When the Great Exhibition of London opened in 1851, based in the spectacular Crystal Palace, the first building of glass and steel and grandfather of modern skyscrapers, thousands of visitors stopped in front of Cyrus McCormick's booth to admire his latest model mower, still pulled by a horse. This engineering marvel made horizontal cuts and included a novel mechanism that piled up the ears of wheat in bundles and then tied them automatically. Even before this pioneer of the American agricultural machinery industry crossed the Atlantic to show the world his conception, a large number of innovations had been introduced in the first half of the s. XIX in your country. By that date there were 100,000 threshers in the United States,but the mechanization of the farms only took on intensity in the heat of the Civil War (1861-1865).
The conflagration absorbed a large part of the labor force, forcing the farmers to substitute the labor force for the brand new machines, since they required few operators and could be operated by a woman or a boy. Furthermore, the war caused agricultural products to rise in price and part of the increase in capital was invested in emerging technologies. After the guns fell silent, the boom in innovations took off rapidly. Only until 1900 were twelve thousand plow patents issued and the multiple plow, mower, seeder, tying machine, sheller, husker, compost winder, multiple plow, hay dryer, potato planter, incubator, skimmer and many other machinery that increased the efficiency of agricultural work.Not since the Neolithic revolution had there been such drastic changes in the processes of the countryside. To get an idea of the increase in productivity, just think that in 1850 it took 24 hours to mow a ton of hay, but a century later just four. This resulted in an exponential increase in agricultural production and substantial food prices.
But the agri-food machinery brought with it the rapid multiplication of cultivated lands and the consequent environmental impact, what we have called the climate bubble, affecting a number of habitats that have been created slowly since millennia, erased from the map in a short time. In the three decades after 1860, more land was used for farming than in the entire history of the United States up to that point. The number of farms increased from two to six million, the area sown doubled, wheat production rose from 173 to 635 million bushels, and corn and cotton crops tripled. Since the first half of the s. XX some authors, such as Samuel Elliot Morison and Henry Steeler Commager (History of the United States of America, Economic Culture Fund, 1951),From whom we have taken most of these data, they warned about the damage caused to ecosystems. Excessive extraction of products from the subsoil, crop depletion and destruction of forests - say these authors - caused erosions, droughts and floods. About 40 million hectares, one sixth of the total area of the southern United States had been lost or damaged by erosion. By 1930, in some parts, the piedmont had disappeared half of the arable land.one sixth of the total area of the southern United States had been lost or damaged by erosion. By 1930, in some parts, the piedmont had disappeared half of the arable land.one sixth of the total area of the southern United States had been lost or damaged by erosion. By 1930, in some parts, the piedmont had disappeared half of the arable land.
Entered the s. In the twentieth century, when the United States was fully taking over the baton of the industrial revolution from the British Empire, scale production acquired new dimensions, as did the climate bubble. Some have called it the "second industrial revolution", characterized by major changes in energy patterns. The steam engine gave way to the gasoline, diesel and electric engine. By 1930, one million new technology tractors were in operation in the United States. Mechanical harvesters and threshers, trucks and large combined machines powered by the newly released fuels were also massively introduced. It was witnessing a second great change in the mode of production in the field. The giant steps with which science and technology advanced, together with large capitals,they marked the end of crop variety and support agriculture. The small family farm was no longer efficient and gave way to large specialized farms dedicated to monoculture. This produced a great exodus from the countryside to the city. Between 1870 and 1930 the American rural population declined from 80% to less than 40%, and then migration continued at a faster rate.
Over time, super-machines reached many parts of the world and the story was similar to the American one: lots of forests disappeared and cities were nourished by waves of people who came from the countryside in search of better opportunities. The increasing amount of agricultural machinery, freight transporters, automobiles and airplanes that used fossil fuels were increasing the emission of CO2 gases into the atmosphere. The alarms were not long in going off, and suddenly the accumulation of carbon dioxide gases began to be related to global warming from anthropogenic causes. After the 1950s, voices began to rise for the future of the sustainability of life on Earth. In the last decades of the s. XX there was more and more talk of alternate energy patterns,and among the most popular biofuels stood out. The problem with biofuels is that they require huge areas of land for cultivation. If its use were to become massive, in addition to competing with food production, crops would increase, aggravating the problem, since we would invade more biotopes in forests, jungles, plains, swamps and semi-desert regions around the world, inhabited by hundreds thousands of species of plants and animals that have occupied these spaces for millennia.since we would invade more biotopes in forests, jungles, plains, swamps and semi-desert regions around the world, inhabited by hundreds of thousands of species of plants and animals that have occupied these spaces for millennia.since we would invade more biotopes in forests, jungles, plains, swamps and semi-desert regions around the world, inhabited by hundreds of thousands of species of plants and animals that have occupied these spaces for millennia.
As for rivers, lakes and oceans, in addition to the damage that their waters suffer from the effects of pollution and climate change, they are losing their natural fauna to the benefit of feeding more and more billions of human beings that inhabit the planet. These days we read that Spain had exhausted in just four months 100% of its fishing quota for 2011. Whales are reducing their population because they are an important food in Japan, Norway and other countries. There is no doubt that the population bubble, through the growing consumption and transportation needs of people, will have an ever greater impact on the balance of biological diversity, with unpredictable consequences.
At this point, we consider it appropriate to recall Thomas Malthus and his classic statement: "while the population grows in geometric progression, the means of subsistence do so arithmetically", the thesis included in his controversial Essay on the principle of population, published in 1798, in which he affirmed that the time would come when the population would not be able to obtain sufficient resources to survive, due to a great shortage of food. We wonder: where did Malthus go wrong and if he really was wrong about everything. In the first place, his mistake was that he did not envision the agri-food revolution that shattered his statement, much less the spectacular population growth that came after his death. However, we consider that Malthus was not entirely wrong,since the food shortage he recommends and the amount of natural habitats destroyed to satisfy the enormous nutritional needs of the enormous populations, are two sides of the same coin. The disaster predicted by him would not materialize due to insufficient food, which could also worsen in the near future, as is already the case in some countries, but due to its excess production, which contributes significantly to the generation of the climate bubble. In a scenario in which the environmental catastrophe took on apocalyptic characteristics, to the point that the extinction of homo sapiens sapiens occurred, which would be more than equivalent to the corollary of Malthus's thesis.The disaster predicted by him would not materialize due to insufficient food, which could also worsen in the near future, as is already the case in some countries, but due to its excess production, which contributes significantly to the generation of the climate bubble. In a scenario in which the environmental catastrophe took on apocalyptic characteristics, to the point that the extinction of homo sapiens sapiens occurred, which would be more than equivalent to the corollary of Malthus's thesis.The disaster predicted by him would not materialize due to insufficient food, which could also worsen in the near future, as is already the case in some countries, but due to its excess production, which contributes significantly to the generation of the climate bubble. In a scenario in which the environmental catastrophe took on apocalyptic characteristics, to the point that the extinction of homo sapiens sapiens occurred, which would be more than equivalent to the corollary of Malthus's thesis.In a scenario in which the environmental catastrophe took on apocalyptic characteristics, to the point that the extinction of homo sapiens sapiens occurred, which would be more than equivalent to the corollary of Malthus's thesis.In a scenario in which the environmental catastrophe took on apocalyptic characteristics, to the point that the extinction of homo sapiens sapiens occurred, which would be more than equivalent to the corollary of Malthus's thesis.
In conclusion, there is no doubt about the mutual interaction of the four bubbles of the apocalypse. The growth of the population bubble will continue to put pressure on the commodities bubble and this, mainly the food and energy bubble, on the climate bubble or ecological bubble. If the money bubble were to burst, it would likely compromise agreements and protocols on climate change and delay the entry of alternative energies.
After completing our analysis, the questions that fit are: Which of the four bubbles will burst first? How do we imagine the bursting of the population bubble? The one of the commodities? The weather one? Can we prevent these outbursts? Will we have the ability to avoid the apocalypse? The answers are left to you, our readers.
This article was part of the series "The four bubbles of the apocalypse: money, population, commodities and climate", which consisted of five pieces published in 2011.
Download the original file
