Everything about Malthusian Catastrophe totally explained
A
Malthusian catastrophe (sometimes called a Malthusian check, Malthusian crisis, Malthusian dilemma, Malthusian disaster, Malthusian trap, Malthusian controls or Malthusian limit) is a return to
subsistence-level conditions as a result of
population growth outpacing
agricultural production. Later formulations consider
economic growth limits as well. Based on the work of mathematician
Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), theories of Malthusian catastrophe are very similar to the
subsistence theory of wages. The main difference is that the Malthusian theories predict over several generations or centuries whereas the subsistence theory of wages predicts over years and decades.
An August 2007 science review in
The New York Times raised the claim that the
Industrial Revolution had enabled the modern world to break out of the Malthusian Trap, while a front page
Wall Street Journal article in March 2008 pointed out various limited resources which may soon limit human population growth because of a widespread belief in the importance of prosperity for every individual and the rising consumption trends of large developing nations such as
China and
India.
Traditional views
In 1798,
Thomas Malthus published
An Essay on the Principle of Population, describing his theory of quantitative development of human populations:
I think I may fairly make two postulata. First, That food is necessary to the existence of man. Secondly, That the passion between the sexes is necessary and will remain nearly in its present state. These two laws, ever since we've had any knowledge of mankind, appear to have been fixed laws of our nature, and, as we've not hitherto seen any alteration in them, we've no right to conclude that that'll ever cease to be what they now are, without an immediate act of power in that Being who first arranged the system of the universe, and for the advantage of his creatures, still executes, according to fixed laws, all its various operations.
...
Assuming then my postulata as granted, I say, that the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man. Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. |
A series that's increasing in
geometric progression is defined by the fact that the ratio of any two successive members of the sequence is a constant. For example, a population with an average annual growth rate of, say, 2% will grow by a ratio of 1.02 per year. In other words, the ratio of each year's population to the previous year's population will be 1.02. In modern terminology, a population that's increasing in geometric progression is said to be experiencing
exponential growth.
Alternately, in an
arithmetic progression, any two successive members of the sequence have a constant difference. In modern terminology, this is called linear growth.
If unchecked over a sufficient period of time, and if the ratio between successive sequence members is larger than 1.0, then exponential growth will always outrun linear growth. Malthus saw the difference between population growth and resource growth as being analogous to this difference between exponential and linear growth. Even when a population inhabits a new habitat – such as the American continent at Malthus' time, or when recovering from wars and epidemic plagues – the growth of population will eventually reach the limit of the resource base. (Malthus 1798, chapter 7:
A Probable Cause of Epidemics
).
Neo-Malthusian theory
Neo-Malthusian theory argues that unless at or below subsistence level, a population's
fertility will tend to move upwards. Assume for example that a country has 10 breeding groups. Over time this country's fertility will approach that of its fastest growing group in the same way that
»
will eventually come to resemble
»
regardless of how large the constant
a is or how small the constant
b is. Under subsistence conditions the fastest growing group is likely to be that group progressing most rapidly in agricultural
technology. However, in above-subsistence conditions the fastest growing group is likely to be the one with the highest fertility. Therefore the fertility of the country will approach that of its most fertile group. This, however, is only part of the problem.
In any group some individuals will be more pro-fertility in their beliefs and practices than others. According to neo-Malthusian theory, these pro-fertility individuals won't only have more children, but also pass their pro-fertility on to their children, meaning a constant selection for pro-fertility similar to the constant
natural selection for fertility
genes (except much faster because of greater diversity). According to neo-Malthusians, this increase in fertility will lead to hyperexponential population growth that will eventually outstrip growth in economic production. This appears to make any sort of voluntary fertility control futile, in the long run. Neo-Malthusians argue that although adult immigrants (who, at the very least, arrive with
human capital) contribute to economic production, there's little or no increase in economic production from increased natural growth and fertility. Neo-Malthusians argue that hyperexponential population growth has begun or will begin soon in developed countries.
To this can be added that, unknown to Malthus, farmland deteriorates with use. Some areas where there was intensive agriculture in classic times (for example, the feudal era) had already declined in population because their farmland was worn out, long before he wrote.
At the time Malthus wrote, and for 150 years thereafter, most societies had populations at or beyond their agricultural limits. After
World War I, the growth rate of the world's population accelerated rapidly, resulting in predictions by
Paul R. Ehrlich and many others of an imminent Malthusian catastrophe. However, the so-called
Green Revolution produced a contemporaneous exponential increase in the world's food supply, and the date of the predicted Malthusian collapse had been temporarily forestalled, until the peaking of agricultural production began to occur in the 1990s in several world regions.
David Pimentel and
Ron Nielsen, working independently, found that the human population has passed the numerical point where all can live in comfort, and that we've entered a stage where many of the world's citizens and future generations are trapped in misery. There is evidence that a catastrophe is underway as of at least the 1990s; for example, by the year 2000, children in developing countries were dying at the rate of approximately 11,000,000 per annum from strictly preventable diseases. This data suggests that by the standard of misery, the catastrophe is underway. The term 'misery' can generally be construed as: high
infant mortality, low standards of sanitation,
malnutrition,
inadequate drinking water, widespread diseases, war, and political unrest.
Regarding famines, data demonstrates the world's food production has peaked in some of the very regions where food is needed the most. For example in
South Asia, approximately half of the land has been degraded such that it no longer has the capacity for food production. In
Madagascar, at least 30% of the land previously regarded as arable is irreversibly barren. On the other hand, recent data shows the number of overweight people in the world now outnumbers that of malnourished, and the rising tide of
obesity continues to expand in both rich and poor countries.
Many technologically developed countries have by 2006 passed through the
demographic transition, a complex social development in which
total fertility rates drop in response to lower
infant mortality, more education of women, increased
urbanization, and a wider availability of effective
birth control causing the
demographic-economic paradox. By the end of the 21st century, these countries could avoid population declines by permitting large-scale
immigration. On the assumption that the demographic transition is now spreading to
less developed countries, the
United Nations Population Fund estimates that human population may peak in the late 21st century rather than continue to grow until it exhausted available resources. Some have expressed doubt about the validity of the UN projections, claiming that they're below the projections by others. Alternatively, the apparently exponential portion of the human population growth curve may actually fit the lower limb of a
logistic curve, or a section of a
Lotka-Volterra cycle.
Historians have estimated the total human population on earth back to 10,000 BC. The figure on the right shows the trend of total population from the year 500 AD to 2005, and from there in three projections out to 2150 (low, medium, and high). Also visible on this graph are the effects of the
Great Depression, the two world wars, and possibly also the
1918 influenza pandemic.
Though short-term trends, even on the scale of decades or centuries, can't prove or disprove the existence of mechanisms promoting a Malthusian catastrophe over longer periods, the prosperity of a small fraction of the human population at the beginning of the 21st century, and the debatability of
ecological collapse made by
Paul R. Ehrlich in the 1960s and 1970s, has led some people, such as economist
Julian L. Simon, to question its inevitability.
A 2004 study by a group of prominent economists and ecologists, including
Kenneth Arrow and Paul Ehrlich 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 isn't imminent. A 2002 study by the
UN Food and Agriculture Organization 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 distribution issues).
Application to energy/resource consumption
Another way of applying the Malthusian theory is to substitute other resources, such as sources of
energy for food, and energy consumption for population. (Since modern food production is energy and resource intensive, this isn't a big jump. Most of the criteria for applying the theory are still satisfied.) Since energy consumption is increasing much faster than population and most energy comes from polluting and non-renewable sources, the catastrophe appears more imminent, though perhaps not as certain, than when considering food and population continue to behave in a manner contradicting Malthus's assumptions.
Retired physics professor
Albert Bartlett, a modern-day
Malthusian, has lectured on "Arithmetic, Population and Energy" over 1,500 times. He published an article entitled
Thoughts on Long-Term Energy Supplies: Scientists and the Silent Lie in Physics Today (July 2004). For a response to Bartlett's argument, see two articles on energy and population in Physics Today, November 2004, and following letters to the editor.
A further way of analyzing resource limitation is the dwindling area for storage of
soil contaminants and
water pollution. The high rate of increase in toxic chemicals in the environment (especially persistent organic chemicals and endocrine altering chemicals) is creating a circumstance of resource limitation (for example safe potable water and safe arable land).
Further Information
Get more info on 'Malthusian Catastrophe'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://malthusian_catastrophe.totallyexplained.com">Malthusian catastrophe Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |
