|
In 1798 32 year-old British economist Malthus anonymously published “An
Essay on the Principle of Population” and in it he argued that human
population’s increase geometrically (1, 2, 4, 16 etc.) while their food supply
can only increase arithmetically (1, 2, 3, 4 etc.). Since food is obviously
necessary for us to survive, unchecked population growth in any one area or
involving the whole planet would lead to individual pockets of humanity
starving or even mass worldwide starvation.
"The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power
in the earth to produce subsistence for man.” Thomas Robert Malthus
Facts - Our topsoil is turning to dust and disappearing while at the same
time we’re draining our fresh water aquifers faster than they can be
recharged. Our atmosphere, the very air we breathe and earth’s armor against
cosmic radiation is being poisoned and destroyed.
Viva the revolution
The second half of the 20th century saw the biggest increase in the world’s
population in human history. Our population surged because of:
- Medical advances lessened the mortality rate in many
countries
- Massive increases in agricultural productivity caused by
the “Green Revolution”
The global death rate has dropped almost continuously since the start of
the industrial revolution – personal hygiene, improved methods of sanitation
and the development of antibiotics have all played a major role.
The term Green Revolution refers to a series of research, development, and
technology transfers that happened between the 1940s and the late 1970s. The
initiatives involved:
- Development of high yielding varieties of cereal grains
- Expansion of irrigation infrastructure
- Modernization of management techniques
- Mechanization
- Distribution of hybridized seeds, synthetic fertilizers,
and pesticides to farmers
Tractors with gasoline powered internal combustion engines (versus steam)
became the norm in the 1920s after Henry Ford developed his Fordson in 1917 –
the first mass produced tractor. This new technology was available only to
relatively affluent farmers and it was not until the 1940s tractor use became
widespread.
Electric motors and irrigation pumps made farming and ranching more
efficient. Major innovations in animal husbandry – modern milking parlors,
grain elevators, and confined animal feeding operations - were
all made possible by electricity.
Advances in fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and
antibiotics all led to better weed, insect and disease control.
There were major advances in plant and animal breeding – crop
hybridization, artificial insemination of livestock, growth hormones and
genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Further down the food chain came innovations in food processing and
distribution.
All these new technologies increased global agriculture production with
the full effects starting to be felt in the 1960s.
Cereal production more than doubled in developing nations – yields of
rice, maize, and wheat increased steadily. Between 1950 and 1984 world grain
production increased by over 250% - and the world added a couple billion
people more to the dinner table.
The modernization and industrialization of our global agricultural
industry led to the single greatest explosion in food production in history.
The agricultural reforms and resulting production increases fostered by the
Green Revolution are responsible for avoiding widespread famine in developing
countries and for feeding billions more people since. The Green Revolution
also helped kick start the greatest explosion in human population in our
history - it took only 40 years (starting in 1950) for the population to
double from 2.5 billion to five billion people.
We goosed agra machine’s growth and at the same time, through better
sanitation and the use of antibiotics, we saved a billion people who birthed
a billion and more.
The Revolution is dead
Unfortunately the effects of the green revolution are fast wearing off and
the true cost to our environment is only now becoming apparent.
The production advances of the Green Revolution were real. But by any
yardstick the Green Revolution, while a true, almost global agricultural
revolution, was not as green as many think - there was heavy collateral
damage:
- Agricultural output did increase as a result of the
Green Revolution, but the energy input to produce a crop increased
faster - the ratio of crops produced to energy input has decreased. This
is because High Yielding Varieties (HYVs) of seeds only outperform
traditional varieties when adequate irrigation, pesticides and
fertilizers are used
- Green Revolution agriculture produces monocultures of
cereal grains. This type of agriculture relies on the extensive use of
pesticides because monoculture systems - with their lack of genetic
variation - are particularly sensitive to bug infestations
- The transition from traditional agriculture to GR
agricultural meant farmers became dependent on industrial inputs - not
made on the farm inputs. Farmers faced severely increased costs because
they now had to purchase such items as farming machinery, fertilizer,
pesticides, irrigation equipment and seeds
- The increased level of mechanization on larger farms
removed a large source of employment from the rural economy. New
machinery – mass produced gas tractors, large self propelled combines
and mechanical cotton pickers – all combined to sharply reduce labor
requirements
- Less people were affected by hunger and died from
starvation - but many more are affected by malnutrition such as iron or
Vitamin A deficiencies. Green Revolution grains do not have the same
nutritional values as traditional varieties. The switch from heavily
rotated multiple crops to mono cropping or dual cropping reduces total
soil fertility and the nutritional value of our food
- The Green Revolution reduced agricultural biodiversity
by relying on just a few varieties of each crop. The food supply could
be susceptible to pathogens that cannot be controlled by agrochemicals
- Many valuable genetic traits, bred into traditional
varieties over thousands of years, are now lost
- Wild plant and animal biodiversity was hurt because the
Green Revolution expanded agricultural development into new areas where
it was once unprofitable or too arid to farm
- The 20/80 phenomenon - the rapid increase in farm size
and the concentration of production among large producers means 20% of
producers generate 80% of the agricultural output
- As a result of modern irrigation practices, aquifers in
places like India and the US mid west have become depleted. There
are two types of aquifers: replenish able, most of the aquifers in India
and the shallow aquifer under the North China Plain are replenish able –
depletion means the maximum rate of pumping is automatically reduced to
the rate of recharge. For fossil, or non-replenish able aquifers - like
the U.S. Ogallala aquifer, the deep aquifer under the North China Plain,
or the Saudi aquifer - depletion brings pumping to an end. In the more
arid regions like the southwestern United States or the Middle East the
loss of irrigation water could mean the end of agriculture in these
areas
- Green Revolution techniques rely heavily on chemical
fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, some of these are developed from
fossil fuels which makes today’s agriculture regime much more reliant on
petroleum products
- Farming methods that depend heavily on chemical
fertilizers do not maintain the soil's natural fertility and because
pesticides generate resistant pests, farmers need ever more fertilizers
and pesticides just to achieve the same results
- The increased amount of food production led to
overpopulation worldwide
By 2050, the world's population is expected to reach 9.6 billion people.
Norman Borlaug, the Father of the Green Revolution, is on record stating he
believed that 100% adoption of Green Revolution practices (and
adaptation of well advanced research in the pipeline), could feed 10 billion
people on a sustainable basis.
"Future food-production increases will have to come from higher
yields. And though I have no doubt yields will keep going up, whether they
can go up enough to feed the population monster is another matter. Unless
progress with agricultural yields remains very strong, the next century will
experience sheer human misery that, on a numerical scale, will exceed the
worst of everything that has come before". Norman Borlaug
Unfortunately the high yield growth is tapering off and in some cases
declining. This is in large part because of an increase in the price of
fertilizers, other chemicals and fossil fuels, but also because the overuse
of chemicals has exhausted the soil and irrigation has depleted water
aquifers.
Dr. M.S. Swaminathan, to rice what Borlaug was to wheat, said: “Stagnation
in productivity is due to depleting natural resources base such as a steep
fall in ground water table, impaired water quality, increasing input cost -
particularly diesel, deficiency of micro-nutrients in the soil, deteriorating
soil health, and high indebtedness of farmers.”
Consider also…
Narrowly focusing on increasing production as the Green Revolution did
cannot alleviate hunger because it failed to alter three simple facts - an
increase in food production does not necessarily result in less hunger - if
the poor don't have the money to buy food increased production is not going
to help them.
Secondly, a narrow focus on production ultimately defeats itself as it
destroys the base on which agriculture depends – topsoil and water.
And thirdly to end hunger once and for all, we must make food production
sustainable and develop secure distribution networks of needed foodstuffs.
Price spike in the cost of survival
There are currently 7.3 billion of us sharing the planet. Here’s today’s
conditions for the world’s poorest…
Because our agriculture system is concentrated on producing a very few
staple crops there is a very serious lack of crop and production location
diversity. Corn, wheat, rice and soy are the main staples and production is
oftentimes half a world away from where the majority of the crop would be
consumed. The world’s extreme poor exist almost exclusively on what is a ‘buy
today, eat today’ plant based diet - wheat, corn, soy or rice provide the
bulk of their calories.
Almost half of the planets population lives on less than $2.50 a day -
roughly 1.4 billion people live on less than $1.25 per day. On average
developing countries citizens spend a much larger percentage of their wages
on food than do their counterparts in developed nations. Some published estimates
are as high as 50 to 60 percent of income going towards food.
When food prices soar these people lack the money to feed themselves and
their children - when your living on a couple of dollars a day, or less, and
most of your income already goes to feed your family there’s no money to
cover a price spike in the cost of survival.
Almost 1 billion people already go to bed hungry each night
and somewhere in the world someone starves to death every 4 seconds -
most on this tragic roll call are children under the age of five.
Malthusian pessimism
Malthusian pessimism has long been criticized by doubters believing
technological advancements in:
- Agriculture
- Energy
- Water use
- Manufacturing
- Disease control
- Fertilizers
- Information management
- Transportation
would keep crop production ahead of the population growth curve. The way
we treat our most precious natural resources, the earth’s topsoil, water and
air has convinced me to give that conclusion a huge doubt.
Humans are currently withdrawing more natural resources then our Earth
bank is able to provide on a sustainable basis. How much more? At today’s
rate of withdrawal we need another half earth.
The headline projection of the latest UN study says the world’s population
is likely to grow by another 2.3 billion, to 9.6 billion people in 2050 -
that’s 68.5 million people expected to be born every year between 2015 and
2050.
By 2030, food demand is predicted to increase by 50% and 70% by 2050.
Consider:
Conclusion
In his Nobel lecture of 1970, Borlaug stated: “Most people still fail
to comprehend the magnitude and menace of the population monster. The rhythm
of increase will accelerate…unless Man becomes more realistic and preoccupied
about his impending doom.”
The ghosts of Thomas Robert Malthus and Norman Borlaug haunt our broken
agra machine and an almost indecipherable whisper can be heard…we warned
them.
Food, water and air. Since they are kinda important to our well being
shouldn’t all three be on our radar screens? It’s obvious they are on mine,
are they on yours?
If not, maybe they should be.
Richard lives with his family on a 160 acre ranch in
northern British Columbia. He invests in the resource and
biotechnology/pharmaceutical sectors and is the owner of Aheadoftheherd.com.
His articles have been published on over 400 websites, including:
WallStreetJournal, USAToday, NationalPost,
Lewrockwell, MontrealGazette, VancouverSun, CBSnews, HuffingtonPost,
Beforeitsnews, Londonthenews, Wealthwire, CalgaryHerald, Forbes, Dallasnews,
SGTreport, Vantagewire, Indiatimes, Ninemsn, Ibtimes, Businessweek,
HongKongHerald, Moneytalks, SeekingAlpha, BusinessInsider, Investing.com,
MSN.com and the Association of Mining Analysts.
Please visit www.aheadoftheherd.com – We’re telling you things everyone else doesn’t already know.
Free highly
acclaimed newsletter featuring today’s investable junior resource companies.
If you are interested in sponsoring
Richard’s site please contact him for more information,
rick@aheadoftheherd.com
***
Legal Notice / Disclaimer
This document is not and should not be construed as an offer to sell or
the solicitation of an offer to purchase or subscribe for any investment.
Richard Mills has based this document on information obtained from
sources he believes to be reliable but which has not been independently
verified.
Richard Mills makes no guarantee, representation or warranty and
accepts no responsibility or liability as to its accuracy or completeness.
Expressions of opinion are those of Richard Mills only and are subject to change
without notice. Richard Mills assumes no warranty, liability or guarantee for
the current relevance, correctness or completeness of any information
provided within this Report and will not be held liable for the consequence
of reliance upon any opinion or statement contained herein or any omission.
Furthermore, I, Richard Mills, assume no liability for any direct or
indirect loss or damage or, in particular, for lost profit, which you may
incur as a result of the use and existence of the information provided within
this Report.
|
