The Green Revolution

I would love to say that new technology would not be needed to increase the world's food production, but after the readings we've done in this class, I'm not sure if that is possible. The world owes a lot of thanks to those that have done the research and spent many years, decades even, seeking out desirable traits in plants that make it possible to feed our hungry mouths. I understand the necessity of this science in the past, present, and future. I do however have a difficult time agreeing with the detrimental aspects behind the Green Revolution, in that increased fertilizers, pesticides/herbicides, and irrigation have caused more damage to our planet, damage that cannot be ignored in the long run. There does seem to be a trend in moving toward a more sustainable food production model by some, at least in areas that can sustain it. Perhaps in order to feed the mouths of the world, we as humans will have to move towards being able to share resources with each other instead of expecting developing countries to be mainly agricultural societies. As these countries become industrialized, they will build stronger economies and have more resources and better food options. Eventually it would make sense for food to be grown where food grows best, and not just where it is convenient at the time especially in terms of water availability and soil conditions.

Population Growth & Food

I think that only time will tell how accurate Malthus' claims were in terms of population growth being sustained by the slower expanding food production. It the past decades however, his claims were not fully actualized in that as economic stability grew and food production followed at its slower constant rate, population did not grow as exponentially as it had in earlier years. As we are finding out, the opportunity cost of having more children in developed countries is so high that birth rates are not rising as quickly as they were when income distribution was more equal. Basically the potential lost wages for a high earning family to have each child is enough for the family to choose to have less children. As for undeveloped countries, my thoughts are that they will follow the model that the now developed countries have shown: as technology, health and food production improves, their birth rate will continue to rise and their death rate will slow, meaning that they too will begin to have the same problems, at least until there is some sort of natural equilibrium point realized. Right now, the earth has limitations, even though we are constantly pushing the boundaries of how much we can grow with the amount of resources we have.
At this time I see little solutions for controlling the worlds population. I sense that in time, there will be catastrophic environmental events including global warming, bio warfare, etc. that will influence the population. Human rights are at the center of the dilemma. I do not believe that a child maximum has increased the quality of life enough to offset the psychological and sociological implications of that amount of control. Of course this is the opinion of a white, middle-class American, with plenty of opportunity, land, and resources at my disposal. I think that I lack the perspective to answer this question on the level that it needs to be addressed.