Thinking Back: “The Wheat Problem” (1898)
In the early 1800′s, extensive guano deposits (rich in nitrogen and phosphorous) were found on dry bird islands off of the South American and South African coastline. The guano deposits, used for crop fertilizer, were mined heavily and exported for European wheat crops. By 1880 the deposits were cleaned dry. Panicked Europeans then turned to the Andes, however the yield was barely enough to meet the growing demand. To sustain the population, the farmers needed to produce more wheat/acre of land. If not, then the European people would starve. By the twentieth century, the fertilizer crisis was absolute. Sir William Crookes, a British chemist, addressed the British assembly and said “the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen is one of the great discoveries awaiting the ingenuity of chemists…unless we can class [the fixation of nitrogen] among certainties to come, the great Caucasian race will cease to be foremost in the world, and will be squeezed out of existance by races to whom wheaten bread is not the staff of life” (from Einstein’s German World on page 81). William Crookes called it “The Wheat Problem“.
(Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch discovered how to make nitrogen fertilizer from steam in the early 1900′s, for those of you who are interested)
Sir William Crookes Fritz Haber Carl Bosch
Sound firmiliar?
The West finds a non-renewable resource that its entire society becomes dependent on (oil). While it becomes popular knowledge that supply is quickly depreciating (oil wells drying up), we refuse to reduce our consumption (‘I need to drive my car to work, public transit smells bad’, ‘I am tired from my day at the office, I don’t want to walk to the store’) at the risk of making our already ridiculously easy lives more difficult. Suppliers are therefore ‘forced’ to continue producing the resource to meet the demand. When deposits dry up or when the yeild can not meet the demand, producers look elsewhere to find their fix (Iraq, Venezuela, Iran, Saudia Arabia), at whatever the cost. Eventually, we reach a crisis, whereby the livelihood of a population is at risk (“The Oil Problem“).
Think. What can we learn from The Wheat Problem to help solve The Oil Problem?
2. Find a way to sustain our current habits without oil (like the non-organic nitrogen fertilizer). Remember what I posted about the collective brain? Support alternative energy research (that does not require more land) and talk with others to brainstorm how to maintain our lucrative lifestyle without reliance on oil.
1. (and most importantly) Reduce your reliance. Reduce your consumption. Reduce the demand. Reduce producer’s reason to mine oil.
I’m suspicious of this claim:
“To sustain the population, the farmers needed to produce more wheat/acre of land. If not, then the European people would starve.”
I’d be curious if there’s any solid support for it, especially considering the analogy you’re making. Isn’t the imminent starvation of a huge population a pretty compelling reason to keep raping the land? Or, put it this way: if you were profiting enormously from raping the land and wouldn’t you want to find some justification for your misdeeds, and trumpet it to everyone, even if the evidence is shoddy?
Right. So you are saying that with the supply of wheat unable to meet the demand of the population, a demand that if not met means the starvation of millions, then the short term solution (often the route chosen by those in power) would be to simply convert more land into wheat crops. And more importantly, why wouldn’t those who currently benefit from the ‘raping the land’
seize the opportunity to increase the number of crops and subsequent profits? You mention that in doing so, those who have been benefiting at the earth’s expense would be able to ‘find some justification for [their] misdeeds.”
There are a few things I want to talk about in regards to this comment.
(before I do I should note that my introduction to the “The Wheat Problem” was through Crookes speech and therefore I was exposed to the the-world-is-going-to-end-be-afraid tactic to motivate people (and appease higher power people no doubt). With this tale being my primary information source, my introduction of the problem on thinklove played the same tune, but with a purpose as you’ll see)
First, in the 1800′s the standard of living (in Western/White cultures) was steadily increasing for the first time in human history. While partly due to a stable and warm climate, animals and simple
machinery were replacing human labour in the feilds. This liberation allowed individuals to specialize in trade and invent more efficient machinery, subsequently reducing the costs of production and increasing the number of people able to afford products. Hello middle-class.
Do you think that the general population, whose lives had been elevated drastically due to the burning of coil, cared much for the environmental damage acquired by expanding the amount of land used for crops? And if thats the case, why would the farmers or politicians need justification for their misdeeds? I find it hard to believe that you or I would be able to convince an individual from that era that farming mass amounts of land to feed the general population was a ‘misdeed’ at all. I’d actually be curious if there is any support for environmental concern in the mid to late 1800′s, a concern that could potentially sacrifice their newly established social equity and lavish
lifestyle.
Recall the statement:
“…fixation of atmospheric nitrogen is one of the great discoveries awaiting the ingenuity of chemists…unless we can class [the fixation of nitrogen] among certainties to come, the great Caucasian race will cease to be foremost in the world…”
I think if anything Sir William Crookes is providing justification for the FUTURE misdeeds of the British Assembly, establishing impunity for the further raping and pilfering of OTHER’S land. Preach Armageddon to establish a cohesion among the whites, creating in-group homogeneity
in purpose and mindset. Easily established, especially when the resources to produce thicker and better crops is found in other, out-group, countries.
At this point in time, Imperial Europe was benefiting greatly from cross-Atlantic trade, realizing that non-Europeans had a much lower standard of living. The mind set of the time: gain resources from neighboring countries at a cheap price, rather than carve up more of their own land. If they carve up their own land then the government would have to pay worker’s a wage higher than the wage required for non-Europeans. Social injustice (although this term’s current definition differs widely from its definition, if the term even existed that is, in the 1800′s) is easily justified when the public believes their livelihood rests on acquiring resources from another man’s land.
(Although I do assume that if Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch hadn’t answered Sir William Cooke’s prayers and developed a non-organic form of nitrogen, than Europe, after having raped and pilfered everyone else’s resources, would have converted more land for crops.)
My main motive for creating the parallel between The Wheat Problem and the current Oil Problem was to send a very specific message: we have been here before, where we rely on a non- renewable resource that is ‘running out’. I wanted to show (especially by the “and will go to any
extent to get their fix (Iran…” comment) that if we make personal changes in our consumption then our politicians and lobbyists wont have to declare future impunity for the acquisition of oil (however, in the increased ‘awareness’ of todays population our politicians hide under the guise of war on terror – what a joke).
Wow. Sorry for the rant………..!