Seven districts: Cullather 2010:195. A group of Indian and U.S. academics argued in an influential Ford Foundation report in 1959 that hunger would be a bottleneck on Indian development. In the long run, they warned, importing low-priced U.S. wheat would be counterproductive. By effectively setting a ceiling on domestic prices, it would discourage domestic production (Government of India 1959).
Borlaug-Swaminathan trip: Author’s interview, Swaminathan (“child-like”); Swaminathan 2010b:4–5; VIET3:67–76; Cullather 2010:198–99; Bickel 1974:244–46 (“ever experienced”).
Fertilizer struggle: Saha 2013; Cullather 2010:198–201 (“raw materials,” “dam projects,” 199); N. E. Borlaug, “Indian Wheat Research Designed to Increase Wheat Production,” typescript, CIMBPC, 11 Apr 1964 (B5634-R) (“chemical fertilizers,” 2). Increasing fertilizer imports would mean decreasing jute imports. And India’s finance minister, a powerful figure in the government, as Cullather put it, “guarded the jute allotment like a mastiff” (200).
Confrontation in Pakistan: VIET3:76–81 (all quotes).
1964-5 tests: Swaminathan 1965; Swaminathan 2010b:4–5, 1965; Perkins 1997:236.
Shastri, Subramaniam, Bhoothalingam: Author’s interviews, Swaminathan; Saha 2013, esp. 302–5; Bhoothalingam 1993: 108.
Sending grain to India and Pakistan: LHNB (“Watts riot”); VIET3:112–18; Bickel 1974:272–79; Paarlberg 1970:15.
India-Pakistan war: VIET3:119–20 (“MY BACKYARD,” 119).
Methyl bromide disaster: VIET3:130–31.
Bihar famine: Rubin 2009:703-06; Dréze 1995:48-63, appendixes; Dyson and Maharatna 1992; Brass 1986; Berg 1971; Ramalingaswami et al. 1971; Gandhi 1966 (“of homes,” 63).
Borlaug, Subramaniam, Mehta: Author’s interviews, Swaminathan; VIET 2:167-169.
Parents’ home: Author’s interview, Mark Johnson (Borlaug Foundation); Bickel 1974:346-47.
Boyce’s story: Author’s interview, Boyce; Hartmann and Boyce 2013.
Criticisms of Green Revolution: Cockburn 2007 (“by the million”); Freebairn 1995 (4 out of 5); Shiva 1991 (“discontented farmers,” 12); Pearse 1980; Griffin 1974 (“that failed,” xi), 1972; Hewitt de Alcántara 1978; Dasgupta 1977 (“fewer hands,” 372); Feder 1976 (“Third World peasantry,” 532); Bickel 1974 (boos, 350–51); Reinton 1973 (“produce misery,” 58); Byres 1972; George 1986 (1976) (“to the poor,” 17); Cleaver 1972; Palmer 1972 (the Green Revolution has turned “parts of the Near East” into “genetic disaster areas,” 95); Frankel 197. UNRISD books listed at unrisd.org.
Borlaug’s response: Author’s interviews, Borlaug; VIET3:107–08.
Productivity gains: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization 2004; Evenson and Gollin 2003.
Success stories: Author’s visits, Pune region; Bourne, pers. comm.; Bourne 2015:78-81; Damodaran 2016.
Pakistan meeting: VIET3:90–91.
Sharbati Sonora: Author’s interviews, P. C. Kesavan, Swaminathan; Austin and Ram 1971; Varughese and Swaminathan 1967. Details of other types of adaptation in M.S. Swaminathan, “Can We Face a Widespread Drought Again without Food Imports,” Address to Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics, 1972. Typescript, M.S. Swaminathan Foundation archives. The color change and other adaptations were overshadowed by Swaminathan’s announcement that the mutated grain had, compared to ordinary grain, high levels both of protein and the essential amino acid lysine, and thus was more nutritious. The claim seems to have stemmed from erroneous laboratory tests. In any case, Swaminathan reported the increase overenthusiastically (e.g., Swaminathan 1969:73). After the lysine claim was disproved, he was charged with spreading false data. Borlaug emphatically disputed the charge and subsequent investigations found no basis for it (Saha 2013:309–10; Parthasarathi 2007: 235–40; Borlaug and Anderson 1975; Hanlon 1974). Wheat bran color: Metzger and Silbaugh 1970.
Evergreen revolution: Swaminathan 2010a, 2006 (“prudence,” 2293), 2000, 1996 (esp. 232); M. S. Swaminathan, “The Age of Algeny, Genetic Destruction of Yield Barriers and Agricultural Transformation,” Address to 55th Indian Science Congress, 1968, typescript, M. S. Swaminathan Foundation archives (1968 worries).
Workshop and the world: Crease forthcoming; Husserl 1970.
Chapter Ten: The Edge of the Petri Dish
Wilberforce: Biographies include Meacham 1970; Wilberforce 1888; Ashwell and Wilberforce 1880–82. For his reputation, see the obituary tribute by Prime Minister William Gladstone (Ashwell and Wilberforce 1880–82, 3:450–51.
“the Bishop’s scalp”: Case and Stiers 1971:297; Case 1975:90.
Victory for science: See, e.g., Hitchens 2005 (“tipping point”); Brooke 2001 (“one of the great stories of the history of science,” 127); Glick 1988 (“a key chapter in the mythology of English science,” xvi); Lucas 1979. Smith (2013) describes the common portrayal of the debate as “the day when…science threw off the shackles of religious authority.” Gauld found sixty-three accounts of the debate (1992a:151). Their “purpose,” he said, was to celebrate “the triumph of Darwinism over uninformed religious prejudice” (1992b:406). This portrayal of the debate dates back at least to White 1896 (Huxley’s sally “reverberated through England” [1:71] and “secured [Wilberforce] a fame more lasting than enviable” [2:342]). Other accounts of the debate include Hesketh 2009; Depew 2010:338–43; Browne 2006:95–97, 2002:153–70; Brooke 2001; Thomson 2000; Jensen 1991:68–86, 1988; Gilley 1981; Altholz 1980; Meacham 1970:212–17; Wilberforce 1888:247–48; Ashwell and Wilberforce 1880–82, 2:450–51; Anonymous 1860a:18–19, 1860b:64–65; letter, J. D. Hooker to C. Darwin, 2 Jul 1860, CCD 8:270; letter, C. Darwin to T. H. Huxley, 3 Jul 1860, CCD 8:277; letter, J. R. Green to W. B. Dawkins, 3 Jul 1860, in Leslie ed. 1901:43–46; letter, C. Darwin to T. H. Huxley, 5 Jul 1860, CCD 8:280; letter, T. H. Huxley to F. Dyster, 9 Sept 1860, Foskett 1953.
Not a single newspaper: Ellegard 1958:380; Jensen 1988:170–71.
Origin creates uproar: Browne 2002: chap. 3.
“into mine hands”: 1 Samuel 23:7 (“And Saul said, God hath delivered him into mine hand” [King James Bible]) It seems worth noting that the first record of Huxley saying this is in his son’s biography, published forty years after the event. An eyewitness wrote that Huxley was “white with anger” (Tuckwell 1900:52).
Story of Huxley-Wilberforce: The common version is based on accounts by Huxley’s son Leonard (1901: 2:192–204 [“monkey,” 197]) and Darwin’s son Francis (1893: 1:251–53 [“falsehood,” 252]).
Darwin and Wilberforce background: The standard Darwin biography is Browne 1995, 2002; see also Browne 2006, F. Darwin 1887. If anything, Wilberforce and his family were even more attached to science than Darwin and his family. Not only Bishop Wilberforce, but two of his three brothers took first-class mathematics degrees (Ashwell and Wilberforce 1880–82, 1:32). By contrast, Darwin found mathematics “repugnant” and avoided it as a student (F. Darwin 1887: 1:46). Their elections to the Royal Society appear in the lists of the Fellows published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London.
Darwin and Wilberforce reactions to loss: Hesketh 2009:43–46. Darwin: Keynes 2002 (2001); Browne 1995:498–504. Wilberforce: Ashwell and Wilberforce 1880–82:1:50, 177–92 (quotes from 180–81).
Wilberforce’s essay: [Wilberforce] 1860. The review was anonymous, but Darwin, Huxley, and many others knew its authorship.
“all difficulties”: Letter, C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker, 20 Jul 1860, CCD 8:293. Darwin went back and forth on the strength of the critique (Letter, C. Darwin to C. Lyell, 11 Aug 1860, CCD 8:319 [“the Bishop makes a very telling case against me by accumulating several instances, where I speak very doubtfully”]; letter, C. Darwin to T. H. Huxley, 20 Jul 1860, CCD 8:294; letter, C. Darwin to A. Gray, 22 Jul 1860, CCD 8:298; letter, C. Darwin to C. Lyell, 30 Jul 1860, CCD 8:306). By contrast, Huxley always sneered at the “foolish and unmannerly” review, which “eked out lack of reason by superfluity of railing” (Huxley 1887:183–84).
Incompleteness of fossil record: [Wil
berforce] 1860 (“their theory,” 239); Darwin 1859: chap. 9.
Natural selection: Huxley 1887 (“thought of that!” 197); Darwin 1859: chap. 4 (“their kind,” 81, “surviving,” 61); Darwin and Wallace 1858.
“tangled bank”: Darwin 1872:429. Darwin may have been inspired by the Orchis Bank, which he often walked past on his morning stroll (Keynes 2002:251). The first edition of Origin (1859:489) called it an “entangled bank” (emphasis mine).
Avoided mention: Two pages from the end, Darwin did write, obliquely, that in “the distant future…light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history” (Darwin 1859:488). His decision to avoid discussing humankind was part of his view “that direct arguments against christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public” (letter, C. Darwin to E. B. Aveling, 13 Oct 1880, in Feuer 1975:2). Darwin added that he wanted to avoid upsetting his family.
Wilberforce’s objection to downgrading human status: [Wilberforce] 1860:256–64 (“condition of man,” 257; “mushrooms,” 231). See also Cohen 1985:598, 607n22; Meacham 1970:213–14.
Non-revolutionary Copernican revolution: Dick Teresi, pers. comm. According to Teresi, “the earth being special has long been misinterpreted.” In the Christian conception of the day, the Earth was a fallen place. It was at the center of the cosmos, but not admirable. “It’s special in the sense of ‘isn’t that special?’ ” Teresi explained. In the eighth century B.C., thinkers in northern India had put the sun at the center of the cosmos; 500 years later, so did the Greek astronomer Aristarchus of Samos. By A.D. 1000, the Maya had a heliocentric system. Nonetheless, Copernicus’s rigorous methods were an advance.
Second Copernican Revolution: Lewis 2009. I thank Oliver Morton for drawing this to my attention and Simon Lewis for kindly allowing me to lift his idea.
“or above her”: Marsh 1864:549 (emphasis added).
“at Oxford”: Letter, Darwin to T. H. Huxley, 3 Jul 1860, CCD 8:277.
Reactions to debate: Jensen 1988:171–73; Lucas 1979:323–25; Altholz 1980:315 (“beat him”); letter, J. R. Green to W. B. Dawkins, 3 Jul 1860, in Leslie 1901:43–46 (“cheering lustily”); letter, T. H. Huxley to F. Dyster, 9 Sept 1860. In Foskett 1953 (“hours afterward”). Cohen (1985:597–98) points out that the debate convinced the ornithologist Henry Baker Tristam, the first scientist to use Darwin’s natural selection in an article, to switch sides and oppose evolution.
“and all that”: Hitchens 2005. Even the bishop’s sympathetic biographer describes his performance as “inept” (Meacham 1970:215).
Discordant Harmonies: Botkin 1992 (1990). See also Botkin 2012.
Crane evolution, range, population: Meine and Archibald 1996:159–62 (Eurasian crane numbers), 175 (whooper numbers); Krajewski and King 1996:26 (evolution), Krajewski and Fetzner 1994 (evolution); Doughty 1988:4 (range), 15–18 (numbers).
Tiburon lily: Botkin 2016:171–72.
Robinson Crusoe: Defoe 1719 (“rover,” 19; “Prize,” 20).
Defoe and slavery: Richetti 2005:18 (shares); Keirn 1988 (editorials); Defoe 1715 (“our Commerce,” 5). He was paid £12 10s 6d (~$50,000 today, according to Measuringworth.com).
Scott 2017:esp. 155-82 (Greece, “emporium,” 156); Mann 2011:Chap. 8 (early modern slavery); United States Bureau of Census 1909:139–40 (U.S. slave populations). Middle Passage figure from Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database (www.slavevoyages.org). A recent global history is the ongoing Cambridge World History of Slavery project.
Value of slaves: Williamson and Cain 2015; Ransom and Sutch 1990 (value, 39; profitability, 31). GDP figure from Gallman (1966: Table A-1), taking a rough midpoint between his values for 1849–58 and 1869–78. More recent estimates from the Angus Maddison project place the GDP at $2.24 billion in 1990 Geary-Khanis dollars (Bolt and van Zanden 2013). Extrapolating backwards from Balke and Gordon (1989: Table 10) puts the figure at about $7 billion. Inflation values from www.measuringworth.com. “a positive good”: John C. Calhoun, “Speech on Slavery,” U.S. Senate, Congressional Globe, 24th Congress, 2nd Sess (Feb. 6, 1837), 157–59.
Abolition of slavery: Many books tell this tale. Among the best are Drescher 2009 and Davis 2006; 24.9 million slaves: International Labor Organization 2017.
Paucity of matriarchal societies: Summaries of the common view are Harari 2015:152–59; Balter 2006:36–40, 107–14, 320–24; Christian 2005:256–57, 263–64.
Women’s status in past: A beginning point for this complex subject is Smith 2008. For U.S. women, see Evans 1997 (1989). For European women, see Anderson and Zinsser 2000 (1988).
Decline in war and violent death: Morris 2014; Diamond 2012: chap. 4; Pinker 2011; Goldstein 2011; Gat 2006; Keeley 1996; Richardson 1960.
Classical Greece warfare: Van Wees 2004.
Germany casualties: Gat 2013 (“Wars combined,” 152).
Levels of violence in early societies: Many well-known researchers, including Steven Pinker, Jared Diamond, and Ian Morris, maintain that organized violence extends past the invention of agriculture to the foraging bands of our oldest ancestors. Evidence for this assertion comes from archaeological reports of ancient settlements and anthropological studies of today’s remaining bands of hunter-and-gatherers, all of which are replete with traces of war. Both types of evidence have been criticized. First, critics say, archaeologists as yet have found only one site with warfare—Jebel Sahaba, in northern Sudan—that is older than 10,000 years, which means that the physical evidence for warfare dates almost entirely from later, agricultural societies. Because the switch from foraging to farming changed society profoundly, one can’t assume that levels of warfare remained the same. For their part, anthropologists have described some strikingly violent modern foragers, but in every case these groups were studied long after they had begun interacting with bigger, more technological societies. Here the contention is that the anthropologists’ subjects were not unchanged from ancient days, but contemporary people with guns and steel blades; present-day warfare among them shouldn’t be viewed as evidence about the past. To sidestep this dispute, I focus on the last 10,000 years, which nobody seems to think were peaceful. Recent pro-early-war arguments include Morris 2014:52–63, 333–38 (1 out of 10); Diamond 2012: chap. 4, 2006: esp. 294–98; Pinker 2011; Tooby and Cosmides 2010; Gat 2006: Part 1; Fukuyama 1998:24–27. All base their work on earlier studies, among them Bowles 2009; Otterbein 2004; LeBlanc and Register 2003; and, especially, Keeley 1996. Anti-early-war arguments include Thorpe 2005; Layton 2005; and the essays in Fry 2013, esp. Ferguson 2013a, b. Anthropological criticisms are generally based on ideas from Wolf 1982.
Violent death rates since Second World War: Themnér and Wallensteen 2013; Lacina et al. 2006. These represent, respectively, the Uppsala Conflict Data Program and the Peace Research Institute Oslo Battle Deaths Dataset, the leading efforts to quantify war casualties globally. Naturally, their methodologies have been attacked (e.g., Gohdes and Price 2013), but the defenses have been, to my eye, robust (Lacina and Gleditsch 2012).
Peacekeeping operations’ success: Goldstein 2011.
Violence uptick: Institute for Economics and Peace 2017.
Global poverty fall: According to a World Bank economics research group, 1.96 billion people lived in destitution (>$1.90/day, 2011 PPP) in 1990; in 2015, the figure was a projected 702 million, a drop of more than two-thirds (Cruz et al. 2015). “being human”: Interview, B. Sterling, Slashdot.org, 23 Dec 2013.
“Pleasures of the World”: Defoe 1719:132.
Appendix A: Why Believe? (Part One)
Successful predictions: Stouffer and Manabe 2017; Gillett et al. 2011; Stouffer et al. 1989; Manabe and Wetherald 1967. For a discussion of successful predictions, see Raymond Pierrehumbert’s 2012 Tyndall lecture (available at www.youtube.com).
Tuning: Voosen 2016; Curry and Webster 2011.
Clouds: Author’s interview, Pierrehumbert; Ceppi et al. 2017; Voosen 2012.
Methane hydrates: Pohlman et al. 2017.
Biological impacts: author’s i
nterviews, Daniel Botkin; Ahlström et al. 2017 (“Vegetation processes such as [tree] mortality and fires are poorly captured in most ESMs [Earth systems models]…the ESMs generally predict tropical forest extent and Amazonian biomass that are too low compared to observations”); Tröstl et al. 2016 (volatiles); Zeng et al. 2017 (“mitigated”); Zhu et al. 2016 (greening).
Antarctic models: Stenni et al forthcoming; Smith and Polvani 2016; DeConto and Pollard 2016. I thank Matt Ridley for drawing my attention to this work.
Works Cited
1000 Genomes Project Consortium. 2015. “A Global Reference for Human Genetic Variation.” Nature 526:68–74.
Abbot, C. G., and F. E. Fowle. 1908. “Income and Outgo of Heat from the Earth, and the Dependence of Its Temperature Thereon.” Annals of the Astrophysical Observatory of the Smithsonian Institution 2:159–76.*
Abdullah, A. B., et al. 2006. “Estimate of Rice Consumption in Asian Countries and the World Towards 2050.” In Pandey, S., et al., eds. Proceedings for Workshop and Conference on Rice in the World at Stake. Los Banos, Philippines: IRRI, 2:28-43.
Aboites, G., et al. 1999. “El Negocio de la Producción de Semillas Mejoradas y su Rol en el Proceso de Privatización de la Agricultura Mexicana.” Espiral 5:151–85.
Adams, W. G., and R. E. Day. 1877. “The Action of Light on Selenium.” PTRS 167:313–49.
———. 1876. “The Action of Light on Selenium.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 25:113–17.
Adelman, M. A. 1995. Genie Out of the Bottle: World Oil Since 1970. MIT.
———. 1991. “Oil Fallacies.” Foreign Policy 82:3–16.
Adelmann, G. W. 1998. “Reworking the Landscape, Chicago Style.” Hastings Center Report 28:S6-S11.
Aharoni, A., et al. 2010. “SWITCH Project Tel-Aviv Demo City, Mekorot’s Case: Hybrid Natural and Membranal Processes to Upgrade Effluent Quality.” Reviews in Environmental Science and Biotechnology 9:193–98.
Ahlström, A., et al. 2017. “Hydrologic Resilience and Amazon Productivity.” Nature Communications 8:387.*