(5 of 6)
The money and energy costs of increasing harvests in the L.D.C.s could strain the treasuries and banks of the industrial nations. To be sure, the world is spending an estimated $200 billion annually on arms; theoretically, that money could finance agricultural development programs. It is not likely, however, that nations are ready to start disarming. Even if they did, politicians would soon find their constituents clamoring that almost all the money saved on weapons be spent at home rather than abroad to help poor nations feed themselves. American Consumer Advocate Esther Peterson already questions the wisdom of providing food for hungry countries when the U.S. cost of living continues to climb. Of course, the oil-possessing nations could give and lend much more, but so far they have shared little of their new wealth with the poor, the weak and the hungry.
There are also environmental costs in boosting food production. While nutrient input is essential for obtaining greater yields, fertilizers drain off from farm fields and into water supplies. There they cause "blooms" of aquatic plants that turn lakes into swamps, destroying fresh-water supplies. Similarly, clearing and planting virgin areas ruins wildlife habitats and upsets the delicate balance of life.
During the past two decades, for example, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh cleared Himalayan foothills to make more room for crops. Without the forests, which act as great sponges that sop up and hold rainfall, the water rapidly ran off the slopes. The accelerated runoff caused disastrous floods over the past year. In cleared jungles in Mexico, Guatemala and Brazil, heavy rains quickly leached the nutrients from the thin layer of topsoil, rendering the land infertile within a year or two. (The trees had both anchored and nourished the soil.) In other cleared jungles, the sun burned out the soil's valuable organic content.
If the world's food supply were evenly divided among the planet's inhabitants, hunger might be curbed for several decades. But it is not likely that wealthy nations will reduce their living standards to help the L.D.C.s. For example, Americans will not eagerly reduce the 1.3 million tons of fertilizer they spread each year on lawns, golf courses and cemeteries; that amount would produce enough extra grain in the L.D.C.s to feed about 65 million people.
Some nations might be tempted to try emulating China, a country whose name was once synonymous with famine but which is now approaching self-sufficiency in food. The Chinese Communist leadership abolished peasants' private holdings and communalized all plots. Armies of laborers, often under harsh conditions, built irrigation systems, terraced farm lands in mountainous regions, food distribution networks and hundreds of small "backyard" fertilizer factories. All pretense of freedom disappeared, a price (at least in the eyes of the West) that may be too high for most L.D.C.s to pay.
Even the Chinese success is not complete. According to U.N. estimates, Chinese get only 91% of their caloric requirements; a major crop failure could trigger widespread hunger. At best, the Chinese are buying time during which population growth can be checked. Chinese families are encouraged to have no more than two children if they live in the city and three if they live in the countryside.