Stewart Brand proclaims 4 environmental 'heresies'

The truth of the matter is the heresies described by Brand are only so to the more dogmatic and close-minded individuals within the environmental movement. Take for instance “The Population Bomb: The battle to feed all of humanity is over,” written by Paul Ehrlich in 1968. In the book Ehrlich had the guts to claim the US would have a population of only 22 million and a life expectancy rate of only 42 years by the nineties due to starvation of pesticide use. He came to this conclusion, in part, based on the BELIEF that the world would run short of resources which in itself was heavily dependent on the rejection of “The Green Revolution.”
“Genetically engineered food crops in my view as a biologist have no reason to be controversial. My fellow environmentalists on this subject have been irrational anti-scientific and very harmful.” Stewart Brand.
You can call that statement heresy all you want but the fact of the matter is that heresy helped disprove the assertions of environmentalists like Ehrlich. From 1970 to 2001 the amount of available food per person has increased by 26% and food production alone rose by 60% between 1980 and 1997. This is in part due to the efforts of the Green Revolution. The same environmentalists like Ehrlich were also wrong about other issues like population.
The population boom in the developed world was a product of increased standards of living and despite all the doomsday prophecies’ it slowed dramatically. The same thing will happen in the developing world so long as they are allowed to modernize, accumulate wealth and most importantly retain their individual property rights. Again the lack of property rights and the rule of law creates famine just like low standards of living combined with subsistence farming creates the drive to procreate like rabbits. How else is a population going to increase with a life expectancy rate of only 30+ years?
So why is it that even now we still have environmentalists in the media complaining about the same old things? Just last week I was watching the Daily Show and John Stewart was interviewing Robert Kenner (food inc guy) and he actually had the nerve to say the problem with our world is that food is too cheap now. It’s f#$&$#@ incredible.
Sometimes I think these guys try so hard at shaping public opinion so their misguided predictions can become some grand self fulfilling prophecy.

the slum-dog Billion-sires shall inherit the............

dog knew!

I will continue to appreciate the TED conference for being a space where people can raise radical ideas. I have mulled over the ideas he introduced: and I think the largest sticking point I have is that while there is a introduction of radical ways we can utilize technology to adjust the planet, there is not an equally radical call for population control, which is what is driving the need to radically change the systems on the planet in order for us to survive (based on current scientific projections).

Perhaps SB is just being realistic: and understands the stress this puts on the individual...but I continue to be shocked by how infrequently this topic is discussed.

Most of the time a bad GOV. takes the food before it gets to the people. And its hard to feed somebody when somebody else is shooting at them and you. Been in that , no fun. And no I cant say and Im a dick, I know.

Mr. Brand ignores the massive international movement of farmers and consumers who oppose GM crops for very concrete material reasons. It's not just an uninformed opinion by people who simply hate science. The fact that the corporate takeover of the food system and GM crops are so closely related that livelihoods cultures and ways of life are being threatened is a reality. Whether it's farmers in Mexico, Argentina, Paraguay, or organic farmers in Canada (why doesn't he talk with Percy Schmeiser) America and Europe, corporate control of our food system and its patenting of our seeds is a war for the future of agriculture as we know it. Not being able to save seeds? Transgenic contamination? Monocrops? Soil depletion? Use of RoundUp? Terminator seeds? He clearly does not understand in my view as well that yields are not substantially greater for GM crops as has already been shown by IAASTD. I wonder as well if he truly understands the processes involved in this technology and their implications regarding environmental biodiversity as we know it and the health of humans and other species. He also falls into the false trap of stating it can feed starving people. Again, it isn't about lack of food in many instances it is about access to food. We are overproducing food in many regions of the world yet a billion people still go hungry. And where are GM saviors now? Clearing land in South America to grow BT corn and GM soy to use as biofuel and animal feed! There is absolutely nothing GM crops can do that cannot be done through natural breeding and hybridization. GMOs are simply a profit making scheme for corporate agriculture and an inherantly risky gamble with our biodiversity and it is neither responsible environmentalism nor responsible technology.
Hmm, the State Dept huh? Explains a lot. Hillary Clinton is a big fan of Monsanto.

O boy need to get to a computer........