In this mind-blowing episode, we explore how one man's quest to create artificial fertilizer transformed the trajectory of human history. Inspired by listener Martin from Frankfurt, we dive into the story of Fritz Haber, whose discovery of the Haber-Bosch process for synthesizing ammonia not only revolutionized agriculture and saved billions from starvation but also fueled the rise of chemical weapons in World War I. From explosive bat guano to the delicate balance of ding-dongs and Twinkies, we unravel the complex web connecting fertilizer, food production, and the very bombs that shaped the 20th century. Brace yourself for a wild ride through the unintended consequences of scientific breakthroughs!

—

Here’s Martin’s email to us which includes lots more information and links to learn more about his intriguing IF!

From: Martin

Subject: A world without NH3 (a What The If idea)

I had another idea for a potential IF, or - to give credit where credit is due - my colleague Thomas has it. He read that BASF in Germany has sold an NH3 (ammonia) plant in Ludwigshafen (their main production site) after having produced NH3 there since 1913 It was the first industrial plant that realized the -then- completely new Haber-Bosch process. So Thomas asked: what (the if) would a world without NH3 look like? Then we started discussing :-)

It's sort of chemist's lore that Haber and Bosch tested many, many catalysts before they found a good one to combine N2 and H2 to NH3. Some sources put the number of tested catalyst formulations to as many as 2500 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/haber-bosch-process#:~:text=In%20order%20to%20find%20a,Germany%2C%20now%20part%20of%20Ludwigshafen). What if they lost interest after test #1000 (and never found the iron-based catalyst that was ultimately the one)? Probably this (hypothetical) failed attempt on large scale would deter other groups of scientists at that time to even start their own catalyst developments? Anyhow, let's assume there has never been an industrial NH3 synthesis process in our "What the If" world.

It's quite obvious that agriculture would have been very different.

Our World in Data has the key answer here: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-with-and-without-fertilizer — without ammonia as fertilizer we would be able to feed max 4 bn people (instead 8). So many more famines? Or slower population growth?

Certainly a different diet, less feed for animals, and more plants that can fixate N2 from the atmosphere. Our World in Data has a little fun with that: (https://ourworldindata.org/how-many-people-does-synthetic-fertilizer-feed#could-we-have-achieved-the-same-without-synthetic-nitrogen) more peas and beans (and some others — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nitrogen-fixing_crops — including lupines — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupinus#Uses — which leads -of course- directly to one of my favorite Monty Python sketches "Dennis Moore"). Not nice. I wouldn't survive the season, that's for sure (no / less fruits and other vegetables)

Side note: I was surprised that per capita for many decades (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fertilizer-per-capita?tab=chart&country=OWID_WRL~OWID_EUR~CHN~IND~EGY~NLD~DEU~USA) the Western world had significantly higher values than Africa, India, Egypt. So without NH3 Europe / USA would have suffered more), probably more focus has to be put on bringing food on the table for everyone and less activities in new technologies etc. (basically staying longer at the bottom levels of Maslow's pyramid of needs)

And then there is war.

NH3 was an important ingredient to make TNT - some folks estimate that TNT has killed 100-150 million people in all wars combined.

TNT Is Still With Us | Science | AAAS

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/tnt-still-us
Despite being an older explosive, TNT remains relevant due to its stability and relative safety compared to newer, more volatile alternatives.

All the best,

Martin