public Enemy #1 (5, Insightful)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 5 years ago | (#29406779)

And yet he undoubtedly saved millions from starvation through his work. The green nutters won't even think about it. They probably have no idea what was done to produce these crops - they wouldn't even care.

Scientists and engineers help find answers and solutions, radicals and reactionaries just complain. When they have a better solution for feeding the world, I'll take them seriously.

Re:Public Enemy #1 (3, Insightful)

32771 (906153) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407019)

>radicals and reactionaries just complain

Well fed people are notoriously difficult subjects to be dragged into a revolution.
So they don't just complain, they are worried about their loss of power.

Re:Public Enemy #1 (4, Insightful)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407103)

I wonder if that's true, though. I don't think many green protesters have a vested interest in keeping the world hungry. I suspect it's more that they want a cause to advocate, an issue to get angry about. It's much easier to get angry at a single identifiable corporation than it is to be angry at the faceless global economics that spawns hunger in the first place.

Furthermore I suspect that it's not them trying to protect their own power, but rather their attempt to feel powerful - to feel like they can make a difference when faced with forces that really are beyond their control. Demonstrate, hold a picket, get a law passed, go home and enjoy the high standard of living they now don't have to feel so guilty about because they scored a point for the team.

Re:Public Enemy #1 (-1, Troll)

bkpark (1253468) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407257)

I wonder if that's true, though. I don't think many green protesters have a vested interest in keeping the world hungry.

Sure they do. Why do you think they banned DDT use worldwide? DDT can effectively eliminate spread of malaria [aaenvironment.com] . But the environmentalists (and leftists) advocated for its ban [wikipedia.org] so that they can keep a diseased population in Africa, which now they can use to guilt-trip Americans and citizens of other developed nations into providing funds to their pet projects.

It doesn't take a conspiracy nut to see all this.

Re:Public Enemy #1 (2, Insightful)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407287)

... so that they can keep a diseased population in Africa, which now they can use to guilt-trip Americans and citizens of other developed nations into providing funds to their pet projects

Citation needed.

Re:Public Enemy #1 (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407409)

Likewise, oil can eliminate malaria. But, at what cost? Let's experiment - let's spread enough oil around the world to prevent any possibility that mosquitos can find enough clean water to breed in.

DDT is some deadly stuff, and I'm satisfied with the documentation that proves it.

Re:Public Enemy #1 (3, Informative)

Cadallin (863437) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407425)

Yeah, that it.

It nothing to do with DDT being a known Carcinogen, Neurotoxic, an abortifacient, terratogenic and an Endocrine disruptor in humans. Not a damn thing.

It doesn't take a conspiracy nut to see all this.

Why, yes, yes it does.

Re:Public Enemy #1 (2, Interesting)

32771 (906153) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407481)

I don't think so either but I'm forever puzzled about the motives of the greens.

I think, ultimately we have to make sure we understand how earth is supposed to look like and how we are going to keep it close to that.

Sometimes the greens are too averse to any human endeavour and often enough use the irrational fears people harbour, for political goals. Granted other parties do so as well, but somehow I have the impression some green groups activities are counter productive.

I can't rule out that I'm seeing it all wrong either. My greatest problem is not knowing the environmental footprint of whatever I'm doing.
I sense some educational gap there, that isn't closed by political debates though.

worth noting one additional thing (5, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#29406757)

A bit of an emendation:

His life's work on developing high-yield, disease-resistant crops and giving them away for free...

That's what fundamentally made him a good recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. He made high-yield new seeds, and encouraged farmers to use them, spread them, replant them in subsequent years, etc., giving them greater food security and freedom. He didn't, to the contrary, patent them, prohibit [monsanto.com] replanting seeds in subsequent years, and so on. That would have still increased crop yields, but would've made farmers dependent on Borlaug to buy seeds every year, which was the opposite of his intention.

Borlaug's invention only delayed a problem. (4, Insightful)

reporter (666905) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407001)

The invention, by Norman Borlaug, of disease-resistant crops only delayed the symptoms of the core problem: overpopulation.

Without his contribution, one billion people would have died of famine, and one billion hectares of forest would have been cleared. In other words, the ecosystem could only sustain one billion fewer people, and the existing population would have cleared one billions hectares of forest.

With his contribution, the ecosystem now sustains that additional 1 billion: the total number of mouths is 6 billion. There is now not a need to clear that additional billion hectares of forest.

However, the population continues to grow. It will reach such a size that famine will kill one billion people and that hunger will force the clearing of an additional billion hectares of forest.

Overpopulation is the root cause of many problems: energy shortage, famine, global warming, etc. The 4 horsemen of the apocalypse are approaching. We can already hear the hooves of the horses.

Ok, Chicken Little (5, Interesting)

linzeal (197905) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407095)

There is no such thing as overpopulation that can't be solved by re-engineering our cities/factories and changing our lifestyles. Yes, other species and ecosystems will be be strained and always have been by growing human populations but the idea that the earth can only sustain a certain amount of humans is both naive and absurd. The biomass during this epoch is far less than the Triassic and Jurassic periods when huge 20 ton monsters roamed the country eating a good part of their body weight per day. This went on for 10's of millions of years. Even Americans aren't that big yet. According to the 1970's chicken littles like yourself we should all be dead by now. Well, um that didn't happen because technology solved many of the problems that were emerging at the time and we will continue solving them contrary to naysayers like yourself.

Re:Ok, Chicken Little (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29407145)

You total fucking idiot.

Re:Ok, Chicken Little (2, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407173)

> There is no such thing as overpopulation that can't be solved by re-engineering our cities/factories and changing our lifestyles.

I'm not sure how you solve the problem of the estimated population of the earth in, say, 200 years if it continues increasing at the current rate. Quite apart from questions about the source of food and energy, packing more and more people into towns and cities is going to produce quite a lot of social problems when there is no countryside to escape from all the noise and pollution. Still, I'm sure science has the answer - perhaps MIT will come up with a jacket which incorporates a nuclear reactor and a prison.

Re:Ok, Chicken Little (1)

linzeal (197905) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407341)

Stop extrapolating this to the future, do you think people in 1809 could of imagined the progress we have made as a species? We don't need to increase the densities of cities we need to decrease the sprawling over-sized areas of the country that are used for farming. The city as it currently stands in most countries is slowly dissolving into neighborhood cities because the unifying feature if it ever had one is gone. There are no one employeer or even one industry cities anymore and the ones that tried it are turning to rust, being left on the tundra or are being taken over by dunes.

I ride my bike to work, school, groceries and the like 90% of the time because I live in PDX which worked on making their area more livable for decades. It cost money and the bike trails took up space and cost a decent amount of money to maintain but people use them. If we are going to solve the population DENSITY problem we need to start dismantling suburbia and making it livable for a more sustainable lifestyle, if you so choose.

Re:Ok, Chicken Little (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407949)

> Stop extrapolating this to the future, do you think people in 1809 could of imagined the progress we have made as a species?

Why should I stop extrapolating into the future? I'm talking about population increase - it's predictable. Look at the curve, and tell me which factors are going to make it slow down. Is having children going to become less popular, maybe?

Re:Ok, Chicken Little (2, Insightful)

VJ42 (860241) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407379)

I'm not sure how you solve the problem of the estimated population of the earth in, say, 200 years if it continues increasing at the current rate.

People were famously worrying [wikipedia.org] about overpopulation 200 years ago, I'm sure that 200 years in the future, we won't have run into a Malthusian Catastrophe, but people will still be worrying that we might.

Re:Ok, Chicken Little (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407711)

I think we're pretty safe for the next 200 years. But what about the next 200,000?

Re:Ok, Chicken Little (1)

Quothz (683368) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407793)

I'm not sure how you solve the problem of the estimated population of the earth in, say, 200 years if it continues increasing at the current rate.

If I were a betting man, I'd put my chips on nanotechnology to handle the bulk of it. But lots of people have proposed - and are working on - quite a few plausible solutions, including, but not limited to, colonization of other planets, arcologies on- and off-planet, and more efficient production of energy and crops.

Nobody's sure how it will be solved, but your lack of ideas appears to stem from a lack of looking for them.

Re:Ok, Chicken Little (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407691)

There is no such thing as overpopulation that can't be solved by re-engineering our cities/factories and changing our lifestyles.

There's only so much energy we receive from the sun, and only so much available land. Population growth is not infinitely sustainable. At some point (not necessarily soon) there will be overpopulation. It may happen at 10 billion people, it may happen at 100 billion people, but it will happen. Ignoring this fact will not make it go away.

MOD PARENT UP (1)

Vidar Leathershod (41663) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407979)

He makes an excellent point.

Fortunately Population Growth Rate is Slowing (1)

MaizeMan (1076255) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407127)

And crop yields are still going up (thank you technology). Overpopulation is bad. But since we keep expanding the number of people we can support without overpopulating the planet, and Paul Ehrlich was wrong about the population bomb, there's still hope to save the planet and not be party to mass starvations that exceed anything we've seen up till now in human history by an order of magnitude.

Re:worth noting one additional thing (-1, Offtopic)

Starcub (527362) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407077)

Yup, sure, he gave away these nice expensive seeds for humanitarian reasons. Problem is, many people in these countries don't want GM seed. So how many people are stepping up to the plate to donate free organic seed to those who want it?

I also question whether or not the seeds he made actually produced food that was better for the people. That was the claim for his work, but recent studies done regarding GM seed in the US have shown that organic is actually better for you, even if there is little difference in traditionally measured nutrients.

I find it interesting to hear people talking about how every "developed nation" in the world currently has the capability to produce not only enough food to feed their own populations, but excess as well. I find myself wondering how it is that we have to convert these people to a GM seed base now. Do we expect to get the additional 3 billion people in the world (in the next 50 years) through undeveloped nations that haven't the capability to grow their own food without GM products because of climate change?

I'm sorry you're wrong (5, Insightful)

MaizeMan (1076255) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407231)

1. Borlaug's wheat wasn't GM. He was saving hundred of million of people in the 1960s. GM crops weren't developed for another 30 years.
2. Seeds aren't organic. It's what you do to the them after you plant them that makes food organic or conventional.
3. Ask any of the Indian cotton pickers, who despite living on less than a dollar a day won't pick non-GM cotton because of the huge amount of pesticides they're exposed to, if they don't want GM crops.
4. Not having anything to eat (called starvation) has been proven by scientists to be bad for your health. Borlaug's wheat wasn't more nutritious, it produced more food on the same land, so people who otherwise would have starved didn't.
5. Most of current GM crops don't increase yield (though there's really cool stuff coming out over the next five years). BT crops reduce the use of toxic insecticides. Herbicide resistance crops let us switch from more toxic herbicides like atrazine to less toxic ones like glyphosate and also promote no-till agriculture which reduces the erosion of the top soil we'll need if we ever want to feed our grandchildren.

In conclusion, you seem to know nothing about these topics (food and agriculture and genetic engineering). If you're interested, educate yourself, I wish more people were engaged. Otherwise don't be surprised if no one takes you seriously.

Re:worth noting one additional thing (1)

jonadab (583620) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407687)

> Problem is, many people in these countries don't want GM seed.
> So how many people are stepping up to the plate to donate
> free organic seed to those who want it?

Umm, perhaps you should stop for a minute and go read the relevant history. You seem to be significantly confused about what did or did not take place. (Hint: the Green Revolution was mostly about educating farmers to quit killing the land with subsistence farming and do things like proper crop rotation. To the extent that seeds were distributed, it was to facilitate broader adoption of higher-yield crops and hardier cultivars thereof. I assure you, General Motors was not in any way involved.)

All about where the money comes from (2, Interesting)

MaizeMan (1076255) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407281)

His work was funded by the US Government, the Mexican Government, and the Rockefeller foundation among others. Seeds, like software, do more good for more people when they're free. But if we want more Norman Borlaugs, we (the public) need to support their research and their outreach to the farmers who need their help. Otherwise all the new breakthroughs will be made by for-profic companies like Monsanto with the negative intellectual property consequences you mention.

The best example of this I can think of is golden rice, which would be fighting vitamin A deficiency around the world, but still hasn't been released because of a lack of public funding for safety trials and introgressing the trait into the kinds of rice best adapted to different parts of the world.

Perspective, please (2, Informative)

mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#29408179)

He didn't, to the contrary, patent them, prohibit replanting seeds in subsequent years, and so on.

True, but that was possible only because his work was financed by the Rockefeller Foundation. Ironically, the biggest "robber baron" the world ever saw started a philantropic foundation that made possible the work of Dr. Norman Borlaug.

Now we know who to blame for... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29406763)

...overpopulation. The Earth had certain checks and balances to keep us in line for a reason.

Re:Now we know who to blame for... (2, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#29406797)

Hey, if you're so worried about overpopulation, I'm sure you'll take one for the team and off yourself right now, won't you?

-jcr

Re:Now we know who to blame for... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29406929)

Why is this the first line of attack anytime the subject of overpopulation comes up? There are at least a few ways to try to reduce the number of humans expected to be inhabiting this planet years from now other than "offing people". Contraception in poorer areas? Raising the standard of living to statistically lower the number of offspring parents have? Just jumping to "OMG OVERPOPULATION KILL YOURSELF LOLROFL!!@#" doesn't add anything to the debate.

Then again, if they're advocating committing mass murder or genocide for the sake of conserving resources...

Re:Now we know who to blame for... (1, Funny)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407025)

Why is this the first line of attack anytime the subject of overpopulation comes up?

It's my way of conveying how irritating you are. Truth to tell, I'd be happy to see you check out even if we already had a steady population.

-jcr

Re:Now we know who to blame for... (2, Insightful)

32771 (906153) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407237)

The checks and balances are still in place and killing an irritating voice won't change anything.

The problem is that antropomorphosizing earth and nature through giving them political tools like "checks and balances" doesn't really shed any light on the real problem that not all people have access to the education/knowledge that puts them in control of how many kids they will have.

There is nothing wrong about recognizing natures limits and living accordingly I would say.

What might arrise from using his particularly unfitting words is that some people may go ahead and enforce the checks and balances before "mother nature" does it, much like your need to keep the idiot count low.

Re:Now we know who to blame for... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29407439)

I apologize for not being clear... I was the author of the second anonymous coward post, not the original. I in no way endorse the views of the first, and understand your sentiment in your response to them. Feeding hungry people should never be denigrated. Nonetheless, jumping to the "just kill yourself if you think the world is overpopulated" line of attack doesn't really contribute anything to the conversation. The best way to fight ignorance isn't always to ridicule; sometimes, clarity of argument and thought goes a long way.

Re:Now we know who to blame for... (1)

32771 (906153) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407603)

>The best way to fight ignorance isn't always to ridicule; sometimes, clarity of argument and thought goes a long way.

Just to nag you a bit, sometimes putting your name on the line helps with the clarity of argument ;).

Re:Now we know who to blame for... (3, Funny)

poliscipirate (1636723) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407993)

Touche. First time contributor, long time lurker. =D

Re:Now we know who to blame for... (1)

bcmm (768152) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407081)

Not developing high-yield crops would have been indirect "offing people", so the suggestion was presumably intended to highlight the ridiculousness of blaming overpopulation on excessive food. It at least gave us some more time to try and lower birth rates before famine starts to kill people.

Re:Now we know who to blame for... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29407509)

Perhaps people are tired of those in the "green" movement giving their leaders a pass for flying on private jets and having huge homes while those same "greens" bitch at them because they dare have more than one child or because they drive a car. Al Gore uses more energy in 2 days than the typical family of 4 does in a year and no one calls him on it. When it comes time to have a "Green" meeting he doesn't teleconference he fly's a private jet.

Re:Now we know who to blame for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29407917)

..."greens" bitch at them because they dare have more than one child or because they drive a car.

The predominant view among environmentalists isn't quite so extreme. It's not that people shouldn't have children or drive cars but that people think carefully about such decisions and consider not just the impact of such decisions on themselves personally but also on the population of the world as a whole (including none human species).

What annoys the environmentalists is when someone does something that (slightly) degrades the quality of life of everyone on the planet for bogus reasons (e.g. I'm having lots of children not because I enjoy the process of raising children but because I subscribe to a bizarre mythology that some sort of "God" entity wants me to.)

Use contraception, not starvation (3, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407157)

...overpopulation. The Earth had certain checks and balances to keep us in line for a reason.

There are more human ways to control overpopulation. Limited food supplies is the way it works in nature, but we humans should use our intelligence.

Dr. Borlaug himself was aware of the overpopulation problem, but that's something for politicians and religious leaders to solve, a scientist should do his best to alleviate human suffering, even if it should create other problems.

Just delayed the inevitable (4, Insightful)

plopez (54068) | more than 5 years ago | (#29406787)

Sooner or later you hit a limiting resource. Land, water, energy etc. A better investment would have birth control and birth control education.

Re:Just delayed the inevitable (4, Insightful)

Courageous (228506) | more than 5 years ago | (#29406851)

First world nations tend to have negative population growth rates, except by immigration influx, or population growth amongst recent-generation immigrants.

C//

Re:Just delayed the inevitable (4, Informative)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407177)

The example of certain welfare states shows that this is true only for a time. Eventually, once the government makes it effortless to raise children, birthrates start going back up. There was an article in Helsingin Sanomat, Finland's biggest newspaper, a week or so ago about this. Finland provides clothes, meals, books and even a cradle for every child, and maternity leave is generous. Parents don't have to make many sacrifices at all to rear children here.

Re:Just delayed the inevitable (2, Insightful)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407751)

Which is rather smart on behalf of Finland. The middle and upper class of the country might gripe at the higher taxes, but what's really important? Letting the wealthier folks blow their money on SUVs and oversized houses or making sure their people don't become drowned by a flood of immigrants.

Re:Just delayed the inevitable (1)

jonadab (583620) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407761)

> First world nations tend to have negative population growth rates

Yes, but first-world nations generally don't have a big problem with starvation anyway. It was the other part of the world where the Green Revolution really had an impact. So I would say the low pop-growth rates in first-world nations aren't really very relevant to the question of whether the Green Revolution was a good thing. The high population growth rates in the third world are more to the point. The other poster was saying that since continual population growth would eventually max out the food production capacity anyway, the Green Revolution wasn't really beneficial. For the record, I do not endorse his reasoning; I'm only saying that your answer doesn't do a very good job of arguing the contrary position.

Thomas Malthus called (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29406895)

He wants his theory back.

Re:Just delayed the inevitable (2, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 5 years ago | (#29406917)

Yes, but once we reach this goal, it will certainly be better to produce the necessary amount of food using just the necessary minimum of arable land. In other words, just because we still don't have good batteries for our electric cars does not necessarily mean that we will stop improving our electric motors.

Re:Just delayed the inevitable (2, Insightful)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 5 years ago | (#29406983)


Sooner or later you hit a limiting resource. Land, water, energy etc.

Which is the same theory Thomas Malthus [wikipedia.org] had in the early 1800s. Fortunately for us he turned out to be wrong.

A better investment would have birth control and birth control education.

People don't have a lot of children because they don't understand what birth control is. People have a lot of children in high mortality rate parts of the world to guarantee some of them will live to adulthood. Part of the mortality rate is from malnutrition. Birth control and education are also part of the solution. But frankly nobody is going to be taking birth control and extending their educations when they can't feed themselves.

Re:Just delayed the inevitable (1)

plopez (54068) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407029)

Anywhere you have a limiting resource, Malthus is right. Water, potable water, enough arable land, food, proper distribution of food Malthus is right.

In those situations you have 2 choices; misery or live within those resource boundaries.

Re:Just delayed the inevitable (2, Interesting)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407199)

Malthus argued that we can never rise above subsistence poverty because the population will always expand to consume the resources. He was wrong about that since he didn't foresee people voluntarily controlling birth rates once their children gained the ability to survive with a high likelihood.

Re:Just delayed the inevitable (2, Funny)

plopez (54068) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407279)

Not true. See Mormons, Catholics and some other religous groups who are in wealthy developed nations and yet maintain high birth rates.

Re:Just delayed the inevitable (1)

32771 (906153) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407649)

Yup, a flat earth could technically be infinite in size.

Re:Just delayed the inevitable (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407825)

If the universe was Euclidean. Which it is not.

Re:Just delayed the inevitable (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#29408061)

From what I've understood it's more about social security, let's face it not that long ago being old and childless was rather nasty. In practice you depended on your children for economic support, caring for you and if you didn't have anyone there was really noone to take care of you. With more children you split the burden, of course higher survival rates lowers the risk but I don't think that's the main driver. These days it can still be lonely and I'm not saying the minimum pension is great, but most people live decent sunset years regardless of how many children they have. Sure most people want a family and children, but not that need that drives you into having ten kids.

Re:Just delayed the inevitable (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29407147)

You just made the same mistake that the non-technical general public makes about the Y2K bug. The engineers and system designers who first raised attention that the Y2K bug would be a serious problem if left unaddressed weren't wrong. By the fortune of their foresight, we spent a great deal of money and labor to put fixes in across the global IT space. Y2K came and went without a hitch, and now the general public thinks it was all baloney. But it only went without a hitch because we identified an unsustainable practice and allocated the resources to change it. Thanks to Malthus, we similarly identified unsustainable aspects of our agricultural and socio-economical practices, and made the necessary changes. And just as Y2K not leading to meltdown doesn't mean we can ignore the Y2K38 problem, the fact that we worked to avoid catastrophic effects of excess resource use once doesn't mean we can ignore the issue when it rises again.

Re:Just delayed the inevitable (1)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407515)

Which is the same theory Thomas Malthus had in the early 1800s. Fortunately for us he turned out to be wrong.

No, you're assuming too short of a time scale for the experiment.

Re:Just delayed the inevitable (0, Troll)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407115)

The only thing limited about our resources is our willingness to learn how to manage them properly. We spend most of them for stratification, to exclude each other from their use with our fences, than anything else. Does anybody think that Africa would be "starving" were it not for all the wars and poaching of those resources by outsiders? "Green" revolution...Pfft! Try a PEACE revolution. And let some big, giant Roomba do your harvesting for you. That'll leave you some time to chase the wife around the hut for awhile...

Re:Just delayed the inevitable (2, Insightful)

dbet (1607261) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407175)

By that logic, saving any life is just delaying the inevitable since you don't actually make them immortal.

Everything that makes life better for more people is only delaying the inevitable, that doesn't mean it isn't good or isn't worthy of recognition.

Re:Just delayed the inevitable (2, Insightful)

bkpark (1253468) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407201)

Sooner or later you hit a limiting resource. Land, water, energy etc. A better investment would have birth control and birth control education.

I don't know about you, but sooner or, for example, 200 years later does seem like a big difference.

I certainly wouldn't be alive today if Malthusian prediction came true in his time, and I personally might go through a lot of hardship (even in U.S. high food cost has its prices) today if it hadn't been for the Green Revolution.

And who knows? Maybe if we delay "the inevitable" long enough we can leave this rock and find resources in far flung places. I suppose then some wise guy will say that the free energy of the Universe is limited but I guess there's just something about naysayers.

Green != Environmentalism (5, Informative)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 5 years ago | (#29406791)

Just so slashdotters are aware, Norman Borlaug acted primarily as a humanitarian. His goals often intersected with common sense efforts in ecological preservation and education, but don't go off misinterpreting his "Green Revolution" as an environmental movement just because of the word Green. His greatest goals and achievements were the alleviation of human suffering and famine, and he typically pursued environmental goals as methods of achieving this, not as ends in themselves.

Re:Green != Environmentalism (2, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#29406953)

In a political sense I agree he wasn't part of any mainstream environmental movement, but from his writings, he was clearly interested in environmental issues, and they were one of his motivating factors as well. In particular, two of his goals were to: 1) slow down deforestation by increasing yield of existing farmland; and 2) reduce the usage of pesticides by engineering hardier crops.

Re:Green != Environmentalism (1)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407117)

I'm pretty sure most people who want to "save the planet" are actually motivated by a need to make sure the Earth continues to be habitable by human beings. The Earth isn't going anywhere for a few billion years even if we cause catastrophic nuclear winter or global warming. Humanity is a lot more fragile.

In that sense, they're just as "selfish" as Norman Borlaug. Then again, nobody else has been credited with saving one billion lives that I know of, so anybody who remotely suggests he's selfish is being a condescending asshole.

Shut the fuck up bacon bits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29407347)

This is a thread about using straw men to attack the enviro-nazi's who want to take away our SUV's and make us stop eating bacon!!!! The thread discussing the issues rationally is on metafilter.

And are things now worse? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29406893)

Because those 1 billion people he saved had X billion children that are now facing starvation. I guess we'll just need to keep increasing crop yields rather than deal with the ultimate problem. When people have food they try and make more people, even if feeding those new people is untenable.

Re:And are things now worse? (3, Insightful)

shawb (16347) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407261)

On a basic level you are right, but that is not the whole picture. Indeed, a misguided but well intentioned "caretaker" providing food for a feral cat colony will indeed be causing greater suffering than they alleviate as the queens are able to have more and larger litters. This leads to extreme levels of competition for all other resources and the rampant spread of disease. However, there are more nuanced features of population dynamics that have to be considered. When there is a low chance of offspring surviving to reproduction, organisms (including people) tend to have MORE offspring, rather than fewer. In fact, they will have tend to have offspring at a rate that is greater than that which is necessary to maintain population size, because otherwise in the long run you would likely become a genetic dead end. Having this increased birth rate leads to more population stress, leading to lowered rates of survival to breeding age, thus birth rate is increased via breeding earlier and more often. This leads to dramatic boom cycles, followed by bust cycles when the local environment's production capacity is temporally exceeded. These bust/boom cycles, in turn, lead to even higher birthrates per breeding female... and so on.

But, by altering the local environment to increase the chances of an individual offspring making it to adulthood, technological societies reduce the dependence on high birth rate to maintain a genetic lineage. Increased access to nutritional food, clean water, and basic health care will increase survivorship leading to a short lived population boom, but at this time the perceived value of an individual life is increased somewhat. The key here is allowing some level of self interest where a person can pursue goals which are not merely survival oriented, but for the long term betterment of themselves, and thus society.

Our ability to manipulate our environment such that a literally supernatural proportion of children survive to adulthood, and thus the care this affords us to put into each individual child, allows human beings to place an extraordinarily high value on an individual life: contrary to the opinion that many have of humans being a violent species, our rate of intraspecific killing is about 1/1000th that of the average animal. This lower rate of person on person killing of course leads to higher value of human life, so more care put into an individual child and therefore lower birth rates. As has been pointed out elsewhere, this is to the point that most Westernized societies actually have negative internal population growth (I.E. death rate minus birth rate) and population sizes are only increasing due to immigration from poorer places with higher population growth.

Ten billion hectares is a LOT ... (3, Interesting)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 5 years ago | (#29406899)

That's 10,000,000 km^2 or larger than Canada, only Russia is larger [wikipedia.org] .

That page mentions this: The total land area of the world is 148,940,000 km2 (57,510,000 sq mi)[3] (about 29.1% of the Earth's surface area).. In other words, what he did prevented the clearing of 6.7 percent of the Earth's surface for agriculture.

I find that figure a little difficult to believe, but I don't know that much about agriculture or what kind of impact deforestation for agriculture has. I did find this bit on forests [wikipedia.org] though:

These plant communities presently cover approximately 9.4% of the Earth's surface (or 30% of total land area)

So what he did saved about 20% of the total forested areas from clearing.

Again, a bit difficult to believe, but whatever.

Re:Ten billion hectares is a LOT ... (3, Informative)

vlm (69642) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407151)

I find that figure a little difficult to believe, but I don't know that much about agriculture or what kind of impact deforestation for agriculture has.

I suspect you've never chopped down a tree or pulled a stump? Logging is hard work with western mechanization, but in third world conditions, doing it by hand must be unbelievably difficult.

For some background, check out the wikipedia link "In Pakistan, wheat yields nearly doubled, from 4.6 million tons in 1965 to 7.3 million tons in 1970"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug#Expansion_to_South_Asia:_The_Green_Revolution [wikipedia.org]

If you want to double your production (and who doesn't?) its pretty hard to justify the immense effort of clearing land, when you can simply import genetically superior seeds...

Re:Ten billion hectares is a LOT ... (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407625)

I wasn't doubting what he did was a good thing, nor am I questioning the "billion lives saved". I'm just questioning the billion hectares/10 million km^2 figures. I'm questioning the figure which is quoted from someone's speech to congress.

The billion lives I can believe with the amount of people living in 3rd world countries and the population growth they have. But preventing deforestation of 20% of the world's forests? That figure I doubt.

Re:Ten billion hectares is a LOT ... (3, Informative)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407211)

His work increased the yields of most major crops by a factor of 4. That simply means that in order to get the same food output you would have to increase the amount of land under cultivation by a factor of 4.

That this would exceed the area of Canada should not be a great surprise.

The environmental and human impact of this work is left as an exercise to the reader.

Borlaug is firmly in the running as the greatest human benefactor.

Overpopulation results (-1, Troll)

hessian (467078) | more than 5 years ago | (#29406911)

Great, glad for this "green revolution." But:

What about the massive agricultural pollution that results?

Species depletion owing to use of too much land?

Global warming from all the carbon?

Even more, a population freight train we can't stop?

Overpopulation is the original Ponzi scheme: "but people like it, and there's more of them now, so more people like it, so I get paid, and someone else will fix it... sometime in the future when I'm dead, hopefully."

Re:Overpopulation results (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29406945)

yep that is the plan, Rather then allowing people to starve to death today we hope someone can find a better way tomorrow.

Re:Overpopulation results (5, Informative)

MaXintosh (159753) | more than 5 years ago | (#29406985)

What you fail to appreciate is that he changed the rules of the game. Where using previous crops, the world could only support x number of people, using his enriched crops, the world could support X+Y people. He increased the efficiency of agriculture, and thereby bushed back the numeric threshold for 'overpopulation' considerably. And since you can get more crops from less land, there was less species depletion, more concentrated land impact, and less ag pollution because of reduced fertilizer needs.

Are there still problems? Yeah. But this guy was a giant, and too an overwhelming problem and made it a little less insurmountable.

Re:Overpopulation results (3, Informative)

bkpark (1253468) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407375)

And since you can get more crops from less land, there was less species depletion, more concentrated land impact, and less ag pollution because of reduced fertilizer needs.

Despite all the great things about Green Revolution, reduced fertilizer use isn't one of them [wikipedia.org] . The high-yield crops outperform the traditional crops under "certain conditions", and that certain conditions are: (1) high pesticide use, to counteract the possibility of widespread pest due to the monoculture nature of high-yield crops, (2) high fertilizer use, since just basic chemistry tells you that it would need more nutrients to produce more seeds, (3) high water use, for the same reason.

Green revolution may have helped reduce the overall use of these three things per capita and help concentrate the use to limited area of lands, but I wouldn't be so hasty to claim that without some proof somewhere—and since this is a case of what might have been, chances are, it's hard to prove it one way or another.

Re:Overpopulation results (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407773)

Actually reduced fertilizer use is one of them because the varieties grown are more efficient in producing food in the following ways:

Less land in cultivation = less wasted fertilizer
Better grain rust resistance = less losses of crops (and therefore fertilizer)
Better plant structure (stronger shorter stems) = more efficient harvesting

Re:Overpopulation results (1)

bkpark (1253468) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407875)

Well, as I said, I recognize that possibility: even though a single planting of high-yield variety does use more fertilizer than a single planting of normal variety, in terms of how many people they feed, high-yield variety may use less.

But where is the proof or some sort of concrete evidence? Without it, all we can say is that cultivating high-yield variety is highly dependent on heavy fertilizer use. I don't want to miss the forest for the trees, but right now, all I have are evidences that some trees (i.e. what happens in small scale) exist, but no indication to the size or character of a forest that may or may not exist.

Re:Overpopulation results (2, Insightful)

bcmm (768152) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407013)

Great, glad for this "green revolution." But:

What about the massive agricultural pollution that results?

Species depletion owing to use of too much land?

"High-yield, disease-resistant crops" reduce both of these.

Global warming from all the carbon?

Which carbon?

Even more, a population freight train we can't stop?

You think global famine would be a good way to stop it?

Re:Overpopulation results (1)

bcmm (768152) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407047)

(Pressed submit instead of preview...)

Would you volunteer to be one of the people who starves to prevent overpopulation?

Not to mention that any famine that doesn't wipe out the human race would results in only temporary population drop. The only solution that doesn't involve basically killing people by one method or another is to lower birth rates. To this end, I suggest that religion gets banned.

Re:Overpopulation results (2, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407053)

Wars are caused by 3 things, the top being food. One man actually was able to remove one cause that's plagued mankind for the last 20,000 years with science. For his credit, he even went as far as to push it into Africa. Unfortunately, when you have a vastly unstable region with no government control you can only do so much.

Nah this guy is one of histories greatest individuals. If only the ignorant actually understood what he actually achieved, and what high-yield crop farming could do, they'd figure out that Africa could feed the world, and you wouldn't even need to worry about hunger anywhere.

Than again, maybe you're one of those assholes who believe in positive population checks. You know, all war is good war, all diseases that wipeout mankind are good, and all starvation that keeps the peasants dead are good.

Re:Overpopulation results (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407143)

25,000 die a day from lack of food; Borlaug reduced the problem but he was not able to eliminate it in his lifetime unfortunately. Problem is, yield increases (whilst absolutely essential of course) are only part of the problem. There is enough food produced in the world now to feed everybody, but most of it is wasted or deliberately destroyed.

Borlaug's work, whilst incredibly impressive, is unfinished.

Re:Overpopulation results (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407213)

Borlaug's work, whilst incredibly impressive, is unfinished.

Agreed. The shame of it is, it may very well take another global catastrophe that we were facing in the '50's to get another man like hm.

Re:Overpopulation results (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407735)

The primary reason for this is interference by environmental groups preventing the dissemination of Borlaug's methods in Africa.

These idiots should have to experience a famine personally.

Re:Overpopulation results (2, Insightful)

Weedhopper (168515) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407101)

You have it exactly backwards, my friend.

The population is already there.

Norman Borlaug, by increasing crop yield per area REDUCED the amount of land used for agriculture. This also has the effect of REDUCING deforestation, thereby INCREASING atmospheric carbon loading. By increasing the pest resistance of the crop REDUCED agricultural pollution.

Re:Overpopulation results (1)

Weedhopper (168515) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407133)

Whoops, to read decreasing carbon loading.

The Greatest Living American (2, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407155)

... is no more.

Future generations will scarcely believe that such a man walked the earth.

one word (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29407219)

MONSANTO

read about it!

hidden costs of the green revolution (0, Troll)

longtailedhermit (1544819) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407405)

1 - large scale energy intensive ag controlled by multinational corporations has replaced and displaced subsistence and native farmers
2- exacerbated unfair land distribution
3 - creation of single ubiquitous strains of crops farmed only in 1 country increases risk of ag. collapse
4 - heavy reliance on pesticides and herbicides
5 - erosion of biodiversity
6 - overall food security
7 - decline in quality of diet

Not a great man (0)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407419)

The so called green revolution if anything had no net impact on global hunger and starvation as it simply does not address the core cause: overpopulation. It sounds great to increase yeild, but the reason we had a food shortage in the first place was growth that outstripped supply. Unless the growth is arrested, you will end up right back where you were before, with billions starving, and thats where we are today. There are more children starving to death today than ever before in the past. This is not success, this is failure to recognise real solutions in zero population growth. Eventually you will hit a limit as to how much the chemicals and breeding will improve yeild. You just cant make plants grow in the desert. So the idea that we can yield our way out of famine is futile.

Furthermore, aggressive farming techniques are causing loss of topsoil and depletion of soil quality which reduces th nutritional density of food. 60% of agricultural pesticides are carcinogenic and as such we are causing an increase possibly in death and reduction in quality of life due to mutagenic and cancer disorders and birth defects, a whole array of toxic effects, even reduced IQ and mental retardation. Maybe this is just me but i seem to see an increasing stagnation in artistic and mental development, and intellect as time goes by compared to past centuries.

Population growth is also fueling the global warming problem and destruction of the carbon sink, oxygen producing and biodiversity harboring forests on many continents including north and south america. This is leading to extinction of many plant and animal species which vanish off the face of the earth forever. This coms with a loss of human quality of life that comes from the quality that scenic beauty and wilderness recreation adds to our lives, and as well thinghs like bird watching, botany and animal watching.

Genetically modified organisms have been proven to cause cancer, liver and kidney damage, allergies and have less nutrients and more antinutrients than regular non GMO foods. GMOs should not be confused however with cross bred plants. Cross bred plants are safe by comparison. GMO introduces entirely new, scientifically documented, deadly consequences for humans and the entire environment. The documentation and scientific evidenc is clear, GMOs are a deadly experiment that is ruining peoples health. Read th book Seeds of Deception by Jeffrey Smith for more info. The only reason that the GMOs were ever approved was due to bribes from large corporations to politicians. If the decision were based on a precautionary principle and public health, they would have never been approved. The studies of cancer, mortality and liver and kidney damage is shocking and is simply ignored by the agribusiness lapdog FDA which is basically a part of the agribusiness corporations. GMOs are a great danger and cannot be underestimated. Even without a nefarious intent it is dangerous, but it is purely greed and profit motivated, and furthermore could be used for other evil agendas by controlling peoples bodies through engineering and designing food to cause certain physical effects in the body. At least nature does not have such agendas. Humans have evolved for millions of years to consume naturally coded food. GMOs by crossing species boundary and violating normal limits and safeguards of natural breeding, implement entirely novel protiens which would not occur in nature. The body does not know how to deal with this and often its like throwing a wrench into that delicate system. hence rats fed GMOs develop cancers, high mortality and kidney and liver issues.

Overall all of this stuff is basically going to kill us and destroy our quality of living and our planet. I dont want your pesticide contaminated GMO shit, no thanks.

Re:Not a great man (2, Interesting)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407695)

The so called green revolution if anything had no net impact on global hunger and starvation as it simply does not address the core cause: overpopulation.

Your statement is completely incorrect. Famine does not exist to any great extent today, 40 years after Borlaug's seeds went to Pakistan. At the very least Borlaug bought us 40 years to solve the popultion problem, and probably longer since the growth rate of world population has decreased due to improved economic conditions in much of the world.

As far as pesticides, there is no epidemiological study that backs up your wild claims. And as far as topsoil erosion, that issue has largely been resolved by no or low till farming. And in any case why would Borlaug's work have any negative impact on that at all - in fact by reducing the amount of land in cultivation it has had a remarkable beneficial effect on stopping desertification and soil erosion that we saw so dramatically in the American Midwest in the 1930s, and we still see in the sub-saraha where politics has kept traditional farming techniques and rampant famines ongoing.

If we were to go back to traditional farming methods we would have to reduce the world population by a factor of 4 in order to keep the amount of cultivated land where it is today.

Since you seem to feel so strongly about this issue I STRONGLY recommend that you do your personal best to reduce the overpopulation problem immediately.

Re:Not a great man (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407733)

Oh no! Cancer and liver problems! That's sure a lot worse than starvation.

a misguided approach (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29407745)

Better food production was important until maybe the early 20th century, but beyond the point where a single farmer can support dozens of non-farmers, more efficient food production doesn't help anymore.

Beyond that point, the effect of the "green revolution" has simply been new population growth until disease, environmental destruction, famine, and war limit population size again. Worse yet, a lot of the techniques of the "green revolution" are unsustainable, have caused social upheaval, and have cause traditional, sustainable methods to disappear.

Overall, we're worse off with these methods than we would be otherwise.

Re:a misguided approach (2, Insightful)

scourfish (573542) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407843)

Beyond that point, the effect of the "green revolution" has simply been new population growth until disease, environmental destruction, famine, and war limit population size again.

War, disease, and population growth happen regardless. If people are farming just to eat, they can't afford any sort of education, entertainment, or intellectual stimulation; but guess what form of recreation is free? Likewise, people who are well fed and don't have to spend their entire life just trying to grow some food to stay alive, have the time and resources for the above things; most importantly, education. You can say "well, they should have brought education/birth control before you brought food" all they want, but realistically, if people are starving, they aren't going to care about what you say in those regards because they're too busy trying find something to fill the void and hunger pang; in fact, they just might kill you for your sandwich if you had one. It's called desperation.

Worse yet, a lot of the techniques of the "green revolution" are unsustainable, have caused social upheaval, and have cause traditional, sustainable methods to disappear.

Overall, we're worse off with these methods than we would be otherwise.

Traditional methods disappear because they're terribly inefficient. Subsistence farming is a terrible way to live, and I'd rather have a soulless, mechanical, factory farm supplying food to a group than having the population uneducated because they don't have time for any other sort of education, entertainment, or intellectual stimulation.

Overall, we're worse off with these methods than we would be otherwise.

I fail to see hundreds of millions of people suffering from starvation to be "better off otherwise"

Kind to be cruel (1)

Archtech (159117) | more than 5 years ago | (#29407755)

"His life's work on developing high-yield, disease-resistant crops has been credited with having saved an estimated one billion people from famine..." ...allowing them to give birth to, and raise to adulthood, an estimated 2-3 billion more people, who in turn...

Awards (3, Informative)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 5 years ago | (#29408051)

Bolaug is one of two Americans and the only scientist to have won:

The Congressional Gold Medal
The Presidential Medal of Freedom
The Nobel Peace Prize

The other winners are Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela and Elie Wiesel.

The following is a list of Norman E. Borlaug's major awards and honors:

- Nobel Peace Prize, 1970.

- Election to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 1970 and nine Foreign Academies.

- Aztec Eagle, Government of Mexico, 1970.

- Outstanding Agricultural Achievement Award, World Farm Foundation (USA), 1971.

- Presidential Medal of Freedom (USA), 1977.

- Jefferson Award, American Institute for Public Service, 1980.

- Distinguished Achievement Award in Food and Agricultural Sciences, Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (USA), 1982.

- The Presidential World without Hunger Award: Educator/Scientist category (USA), 1985.

- The 1988 Americas Award, The Americas Foundation (USA).

- Jefferson Lifetime Achievement Award (USA), 1997.

- Altruistic Green Revolution Award, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, 1998.

- Recognition Award for Contributions to World Wheat and Maize Research and Production, Republic of El Salvador, 1999.

- Dedication of Norman E. Borlaug Center for Southern Crop Improvement, Texas A&M University, 1999.

- Vannevar Bush Award, National Science Foundation (USA), 2000.

- Memorial Centennial Medial of the N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry (Russia), 2000.

- Public Welfare Medal, National Academy of Sciences (USA), 2002.

- The 2002 Rotary International Award for World Understanding and Peace, Barcelona, Spain.

- The Philip Hauge Abelson Prize, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2002.

- Award for Distinguished Achievements to Science and Medicine, American Council of Science and Health, 2003.

- National Medal of Science (USA), 2004.

- Padma Vibhushan in Science and Engineering, awarded by the Government of India, 2006.

- Norman Borlaug Institute for International Agriculture created as part of the Texas A&M University System, 2006.

- Congressional Gold Medal, 2006.

- Honorary Degrees:

Punjab Agricultural University (India), 1969
Royal Norwegian Agricultural College (Norway), 1970
Luther College (USA), 1970
Kanpur University (India), 1970
Uttar Pradesh Agricultural University (India), 1971
Michigan State University (USA), 1971
Universidad de la Plata (Argentina), 1971
University of Arizona (USA), 1972
University of Florida (USA), 1973
Universidad Católica de Chile (Chile), 1974
Universität Hohenheim (Germany), 1976
Punjab Agricultural University, (Pakistan), 1978
Columbia University, (USA), 1980
Ohio State University (USA), 1981
University of Minnesota (USA), 1982
University of Notre Dame (USA), 1987
Oregon State University (USA), 1988
University of Tulsa (USA), 1991
Washington State University (USA) 1995
Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University (India), 1996
Indian Agricultural Research Institute (India), 1996
De Montfort University, (United Kingdom), 1997
Emory University, (U.S.A) 1999
University of the Philippines, 1999
University of Missouri, (USA), 2002
Williams College, (USA), 2002
Wartburg College (USA), 2003
Dartmouth College (USA), 2005

Doctor of Agricultural Sciences:
University of Agricultural Sciences (Godollo, Hungary), 1980
Tokyo University of Agriculture (Japan), 1981
Doctor en Ciencias Agropecuarias Honoris Causa, Universidad Nacional Pedro Henríquez Turena, República Dominicana, 1983
Doctor en Ciencias, Honoris Causa Universidad Central del Este de la República Dominicana, 1983

Doctor Humane Letters:
Gustavus Adolphus College (USA), 1971
Iowa State University (USA), 1992
Cape Coast University (Ghana), 2000

Doctor of Law:
New Mexico State University (USA), 1973

Doctor of Agriculture:
Tufts University (USA), 1982
Doctor Honoris Causa:
Universidad Mayor de San Simón (Bolivia), 1983
Universidad de Buenos Aires (Argentina), 1983
Universidad de Cordoba (Spain), 1986
Universidad Politécnica de Catalunya (Barcelona, Spain), 1986
Colegio de Postgraduados (Montecillo, Mexico), 1990
Universitá degli Studi di Bologna (Italy), 1991
Warsaw Agricultural University (Poland), 1993
Bangladesh Agricultural University, 1998
Universidad LaSalle-Noroeste (Mexico), 1999
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, (Spain), 2000
Universidad de las Américas Puebla (Mexico), 2000
Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León (Mexico), 2001
Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo (Mexico), 2001
University Chandra Shekhar Azad Krishi Evam Prodyoogic Vishwavid Yalaya
(Kanpur, India), 2001
Texas A&M University's First Lifetime Achievement Award, (USA), 2004 (awarded to university professors in lieu of an honorary degree)
Universidad de Granada (Spain), 2005

Re:Awards (1)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 5 years ago | (#29408185)

WOW
I mean WOW
If each one of us can do 10% of what that man did, we can make the world a better place.
I hope God judges him Kindly.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?