https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0 Explain the degree to which Norman Borlaug should be remembered as a Hero. Remember to consider: Intent vs. Impacts... (Include evidence supporting BOTH sides!) en-us 2022-02-02 13:40:11 UTC 2022-02-11 15:40:50 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026148746 I believe that Norman Borlaug was mostly a menace. While he did improve the issue of hunger, he did little for the long-term. The issue of distribution of food is still quite important and something that was little addressed by him. He certainly helped with that one specific crisis--saving what's estimated to be a billion lives! However, there are likely many more crises to come that his inventions will not be able to prevent. Not only that, but his inventions came with a huge detriment to the planet--something that will likely cost many more lives than he was able to save. I believe that in this scenario, the damage he caused is much greater than the good he was able to do. ]]> 2022-02-02 19:25:56 UTC https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026148746 https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026155937 Norman Borlaug helped increase food production tremendously. Although he did not solve the starvation problem completely and did nothing to help food be more available to the poor. He is credited for saving one billion lives. One man alone can not be held responsible for the consequences that came after the Green revolution. He saw a problem and tried his best to solve it. Even if the outcome was not as ideal as people would wish, he helped many people especially India. ]]> 2022-02-02 19:29:45 UTC https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026155937 https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026156445 He is a imperfect hero. No one can fully predict everything that would happen when they make a decision. He had a good motive and he still helped people. Throughout history there were always people that used inventions for bad things and Norman's inventions were no different.
Although the food created did not help parts of the world, it is no fault of Norman.
It would be like if the inventors of the internet were hated due to their invention not having the same effects they had imagined.
While there are bad effects from his invention we shouldn't blame him and instead try to fix the problem instead.]]> 2022-02-02 19:30:03 UTC https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026156445 mkm33 https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026156638 Although Norman Borlaug's intent was for a good reason, the impacts weren't all that great. Borlaug started the Green Revolution to help fix the problem of starvation. That's a good intention, but the creation of HYVs and then later, GMOs lead to some environmental and social problems. For example, HYVs like the semi-dwarf wheat were made to increase crop yields to feed more people, but they also required more water, fertilizers, and chemical pesticides to grow, which all have a bad impact on the environment and the people who eat the crops. All in all, I think that Borlaug had good intent, but the negative impacts of the Green Revolution outweighed the positive impacts and positive intent. ]]> 2022-02-02 19:30:09 UTC https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026156638 https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026156767 I think Norman Borlaug is more of a menace than a hero. Earlier we talked about what mattered more, intention or impact and most of us sid impact so that is what im looking at when i see what Norman did. I understand he "saved 1 billion lives" but hes put thousands in debt, caused aquifers to be depelted because of his methods, caused crops to be overproduced to the point to which the soil they were planted on, lost its nutrients. Old high-yeild crops were ignored and were forgotten to move in all his new GMO crops. And led farmers to heavly rely on pesticides and herbicides. So when we actually look at it, Norman did WAY more harm than good.]]> 2022-02-02 19:30:14 UTC https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026156767 https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026158040 I believe that Norman Borlaug was a menace to society. I think that his intentions behind what he did was good but the final outcome was a negative thing for agriculture. While he did contribute to fighting against starvation around the world, he only solved starvation on a small scale and caused many more issues, many having to do with pesticides and fertilizer problems. I think what he did hurt our planet tremendously and he cannot be considered a hero for that reason.]]> 2022-02-02 19:30:55 UTC https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026158040 https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026158851 I think that Normal Borlaug was a Menace. Though his intentions were good, I feel that the effects on the environment and population over way the goods. Short term, I think that it was a really good idea and that it works. But long term, the chemicals in the fertilizer and the overuse of underground water sources will hurt the environment. Another reason it was bad was because of the economic effects. Poor people can't afford this new technology. So they cant sell as much crops as larger companies, so they become poorer. This idea was centered on large farming companies and not on the vast majority of smaller farms.]]> 2022-02-02 19:31:24 UTC https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026158851 https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026158995 I think the overall negative impacts of Norman Borlaug's developments outweigh the positive intent and impacts, especially considering environmental impact. Though his developments did cause a major increase in crop yields and prevent potential famine, they didn't really solve the underlying issues involved with world hunger, since just increasing food supply does not necessarily allow underprivileged people to access food if the same power structures still exist. The developments provided a short-term solution to possible famine, but not a long term solution to hunger, and it created long-term problems. Most environmental impacts are negative, such as pollution due to chemical fertilizers and pesticides, draining of aquifers, and extinction of some varieties of plants due to hybridization. All of these are problems we are still dealing with the effects of today, even if we avoided the possibility of famine. ]]> 2022-02-02 19:31:28 UTC https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026158995 https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026160841 I believe that while Norman Borlaug definitely had negative impacts on the environment and did not completely solve world hunger, I believe that he also caused a lot of good in terms of food production and we don't really know where we'd be without his work. He helped end widespread famine and also made yield crops much more prominent and accessible. Without the green revolution there would be no way we could fill our always-growing population.]]> 2022-02-02 19:32:28 UTC https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026160841 https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026165547 I think that Norman Borlaug's was a menace because the impact of his discoveries were not very good. The Green Revolution did help improve lives, but the food wasn't evenly distributed throughout population, so poor areas were not really helped. Though he did save lives, his discoveries increased air pollution, developed issues with soil, and many other things affecting the environment in a negative way. I believe that even though his intent was good, the impact was not good, and we are left with famine in places, environmental issues, and more damage than good.]]> 2022-02-02 19:34:57 UTC https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026165547 https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026165619 I think that Norman Borlaug had good intentions but there were a lot of unexpected impacts of the revolution. The Green Revolution was able to end India's widespread famine in the 1960's and irrigation became more common. Technology improved which helped to reduce the amount of human labor. Even though there were some good things that happened because of Norman Borlaug, I still think that the bad things outweigh the good. For example, it didn't ended hunger in many areas. The poor were paying more money and getting less. Rich people had more land and had an advantage over others. In order for people to have food, they have to be able to buy it. Food production increasing doesn't mean that hunger will end. The revolution was also bad for the environment. More pesticides and fertilizers were being used which can pollute the environment. Also, irrigation led to the depletion of groundwater in some areas. The Green Revolution also created various social issues. People became disconnected from where their food was coming from/how it was being grown.]]> 2022-02-02 19:34:59 UTC https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026165619 cjp24 https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026172372 Although his work has resulted in a massive toll on the land, I say Norman Borlaug is still overall a hero. The negatives that have emerged due to his actions are still somewhat reversible, but the billion lives that he saved were irreplaceable. It is true that maybe his work didn't affect the poor that much, since most of the issue is not the quantity of food and instead distribution, the lives that he saved in India are still valuable. Even if the world goes to flame because we didn't manage to remedy his inventions, Borlaug tried and succeeded to save lives, so, in my book, he is a hero.]]> 2022-02-02 19:38:36 UTC https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026172372 https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026172397 Although his actions may have created a less environmentally stable world, the positives of the creation of his new crops outweigh the negatives of their creation. At the end of the day, one billion lives is one billion lives and the safety of that many people is more important than the negative consequences of their savior. This is because these consequences, although very serious, are still somewhat reversible (with the immediate action of the people) while the lives of these people were non-replaceable. Due to this reason, I believe that Norman Borlaug was mostly a hero. He could have weighed out the consequences of his plans were more effectively, but at the end of the day, large corporations are bound to take advantage of any human advancements.]]> 2022-02-02 19:38:37 UTC https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026172397 https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026173039 I believe that Norman Borlaug is more a menace rather than a hero. The negatives out-rule the positives in this situation. While he saved billions of lives, Borlaug did not do a good job of managing food distribution, meaning he did not fully cover the issues of starvation and hunger. On a wider scale hunger is still a huge problem. Overall the impacts his discoveries caused are worsening the environment. As a result there has been increased air pollution, water pollution, and soil damage. With the increase of fertilizer, water usage, and the need for chemical pesticides there isn't only a negative impact on the environment but also on the people that rely on these crops for their food source. Overall, Borlaug was an unintentional menace, he tried to do something good but didn't think about the consequences.]]> 2022-02-02 19:38:56 UTC https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026173039 https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026175342 I feel as though Norman Borlaug is more of a menace rather than a hero. While I see the pros to the Green Revolution such as a higher quantity of food production than previously, the cons still strongly outweigh the pros. During the Green Revolution we saw as the environment took a hit due to water from aquifers being overused and an increase of both pesticide and herbicide use. As well as this there has been many other negative impacts on the environment ranging from diversity of crops decreasing to more greenhouse gases in our atmosphere driving global warming. While some may argue that Borlaug led to an increase in annual crop yields, economic gains, and saving billions of lives from starvation, the limited list of pros do not outweigh the cons. Not only leading to negative environmental impacts, Norman Borlaug, also caused the poor to begin to pay more for less, amnesia about where our food came from, and did not find a long term solution to starvation. The scale to which Norman Borlaug fixed problems is very small as to the amount of problems that he did cause. All in all, Norman Borlaug had a good intent that in the end led to many negative consequences. While saving billions of people there are still people starving, and the environmental effects have been catastrophic. Some may say he is a hero but I believe that he is a menace who had a good intent that turned out to have many negative impacts with a limited amount of positive ones.]]> 2022-02-02 19:40:18 UTC https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026175342 https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026176064 I think Norman Borlaug is a menace because although the intent was good, the impacts were not good. Crop yields were increased and helped improve starvation issues greatly, but only some regions got increased crop yields and the people with money and power were the only ones benefited. Also, even though things like GMOs, pesticides, aquifer draining, and fertilizer helped make farming more reliable and easier to grow food, there were very bad impacts on the environment. They pose dangers to the environment and human health, which are going to be long-term negative effects. Examples of social issues is that there is less crop diversity and less knowledge of heritage of foods as well. Overall, there were more issues formed than problems solved by the Green Revolution even though the intentions were good.]]> 2022-02-02 19:40:42 UTC https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026176064 https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026569241 Although Norman Borlaug brought both good things and bad things to agriculture, I believe that he is a menace. While his technologies helped to increase annual food production which did help with starvation, they didn't at all help with the underlying problems that lead to hunger and starvation, such as distribution. The Green Revolution also led to environmental issues, such as overuse of aquifers, decrease in plant diversity, and water pollution from pesticides and fertilizer. Societal issues like consumers having "amnesia" about what they are eating and more small farms struggling against large farms are also results of the Green Revolution. Despite Norman Borlaug's good intentions, the Green Revolution ended up causing more problems which outweigh what it was attempting to solve.]]> 2022-02-03 01:19:03 UTC https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2026569241 https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2028268821 I think that Norman Borlaug should be remembered as more of a menace than a hero, although I do believe there are pros and cons to both sides. On one hand, the Green Revolution did save millions of people's lives by helping spread mass-production crop practices across the world. However, these improvements were not seen everywhere, Africa being a main place in which these tactics were not spread/implemented. Overall, this left many of the poor still in hunger crises and many smaller farmers in large debt. Additionally, the ways of growing crops that were spread with the Green Revolution caused significant environmental damage, neglecting to consider the long-term impacts these practices would have. Lack of nutrients in the soil and the severe depletion of underground aquifers are just some of these impacts. So, overall, the Green Revolution had more troubling effects than positive effects, and Norman Borlaug should be remembered as somewhat of a menace due to his involvement in the start of the Green Revolution.]]> 2022-02-03 19:43:02 UTC https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2028268821 nth14 https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2042642016 I believe that overall, Norman Bourlaug was a menace to society. It is undeniable that some good came out of his inventions and innovations, but at the same time, it is impossible to ignore the drastic enviormental impacts that these inventions have had. One of the biggest positive impacts that occured was in the extremely sharp increase in grain production when Bourlaug's techniques were implimented. It is definetly true that positives came from this, as he is creditied with saving around one billion lives, but at the same time, there is no point to increasing grain supplies if you do not know what to do with them. While overall grain and food production is obviously very imporant to solving hunger, distribution is also a massive factor. If the distrubution of the food is not right, it only increases the ease of people in MDCs, not the people who actually need it. Now moving on to the negatives. The crops that Norman Bourlaug genetically modified to become higher yield varietes require extremely large amount of pesticides, fertilizers, and water to grow. This can have many untold consequences in the coming years. Pollution from all fo the pesticide use can worsten an already bad problem in the US, and in addition to this, it is projected that the underground water stores known as aquifers will be significantly depleted in around 50 years. In the end, good things undoubtedly resulted from the green revolution, but it is impossible to ignore the untold enviormental impacts that stem from the green revolution that might just tip the scales on Mr. Bourlaug's life-saving count in the near future.]]> 2022-02-11 15:40:50 UTC https://padlet.com/lxu121/nvof67skylla2tk0/wish/2042642016