Hell, you can even start pointing at particular bits of science. For example, there would be mass famine without the Haber-Bosch process for ammonia synthesis.

Of course, without this process producing a lot of available nitrogen to use in making explosives during the first half of the 20th century we would probably also have avoided two world wars. Occasional famines and a lower upper-limit on human population or millions dead from guns and bombs... interesting set of choices.

Number of people people killed in major wars in the 20th century (moderately pessimistic estimate): 100,000,000

Number of people in the 20th century saved from starvation by green revolution: 1,000,000,000

Average life expectancy in 1900: 35 years

Average life expectancy in 2000: 65 years

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_d... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

Net 900,000,000 lives saved? I'll take that deal any day.

You don't get to claim the entirety of the green revolution here, and most of those 1 billion would not have been born in the first place if the Harber-Bosch process did not exist. If we are going to go to that particular level of sophistry then I would add the four generations of descendants from WWI deaths and three generations of WWII/Stalin-induced famines/Great Leap forward deaths, etc. Playing alternate history speculation is interesting, but trying to project any particular distance beyond the immediate point in question is a fools errand.

No, 1 billion already-alive humans would have starved to death if not for the green revolution. Malnutrition plays a role in over half of all deaths today. It was even more commonplace before fertilizers and high-yield crop strains.

Eh this is the classic guns kill people vs. people kill people argument. Not having guns or bombs isn't going to stop a war. Some of the bloodiest wars in history were fought using swords and spears.