Norman Borlaug
American biologist (1914–2009)
The numbers
2 + 5 = 7
Lo Shu grid
Missing: 6, 8. Present digits repeat to show how many times they occur.
Life path 7 — The Seeker
Seven is the analyst and the mystic at once — the tradition assigns it both, and does not treat that as a contradiction. It is read as the number of depth, solitude and the refusal to accept a surface explanation. Its difficulty is distance: the withdrawal that makes the thinking possible is read as coldness by everyone outside it, and 7 is described as being misunderstood more often than it is disliked.
Complete lines
Line of Reason
A complete line in the grid.
Line of Expression
A complete line in the grid.
Line of Resolve
The 1-5-9 diagonal complete. Read as determination that survives the middle of a project, when the initial energy has gone and the result is not yet visible.
Line of Sensitivity
The 3-5-7 diagonal complete. Read as emotional and intuitive range — the line practitioners associate with artists and with people who register what is unsaid.
Cooperation
A complete line in the grid.
What is missing
Missing 6
Read as a complicated relationship with obligation — either avoiding it or over-shouldering it, rarely a settled middle.
Missing 8
Read as discomfort with power and money — not incapacity, but an unwillingness to claim authority openly.
Vedic — Ank Jyotish
Moolank 7 comes from the day of the month alone; Bhagyank 7 from the whole date. They coincide here, which happens for about 11% of this database and is read as root and destiny pointing the same way.
Ketu
The descending lunar node — the other shadow graha. Detachment, renunciation, the unfinished. Read as spiritual pull and worldly indifference.
Bhagyank uses the same arithmetic as the Western life path, so the two will always agree. That is not two traditions confirming each other — it is one calculation under two names.
In their words
You can't build a peaceful world on empty stomachs and human misery.
There can be no permanent progress in the battle against hunger until the agencies that fight for increased food production and those that fight for population control unite in a common effort.
It is a sad fact that on this earth at this late date there are still two worlds, "the privileged world" and "the forgotten world". The privileged world consists of the affluent, developed nations, comprising twenty-five to thirty percent of the world population, in which most of the people live in a luxury never before experienced by man outside the Garden of Eden. The forgotten world is made up primarily of the developing nations, where most of the people, comprising more than fifty percent of the total world population, live in poverty, with hunger as a constant companion and fear of famine a continual menace.
I now say that the world has the technology – either available or well advanced in the research pipeline – to feed on a sustainable basis a population of 10 billion people. The more pertinent question today is whether farmers and ranchers will be permitted to use this new technology? While the affluent nations can certainly afford to adopt ultra low-risk positions, and pay more for food produced by the so-called "organic" methods, the one billion chronically undernourished people of the low income, food-deficit nations cannot.
Some of the environmental lobbyists of the western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They have never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they would be crying out for tractors, and fertilizer, and irrigation canals, and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things.
That's ridiculous. This shouldn't even be a debate. Even if you could use all the organic material that you have--the animal manures, the human waste, the plant residues--and get them back on the soil, you couldn't feed more than 4 billion people. In addition, if all agriculture were organic, you would have to increase cropland area dramatically, spreading out into marginal areas and cutting down millions of acres of forests. At the present time, approximately 80 million tons of nitrogen nutrients are utilized each year. If you tried to produce this nitrogen organically, you would require an additional 5 or 6 billion head of cattle to supply the manure. How much wild land would you have to sacrifice just to produce the forage for these cows? There's a lot of nonsense going on here.
Sourced from Wikiquote, restricted to the subject’s own sourced sections.