For those of us who wish to preserve the planet's diversity of species, high-tech, chemically assisted agriculture is an environmentalist's best friend. That's right. Soaring growth in human population threatens to destroy most of the world's remaining rainforests, wetlands, and mountain ecosystems, drastically reducing species diversity. Despite advances in chemical-free farming techniques, overreliance on these practices will result in the plowing down of forests to feed a global population that is estimated to reach 9.6 billion people by 2050. Environmentalists must face the fact that unless high-yield crop varieties, pesticides, and fertilizers are widely used in developing nations, the world's food supply will be outstripped by spiraling demand. This will mean more forests falling under the plow. I couldn't agree more that it's crucial to step up agricultural productivity to feed a spiraling global population. My quarrel is with how to intensify agriculture, not whether it should be intensified. The paramount concern must be to increase crop yields in environmentally sensitive ways that protect human health and the soil and water that are agriculture's very foundation. Heavy use of agrochemicals can bring high yields in the short run, but the cumulative damages may be considerable. Those of us whose research demonstrates that resource-conserving farming practices can be just as productive as the chemical-intensive kind contend that the goal should be efficient use of chemicals, not wide use.