A theme that has been developing, mentioned in several earlier posts, is the growing realization that the world has been misguided about agriculture in recent decades, indulging various declensionist dialogues and false nostalgia for peasant agriculture, as if the agricultural theme parks of heavily subsidized western countries were real and could be the basis for world agriculture. That realization has been sharpened by the food shortages, even riots, that have been in the news. Consider:

India’s supply of arable land is second only to that of the United States, its economy is one of the fastest growing in the world, and its industrial innovation is legendary. But when it comes to agriculture, its output lags far behind potential. For some staples, India must turn to already stretched international markets, exacerbating a global food crisis. . .

The Green Revolution introduced high-yielding varieties of rice and wheat, expanded the use of irrigation, pesticides and fertilizers, and transformed the northwestern plains into India’s breadbasket. Between 1968 and 1998, the production of cereals in India more than doubled.

But since the 1980s, the government has not expanded irrigation and access to loans for farmers, or to advance agricultural research. Groundwater has been depleted at alarming rates. . .

By the 1980s, government investment in canals fed by rivers had tapered off, and wells became the principal source of irrigation, helped by a shortsighted government policy of free electricity to pump water. . .

Between 1980 and 2002, the government continued to heavily subsidize fertilizers and food grains for the poor, but reduced its total investment in agriculture. Public spending on farming shrank by roughly a third . . .

This had been the Green Revolution’s other pillar — a fixed government price for grain. A farmer could sell his crop to a private trader, but for many small tillers, it was far easier to approach the nearest government granary, and accept their rate.

For years, those prices remained miserably low, farmers and their advocates complained, and there was little incentive for farmers to invest in their crop. “For farmers,” said Mr. Swaminathan, the plant geneticist, “a remunerative price is the best fertilizer.” . .

After two years of having to import wheat, the government offered farmers a substantially higher price for their grain: farmers not only planted slightly more wheat but also sold much more of their harvest to the state. As a result, by May, the country’s buffer stocks were at record levels. . .

From one quarter comes pressure to introduce genetically modified crops with greater yields; from another come lawsuits to stop it. And from yet another come pleas to mount a greener Green Revolution.

Alexander Evans, author of a recent paper on food prices published by Chatham House, a British research institution, said: “This time around, it needs to be more efficient in its use of water, in its use of energy, in its use of fertilizer and land.”

The main problem is government. It always has been so. You might wish to argue that policy defects are easier to see in hindsight, but this is only true for those previously blinded by ideology. It takes no great insight to see that low prices for crops will destroy any incentive to produce them, and that subsidies for inputs will lead to waste. All over the world farmers have switched from farming the land to farming their governments. Their management decisions don't have to make sense, they just have to satisfy government requirements for payments.

Bad governance can be improved, but not when there are activist groups with fantasy ideologies who have the funding to essentially buy bad politicians who will cater to their neuroses. Better government will require facing down the activists. That should be easier to do now that the disastrous consequences of their obstructionism are becoming more apparent.

The notion of a second green revolution is mistaken. The notion of a first green revolution is mistaken. The development and/or introduction of new food crops and new cultivars of old crops isn't novel, isn't revolutionary. It has happened repeatedly in the past and will happen again in future. New materials and methods for increasing soil fertility have also happened repeatedly in the past, and will happen again in future. It would make as much or more sense to describe the explosion of agricultural production in Europe that took place as a result of the introduction of new crops from the Americas, industrial machines such as the seed drill, and fertilizers shipped in from around the world - Chilean saltpeter, nitrates from guano islands, N. American colonial potash, bone meal, etc. - as the green revolution that thwarted the Malthusian fate anticipated by casual thinkers in that period.

Evolution is a better metaphor than revolution. It isn't a smooth curve of advancement - it's like a step function with periodic large amplitude changes followed by flatter periods - but seeing it as a continuing process improves understanding. We can anticipate if not predict future changes and so be less alarmed by them. It is wise to exercise caution, knowing that great change has the potential for disruptive consequences other than those expected, but it is foolish to simply oppose change. Without past change we would not be here, and without present change our future is jeopardized.

In India the problem is that only bits and pieces of the improved 20th century agronomic systems were applied, and even those incomplete bits were crufted up with nonsensical regulations and controls. For example, it isn't water use efficiency that is needed, it is effective watershed management that incorporates cachement systems that cause seasonal rains to linger on the land before rushing down river, and so have more time to replenish aquifers. Fertilizers must be used with insight. The various nutrients must be in balance and work with soil chemistry and biology to give good benefit. All of this varies with the particular crops being grown. Planned variation of crops - a rotation - gives more benefit from the soil amendments applied, and disrupts the life cycles of pests and diseases.

When seen as evolutionary change it is easier to implement a complete agronomic system that incorporates new methods and materials with established practices that are still appropriate. The availability of synthesized fertilizers doesn't eliminate the need for soil organic matter. Similarly, pesticides do not eliminate the need for pest management practices such as crop rotation. Large irrigation systems do not eliminate the need for traditional cachement systems. It isn't a stark choice between modern industrial methods and traditional peasant methods, it is integration of new knowledge and old knowledge for improved outcomes. As with evolution, some ancient developments are highly conserved across deep time because they are that good, and coexist with recent change.

We won't be able to eliminate the obstruction of close minded ideologues such as the greens. Declensionist dialogues and false nostalgia for a mythical past have always been companions of humanity. They are utterly mistaken but do serve some small purpose as a reminder to pay attention and not be blinded by revolutionary fervor for new methods. It's evolution, not revolution. The trick is to do smart integration of the new with the still valid old.

That takes comprehensive knowledge and a fair amount of intelligence, so we expect and require our intelligentsia to make major contributions. Unfortunately, they dropped the ball in recent decades. Instead of being a steadying influence above the fray they got down and dirty on both sides of the barricades erected by politicized combatants seeking to exploit the hopes, fears and hunger of burgeoning humanity to advance various ideological agendas. Their behavior has been shameful.

There's an opportunity here for ambitious but well grounded aspirants to the higher levels of that disappointing intelligentsia to promulgate better narratives, ones that can help rather than hinder. Their selfish objectives for personal advancement will be served as well.