I'm familiar with the criticism, but remain unconvinced that:
1. oil and gas are strictly "required" as an energy source
2. energy consumption of these methods is higher per yield than traditional farming
3. oil/gas will run out in any meaningful time frame
4. peak oil/gas will be sudden or catastrophic
5. adaptation to new conditions is impossible
6. exporting profitable crops is a net social loss for a local population (or even the stronger corollary, that locovorism is ever beneficial)
Some of those are contentious areas, matters of continuing study. Some are probably hyperbole, and we'd likely agree on more moderate formulations. Some I'm pretty firmly convinced are incorrect. Even if they were all just mildly suspect, though, it's a lot of shaky steps for me to take all at once. So I remain cautiously optimistic, skeptical that food insecurity due to Borlaug's methods and oil shocks will have any meaningful impact for the next fiftyish years. I guess there's some chance, just seems exceedingly unlikely to me.
That said, I think you laid out your criticism of his methods in a clear and concise way, and while I disagree with some of the premises, they're not radically unreasonable or anything, I can see how one would stand by that conclusion. Have an upvote for a well formulated dissenting view, something we should all encourage whenever possible.
1. oil and gas are strictly "required" as an energy source
2. energy consumption of these methods is higher per yield than traditional farming
3. oil/gas will run out in any meaningful time frame
4. peak oil/gas will be sudden or catastrophic
5. adaptation to new conditions is impossible
6. exporting profitable crops is a net social loss for a local population (or even the stronger corollary, that locovorism is ever beneficial)
Some of those are contentious areas, matters of continuing study. Some are probably hyperbole, and we'd likely agree on more moderate formulations. Some I'm pretty firmly convinced are incorrect. Even if they were all just mildly suspect, though, it's a lot of shaky steps for me to take all at once. So I remain cautiously optimistic, skeptical that food insecurity due to Borlaug's methods and oil shocks will have any meaningful impact for the next fiftyish years. I guess there's some chance, just seems exceedingly unlikely to me.
That said, I think you laid out your criticism of his methods in a clear and concise way, and while I disagree with some of the premises, they're not radically unreasonable or anything, I can see how one would stand by that conclusion. Have an upvote for a well formulated dissenting view, something we should all encourage whenever possible.