Two Great Hopes and Three Inconvenient Questions – Folha de S. Paulo, August 20, 1969
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
Nowadays, an optimist admits that, in a few years, we will be reduced to eating rocks. Conversely, pessimists believe the stones will not be enough for everyone. When I read this melancholic joke attributed to Frank Fernandel in a French magazine, I thought about something encouraging I had read in another publication, World Health, the Magazine of the World Health Organization.
Prof. Edouard J. Bigwood has multiple credentials. He is the director of the Center for Research on Food Legislation at the Institute for European Studies and an emeritus professor of Biochemistry and Nutrition at the University of Brussels. With the authority of his titles and knowledge, he made optimistic statements to that magazine about the world’s future under the heading “Food for the Year 2000.” It is appropriate that his statements reach both expert circles and the general public.
After noting that animal protein production must triple by the end of this century to satisfy humanity’s rapidly increasing consumption needs, Bigwood explores new methods to meet this enormous demand.
He quickly and somewhat skeptically dismisses the practical possibility of industrial exploitation of marine plankton and points to an unexpected solution for laypeople: using protein from microorganisms that are by-products of oil refining. In this regard, Bigwood mentions studies conducted in France by Champagnat, which lead to the certainty that if it is possible to establish factories to produce such proteins, “Before the end of the century, we will have met the increased demand for edible protein of high biological value, equivalent to double, perhaps even triple, the 20 million tons of animal protein that make up today’s world production.” Bigwood adds that “two very powerful industrial companies are collaborating to develop a process and have reached the stage where they are in a position to test a standardized product on animals.”
As seen, the exploitation of this valuable resource still faces major industrial challenges, not just technical but also financial. However, significant progress is being made to overcome these issues.
Another article in the same magazine goes into more detail than Prof. Bigwood about how the sea can help solve hunger and highlights promising opportunities. The two authors of this article note that “seafood is already used in the food and textile industries, medicine, agriculture, grape growing, livestock farming, and construction.” However, the seas account for only 1% of global food production. Aside from a few countries like France and Japan, most nations do not farm shellfish, crustaceans, or algae. Nevertheless, the authors argue that such farming is practical: “Eighty percent of the sun’s energy that reaches the earth is absorbed by algae and only 20 percent by land plants. If this energy is used by marine plants that can be turned into food for people or animals, that part of solar energy now absorbed by natural coastal vegetation could produce enough to feed 58 billion people. If the entire ocean reserves were utilized this way, it might produce four to five times more—enough to feed 290 billion people.”
There’s no need to go any further. I will add that the authors quoted a scientist saying that “the productive capacity of the sea is more than a thousand times that of arable land.”
Who are these authors, whose names I am deliberately mentioning now? V. Bogorov, a corresponding Russian Academy of Sciences member, and V. Stepanov, a Doctor of Geographical Sciences.
* * *
I don’t have the data to determine how much it will cost humanity to benefit from these vast resources that Providence has placed within reach. Nor do I know how long it will take to finally solve the hunger problem once these expenditures are made. Presumably, faster and cheaper methods will also develop as resources are used for these new food production fields—oil and the sea—, so the best course is to start now, on the largest possible scale.
Given this, if they were consistent, the two Soviet scientists should ask the Kremlin to invest the largest sums in the immediate exploitation of these new riches, especially if the Kremlin wishes (as communist propaganda claims) to eradicate hunger worldwide. Naturally, they could demand the necessary resources from poor populations like the Russians, crushed by state control, bureaucracy, and further impoverished by the economic stagnation typical of socialist regimes. It would be enough for Kremlin leaders to cease fostering class struggle globally and instead allocate funds toward this goal to speed up progress in harnessing the most modern sources of wealth. Even better, they could stop forcing people into a political and social system they despise. The money spent on police, espionage, censorship, and related efforts could then be used for the same purpose. By taking this noble political step, the Russian Communist Party would have done something practical to help the poor for the first time.
Of course, the Soviet scientists mentioned earlier will not make such a request. They believe communism’s ultimate goal is not to feed the poor.
* * *
We recently joined the American people in enthusiastically celebrating the achievement of three brave astronauts. But let us ask a friendly question: Wouldn’t it be more meaningful for humanity to urgently develop sea proteins or petrol-producing microorganisms rather than to conquer the Moon? And wouldn’t it be more worthwhile to use all the money spent and to be spent on Moon missions to end global hunger?
* * *
Finally, here is a question for progressive priests influenced by IDO-C and the “Prophetic Groups.” Since they intervene heavily in economic and social issues, why don’t they launch a major campaign of enlightenment and encouragement so that all governments, scientists, and wealthy individuals work together to quickly deliver the food promised by new scientific advancements—rather than spreading unrest within the Church and the world? Instead of asking Moscow or Beijing for the salvation formula, why don’t they seek it in the sea and oil? (I do not mention the Holy Gospel because they have long since considered it less important.) Instead of asking Paul VI for measures to weaken the Church, why don’t they ask him to use the Holy See’s influence to lead this worldwide movement? It would be wonderful to see new food sources made available to humanity by the very one whose highest mission is to remind people they don’t live by food alone.
