Tom Philpott wrote: No mention of low-tech ways of boosting yields through biodiversity and compost; no mention of local agricultural knowledge.

Norman Borlaug responds:
"If [environmentalists] lived for just one month among the misery of the developing world, as I have for 50 years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertiliser and irrigation canals."

Tom, have you ever lived and farmed in Africa?

Jonas and Norman Borlaug bring into stark contrast the real choice here.  Either you support even further human overpopulation and environmental destruction or you support the rest of the Earth, which includes all other species, and the land, air, and water.  By the statement quoted by Jonas, he shows his true colors, which are NOT as an environmentalist.  What should really be said is, if you non-environmentalists would spend some time in the natural environment -- the minuscule amount that's left of it -- and have some empathy for something non human, you'd demand a one-child limit for humans and immediately eliminate all pesticides and other unnatural human chemicals.

In America there are 1.9 billion acres of land.

Yet, 75 percent of our population lives on 66 million of those!

Far from destroying the planet, we are paupers when it comes to the amount of land that each person has.

Wolverine, I summarized your vision at an other post here on Grist. To you it comes simplistically down to: good versus evil.

Scientists don't think that way. They look at reality. And what did they find?

They found that if you give people a certain level of development and security, their fertility rates drop. Look at Europe, Japan, China, Russia,... these regions even have declining populations.

Now where do you find the highest fertility rate on the planet? Exactly, in the world's most food insecure regions: Central Africa, 7 kids per woman, and populations booming.

The best thing to do is to help speed up the transition towards lower fertility rates in these countries, which implies food security and working agricultural systems - that's the sine qua non for development.

Next up follows a transition from agrarian to (post)industrial societies, a stabilisation of populations levels, and then a decline.

Even a typical 'developing' country like Brazil recently announced that it's population will begin to decline from 2035 onwards. Can you imagine? Brazil! Well, guess what, the country has also massively succeeded in boosting food security and in raising rural incomes.

So get of your simplistic horse please. The real choice is between: high fertility rates and rapidly growing populations who keep dieing and living in misery, on the one hand, and the 'long road' to modernity and ultimately declining populations.

The latter is better for the environment (and obviously so for people too, because starving is not so pleasant, in case you wonder.)

Jonas

my feeling is that many African farmers 'cry out' for industrial ag because that's what's presented to them as being 'modern' and they can see the reliable yields that it delivers.

There's little question that many traditional 'slash and burn' techniques used in Africa are inadequate, unreliable and (yes) environmentally-damaging.

But all over the continent there are people very successfully building eco-friendly and highly productive farms using permaculture techniques and the like. They just don't have access to the politicians, marketing budgets and so on that the Monsantos do.

The fertilizer subsidies in Malawi have boosted yields: We need to ask, though, 'is there a better way'?

Cheers

Whiskerfish

One thing to keep in mind when considering agriculture in Africa: the soil itself, across the continent (with the exception of the Ethiopian highlands and well-watered sections of the Rift [and part of Chad]) is very very old and highly weathered.  As a result, the fields are very low in native fertility and generally become easy targets for erosion.  We, the UN or other donors, and for-profit enterprises can discuss crops until we are blue in the face - but until soil and fertility management become top priorities, scarcity, deprivation, and the inability to resist the effects of too much or too little moisture will continue to bedevil all attempts to ameliorate the situation.  
What, then, happens to peasants who take initiative and improve their soils and hence their crop yields?  Who knows!  The effemeral nature of land tenure or rights-of-access in many African countries cannot but stymie efforts of farmers.  If someone likes your land (say, a corrupt petty government officer) and can appropriate it through intimidation, then what incentive does said farmer have to improve his or her farm?  
  The night grows old.  Perhaps I should sleep and feel more optimistic in the morning.  However, tonight it lays before me like an arid plain; nigh insurmountable.