Personally, I view the whole environmental issue as the difference between a fundamentally optimistic and positive view of the human race and a pessimistic, negative view.

Today we’re faced with some of the same problems Borlaug successfully dealt with. We are told that global warming is a threat so vast that draconian measures must be taken. And while few people of any importance seriously suggest the matter out of fear of public backlash, many of the alarmists believe the same solutions as the Malthusians. They say we need to shrink the population of the human race in order to survive. And even those that don’t offer other draconian measures. We must suffer in order to save the planet. Third world countries must remain in squalor. We must join them. It’s an inherently pessimistic view, not only of the future but also of humanity. It’s the belief that we don’t have the power to confront the struggles and difficulties we face, and so we must therefore offer ourselves up to the difficulties as a sacrifice.

Borlaug had a more optimistic outlook, and believed in human ingenuity and exceptionalism. I for one share that outlook. We can make it through this energy crisis intact. We can produce clean, renewable energy, not just for ourselves, but for everyone. We can feed the world and live in relative peace. Is all the technology there yet? No. But we’re a brilliant species. Just because we can’t immediately see it doesn’t mean it won’t happen.

Because if there’s one thing Borlaug’s life should teach us, it’s to never bet against human ingenuity.

We will always have struggles ahead. There will always be those predicting catastrophe and chaos due to our simple desire to be fruitful and multiply. There will always be those who see these struggles and immediately ask “What must we sacrifice in order to delay these ominous signs?” Let us always take the optimistic route. Let us instead ask “How can we overcome these obstacles and make life even better?”

Rest in peace, Norman Borlaug. You’ve earned it.

But Andrews did something else; he showed how the people who came *before* Dr. Borlaug could take some responsibility for the brilliant scientific work that *he* did much later. That author showed a chain of people and events that had to happen for Norman Borlaug to be able to save those lives through hard work.

Worth considering:

1. Every person who succeeds or fails is carrying on a legacy of those who have influenced or educated or raised them. Our current President should remember that — because most of his governing style is self-congratulatory (not humble like Borlaug) and because Obama’s radical professors, colleagues, and friends *have* influenced him, and are leading to his downfall. (And another obvious point: Thank God Borlaug’s parents did not find his birth inconvenient. They allowed him to live, and that one life did impact the world.)

2. Dr. Borlaug had real results that could be quantified. Real science matters. Not fake science, and not agenda-driven drivel. Borlaug was not a snake oil salesman like the global warming salesmen posing as scientists.

3. Americans are the leaders in bringing hope to the rest of the world. Dr. Borlaug was an example of the exceptionalism of this nation — because of freedom. If the African nationals had been recipients of freedom, they might have been the ones to make these breakthrough discoveries.

4. Freedom will always create the foundation for genius to flourish — in any discipline. Every day, we need to be reminding our fellow citizens of that fact, as we graciously and firmly work to end the termite damage of government encroachment into every aspect of life.

I like them, there’s a fascination with anything that takes in a volatile mixture of oxygen and explosive and creates motion, but frankly I’d love a really good electric car just as much, but for different reasons:

Electric motors have a completely different “feel” to them and they can be very powerful. When my father worked for Bethlehem Steel in Baltimore, a 50 horsepower electric motor used to move pieces of equipment around at breakneck speeds.

I’d love to have a car like an Audi A3 or even a Cadillac Escalade that ran entirely on electric power. The only way to do that with any cost effectiveness is to do the hard work required to bring the price of electricity down, so that people can go a few hundred miles (they will need a comparable distance) and plug it into their houses without breaking the bank at the end of the day.

We need more power, not less, to keep our standard of living and enjoy our lives. It translates into so many other areas that it’s not even worth arguing about it.

Here is an article from pajamasmedia and a quote from inside the story,

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-implants-his-political-vision-for-america-%E2%80%94-but-will-it-take/
——

“I believe Barack Obama is indeed a thoughtful man. Not a scholar or intellectual, but someone who has an interest in living what the philosophers refer to as “an examined life.” Perhaps no modern president has spent as much time nor traveled so far in an effort to discover meaning and place as far as the threads of his life are concerned. This much was evident before he became president. Dreams from My Father was, if nothing else, a dissertation on one man’s journey of self-discovery and his drive for self-actualization.”
——-

When I read it, I think I passed out for a second because my blood pressure exploded through the roof. When I regained my senses and wiped the froth from my lips, I did my best to understand the author’s point of view, maybe I got it wrong.

Naah,

Redstate reminded me that what makes this world and mankind worthy are people like Bourlag. A quiet man who saved millions. Compare that to Obama’s latest “They can’t stop me rant.” and you can see unfortunately that we are stuck with both kinds of men, only those with over-sized egos seem to run for office.

I had heard of Norman Bourlag only cursorially, but there went a fine, understated scientist, “born of the soil in Iowa”. He’s the kind of guy that made me want to win the Prize myself. At the time the Nobel Peace Price was something worth achieving. Now, instead of awarding it to someone like the woman from Canada who was the champion of re-forestation efforts (whose name I can’t find, shamefully), the Prize is tossed over to scumbags like Al Gore. I’m still curious if they’ll retract the award if someone manages to prove his theories wrong.

The high cost of power in Massachusetts translates directly into a high cost of living and a high cost of running a business and any kind of industry. It makes it more expensive to recycle, it makes it more expensive to heat and cool your home, it makes it more expensive to run any kind of business that relies on electrical power for machines (which even in tech. companies is significant.)

It is obvious that what Massachusetts needs is more electricity more cheaply supplied over the conventional grid, not boondoggles like terrestrial windpower that pay off after 20 years, or it needs to take advantage of the NOAA Class V wind area off the coastline of Massachusetts. Both of those options have been effectively forestalled for years because of politics.

We need more nuclear power plants in Massachusetts, and across this country. I’m one of a very small minority of people here in the Commonwealth who believe that, but I like to think that people here really need to look at the numbers and ask the question: “Why do you pay so much for power?”

More clean energy would lead to a cleaner environment: I’d love to have an electric car that really worked and one that would really return my investment because recharging it wouldn’t cost ~ 17.6 cents per kilowatt hour. Imagine if the cost of electricity could be brought down to 3 or 4 cents per kw/h: people would be nuts *not* to have an electric car as their primary means of transportation.

That’s not a pipedream: electricity only costs 6 cents per kw/h in Wyoming right now. We just haven’t had the political will to stop the theft.

http://www.nrel.gov/otec/what.html

The solution to the 1980′s Doomsday was more and better food to prevent people from starving en masse.

The solution to today’s Doomsday is more energy, provided more cleanly and more cheaply, not less energy supplied more expensively.

There are only three answers to today’s Doomsday scenario in the long run, as I’ve said many times before, and we have (or will have soon) the technology to do it:

Conventional Nuclear Fission, Thermonuclear Fusion, and Exoatmospheric Solar Power.

We should be investing much more in the latter two and we should be vastly expanding the first.