Misplaced Pages

Malthusian catastrophe: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:56, 25 June 2016 editBrianXVX (talk | contribs)33 edits →Neo-Malthusian theory: This is restated in the paragraph below. It also is confusing because the sentences before it and after it refer to the graph on the right, while the removed sentences refer to the graph at the top of the page.Tag: Visual edit← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:37, 22 January 2021 edit undoBeland (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators236,625 edits reverse merge and redirect to Malthusianism after discussion at Talk:Malthusian catastrophe#Merge Proposal with Malthusian TrapTag: New redirect 
(168 intermediate revisions by 78 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
#REDIRECT ] {{R from merge}}
. Red = USCB projections to 2025.]]

A '''Malthusian catastrophe''' (also known as '''Malthusian check''') is a prediction of a forced return to ]-level conditions once ] has outpaced ] ].

==Thomas Malthus==
In 1779, ] wrote:

{{quote|Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature. The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world.|Thomas Malthus, 1798. '']''. Chapter VII, p61<ref name="Oxford World's Classics reprint">Oxford World's Classics reprint</ref>}}

Notwithstanding the apocalyptic image conveyed by this particular paragraph, Malthus himself did not subscribe to the notion that mankind was fated for a "catastrophe" due to population overshooting resources. Rather, he believed that population growth was generally restricted by available resources:

{{quote|The passion between the sexes has appeared in every age to be so nearly the same that it may always be considered, in algebraic language, as a given quantity. The great law of necessity which prevents population from increasing in any country beyond the food which it can either produce or acquire, is a law so open to our view...that we cannot for a moment doubt it. The different modes which nature takes to prevent or repress a redundant population do not appear, indeed, to us so certain and regular, but though we cannot always predict the mode we may with certainty predict the fact.|Thomas Malthus, 1798. '']''. Chapter IV.}}

==Neo-Malthusian theory==<!-- This section is linked from ] -->

] (baseline 500). The steep rise in crop yields in the U.S. began in the 1940s. The percentage of growth was fastest in the early rapid growth stage. In developing countries maize yields are still rapidly rising.<ref>{{Cite journal
| last1 = Fischer
| first1 =R. A.
| last2 =Byerlee
| first2 =Eric
| last3 =Edmeades
| first3 =E. O.
| author1-link =
| title = Can Technology Deliver on the Yield Challenge to 2050
| year =
|journal=Expert Meeting on How to Feed the World
|issue=
|pages=12
|publisher= Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
| url = ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/ak977e/ak977e00.pdf
}}</ref>]]

After ], ] produced a dramatic increase in productivity of agriculture and the ] greatly increased crop yields, expanding the world's food supply while lowering food prices. In response, the growth rate of the world's population accelerated rapidly, resulting in predictions by ], Simon Hopkins,<ref>{{cite book|last = Hopkins|first = Simon|title = A Systematic Foray into the Future|publisher = Barker Books|year = 1966|pages = 513–569}}
</ref> and many others of an imminent Malthusian catastrophe. However, populations of most developed countries grew slowly enough to be outpaced by gains in productivity.

By the early 21st century, many technologically developed countries had passed through the ], a complex social development encompassing a drop in ]s in response to various ], including lower ], increased ], and a wider availability of effective ].

On the assumption that the ] is now spreading from the developed countries to ], the ] estimates that human population may peak in the late 21st century rather than continue to grow until it has exhausted available resources.<ref name="UN">{{cite web|url=http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf|title=2004 UN Population Projections, 2004.|format=PDF}}</ref>

(red, orange, green) and (black)]]
]

Historians have estimated the total human population back to 10,000 BC.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html|title=Historical Estimates of World Population, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2006.}}</ref> The figure on the right shows the trend of total population from 1800 to 2005, and from there in three projections out to 2100 (low, medium, and high).<ref name="UN"/> The United Nations population projections out to 2100 (the red, orange, and green lines) show a possible peak in the world's population occurring by 2040 in the first scenario, and by 2100 in the second scenario, and never ending growth in the third.

The graph of annual growth rates (at the top of the page) does not appear exactly as one would expect for long-term exponential growth. For exponential growth it should be a straight line at constant height, whereas in fact the graph from 1800 to 2005 is dominated by an enormous hump that began about 1920, peaked in the mid-1960s, and has been steadily eroding away for the last 40 years. The sharp fluctuation between 1959 and 1960 was due to the combined effects of the ] and a natural disaster in China.<ref name="USCB">{{cite web|url=http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/|title=International Data Base}}</ref> Also visible on this graph are the effects of the ], the two world wars, and possibly also the ].

Though short-term trends, even on the scale of decades or centuries, cannot prove or disprove the existence of mechanisms promoting a Malthusian catastrophe over longer periods, the prosperity of a major fraction of the human population at the beginning of the 21st century, and the debatability of ] made by ] in the 1960s and 1970s, has led some people, such as economist ], to question its inevitability.<ref>Simon, Julian L, "", ''Economic Affairs: J. Inst. Econ. Affairs'', April 1994.</ref>

A 2004 study by a group of prominent economists and ecologists, including ] and Paul Ehrlich<ref>Arrow, K., P. Dasgupta, L. Goulder, G. Daily, P. Ehrlich, G. Heal, S. Levin, K. Mäler, S. Schneider, D. Starrett and B. Walker, "Are We Consuming Too Much" ''Journal of Economic Perspectives'', 18(3), 147-172, 2004.</ref> suggests that the central concerns regarding sustainability have shifted from population growth to the consumption/savings ratio, due to shifts in population growth rates since the 1970s. Empirical estimates show that public policy (taxes or the establishment of more complete property rights) can promote more efficient consumption and investment that are sustainable in an ecological sense; that is, given the current (relatively low) population growth rate, the Malthusian catastrophe can be avoided by either a shift in consumer preferences or public policy that induces a similar shift.

However, some contend that the Malthusian catastrophe is not imminent. A 2002 study<ref> August 20, 2002.</ref> by the ] predicts that world food production will be in excess of the needs of the human population by the year 2030; however, that source also states that hundreds of millions will remain hungry (presumably due to economic realities and political issues).

==Criticism==
] wrote in her book ''The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change under Population Pressure'', that population levels determine agricultural methods, rather than agricultural methods determining population (via food supply). A major point of her book is that "necessity is the mother of invention." ] was one of many economists who challenged the Malthusian catastrophe, citing (1) the existence of new knowledge, and educated people to take advantage of it, and (2) "economic freedom", that is, the ability of the world to increase production when there is a profitable opportunity to do so.<ref>The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment in http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/</ref>

The economist ] argued that Malthus didn't provide any evidence of a natural tendency for a population to overwhelm its ability to provide for itself. George wrote that even the main body of Malthus' work refuted this theory; that examples given show social causes for misery, such as "ignorance and greed... bad government, unjust laws, or war," rather than insufficient food production.<ref>Progress and Poverty, Chapter 7, Malthus vs. Facts in http://www.henrygeorge.org/pchp7.htm</ref>

] also criticizes the Malthusian catastrophe because Malthus failed to see that surplus population is connected to surplus wealth, surplus capital, and surplus landed property. Population is large where the overall productive power is large. Engels also states that the calculation that Malthus made with the difference in population and productive power is incorrect because Malthus does not take into consideration a third element, science. Scientific “progress is as unlimited and at least as rapid as that of population”.<ref>Engels, Friedrich."Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy". Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, 1844, pg.1.</ref> On the other hand, ] argues that science has diminishing marginal returns<ref>Tainter, Joseph: The Collapse of Complex Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2003.</ref> and scientific progress is becoming more difficult, harder to achieve and more costly.

== See also ==
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] (campaign for smaller families)
* ]

==Notes==
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}

==References==
{{Refbegin}}
* Korotayev A., Malkov A., Khaltourina D. '''' Moscow: URSS, 2006. ISBN 5-484-00414-4
* Korotayev A., Malkov A., Khaltourina D. '''' Moscow: URSS, 2006. ISBN 5-484-00559-0
* Korotayev A. & Khaltourina D. '''' Moscow: URSS, 2006. ISBN 5-484-00560-4
*{{Cite document
| last = Malthus
| first = Thomas Robert
| author-link =Thomas Malthus
| year = 1826
| title =An Essay on the Principle of Population: A View of its Past and Present Effects on Human Happiness; with an Inquiry into Our Prospects Respecting the Future Removal or Mitigation of the Evils which It Occasions
| edition = Sixth
| publication-place = London
| publisher =John Murray
| url =http://www.econlib.org/library/Malthus/malPlong.html
| accessdate =2008-11-22 }}
* ], et al., eds. (2007). Moscow: KomKniga. ISBN 5-484-01002-0
*.
{{Refend}}

==External links==
*
*
*
*

{{Human impact on the environment}}
{{Population}}
{{Population country lists}}
{{biological organisation}}
{{Globalization|state=autocollapse}}
{{Doomsday}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Malthusian Catastrophe}}
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 18:37, 22 January 2021

Redirect to:

  • From a merge: This is a redirect from a page that was merged into another page. This redirect was kept in order to preserve the edit history of this page after its content was merged into the content of the target page. Please do not remove the tag that generates this text (unless the need to recreate content on this page has been demonstrated) or delete this page.