This is a textbook example of arguing in bad faith.

I said Norman Borlaug’s work helped alleviate starvation for billions of people. Somehow you turned that into “white savior,” industrial agriculture, and the absurd claim that I think pre-Green Revolution famines were “all their own fault.” I didn’t say any of those things. You invented an argument because you couldn’t address the one I actually made.

Borlaug’s contribution stands on its own. His research dramatically increased crop yields and helped prevent catastrophic famine. That isn’t a matter of opinion—it’s one of the most well-documented humanitarian achievements of the 20th century.

You’re also trying to pin every downstream consequence of industrial agriculture on one scientist, as though he personally designed decades of government policy, farming practices, and corporate incentives. That’s a ridiculous standard. By that logic, every inventor is responsible for every misuse or unintended consequence of their invention forever.

If you want to discuss the environmental tradeoffs of the Green Revolution, that’s a legitimate conversation. But that’s not what you did. Instead, you injected race into a discussion where it wasn’t relevant, built a straw man out of things I never said, and then congratulated yourself for knocking it down.

If your argument requires inventing my position before you can refute it, maybe your argument isn’t as strong as you think it is.