What do you think of Manning’s critique of the Green Revolution? Do you share his concerns, or do you think there are alternatives to widespread starvation once fossil fuel stocks decline?
What do you think of Manning’s critique of the Green Revolution? Do you share his concerns, or do you think there are alternatives to widespread starvation once fossil fuel stocks decline?
eddietastic, 
congo96, 
phoebe, and 26 others are discussing.
msmith92 3:06 pm on February 2, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think Manning’s view on the Green Revolution is very interesting. In essence, he is saying that we took one global issue and solved it, but in the process, have created a whole new issue. I think it is particularly interesting that before 1960, farmers were using 1 calorie of fossil fuel to produce 1 calorie of food but now, 10 calories of fossil fuels are need to create 1 calorie of food. It is pretty clear that our food industry relies on fossil fuels, and, as Manning says, it is now ingrained in the process. So, yes, I think that his concerns are justified. Unless we are able to, once again, find a way to circumvent or solve this problem, we will have widespread starvation, especially with global populations so high.
msmith92 3:08 pm on February 2, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Oops sorry, I also meant to add one more thing. One major problem with the situation is that the agriculture industry is directly reliant on fossil fuels. As Manning mentioned, fertilizer comes from natural gas. So not only do we need the energy that fossil fuels provide to support the agriculture industry, but a vital part of it relies on the fossil fuels themselves.
katehaxt 4:31 pm on February 3, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I found Manning’s critique very convincing. I know there are other, better, ways to produce food than industrial farming but I’m not sure about matching the output. I expect though that we can come up with some ways to at least soften the blow. I expect global vegetarianism would help alot. I also wonder if mechanized, industrial mono-culture farming really is so successful everywhere. I suspect its not very productive in many places but farmers are trapped because this is the system that has been set up. This current system of farming produces alot of money for a select and powerful few, I bet if this wasn’t the case there would be the energy and resources to come up with a better system.
jenniefrench 2:59 pm on February 4, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I enjoyed this video because it gave a succinct overview of the Green Revolution and also looked into some of the ideas that were at the root of it – ie not being able to feed half the world’s population.
I do share his concerns. As a society we have come to rely so heavily on oil and fossil fuels for everything – and we have also become quite blind to where these fossil fuels are being used. It is obvious when we fill up our cars that we are consuming fossil fuels but not so obvious when you buy a slice of bread, get your shopping in a plastic bag, or need a new pair of jeans. We rely so heavily on fossil fuels for the production and transportation of so many goods. This video is good because it clearly brings in to focus that fossil fuels are very much a part of what we eat. “It takes 10calories of fossil fuels now to produce 1 calorie of food.” That is frightening. katehaxt I like what you said about being trapped in a system – I agree, farmers and even consumers are to some extent trapped by the system and by their own financial means. I would say some vegetarianism – if brought about in the right way – is a good idea (Pollan’s article had some ideas on this). I would also say the organic movement should receive more funding. We need more initiatives to help us figure out how we can support our population while not jeopardizing the planet so much or even future generations. All that being said I know that we can not continue to grow the way we have this last century. We need to slow down our population growth. We need to be conscious – of what we eat, what we buy, where we drive, and what life choices we are making. And as a developed country we need to model and subsidize these methods for the developing countries so we can all live in a sustainable world.
natashap 5:01 pm on February 4, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I very much agree with his critique of the “Green Revolution”. It seems like this was anything except for green – the use of pesticides and fertilizers definitely aren’t the first thing that comes to mind when you hear the word “green”. I do think widespread starvation is preventable, but it would require a widespread change in agriculture. Currently most agriculture is monoculture, in order for food to be grown without pesticides and fertilizers and also not exhaust the ground, it would be necessary for farmers to grow multiple different crops.
I also think there needs to be a shift in people being more conscious about where there food comes from. Food that is grown in South America or in other places may be cheaper because of the cost of labour, etc, but the effort and fossil fuels that are required to bring it to North America are very high. And it’s rather silly especially when we live in a place like British Columbia which has the ability to produce a lot of it’s own food. So I think food distribution also needs to shift to being distributed nearby where the food is grown and not sent all around the world.
sharonshi 5:01 pm on February 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
It was very surprising to me the underlying effect of the Green Revolution. When in thought, the Green Revolution always seemed more positive than it is negative. However, as Manning said, if the fossil fuels run out, we will be in a much more detrimental situation than we were in before. As interesting as Manning’s point is, I have an alternative view. In my opinion, society is growing and advancing at such an alarming rate, that by the time we are faced with a situation like that, humans will have developed new technology or innovations in order to sustain themselves. When situations threaten our survival, we will adapt so that we can live. I believe that will happen if we do face a future situation as Manning as suggested.
brandond 1:39 pm on February 8, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Like Sharon, a number of you seem to be tentatively optimistic that we will be able to adapt our agricultural methods when fossil fuels run out. I wonder if anyone has any ideas about how we will be able to specifically do this (beyond going vegetarian)? Will advances in bioengineering help or will we find new kind of energy inputs? I remember from the first week that a lot of students in this course have backgrounds in chemistry and biology. Are some of you going to be leading this transition?
bgibson 4:41 pm on February 8, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think it is very hard to predict precisely what new technology, or technologies, will lead the charge with regards to creating new energy inputs or new crop varieties. One of the issues touched on from the notes, and by Manning, was the use of fossil fuel derived fertilizers. This is referencing the Haber process which is a catalytic reaction that converts nitrogen gas into ammonia which is used in nitrogen fertilizers. Part of the mechanism requires hydrogen gas and currently the most cost effective and least energy intensive method uses hydrogen from fossil fuel sources (natural gas or coal). There are other processes through which ammonia can be produced, and also other sources of hydrogen that could be exploited. Electrolysis of water was originally used as a source of H2 before fossil fuel methods were proposed.
Efficient and cost effective methods of hydrogen production are being explored for a number of uses, including fuel cell technology. Unfortunately, the technology is not yet ready for large scale implementation due to a number of issues, including production efficiency and transporting and storing hydrogen (and associated safety concerns).
Regardless, this is one area where I could see new developments helping to wean us off our dependence from fossil fuel derived fertilizers.
brandond 1:05 pm on February 9, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Thanks for the run down on hydrogen power. I am familiar with its use in fuel cells but have not read much on its use as a source of fertilizer. The Crosby reading has a good chapter on hydrogen power. Some of his research, though, may already be a bit dated.
roypat 10:46 pm on February 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I was really happy to have seen this clip because during An Inconvenient Truth, when Gore said that the population went from 2.5 billion to (now 7 billion) within one generation, from 1950 – present, I was flabbergasted. I didn’t realize that it was largely due to the ‘Green Revolution.’ I find Manning’s argument relatively convincing, but it’s also possible, as before, that we as humans will be able to ‘innovate our way’ out of a problem, although this time the solution may not be as simple.
erikaw 1:54 am on February 6, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
My first thoughts after the readings on The Green Revolution and HVY was exactly what Manning reinstated: Covering up the problem with another problem. Unsustainable agriculture on a large scale. It seems that this massive increase in food production lead to increase in population at an even faster rate then it was already going, and what worries me is that the majority are still starving. Where is all the productivity going from HYV crops? Probably back into Megacorporations pockets. And the leftover grain is being used as Aid supply to developing nations in times of famine which leads to more reliance on wealthier nations and decline of economy in countries with inadequate food supply! Now the food supply is even more unequal with obesity and starvation on the rise!
jonl 1:50 pm on February 6, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
From the readings so far and the video, I really felt that the green revolution wasn’t necessary. For example, if HYV crops weren’t developed, yes starvation may have persisted, but wouldn’t that simply mean population wouldn’t have grown and the cycle wouldn’t have started? Now because of HYV, we have more population, more demand, means more genetically modified crops to meet that demand. I definitely share Manning’s conclusion that when society may be at a loss once fossil fuel runs out or becomes too expensive. I’m not sure we can go back to the way things were which means that we would have to use technology/brain power which got us into this predicament in the first place to solve the problem.
jaydee 7:20 pm on February 6, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I definitely agree with Manning’s critique. Due to our high population growth resulting from the green revolution, we have become reliant on a system that will inevitably fail us if we continue to use it. At this point I feel that our only option is to turn to alternative sources of fuel and food to sustain ourselves. Firstly, a movement to “greener” sources of energy, such as solar and wind power, will help. Secondly, as mentioned by katehaxt, a shift to a vegetarian diet will allow us to get more food per unit land and per dollar. Also, moving to food source alternatives, such as more marine based sources, will also help. However, all these will only slow the inevitable.
youngblutt 9:26 am on February 7, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The Green Revolution did not necessarily reduce famine across the world. It reduced famine in the developed world. Moreover, it induced gluttony perpetuation in the developed world, which was probably the underlying intention anyways. I have serious doubts about the “altruistic Rockefellers”, humbly funding a project for the greater good of humankind. The Green Revolution turned enormous profits for its original investors and continues to do so today as it was and is forever linked with the growth of the fossil fuel industry. It was vertical investing and it was just “good business sense”.
The greatest effect of the Green Revolution is that it increased global populations to borderline, unsustainable levels. It also led to the oft-forgotten consequence that the green revolution allowed North America to run wild with livestock (and thus, manure), which accounts for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions. Even worse is the fact that livestock eat plants that intake CO2 but they output it as methane which has 30-50x greater warming effect than CO2. Soil and water contamination by livestock manure, loss of biodiversity from manure acidity and overgrazing are all overlooked consequences of the Green Revolution.
bgibson 1:44 pm on February 8, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I have to disagree with your assessment that the Green Revolution did not reduce famine in developing nations. Developed nations, by and large, did not suffer from famine (part of being developed), however the green revolution allowed developing nations to accelerate their agricultural capacity to a level where they could become “developed.” At the time India, Pakistan and China most certainly would not be considered developed. In fact these nations are still commonly seen as developing. The notes estimate that the green revolution fed a billion people who were in danger of starvation. I imagine that these billion people probably lived in developing nations, and not in developed ones. There is no doubt that the abundance of food that resulted from the Green Revolution has contributed to an increased intake of food across te world, including to increase gluttony in the developed world. However I find it hard to condemn the development of easily accessible food because some people are unable to exercise discipline.
I also find it difficult to agree with the idea that the Rockefellers funded Borlaug’s research with the end goal of turning a profit. The Rockefeller family made a fortune (I think John Sr. would have been the richest man ever if adjusted for inflation) from Standard Oil and are about as far from needing more money as it is possible to be. The family has a long standing tradition of philanthropy and have donated to a wide variety of universities (the establishment of the University of Chicago was largely due to the Rockefellers), healthcare and conservation (part of the Humboldt Redwood State Park bears their name). No doubt any industry that relies on fossil fuels will increase business for the family, they did build their wealth on oil originally, but suggesting the Rockefellers conspired to increase world food production purely for business reasons seems a stretch for me.
hannahepperson 6:03 pm on February 13, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
… it seems like if we zoom out from the specifics of this debate, we’re looking at an issue of systemic quick-fix mentalities. When things are altered rapidly, survival depends on adapting rapidly, which means finding quick n easy solutions to a problem. In a present day that’s tangled up in incredibly complex global interconnectivities and dependencies, fixing a problem here is undoubtedly exacerbating the problem somewhere else. It’s like dealing with a decaying pipe in your house … you can patch a hole here and there, but eventually the whole thing is just going to fall apart. That’s what is so frustrating about conversations about environmental degradation or conservation … everything you do or don’t do, it seems, is going to have unforeseeable effects somewhere else on the globe.
paige 4:59 pm on February 7, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think Manning’s critique of the Green Revolution was very direct and succinct full of very helpful and useful information. The critique is very accurate in terms of pointing out cause and effect. We figured out how to produce beyond natural processes and the human population shot up beyond a natural carrying capacity.
I think one thing that he failed to mention is that, as previously demonstrated, the human race in innovative even if we aren’t so eco-friendly. Science is in the process of developing alternatives to fossil fuels so soon we could be dependent on a new source to sustain our massive population.
bgibson 1:49 pm on February 8, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I agree completely here, Manning provides a succint overview of where we are and how we got here. I am of like mind in that I believe humanity will find a way to innovate and find new energy sources. The real “revolution” may only occur once accessible oil reserves become prohibitively expensive but the preliminary groundwork is being done.
sampethick 2:18 pm on February 9, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Well I agree with the consensus that Manning’s critique of the Green Revolution is definitely convincing (and a little startling!). The fact that our population is now twice what it was a generation ago and that we are going to run into the same starvation problem that we did is of course a huge concern; probably even more so than back then because of the population increase. The suggestion that came to my mind when I read this question was, along with all of the other great ideas put forward here (vegetarianism is a great one!), it might help if societies went back to growing locally rather than growing for market. In doing this communities could decrease production, and therefore decrease fossil fuel use. Communities might consider following the footsteps of the aboriginals we read about in the first half of this module and producing what we need, not that maximum that we have the ability to produce. Also this could lead to going back to simpler technologies that use less fossil fuel. I realize that my suggestion doesn’t fix any problems for areas that’s don’t have the land required to grow corn and other things, so we’d have to find a way to accommodate these areas as well. I think that the negative effects of the Green Revolution bring us back to the idea of “reinventing what it is to be civilized.” Whereas right now civilization is concerned with mass production and growth, maybe we need to change that.
emilym 7:27 pm on February 9, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I also agree that Manning provides a compelling critique of the Green Revolution. However, I also feel that the benefits that were achieved through the Revolution were important and valuable at the time. I absolutely think that we need to find a way to dramatically reduce our reliance on fossil fuel or we will face a very serious crisis in the near future. It is ridiculous that in order to produce one calorie of food, we use ten calories of fossil fuel energy, and I think we need to seriously rethink the way in which we grow our food. It is time that the Green Revolution be replaced by an environmental (green) revolution or I think we could face widespread starvation.
kimzzzy 8:36 pm on February 9, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I agree with Manning and I think in the video he only focused on a small scope of the problems brought about by Green Revolution. I think one of the most important point we have to focus on is that we have made ourselves vulnerable because of the the lack of diversity we have for the crops we grow and the fuel we use. i think it is diminishing the advantage we obtain from green revolution. Instead, we should now start to focus on learning how to sustain our environment through decreasing fuel consumption and changing the inputs we use. I am sure that technology is able to bring us to a more “greener” world but we just have to let people see the long term benefits in doing so.
lcoulthard 9:04 pm on February 9, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Although I do think the immediate effects of the Green Revolution were beneficial, because they helped to prevent famine, I agree with most of Richard Manning’s points. Large-scale industrial agriculture is a global system that requires the use of fossil fuels. If we run out of the means to produce our food, we run out of food, simple as that. We would have to revert to subsistence agriculture, which, given our world’s population, would not be socially or economically sustainable. There would be land disputes on all sorts of scales in order to maintain food supply for varying populations – between individuals and between nations. Seeing as how our land ownership and resulting crop growing techniques have become reliant on fossil fuels, I don’t think there is a viable alternative if resources became depleted without a huge cultural shift beforehand.
brenden 10:15 pm on February 9, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I find Manning’s critique of the Green Revolution to be very interesting. Humans have through the use of technology and fossil fuels, managed to successfully double our population despite reaching the peak amount of cultivated land many years ago. It is indeed alarming however that according to Manning we have simply delayed the inevitable exhaustion of resources by simply substituting our finite amount of cultivatable land for dependence on fossil which are both finite in supply and harmful to ourselves and the environment. I do believe that there are alternatives to widespread famine when we do exhaust our supply of fossil fuels. As others have mentioned. We would indeed need to return to a sustenance level of consumption and eliminate the frivolous production and consumption of many foods that we enjoy in the first world that are non essential and even detrimental to our diets. I do not believe this would actually occur however due to the monetary capitalist system that is currently in place. I believe that so long as we maintain this structure of society, the wealthy first world populations will continue to consume in excess and enjoy frivolous products while the poor less developed countries will continue to experience widespread starvation. As Thucydides said in the Melian Dialogues; “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”.
Keaton Briscoe 10:48 pm on February 9, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I thought Manning’s critique of the Green Revolution was very interesting. His view that we solved one global issue but created a load of other significantly serious issues in the long run. It was surprising to me about the 1960 farmer using 1 calorie of fossil fuel to make 1 calorie of food that has now changed to 10 and 1. I think that is very shocking and it just shows how dependant we are on our fossil fuels and how much we take them for granted. I agree with him that we need to find a way to consume and limit our use of fossil fuels or we will encounter serious global problems. I would think that some scientist would be able to come up with a way to limit our use of fossil fuel to create food with the technology that surrounds us in todays world.
Danni 11:19 pm on February 9, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The Manning’s critique apparently provided a direct view of the relationship between the fossil fuel consumption and the food we produced, clearly demonstrating people’s reliability of the fossil fuel. I do share concerns about that, because fossil fuel is unsustainable resource, which could be renewed or reproduced shortly after consumption. I agree that we should find some alternatives, like Hydrogen, to rationally replace part of the consumption of fossil fuel as energy resource. As the increase of greenhouse gases production, the solely reliability on fossil fuel consumption becomes more debatable in terms of the energy source. These all elicits our thought in regard to the consumption of fossil fuel as our major energy source, and promote our thoughts to apply other alternatives to it.
midara 11:45 pm on February 9, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I cannot agree more on Manning’s point of view. I think it is scary to know how 10 times more energy (which in this case, calories from fossil fuel) is now used to produce the same amount of food than in the past, and how we are becoming more fossil fuel dependent in the already energy hungry environment now. Before I watched the movie, I thought fossil fuel deficit may only affect our lifestyle, yet in fact our daily diet will also be greatly impact. The Green Revolution may reduce the famine a generation ago, but I do agree with Manning that it will do little help to the upcoming famine that deals with doubling amount of population. I think what is more scary to me is that I have the feeling that there is no alternatives so far I can think of to deal with the widespread starvation. It is apparently not easy to switch back to farming/agriculture style that do not need much energy.
alyumam 12:13 am on February 10, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I see Manning’s critique is assertive regarding the message he wants to deliver; I definitely share his concerns regarding a possible widespread starvation.
Nonetheless, trying to be positive, I believe there are alternatives we can and should put in practice.
In my opinion I think is important, first of all, to start changing the present agricultural practices we depend from, make them more sustainable and not based on the present model. Simultaneously, the use of clean technologies used for transportation and related agricultural practices, substituting fossil fuels should be one of the steps we have to take.
tsung 1:25 am on February 10, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Manning’s critique is absolutely correct and really allows us to embrace reality. He poses a question that I believe many of us don’t think about. We tend to believe that problems about food shortage would not affect us and only the next generation, however, we need to think again cause it will potentially affect us. In terms of alternatives to widespread starvation, yes we there are alternatives, however, we need to move to initiate this alternatives. For instance, we can grow locally. Climate change can impact the world negatively, however, there are positive incentives as well. New climates that regions experience may potentially yield new crops. By growing more locally, we can prevent the mass transport of crops and goods through the use of fossil fuel. Food distribution as well as local agricultural growth can be one alternative to potential starvation. We have replied on technology to solve our problems, however, I believe we need to think outside of the technological box although greener technology can be another potential option.
jlin 9:58 am on February 11, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think it’s pretty hard to argue otherwise against Manning’s explanations of the consequences of the Green Revolution, the exponential trend of population growth as well as our reliance on fossil fuels. I share his concerns particularly with the case of fossil fuel reliance because to me, it’s really interesting how we are producing more than enough food to make everyone on the planet obese, and yet there are still so many in the world who starve to death. Obesity is a pandemic and leads to many non communicable diseases that kill many people in developed countries… caloric intakes are not necessarily to blame but rather the use of fossil fuels in our daily lives that reduce physical activity. It’s ridiculously ironic how far we’ve gone in some aspects, and how we haven’t really improved much at all! Peak oil isn’t even something that is coming, we are already past peak oil. The effects of this will be seen within our lifetime and this obviously will have implications on the availability of food… I think if we change the ways in which agriculture is practiced right now and bring a focus back on growing local…eating local, a lot of unfortunate events such as widespread starvation could be avoided (again, the effects on the poorer populations will most likely be higher…)
yitailiu 11:08 am on February 13, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
It was interesting that Manning commented on the connection between agriculture and population. The new method of agriculture saved many people from starvation in the 1900’s, but this also resulted in a significant population growth.
Yet the Green Revolution creates a new set of problems, one of which is associated with the use of fossil fuel. I share his concerns over the declining nonrenewable supply of fossil fuel. Since that there is not an alternative resource for replacement, once the fossil fuel runs out, it would mean the failure of the present agricultural system. People will face a serious global issue of food shortage with a population that is much larger compared to the 1900’s.
phoebe 2:10 am on February 14, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I absolutely agree with Manning’s critique of the Green Revolution. His video was very direct and simple explaining terms such as high harvest index and the effects and hidden facts about the Green Revolution. I found his statement that the Green Revolution led to the doubling of the human population to be surprising. From the messages I’ve got from the media, it always seemed to be that families in the North America/U.K. seemed to be getting smaller as families are choosing to have only one or two kids because of the expense as opposed to the much larger families in the past. China also had the One Child Law for quite some time so it was surprising to me that the population growth accelerated so much during this relatively short period of time. I suppose this has to do with the longer life span of people nowadays, along with advances in medicine creating smaller mortality rates for young children. While Manning’s concerns are certainly an issue, I believe that population growth should eventually stop and level off after a while if not decline. With the low birth rates in many developed countries, we should be able to prevent overpopulation in the future.
congo96 6:20 pm on February 29, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I share Manning’s concerns about our dependence on fossil fuels but I do think that they are alternatives to widespread starvation. Just as technology provided a solution in the 60’s with the green revolution I think that technology once again will need to come to answer the call and provide a solution. However I think that new social economic and environmental ideologies are also going to be necessary to address our problems unless we want to make matters worse for ourselves in the long run. I don’t blame the technological advances of the Green revolution for the environmental problems of today but I rather the ideology that that values economical factors above all else.
eddietastic 3:38 pm on March 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
With the rapidly falling amount of people who want to be farmers, i feel like Mannings concerns are very real since there are a smaller amount of people in the world who need to produce a larger amount of food. As a result, technology needs to increase in order to meet the demand which results in a larger amount of pollution. Furthermore, the growth of produce and animals is not simply to grow them the healthiest they can be but with a smaller amount of farmers efficiency becomes key no matter what the cost .