The other crisis

There was a man who probably saved more lives than anyone ever did in history of men, without warfare and peace-treaties involved. The only thing he did, as if it was a small feat, was channeling his energy towards seeing more mouths fed, by greatly improving the production of food worldwide. Many people benefited from the works of this American agronomist, and as a matter of fact still do. Sadly the death of Norman Borlaug is something that went unnoticed by many.  Films and books about Michael Jackson seem much more important if we were to believe many parts of ‘journalism’ these days.

Small comfort as it may seem, when we think of Borlaug there are still two major things to be learnt. The first is something we all know, namely that food is the right place to start. The second is something we all think we know: Spreading knowledge is a must if ‘third world countries’ are to develop. These are not mutually exclusive points, if anything they are mutually dependant. When, earlier this year, Norman Borlaug died, we lost more than a man with talent and vision. We lost a sense of moral direction, and it is about time we regained it.

Food should claim its throne again. Not that there aren’t many discussion already, on the contrary, but many seem to miss the essence of the problem. Some proposals even go so far astray such that one cannot help thinking on what planet these idealistic-morons live, as when for instance people question the need or desirability of gene manipulation of crops. No one with an aching stomach would doubt whether or not this is a good thing to do. Many arguments that bear on this issue could be called a result of ignorance, as people hardly know or realize how important biological innovations are. If only this resulted in more subtle or reserved opinions… The irony of this comes to mind when one thinks of the ‘unnatural argument’: Gene manipulation is unnatural, hence immoral. Two easy replies would be: If it is unnatural, then why does nature permit it, and isn’t it more immoral to let people starve to death?

Too much time has already been wasted on discussing, and death is impatient. Short-sighted government-ran programs should be replaced as soon as possible. With so much money wasted on corrupt governments many want big cuts in aid-money spending. That would be a huge mistake. Money might be flushed down the toilet in many places, but that should only make us reflect and opt for better solutions, rather than make us turn our backs on the problem. And there are many things we could divert our attention to, of which irrigation projects are a good example. Most important will be a shift of focus towards technology, which in agricultural affairs will mean gene manipulation. Crops that use less water and that are more resistant to diseases will be both more enduring in the short run as in the long run: Less harvest will die before consuming is possible, less water will be used to grow it. This has been done before in the sixties: It is known as the Green Revolution, and that was indeed to a great extent the offspring of Norman Borlaug.

That child has matured over the past 40 years. We cannot deny the great improvements it brought us, but growth is declining rapidly, while our world population is still increasing.  Recently the Economist argued about the fall of fertility of the world’s population. Until 2050, as I already mentioned, the population is expected to grow. After that our current forecasts speak of a stabilization, and a falling fertility rate that will be either just enough or just below the rate to sustain world population numbers. That should not make us optimistic when it comes to food though. Yes, it’s better than numbers that would speak of growth until 2100, but from every perspective we still have more mouths to feed the next 40 years or so.

Here then lies a task for governments. They should, one way or another, reassure their people of the need and acceptability of gene-manipulation. It’s nothing weird, it’s only natural selection in laboratories, and we just cannot wait for nature to get there by itself because it will take way too long. If science will be sponsored to a much greater extent in areas where food-production improvements are the main targets, our outlooks will already be much better. For public understanding it might be good to add a government-run branch to this enterprise, so that people might lean towards acceptance more quickly.

Open market economies could serve us well too. Despite the fact that is has brought wealth and luxury to many westerners, many now doubt whether it deserves as much praise as it got. No need to search for a reason: The global economic crisis will do just fine. People seem to blame capitalism. You’d almost think Marx’ communistic ghost re-entered the scene of world politics. These fears and doubts are baseless. We need open markets for the nearly elegant reason of efficiency.  Do we even need an argument -when food is in short supply, prices are rising and distribution is already tainted with infrastructural problems- that we seek just that?

Our moral obligation is plain and simple, for we are not allowed to let other human beings die such horrendous deaths by any standard. Knowledge is the future. Knowledge and innovation are also the pillars that support us in our journey to better, more secure times. Let us use it well for other purposes than economical ones too, let it steer us towards solving hunger.