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 18:35, 22 January 2021 editBeland (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators236,626 edits restore previous order in intro in preparation for move← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:37, 22 January 2021 edit undoBeland (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators236,626 edits reverse merge and redirect to Malthusianism after discussion at Talk:Malthusian catastrophe#Merge Proposal with Malthusian TrapTag: New redirect 
Line 1: Line 1:
#REDIRECT ] {{R from merge}}
{{short description|Prediction of a forced return to subsistence-level conditions once population growth has outpaced agricultural production}}
{{copyedit|for=organization and grammar after recent merge|date=January 2021}}
]
'''Malthusianism''' is the idea that ] while the growth of the food supply or other ] is ], which eventually reduces living standards to the point of triggering a population die off. This event, called a '''Malthusian catastrophe''' (also known as '''Malthusian trap''', '''population trap''', '''Malthusian check''', '''Malthusian crisis''', '''Malthusian spectre''', '''Malthusian crunch''') occurs when ] outpaces ] ], causing ] or ], resulting in poverty and depopulation. Such a catastrophe inevitably has the effect of forcing the population (quite rapidly, due to the potential severity and unpredictable results of the mitigating factors involved, as compared to the relatively slow time scales and well-understood processes governing ] or growth affected by preventive checks) to "correct" back to a lower, more easily sustainable level.<ref name="intellectual roots"/><ref name=Barrons>{{cite book |title=Barrons AP Human Geography 2008 Edition |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=u374siQOPTgC|editor=Meredith Marsh, Peter S. Alagona |year=2008 |publisher=Barron's Educational Series |isbn=978-0-7641-3817-1}}</ref> Malthusianism has been linked to a variety of political and social movements, but almost always refers to advocates of ].<ref name="Dolan">{{cite book |title=Malthus, Medicine & Morality: Malthusianism after 1798 |author=Dolan, Brian |year=2000 |publisher=Rodopi |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2znzI0_nzXcC&lpg |isbn=978-90-420-0851-9}}</ref>

These concepts derive from the political and economic thought of the Reverend ], as laid out in his 1798 writings, '']''. Malthus suggested that while technological advances could increase a society's supply of resources, such as food, and thereby improve the ], the resource abundance would enable ], which would eventually bring the per capita supply of resources back to its original level. Some economists contend that since the ], mankind has broken out of the trap.<ref name="Galor (2005)">{{cite book |last=Galor |first=Oded |year=2005 |chapter=From Stagnation to Growth: Unified Growth Theory |title=Handbook of Economic Growth |volume=1 |pages=171–293 |publisher=Elsevier |chapter-url=https://ideas.repec.org/h/eee/grochp/1-04.html }}</ref><ref name="Clark2007">{{cite book |last=Clark |first=Gregory |year=2007 |title=A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=978-0-691-12135-2 |title-link=A Farewell to Alms }}</ref> Others argue that the continuation of ] indicates that the Malthusian trap continues to operate.<ref>Julia Zinkina & ]. .</ref> Others further argue that due to lack of food availability coupled with excessive pollution, ] show more evidence of the trap.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/197551/2/WP59.pdf|title=The Malthusian Trap and Development in Pre-Industrial Societies: A View Differing from the Standard One|last=Tisdell|first=Clem|date=1 January 2015|website=University of Queensland|access-date=26 February 2017}}</ref> A similar, more modern concept, is that of ].

'''Neo-Malthusianism''' is the advocacy of ] to ensure resources and environmental integrities for current and future human populations as well as for other species.<ref name="Barrons" /> In Britain the term 'Malthusian' can also refer more specifically to arguments made in favour of preventive birth control, hence organizations such as the ].<ref>{{cite book |title=Malthusian Mutations: The changing politics and moral meanings of birth control in Britain |author=Hall, Lesley |year= 2000|publisher=Rodopi |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2znzI0_nzXcC&pg=PA141|isbn= 978-9042008519|location=Dolan (2000), ''Malthus, Medicine & Morality: Malthusianism after 1798'', p. 141|pmid=11027073 }}</ref> Neo-Malthusians differ from Malthus's theories mainly in their support for the use of ]. Malthus, a devout Christian, believed that "self-control" (i.e., abstinence) was preferable to artificial birth control. He also worried that the effect of contraceptive use would be too powerful in curbing growth, conflicting with the common 18th century perspective (to which Malthus himself adhered) that a steadily growing population remained a necessary factor in the continuing "progress of society," generally. Modern neo-Malthusians are generally more concerned than Malthus with environmental degradation and catastrophic famine than with poverty.

Malthusianism has attracted criticism from diverse schools of thought, including ]<ref>See, for example, {{cite book|title=Marx and Engels on the Population Bomb |editor=Ronald L. Meek |publisher=The Ramparts Press |url=http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/literary/96/population.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20000521124318/http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/literary/96/population.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=2000-05-21 |year=1973 }}</ref> and ]s,<ref name="Commoner">{{cite journal |journal=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists |author= Barry Commoner |date=May 1972 |title=A Bulletin Dialogue: on "The Closing Circle"&nbsp; – Response |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=pwsAAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA17|pages=17–56 }}</ref> ] and ] enthusiasts,<ref>{{cite journal |title=Resources, Population, Environment: An Oversupply of False Bad News |journal=Science |volume=208 |date=June 27, 1980 |pages=1431–37 |issue=4451 |doi=10.1126/science.7384784 |pmid=7384784 |last1=Simon |first1=JL |jstor=1684670}}</ref> ]<ref name="knudsen">Knudsen, Lara , Vanderbilt University Press, 2006, pp. 2–4. {{ISBN|0-8265-1528-2}}, {{ISBN|978-0-8265-1528-5}}.</ref> and ] advocates, characterising it as excessively pessimistic, misanthropic or inhuman.<ref name=Kunstler>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GV_lT_lQPYMC&pg=PA6|author=Kunstler, James Howard|year=2005 |publisher=Grove Press |title=The Long Emergency |page=6 |isbn=978-0-8021-4249-8|author-link=James Howard Kunstler}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|title=Physics, Philosophy, and ... Ecology |journal=Physics Today |author=Serge Luryi |url=http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/ginzburglab/Physics_Today.pdf |date=May 2006 |doi=10.1063/1.2216962 |volume=59 |issue=5 |page=51 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721020813/http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/ginzburglab/Physics_Today.pdf |archive-date=July 21, 2011 }}</ref><ref name="Dolan" /><ref>{{cite web |author=Frank W. Elwell |url=http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/users/f/felwell/www/Theorists/Malthus/reclaim.htm |year=2001 |access-date=2011-04-19 |title=Reclaiming Malthus, Keynote address to the Annual Meeting of the Anthropologists and Sociologist of Kentucky }}</ref> Many critics believe Malthusianism has been discredited since the publication of ''Principle of Population'', often citing advances in agricultural techniques and modern reductions in human fertility.<ref name="lomborg">{{cite book |title=The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World |author=Bjørn Lomborg |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2002 |url=https://archive.org/details/skepticalenviron00lomb_0|url-access=registration |page= |isbn=978-0-521-01068-9}}</ref> Many modern proponents believe that the basic concept of population growth eventually outstripping resources is still fundamentally valid, and that positive checks are still likely to occur in humanity's future if no action is taken to intentionally curb population growth.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/02/02/1201801097280.html |title=Green revolution could still blow up in our face |author=Colin Fraser |date=February 3, 2008 |work=The Age}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.the-scientist.com/2010/12/1/26/1/ |title=Still Ticking |author=Cristina Luiggi |volume=24 |issue=12 |page=26 |year=2010 |journal=The Scientist |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110101172056/http://www.the-scientist.com/2010/12/1/26/1/ |archive-date=January 1, 2011 }}</ref> In spite of the variety of criticisms against it, the Malthusian argument remains a major discourse based on which national and international environmental regulations are promoted.

== Malthus' theoretical argument ==

In 1798, ] proposed his theory in '']''.

He argued that society has a natural propensity to increase its population, a propensity that causes population growth to be the best measure of the happiness of a people: "The happiness of a country does not depend, absolutely, upon its poverty, or its riches, upon its youth, or its age, upon its being thinly, or fully inhabited, but upon the rapidity with which it is increasing, upon the degree in which the yearly increase of food approaches to the yearly increase of an unrestricted population."<ref>Malthus, ''Essay on the Principle of Population'', Ch. VII.</ref>

However, the propensity for population increase also leads to a natural cycle of abundance and shortages:
{{quote|We will suppose the means of subsistence in any country just equal to the easy support of its inhabitants. The constant effort towards population...increases the number of people before the means of subsistence are increased. The food therefore which before supported seven millions, must now be divided among seven millions and a half or eight millions. The poor consequently must live much worse, and many of them be reduced to severe distress. The number of labourers also being above the proportion of the work in the market, the price of labour must tend toward a decrease; while the price of provisions would at the same time tend to rise. The labourer therefore must work harder to earn the same as he did before. During this season of distress, the discouragements to marriage, and the difficulty of rearing a family are so great, that population is at a stand. In the mean time the cheapness of labour, the plenty of labourers, and the necessity of an increased industry amongst them, encourage cultivators to employ more labour upon their land; to turn up fresh soil, and to manure and improve more completely what is already in tillage; till ultimately the means of subsistence become in the same proportion to the population as at the period from which we set out. The situation of the labourer being then again tolerably comfortable, the restraints to population are in some degree loosened; and the same retrograde and progressive movements with respect to happiness are repeated.|Thomas Malthus, 1798. '']'', Chapter II.}}

{{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, p. 61<ref name="Oxford World's Classics reprint">Oxford World's Classics reprint</ref>}}

Malthus faced opposition from economists both during his life and since. A vocal critic several decades later was ].<ref>{{cite book |title= The Condition of the Working-Class in England in 1844 |last=Engels |first=Fredrick |year=1892 |publisher= Swan Sonnenschein & Co |location= London |url= http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1844engels.html }} Engels wrote that poverty and poor living conditions in 1844 had largely disappeared.</ref><ref>{{cite book |title= The Escape from Hunger and Premature Death, 1700–2100|last=Fogel |first=Robert W.|author-link= Robert_Fogel|year=2004 |publisher= Cambridge University Press|location= London |isbn= 978-0521808781 }}</ref>

==Early history==
Malthus was not the first to outline the problems he perceived. The original essay was part of an ongoing intellectual discussion at the end of the 18th century regarding the origins of ]. ''Principle of Population'' was specifically written as a rebuttal to thinkers like ] and the ], and Malthus's own father who believed in the perfectibility of humanity. Malthus believed humanity's ability to reproduce too rapidly doomed efforts at perfection and caused various other problems.

His criticism of the working class's tendency to reproduce rapidly, and his belief that this, rather than exploitation by capitalists, led to their poverty, brought widespread criticism of his theory.<ref name="Neurath 1994 7">{{cite book |title=From Malthus to the Club of Rome and Back |last= Neurath |first=Paul |year=1994 |publisher= M.E. Sharpe|isbn= 9781563244070 |page=5 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_ZHx3GO_xLMC&lpg=PA54}}</ref>

Malthusians perceived ideas of charity to the poor, typified by ] ], were futile, as these would only result in increased numbers of the poor; these theories played into ] economic ideas exemplified by the ]. The Act was described by opponents as "a Malthusian bill designed to force the poor to emigrate, to work for lower wages, to live on a coarser sort of food",<ref>{{cite book|author=Adrian Desmond|author-link=Adrian Desmond|title=The Politics of Evolution: Morphology, Medicine, and Reform in Radical London|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=z7LeJ4i0-vAC&pg=PA126|year=1992|publisher=University of Chicago Press|isbn=978-0-226-14374-3|page=126}}</ref> which initiated the construction of ]s despite riots and arson.

Malthus revised his theories in later editions of ''An Essay on the Principles of Population'', taking a more optimistic tone, although there is some scholarly debate on the extent of his revisions.<ref name="intellectual roots"/> According to Dan Ritschel of the Center for History Education at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, <blockquote>The great Malthusian dread was that "indiscriminate charity" would lead to exponential growth in the population in poverty, increased charges to the public purse to support this growing army of the dependent, and, eventually, the catastrophe of ]. Though Malthusianism has since come to be identified with the issue of general over-population, the original Malthusian concern was more specifically with the fear of over-population by the dependent poor.<ref> {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070621105033/http://www.umbc.edu/history/CHE/InstPg/RitDop/Discovery-of-poverty-Malthusianism.htm |date=June 21, 2007 }}</ref></blockquote>

One of the earliest critics was ]. Malthus immediately and correctly recognised it to be an attack on his theory of wages. Ricardo and Malthus debated this in a lengthy personal correspondence.<ref>David Ricardo, , ed. Piero Sraffa with the Collaboration of M. H. Dobb (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2005), 11 vols.</ref>

Another one of the 19th century critics of Malthusian theory was ] who referred to it as "nothing more than a schoolboyish, superficial plagiary of De Foe, Sir James Steuart, Townsend, Franklin, Wallace" (in '']'', see Marx's footnote on Malthus from ''Capital'' – reference below). Marx and Engels described Malthus as a "lackey of the bourgeoisie".<ref name="Neurath 1994 7" /> Socialists and communists believed that Malthusian theories "blamed the poor" for their own exploitation by the capitalist classes, and could be used to suppress the proletariat to an even greater degree, whether through attempts to reduce fertility or by justifying the generally poor conditions of labour in the 19th century.{{citation needed|date=September 2014}}

One proponent of Malthusianism was the novelist ] whose circle of acquaintances included ], and the ideas of Malthus were a significant influence on the ].<ref name=JvW> A biographical sketch by John van Wyhe, 2006</ref> Darwin was impressed by the idea that population growth would eventually lead to more organisms than could possibly survive in any given environment, leading him to theorize that organisms with a relative advantage in the struggle for survival and reproduction would be able to pass their characteristics on to further generations. Proponents of Malthusianism were in turn influenced by Darwin's ideas, both schools coming to influence the field of ]. ] advocated "humane birth selection through humane birth control" in order to avoid a Malthusian catastrophe by eliminating the "unfit".<ref name="intellectual roots"/>

Malthusianism became a less common intellectual tradition as the 19th century advanced, mostly as a result of technological increases, the opening of new territory to agriculture, and increasing international trade.<ref name="intellectual roots"/> Although a "]" movement in the United States concerned itself with resource depletion and natural protection in the first half of the twentieth century, Desrochers and Hoffbauer write, "It is probably fair to say ... that it was not until the publication of Osborn’s and Vogt’s books that a Malthusian revival took hold of a significant segment of the American population".<ref name="intellectual roots"/>

== Modern formulation ==
The modern formulation of the Malthusian theory was developed by Qumarul Ashraf and ].<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Ashraf|first1=Quamrul|last2=Galor|first2=Oded|date=2011|title=Dynamics and Stagnation in the Malthusian Epoch|journal=American Economic Review|volume=101|issue=5|pages=2003–2041|doi=10.1257/aer.101.5.2003|pmid=25506082|pmc=4262154}}</ref> Their theoretical structure suggests that as long as: (i) higher income has a positive effect on reproductive success, and (ii) land is limited factor of production, then technological progress has only a temporary effect in income per capita. While in the short-run technological progress increases income per capita, resource abundance created by technological progress would enable ], and would eventually bring the per capita income back to its original long-run level.

The testable prediction of the theory is that during the Malthusian epoch technologically advanced economies were characterized by higher population density, but their level of income per capita was not different than the level in societies that are technologically backward.

== Preventive vs. positive population controls==
]
Malthus proposed two types of "checks" that limit population growth based on food supply at any given time:

* A ''preventive check'' is a conscious decision to delay marriage or abstain from procreation based on a lack of resources.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=http://www.esp.org/books/malthus/population/malthus.pdf|title=An Essay on The Principle of Population|last=Malthus|first=Thomas Robert|date=1798|website=Electronic Scholarly Publishing Project|access-date=29 March 2018}}</ref> These include moral restraints or legislative action — for example the choice by a private citizen to engage in ] and delay marriage until their finances become balanced, or restriction of ] or parenting rights for persons deemed "deficient" or "unfit" by the government. Malthus argued that people are incapable of ignoring the consequences of uncontrolled population growth, and would intentionally avoid contributing to it.<ref name=":0" />

* A ''positive check'' is any event or circumstance that shortens the human life span. The primary examples of this are ], ] and ].<ref name=":0" /> However, poor health and economic conditions are also considered instances of positive checks.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Simkins|first=Charles|date=2001|title=Can South Africa Avoid a Malthusian Positive Check?|jstor=20027682|journal=Daedalus|volume=130|issue=1|pages=123–150|pmid=19068951}}</ref> When these lead to high rates of premature death, the result is termed a Malthusian catastrophe. The adjacent diagram depicts the abstract point at which such an event would occur, in terms of existing population and food supply: when the population reaches or exceeds the capacity of the shared supply, positive checks are forced to occur, restoring balance. (In reality the situation would be significantly more nuanced due to complex regional and individual disparities around access to food, water, and other resources.)

==Neo-Malthusian theory==

{{Refimprove section|date=March 2016}}
Malthusian theory is a recurrent theme in many social science venues. ], in ''Economic Consequences of the Peace'', opens his polemic with a Malthusian portrayal of the political economy of Europe as unstable due to Malthusian ] on food supplies.<ref>{{Cite news| last = Garcia| first = Cardiff| title = When Keynes pondered Malthus| work = Financial Times| access-date = 2019-08-10| url = http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2017/07/26/2191314/the-lessons-of-keynes-pondering-malthus/}}</ref> Many models of resource depletion and scarcity are Malthusian in character: the rate of energy consumption will outstrip the ability to find and produce new energy sources, and so lead to a crisis.{{citation needed|date=March 2016}}

In France, terms such as "''politique malthusienne''" ("Malthusian politics") refer to population control strategies. The concept of restriction of the population associated with Malthus morphed, in later political-economic theory, into the notion of restriction of production. In the French sense, a "Malthusian economy" is one in which protectionism and the formation of cartels is not only tolerated but encouraged.{{citation needed|date=March 2016}}

], the leader of the ] and the main architect of the ] was a critic of Neo-Malthusian theory (but not of birth control and abortion in general).<ref>V. I. Lenin, , 1913.</ref>

"Neo-Malthusianism" is a concern that ] as well as ] may increase ] and/or ] will lead to ] or other ].{{citation needed|date=March 2016}}

The rapid increase in the global population of the past century exemplifies Malthus's predicted population patterns; it also appears to describe socio-demographic dynamics of complex ]. These findings are the basis for neo-Malthusian modern mathematical models of ''long-term historical dynamics''.<ref>See, e.g., ] 2003; {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120229202712/http://cliodynamics.info/PDF/Turchin_Korotayev_SEH_2006.pdf |date=February 29, 2012 }}; Peter Turchin et al. 2007; ] et al. 2006.</ref>

There was a general "neo-Malthusian" revival in the mid-to-late 1940s, continuing through to the 2010s after the publication of two influential books in 1948 (]'s '']'' and ]'s '']''). During that time the population of the world rose dramatically. Many in environmental movements began to sound the alarm regarding the potential dangers of population growth.<ref name="intellectual roots">{{cite journal|title=The Post War Intellectual Roots of the Population Bomb |author1=Pierre Desrochers |author2=Christine Hoffbauer |journal=] |url=http://www.dpi.inpe.br/sil/cst310/Aula2_fundamentos/THE_POST_WAR_INTELLECTUAL_ROOTS_OF_THE_POPULATION_BOMB_-_FAIRFIELD_OSBORNS_OUR_PLUNDERED_PLANET_AND_WILLIAM_VOGTS_ROAD_TO_SURVIVAL_IN_RETROSPECT.pdf |year=2009 |volume=1 |issue=3 |access-date=2010-02-01 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120302185414/http://www.dpi.inpe.br/sil/cst310/Aula2_fundamentos/THE_POST_WAR_INTELLECTUAL_ROOTS_OF_THE_POPULATION_BOMB_-_FAIRFIELD_OSBORNS_OUR_PLUNDERED_PLANET_AND_WILLIAM_VOGTS_ROAD_TO_SURVIVAL_IN_RETROSPECT.pdf |archive-date=March 2, 2012 }}{{Unreliable source?|date=April 2013}}<!-- maybe highlight in text that opinions are from fake journal from pressure group, no CiteSeerX cite --></ref> In 1968, ecologist ] published an influential essay in ''Science'' that drew heavily from Malthusian theory. His essay, ] argued that "a finite world can support only a finite population" and that "freedom to breed will bring ruin to all."<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hardin|first=Garrett|year=1968|title=The Tragedy of the Commons|journal=Science|volume=162|issue=3859|pages=1243–1248|doi=10.1126/science.162.3859.1243|pmid=17756331|bibcode=1968Sci...162.1243H|doi-access=free}}</ref> The ] published a book entitled '']'' in 1972. The report and the organisation soon became central to the neo-Malthusian revival.<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/?id=UOcUZ9uquhEC&lpg=PR7&pg=PA2|title=Taking Nature Into Account: A Report to the Club of Rome |editor=Wouter van Dieren |year=1995 |publisher=Springer Books |isbn=978-0-387-94533-0}}</ref> ] has been one of the most prominent neo-Malthusians since the publication of '']'' in 1968. Leading ] ] has acknowledged the influence of Malthus on his concept of a ].<ref>{{cite book |last=Daly |first=Herman E. |author-link=Herman Daly |edition=2nd |date=1991 |title=Steady-state economics. |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=Island Press |isbn=978-1559630726 }}</ref>{{rp|xvi}} Other prominent Malthusians include the Paddock brothers, authors of '']''

The neo-Malthusian revival has drawn criticism from writers who claim the Malthusian warnings were overstated or premature because the ] has brought substantial increases in food production and will be able to keep up with continued population growth.<ref name="lomborg"/><ref name="Gardner">{{cite book |title=Future Babble: Why Expert Predictions Fail&nbsp;– and Why We Believe Them Anyway |url=https://archive.org/details/futurebabblewhye0000gard |url-access=registration |author=Dan Gardner |publisher=McClelland and Stewart |year=2010 |location=Toronto}}</ref> ], a ], has written that contrary to neo-Malthusian theory, Earth's "carrying capacity" is essentially limitless.<ref name="intellectual roots"/> Simon argues not that there is an infinite physical amount of, say, copper, but for human purposes that amount should be treated as infinite because it is not bounded or limited in any economic sense, because:
1) known reserves are of uncertain quantity
2) New reserves may become available, either through discovery or via the development of new extraction techniques
3) recycling
4) more efficient utilization of existing reserves (e.g., "It takes much less copper now to pass a given message than a hundred years ago." )
5) development of economic equivalents, e.g., optic fibre in the case of copper for telecommunications.
Responding to Simon, ] reiterates the potential of population growth as an exponential (or as expressed by Malthus, "geometrical") curve to outstrip both natural resources and human ingenuity.<ref>{{cite journal|journal=The Physics Teacher|title=The New Flat Earth Society|first=Al|last=Bartlett|date=September 1996|volume=34|issue=6|pages=342–43|url=http://www.albartlett.org/articles/art1998jan.html|access-date=9 April 2013|doi=10.1119/1.2344473}}</ref> Bartlett writes and lectures particularly on energy supplies, and describes the "inability to understand the exponential function" as the "greatest shortcoming of the human race".

Prominent neo-Malthusians such as Paul Ehrlich maintain that ultimately, population growth on Earth is still too high, and will eventually lead to a serious crisis.<ref name=Kunstler /><ref name="The Population Bomb Revisited">{{cite journal |author1=Paul R. Ehrlich |author2=Anne H. Ehrlich |title=The Population Bomb Revisited |url=http://www.populationmedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Population-Bomb-Revisited-Paul-Ehrlich-20096.pdf |journal=Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development |year=2009 |volume= 1 | issue = 3 |pages=63–71 |access-date=2010-02-01}}</ref> The ] inspired further Malthusian arguments regarding the prospects for global food supply.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Brown |first=Lester |title=The New Geopolitics of Food |journal=Foreign Policy |date=May–June 2011 |url=https://foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/25/the_new_geopolitics_of_food?page=0,0&sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4dd4e5e0cd2157fa,0 |access-date=7 June 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111127062517/http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/25/the_new_geopolitics_of_food?page=0%2C0&sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4dd4e5e0cd2157fa%2C0 |archive-date=27 November 2011 }}</ref>

From approximately 2004 to 2011, concerns about "peak oil" and other forms of resource depletion became widespread in the United States, and motivated a large if short-lived subculture of neo-Malthusian "peakists."<ref>{{Cite book|title=Peak oil : apocalyptic environmentalism and libertarian political culture|last=Schneider-Mayerson, Matthew, author.|isbn=9780226285573|oclc=951562545|date = 2015-10-14}}</ref>

A ] study conducted in 2009<ref></ref> said that food production would have to increase by 70% over the next 40 years, and food production in the developing world would need to double<ref></ref> to feed a projected population increase from 7.8 billion to 9.1 billion in 2050. The ] (floods, droughts, and other extreme weather events) are expected to negatively affect food production, with different impacts in different regions.<ref></ref><ref></ref> The FAO also said the use of agricultural resources for ] may also put downward pressure on food availability.<ref></ref>

==Evidence in support==
]. 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.
| title = Can Technology Deliver on the Yield Challenge to 2050
|journal=Expert Meeting on How to Feed the World
|pages=12
|publisher= Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
| url = ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/ak977e/ak977e00.pdf
}}</ref>]]
Research indicates that technological superiority and higher land productivity had significant positive effects on population density but insignificant effects on the standard of living during the time period 1–1500 AD.<ref name="Ashraf and Galor, 2010">{{cite journal |last1=Ashraf |first1=Quamrul |first2=Oded |last2=Galor |year=2011 |title=Dynamics and Stagnation in the Malthusian Epoch |journal=] |volume=101 |issue=5 |pages=2003–41 |doi=10.1257/aer.101.5.2003 |pmid=25506082 |pmc=4262154 }}</ref> In addition, scholars have reported on the lack of a significant trend of wages in various places over the world for very long stretches of time.<ref name="Clark2007" /><ref>{{cite journal |last=Allen |first=R. C. |title=The Great Divergence in European Wages and Prices from the Middle Ages to the First World War |journal=Explorations in Economic History |volume=38 |issue=4 |pages=411–47 |year=2001 |doi=10.1006/exeh.2001.0775 }}</ref> In Babylonia during the period 1800 to 1600 BC, for example, the daily wage for a common laborer was enough to buy about 15 pounds of wheat. In Classical Athens in about 328 BC, the corresponding wage could buy about 24 pounds of wheat. In England in 1800 AD the wage was about 13 pounds of wheat.<ref name="Clark2007"/>{{rp|50}} In spite of the technological developments across these societies, the daily wage hardly varied. In Britain between 1200 and 1800, only relatively minor fluctuations from the mean (less than a factor of two) in real wages occurred. Following depopulation by the ] and other epidemics, real income in Britain peaked around 1450–1500 and began declining until the ].<ref>
{{cite book
|title= Agricultural Revolution in England: The transformation of the agrarian economy 1500–1850
|url= https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780521568593
|url-access= registration
|last=Overton
|first= Mark
|year=1996 |publisher =Cambridge University Press
|isbn= 978-0-521-56859-3
}}
</ref> Historian ] posits that waves of plague following the initial outbreak of the Black Death throughout Europe had a leveling effect that changed the ratio of land to labor, reducing the value of the former while boosting that of the latter, which lowered ] by making employers and landowners less well off while improving the economic prospects and living standards of workers. He says that "the observed improvement in living standards of the laboring population was rooted in the suffering and premature death of tens of millions over the course of several generations." This leveling effect was reversed by a "demographic recovery that resulted in renewed ]."<ref>{{cite book | last = Scheidel| first = Walter | author-link =Walter Scheidel| title =The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century | publisher = ]| year =2017 | isbn =978-0691165028|url=http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10921.html|pages=292–93, 304}}</ref>

] published a study of lifespans and nutrition from about a century before Malthus to the 19th century that examined European birth and death records, military and other records of height and weight that found significant stunted height and low body weight indicative of chronic hunger and malnutrition. He also found short lifespans that he attributed to chronic malnourishment which left people susceptible to disease. Lifespans, height and weight began to steadily increase in the UK and France after 1750. Fogel's findings are consistent with estimates of available food supply.<ref>{{cite book |title= The Escape from Hunger and Premature Death, 1700–2100|last=Fogel |first=Robert W.|author-link= Robert_Fogel|year=2004 |publisher= Cambridge University Press|location= London |isbn= 978-0-521-80878-1 }}</ref>

==Theory of breakout via technology==
{{See also|Industrial Revolution#Causes|British Agricultural Revolution}}

===Industrial Revolution===
Some researchers contend that a British breakout occurred due to technological improvements and structural change away from agricultural production, while coal, capital, and trade played a minor role.<ref>Tepper, Alexander and Karol J. Borowiecki. Accounting for Breakout in Britain: The Industrial Revolution through a Malthusian Lens (2013). Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Report 639. Available at: https://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fednsr/639.html</ref> Economic historian ], building on the insights of Galor and Moav,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Voth|first=Hans-Joachim|date=2008|title=Clark's intellectual Sudoku|journal=European Review of Economic History|volume=12|issue=2|pages=149–155|doi=10.1017/S1361491608002190}}</ref> has argued, in his book '']'', that a British breakout may have been caused by differences in reproduction rates among the rich and the poor (the rich were more likely to marry, tended to have more children, and, in a society where disease was rampant and childhood mortality at times approached 50%, upper-class children were more likely to survive to adulthood than poor children.) This in turn led to sustained "downward mobility": the descendants of the rich becoming more populous in British society and spreading ] such as hard work and literacy.

===20th century===
]
]
]

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 = 513–69}}</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=https://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf|title=2004 UN Population Projections, 2004.}}</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), 147–72, 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{{example needed|date=September 2020}} or public policy that induces a similar shift.

==Criticism==
] and ] argued that Malthus failed to recognize a crucial difference between humans and other species. In capitalist societies, as Engels put it, scientific and technological "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, p. 1.</ref> Marx argued, even more broadly, that the growth of both a human population ''in toto'' and the "]" within it, occurred in direct proportion to ].<ref>Karl Marx (transl. Ben Fowkes), ''Capital Volume 1'', Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1976 (originally 1867), pp. 782–802.</ref>

] in ''Progress and Poverty'' (1879) criticized Malthus's view that population growth was a cause of poverty, arguing that poverty was caused by the concentration of ownership of land and natural resources. George noted that humans are distinct from other species, because unlike most species humans can use their minds to leverage the reproductive forces of nature to their advantage. He wrote, "Both the jayhawk and the man eat chickens; but the more jayhawks, the fewer chickens, while the more men, the more chickens."<ref>{{Cite web|title=Progress and Poverty, Chapter 7|url=http://www.henrygeorge.org/pchp7.htm|website=www.henrygeorge.org|access-date=2020-05-17}}</ref>

D. E. C. Eversley observed that Malthus appeared unaware of the extent of industrialization, and either ignored or discredited the possibility that it could improve living conditions of the poorer classes.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Charles.|first=Eversley, David Edward|title=Social theories of fertility and the Malthusian debate|date=1959|publisher=Greenwood Press|isbn=9780837176284|location=Westport, Connecticut|oclc=1287575}}</ref>

] believed in ''The Closing Circle'' (1971) that technological progress will eventually reduce the demographic growth and environmental damage created by civilization. He also opposed coercive measures postulated by neo-malthusian movements of his time arguing that their cost will fall disproportionately on the low-income population who is struggling already.

] suggested that expanding population leads to agricultural intensification and development of more productive and less labor-intensive methods of farming. Thus, human population levels determines agricultural methods, rather than agricultural methods determining population.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Boserup|first=Ester|year=1966|title=The Conditions of Agricultural Growth. The Economics of Agrarian Change under Population Pressure|journal=Population|volume=21|issue=2|page=402|doi=10.2307/1528968|jstor=1528968}}</ref>

Environmentalist ] summarized how the Malthusian predictions of '']'' and '']'' failed to materialize due to radical changes in fertility:<ref>{{Cite book|last=Brand|first=Stewart|title=Whole Earth Discipline|year=2010|isbn=978-1843548164}}</ref>

{{Quote|text=The theory’s Malthusian premise has been proven wrong since 1963, when the rate of population growth reached a frightening 2 percent a year but then began dropping. The 1963 inflection point showed that the imagined soaring J-curve of human increase was instead a normal S-curve. The growth rate was leveling off. No one thought the growth rate might go negative and the population start shrinking in this century without an overshoot and crash, but that is what is happening.|author=]|title=|source='']''}}

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. However, due to the prosperity of a major fraction of the human population at the beginning of the 21st century, and the debatability of the predictions for ] made by ] in the 1960s and 1970s, some people, such as economist ] and medical statistician ] questioned its inevitability.<ref>Simon, Julian L, "", ''Economic Affairs: J. Inst. Econ. Affairs'', April 1994.</ref>{{See also|Simon–Ehrlich wager|The Ultimate Resource|Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World – and Why Things Are Better Than You Think}}

] asserts that science has diminishing marginal returns<ref>Tainter, Joseph. ''The Collapse of Complex Societies'', Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2003.</ref>{{Incomplete short citation|date=October 2016}} and that scientific progress is becoming more difficult, harder to achieve, and more costly, which may reduce efficiency of the factors that prevented the Malthusian scenarios from happening in the past.

The view that a "breakout" from the Malthusian trap has led to an era of sustained economic growth is explored by "]".<ref name="Galor (2005)" /><ref>{{Cite book|title=Unified Growth Theory|last=Galor|first=Oded|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=2011|location=Princeton}}</ref> One branch of unified growth theory is devoted to the interaction between human evolution and economic development. In particular, Oded Galor and Omer Moav argue that the forces of natural selection during the Malthusian epoch selected beneficial traits to the growth process and this growth enhancing change in the composition of human traits brought about the escape from the Malthusian trap, the demographic transition, and the take-off to modern growth.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Galor |first1=Oded |first2=Omer |last2=Moav |year=2002 |title=Natural Selection and The Origin of Economic Growth |journal=] |volume=117 |issue=4 |pages=1133–91 |doi=10.1162/003355302320935007 |citeseerx=10.1.1.199.2634 }}</ref>

== See also ==
{{Portal|Economics}}
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] - a U.S. National Security Council Study advocating population reduction in selected countries to advance U.S. interests
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* "]"
* ]
* ]
* ]

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

==References==
{{Refbegin|}}
* ], 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}} See especially Chapter 2 of this book
* Korotayev A. & Khaltourina D. '''' Moscow: URSS, 2006. {{ISBN|5-484-00560-4}}
* {{Cite journal
| last = Malthus
| first = Thomas Robert
| author-link =Thomas Malthus
| year = 1798
| title =An Essay on the Principle of Population
| edition = First
| location = London
| url =http://www.esp.org/books/malthus/population/malthus.pdf
| access-date =29 March 2018 |journal=Electronic Scholarly Publishing Project}}
* ], et al., eds. (2007). Moscow: KomKniga. {{ISBN|5-484-01002-0}}
* .
* {{cite journal | last1 = Turchin | first1 = P. | author-link = Peter Turchin | author-link2 = Andrey Korotayev | last2 = Korotayev | year = 2006 | title = Population Dynamics and Internal Warfare: A Reconsideration | url = https://www.academia.edu/41550406 | journal = ] | volume = 5 | issue = 2| pages = 112–47}}
*{{Cite book
| 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
| location = London
| publisher =John Murray }}
*{{Cite book
| last = Pomeranz
| first = Kenneth
| year = 2000
| title =The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy
| isbn =978-0-691-09010-8
}}
*{{Cite book
| last = Rosen
| first = William
| year = 2010
| title =The Most Powerful Idea in the World
| location = New York
| publisher =Random House
| isbn =978-1-4000-6705-3
}}
* .
{{Refend}}

==External links==
*
*
*
*
{{Navboxes|list=
{{Human impact on the environment}}
{{Population}}
{{Population country lists}}
{{biological organisation}}
{{Globalization|state=autocollapse}}
{{Doomsday}}
{{Schools of economic thought}}
}}

]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

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.