And in that sense, I stand by what I wrote.  I believe one of the foundation myths of the American experience is the fundamental belief that there is a technological answer to every problem.  In a very real sense, the history of America has proven the truth of that belief.  But our history has also proven, particularly in the last few decades, the limitations of that belief.  We are facing any number of serious problems which have no technological solution.  And in some cases, our technological solutions -- real solutions to real problems -- have produced new problems of their own.

The history of agriculture is intertwined with the history of humankind.  Each increase in the size of human settlements was accompanied by further sophistication in the cooperative effort to produce, store, and distribute ever-larger quantities of food.  New technologies, like the plow and the irrigation ditch, led to new abundance but also new problems, like soil erosion and the buildup of salt in the soil.  Progress was slow but steady.  Through the centuries, the ratio of population to food supply remained relatively stable, with both growing at a roughly equal rate.  But with the scientific revolution in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the human population began surging, and for the first time it seemed possible that the population might soon outstrip the ability of the environment to yield enough food.  This fear was articulated at the beginning of the nineteenth century by the English political economist Thomas Malthus; that he was famously wrong has been due to a series of remarkable innovations in the science of agricultural production.  Malthus was right in predicting that the population would grow geometrically, but he didn't foresee our ability to make geometric improvements in agricultural technology.  Even today, with several countries in the world suffering massive famines, there is little doubt that a commitment to use more land and newer agricultural methods could vastly increase the amount of food produced on earth.  The problem we now face is therefore more complicated than the one Malthus identified.  In theory, the food supply can keep up with the population for a long while yet, but in practice, we have chosen to escape the Malthusian dilemma by making a set of dangerous bargains with the future worthy of the theatrical legend that haunted the birth of the scientific revolution: Doctor Faustus.

Al Gore, Earth In the Balance

Gore hints at an even greater dilemma that we may soon face.  Our planet now supports a human population that would have been unimaginable even a century ago, thanks to modern, high-tech agriculture.  Yet that agriculture utterly depends on massive inputs of fossil fuels, primarily petroleum.  Modern agriculture uses petroleum products for everything from fuel to run its machines, to artificial fertilizers made from petroleum.  The Green Revolution runs on oil.  Absent an uninterrupted supply of cheap and plentiful petroleum, the Green Revolution comes to a grinding halt.  And absent the petroleum powered Green Revolution, no known viable agricultural models are likely to support a human population even half its current size.

But not to worry, technology will save us.  It always has.  What will it be this time?  Ethanol?  Hydrogen?  Solar powered tractors?  Atomic combines?  I think not.  Perhaps there is some miraculous breakthrough in a lab somewhere, some easy answer to the imminent demise of the petroleum economy.  I certainly don't know of any.  Yet we are conditioned to assume that some such breakthrough is out there, that it is viable on a global industrial scale, and that it can be deployed in time to avert any impending crisis.  I am certainly conditioned to make that assumption, or I wouldn't sleep at night.  That is what I mean by myth.

Now where are we going and what's with the handbasket?