Tuesday, 07.01.08
The Return of Thomas Malthus
MUSTAFA OZER/AFP/Getty Images
In the 1990s, a number of writers, including me, were denounced as grim, deterministic Malthusians because of our emphasis on the role the natural world played in global affairs. It was an era without limits, it seemed, when any country could achieve prosperity and human rights. Contrarily, we argued that rising populations, depleted soils and water resources, and other natural phenomena might limit what could be achieved in specific places, and that there was therefore a need for tragic realism.
Now tragic realism is all the rage, and the media have started to look at Malthus positively. But journalists still misunderstand him. He was a more sympathetic figure than his philosophy may indicate, and his philosophy itself is far broader than the media's concentration on his ill-starred demographic theory indicates.
Malthus was born in 1766 with a harelip and a cleft palate. He studied mathematics, history, and philosophy at Cambridge. Partly because of his speech defect, he decided to go into the church and live a somewhat reclusive life in the country. One of the most tranquil and cheerful of men, Malthus never minded interruptions, especially by children, to whom he would give his full attention. But this thoroughly decent man was humiliated by the literary and intellectual grandees of the age. The poet Shelley called him "a eunuch and a tyrant" and the "apostle of the rich," simply because of his matter-of-fact empirical observation that society will always have rich people and poor people. Charles Dickens, Friedrich Engels, William Wordsworth, and Samuel Taylor Coleridge all heaped abuse on poor Malthus.
So what did Malthus say that was so terrible? He challenged the conventional view of human perfectibility that was in fashion during the aftermath of the French Revolution and the approach of a new century. He wrote in the realist spirit of Thucydides, Edmund Burke, and America's Founding Fathers. He worried that leisure time and prosperity would produce as much evil as good, and that mass happiness would always elude society. He was a profoundly moral philosopher sensitive to the travails of the human condition. His specific theory -- that population increases geometrically while food supplies increase only arithmetically -- was eventually proven wrong, because the settlement of the New World and the Industrial Revolution would add significantly to agricultural output. And our current interest in Malthus may, too, prove short-lived if a new green revolution, for example, sweeps Africa.
Nevertheless, if Malthus is wrong, then why is it necessary to prove him wrong again and again, every decade and every century? Perhaps because a fear exists that at some fundamental level, Malthus is right. For the great contribution of this estimable man was to bring nature itself into the argument over politics. Indeed, in an era of global warming, Malthus may prove among the most-relevant philosophers of the Enlightenment.
One way to end povertyIn Scientific American, Nobel laureate Jeffrey Sachs urges poor nations to institute policies that lead to lower fertility rates. |
Feeding the worldRoss Clark argues that the current food crisis could easily be solved by utilizing more of the globe for agricultural food production. |
A concern of the pastThe fear of population growth and Malthus's dire predictions, The Economist says, will soon become outdated ideas as technology changes and fertility rates drop. |
The population bustContrary to Malthusian theory, Jeff Jacoby worries that drastically declining birth rates in many parts of the world will lead to crippling tax burdens for aging societies. |
(61)
Malthus himself ultimately rejected his theory that resource scarcity would lead to a crises caused by population increases. He had a period of time to observe actual progress involved in the industrial revolution and realized that he was wrong. Being a moral person, he recanted his theory, something modern Malthusians are incapable of admitting.
What do you mean by "New World"?
The only thing new around here are self-righteous white people!
"New World"?
Is that a joke?
BTW; I always get a good chuckle when I see, read or hear WHITE people fulminating against "illegal aliens".
Another joke I guess...
"Nevertheless, if Malthus is wrong, then why is it necessary to prove him wrong again and again, every decade and every century? Perhaps because a fear exists that at some fundamental level, Malthus is right."
No.... the need to prove Malthus wrong is rooted in the fact that politicians continue to make identical claims for their own advantage. The entire notion that we are overpopulating the planet and that our resources are so finite as to be impacted my our mere existence is pure Malthus. The theme has political power. It's no mystery ambitious people have seized it. It's still just as ignorant as Malthus himself though.
We keep coming back to Malthus because at some level, resources ARE finite. The world may already have passed peak oil production, and people are beginning to realize that. Oil traders have realized it for years now, and that is why the price is so high. Oil shortages directly translate to food shortages. Yes, eventually nuclear and solar will totally displace fossil fuels, and eventually we will have plenty of energy. But this transformation will take many decades and possibly up to a century, and in the interim there will be extended periods of extreme shortage. And there could be severe die-offs in various parts of the world during the times of extreme shortage. Just because Malthus is wrong in the long term does not mean that Malthus is wrong in the near term.
No biggie, we're all dead anyways, whether or not Malthus is right, the human race will be extinct in time, whether or not we overpopulate, warm the planet or kill ouselves in war.
World population keeps going up - until that stops, it does seem inevitable that Malthus' idea will carry on. Technology might keep up in many ways, but ultimately if population reaches 10 billion or 20 billion, people may demand more resources than the planet has to offer. Locally prices will decide who gets what. But, globally there will be conflict over ownership and access to those resources.
Ah the left wing narrative: gloom and doom. Doesn't the left realize that all this negativism is self defeating. Predicting the end of the world makes you ridiculous when the prophecy proves false. Although some seem to think it will help inaugurate a savior next year. As always there are plenty of resources, they just have to be produced in different ways, managed in better ways and substitutes developed if necessary.
People always underestimate how technology changes. We can now recover oil from so many places that couldn't be accessed just a few years ago. Farming technology is also improved. Our biggest problem is that our government won't let us get all of this oil and we burn food for energy. We need government to get out of the way.
Malthus is correct when people don't improve their farming inputs and techniques - which was the case for most of human history. So, to "keep ahead of Malthus" farming has to consistantly keep improving. Unfortunately, the "new" technology of our day - genetic modification - has received a LOT of resistance (some, for very good reason) and generally has NOT been focused on increasing food yields. If we are to keep ahead of Malthus, this has got to change, and soon.
The gloom-and-doom preachers should read about the wage on resource scarcity between contemporary Malthusian Paul Ehrlich and the late Julian Simon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon-Ehrlich_wager (This Wikipedia article provides a good summary.)
The central point is that the knowledge of available resources and the knowledge on how to use them is constantly changing. The Malthusians erroneously assume that this knowledge is static.
The same people who predicted Malthus's was right in the 1960s and 1970s were proven wrong in the 1980s and 1990s. They then began touting his predictions in the 1990s, and they again will be proven wrong. This crisis though is exacerbated by these same forecasters who have demanded government regulations and fiats that have distorted the marketplace and driven up prices and re-allocated foodsupplies to energy production. So the forecasters have worked with governments to increase the power of the central government and make their predictions come true. That's like predicting a building will collapse and then imploding it with dynamite.
Seriously Apache,
It is the "new" world because it was not "part" of i.e. interacting and adding to the history of the rest of the world. It was a continent populated by a people Neolithic in technological development of whom the rest of the world, China, Arabia, India, Europe had no knowledge other then tales of past voyages, widely considered to be legends and myths. European, exploration "discovered" the "new" world by revealing it to the collective knowledge of humanity and beginning the chain of events that lead to its development. Also, it is called illegal immigration because it is a violation of duely recognized and constituted laws, borders and state sovereignty. The Neolithic peoples occupying the continent in north had no such concepts and in the southern half were conquered by Spaniards. BTW it is ancient history get over it.
Kaplan writes: "Nevertheless, if Malthus is wrong, then why is it necessary to prove him wrong again and again, every decade and every century? Perhaps because a fear exists that at some fundamental level, Malthus is right."
Conversely Kaplan: if Copernicus is right, and the Earth truly revolves around the Sun, then why is it necessary to prove him right again and again every decade and every century? Perhaps because a fear exits that at some fundamental level Copernicus is wrong.
Sophistry, Kaplan, sophistry.
By the by Kaplan: can one be a Malthusian and own a 401K, or do you have to put your trust on the ponzi scheme known as Social Security.
Here's the rub:
Malthus made a statement of fact only applicable at the moment demand for finite resources are surpassed by ever increasing numbers of people. As people, we consume and waste. What doesn't make sense to an intelligent person that at some point in time, SOME POINT, there will come a time when only so much agriculture can be produced and if more people are here than can survive, then the marginal players are dead. Thats it. SCience is already pointing out how much damage the first green revolution has done to the top soil on farm lands. At some point it wont support crops and it turns to dust ala Egypt and the cradle of civilization. The future is all around us. Look.
The reason we keep coming back to Malthus is that Malthus was right.
As soon geographic considerations constrain an areas growing population Malthusian conclusions reassert themselves.
In other words as soon as a lid is put on the jar the fruitflies are in ... Malthusian conclusions follow.
Sad as it is a lie gets off the ground faster than the truth. Friedman ... be it his laissez faire thesis on population or his theories on economics ... are a lie. The lie is made to support the idea of ever expanding economies ... can't have ever expanding economies without ever expanding population ... can't push globalization without a reason to globalize.
Friedman supplies all the reasons to ignore reality at the expense of sound malthusian conclusions that predict global warming and all the bad things that follow over populating a continent or planet.
Malthusian conclusion are built into our DNA ... overcrowding ... increases irritation between groups causes war ... famine disease spreads easily ... increased incidence and acceptance of single sex relationships.
It becomes a nature verses nurture argument where (tortoise)Malthusian(nature) scholars argue with ever changing arguments preposed by the likes of (hare)Friedman(nurture)scholars.
Only in America do losers--the neo New Left-- get to write history--probably an indication of too much benevolent Western toleration and cannabis consumption, and the cult of children. Originally out of Africa, the Amerindians had 20 thousand years to develop the "New World" and blew it. Sanctimonious Nth wave caucasians from the Eurasian land mass have been on a run ever since, although color has no monopoly on hypocracy. Without Cortez, San Francisco could not have had Mission St. Francis, the hippy dippy weather man, and Mexico City would still be doing human sacrifices; eat your heart out Janis Joplin fans. There never was a fortress America and there is no peaceful third way; welcome to playing cowboys and Indians again during round three of the Barbary Wars. Oh, and Apaches would still be living off the grid in their Wiikiups, eating Bambi, with their women gathering acorns while kowtowing to the braves in Neolithic paradise.
Malthus needs to be proven wrong again and again, because his accolites in the academic and media circles conintue to search in vain for every chance to prove him right and fail. Scarcity of resources is not due to over population, explosive growth or lack of natural resources, it is due to government mismanagement of resources and bad, comand and control policies.
Lavish etahnol subsidies drive up domestic and world food prices. Civil wars and brutal African dictatorships starve their people and lay fallow the land to control their population. Lack of domestic oil production in the US and oil price breaks in China drive up world oil prices. China's "one child policy", meant to conform to Malthusian thinking has been stopped and China is coming to grips with the horrible unintended consquences of it actions. Just that experience alone should end the intelligensia love affair with Malthus
Industrialization and economic modernization have proven Malthus to be wrong in the short and long run. When countries mature economically, agreeing to live with free markets and personal freedom, scarcity magically goes away.
Even though I disagree with the silly premise of this article Kaplan, I still love all your books and am a big fan of your writing.
"Scarcity of resources is not due to over population, explosive growth or lack of natural resources, it is due to government mismanagement of resources and bad, comand and control policies"
The cult of globalization rears its head again ... no matter ... the truth will out itself.
When the power grid went out in the north east the amish were telling their children horror stories of people in new york city eating each other ... (note the writer has this small wry smile on his face).
Malthus was wrong in his own time for only one reason, (which was not political.) He did not take into account the impact of technology on his observations and extrapolations. An excusable error in his day, but not today. Energy limitations, sans politics, don't exist, in total -- that is, including the the sun's energy. Do you honestly believe that in 50 years there will NOT be effective direct solar energy capture and use. Energy capture and transfer satellites are one option, and there will be others. Again, the politics could kill the human race, but technology will again demonstrate that any modern-day Malthus MUST take it into account for any chance of being "right."
"When the power grid went out in the north east the amish were telling their children horror stories of people in new york city eating each other ... (note the writer has this small wry smile on his face)."
The power grid is a monument to government regulations.
Global free markets will provide the solutions. Even Cuba understands. Because they were starving in Havana, the state 'allowed' people to garden 'public' land and sell the produce. The gardens are very productive.
Zimbabwe used to export food. Now they are starving. Why? Socialism.
Government regulations and controls around the world inhibit the innovation and productivity that WILL let us and billions more eat our fill.
The pessimist Malthusians have been wrong time and time again. The optimists have seen technology, extra land and other factors come to their rescue. Unfortunately, the Malthusians need to be right only once and they win. GAME OVER!
Thomas Malthus, a fellow of my college at Cambridge, Jesus, was known as a rather cheerful guy. He was not a pessimist. He maintained that famine would kill off the unsupportable population so equalibrium could be restored. He considered this to be an inevitable cycle, much as a person I knew in Ethiopia who said that the fight against malaria would upset the population balance.
Given his view of the world, it is curious that Malthus remained a devout Christian. How could he possibly have reconciled his fatih in a loving and merciful Christ with his acceptance of so much human suffering? That question remains unanswered.
Apart from Malthus, perhaps it is also time to revisit the work of Rene Dumont, Willliam Paddock and Sir Arthur Lewis. Nevertheless, Mr. Kaplan does a great service in taking Malthus seriously.
"Malthus was born in 1766 with a harelip and a cleft palate. He studied mathematics, history, and philosophy at Cambridge. Partly because of his speech defect, he decided to go into the church and live a somewhat reclusive life in the country."
This shows how poorly thought out Kaplan's article is. Why would somebody with a speech impediment take a job that requires being a public figure and speaking in public at least once a week?!
The reason Malthus keeps being re-examined is because first, his theory seems so logical if you don't believe in the value of science, and secondly because Liberals, way down deep, want his theories to be true thus damning this evil Capitalistic system we live in. Sorry, boys and girls, Capitalism and Free Markets will once again save the day.
"Given his view of the world, it is curious that Malthus remained a devout Christian. How could he possibly have reconciled his fatih in a loving and merciful Christ with his acceptance of so much human suffering? That question remains unanswered."
Don't know much about Christianity?
"We often treat suffering as if it's to be avoided at all costs, yet it's often the best display of a life transformed by Christ. Robert Murrey McCheyne, a Scottish minister of the previous century, said, "There is a great want about all Christians who have not suffered. Some flowers must be broken or bruised before they emit any fragrance" (cited in More Gathered Gold: a Treasury of Quotations for Christians, edited by John Blanchard [Welwyn, Eng. : Evangelical Press, 1986], p. 315). Do you view afflictions, trials, and sufferings as things to be avoided, or as the greatest opportunities to project the fragrance of a transformed life. "
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg60-28.htm
Apache - it is the "new world" because the language of this blog is English -- a language that originated in Europe. I am certain that if you were to read and post on Apache-language blogs, your issue would not be present.
Others have already pointed this out, but I would just like to my add my own two cents.
Nevertheless, if Malthus is wrong, then why is it necessary to prove him wrong again and again, every decade and every century
This reads very much like a self-fulfilling prophecy. You come out and say something like, "Malthus may have been right," then when someone says "No, he wasn't right and this is why..." you retort with "If you feel the need to prove me wrong, then he must have been right!"
So needless to say, that one sentence destroys whatever worth was in this piece. I find that to be unfortunate since, as you said, Malthus had intriguing ideas regarding the plight of the poor.
I credit Kaplan and others for their persistance in keeping Malthus and demographic questions on the table. It meets with resistance from a number of quarters who wish to deny the basic truth of many geometrical conditions challenged by linear constraints - out of ideological beliefs that:
- Raising demography is implicitly racist and should be left out of every argument. Like celebrating how the US made huge strides in replacing oil with substitutes, eliminating much need for oil on a per capita basis from hard work in efficiency and conservation. Then omitting from discussion the fact that Net USE of oil went up in America by 15%. Not by SUVs, but by adding 78 million new energy users since 1973, with another 120 million here and up to 3 billion more abroad working to more than negate all conservation, efficiency, and small "exciting alternative energy substitution" gains.
Talking demographic growth and the down side of modernizing vast billions of 3rd Worlders into high resource consumption as anything other than a Great Thing that will boost global GNP is deliberately left out of discussions.
Realization that dumping all resources into "free markets" has not led in all cases to better distribution and more, but more going away from the people in source countries to benefit a relative few wealthy Elites. Effectively watching, like starving Irishmen during the Potato Famine as the wheat they grew was sold to the highest bidder. And in extreme duress, nations will drop "free markets" to best protect their own people having adequate resources, or to starve the enemy, as they did with WWI Germany, which had more people than they could feed and industries dependent on goods the Brits, French, and Americans previously traded with them.
The pervasive belief that "pro-Malthusans are always wrong because miracle technology will always finesse resource shortages."
Wrong. History shows that mass human die-offs from war and famine happened frequently when technology lagged population growth. Norman Borlaug, the leader of the Green Revolution force, said the agricultural revolution they created brought man one lucky respite. Unless they balanced population in the respite given mankind against resource constraints of arable land, maintaining wildlife reserves to prevent mass extinction events, water, and the energy needed to make the fertilizer and the mech farming equipment.
So add the people behind the Green Revolution to Malthus targets of "Hah! They were wrong!" taunts.
- Global Warming is indicated to be, by preponderance of evidence, at least in part attributable to CO2 that is rising every year as a pollutant. Add it to something new Malthus never addressed in "shortages" - which is too much of mankind and man's activities may wreck ecological systems counted on to give up regular amounts of resources each year.
Add to CO2, man-made desertification, ruining of acquifers with pollution or salt intrusion, loss of arable lands by deforestation and soil erosion. The collapse of major oceanic fisheries .
- When Malthus wrote, there was so much land in the wild and not much appreciation for other species not useful for food or products, and not a concern about mankind being a good steward of the planet so our descendents could appreciate and benefit from nature. Not grow up knowing the last mohogany tree was cut down 300 years ago and to see the diversity of life, only museum archives give you an idea of what it once was on land or in the sea.
Capitalism and exciting new technology are not going to work if their "enhancement" and "bold new solutions" lag the overpopulation crises coming by centuries or decades. (Exciting new technology and public health "cured" the Plague in the 19th, 20 Centuries. So technology is wonderful and solves many problems...but no guarantee that need alone simply materialized the new, fabulous tech. Because Plague cures came to late to stop the Black Death.)
Free markets and "exiting future tech" will not bring back to life extinct animals and plants to a habitat of barren oceans, human sprawl and each hectacre of land needed for humans.
Unfortunately, the Malthusians need to be right only once and they win. GAME OVER! Posted by Rob
They have been right many times in the past as civilizations collapsed and mass species extinction events occured from combinations of overpopulation, resource constraints impacted by climate or local shortages. The events are well-documented. Many Pollyannas take the wrong lessosn from it as they see mankind, as a species, rebound from the damage - and even get better over various Dark Periods.
But some of the damage man has caused is permanent and unalterable. And it is best to avoid decades or centuries of mass dieoff of people, resource wars where one band ared with spears or rifles fought for the Other's land and resources, and just as long a Dark Period of declining levels of living for the survivors. Especially if overpopulation and resource depletion setting up those dark times can be stopped in the 1st place.
Personally I think Malthus keeps coming back because we want to reassure ourselves that sacrificing the less fortunate is justifiable. It's certainly much easier than, say, actually fighting corruption or trying to balance competing priorities.
Excuse me, but isn't there something called carrying capacity? I'm pretty sure it applies to humans regardless of how technologically advanced we may be
The reason we return to Malthus again and again is that all humans are, deep down, millenialists. We all believe that our current time is, seriously this time, the end of the world.
This was true long before Malthus (look at Christians at the turn of the 1st century) and it's true today, whether you're a fundamentalist Protestant who believes Jesus is coming, an environmentalist who believes Global Warming is coming, or a pseudo-geologist who believes Peak Oil is coming. The End of the World has come and gone, here comes the End of the World.
I'm a conservative, but I do like malthus.
Good to see the earlier post giving him credit for Darwin(Wallace), it is due.
I think the same criticisms of his work, are equally applicable to Hubbert's peak oil theory. (Also curious that oil cost is increasing linearly-from 07-as opposed to exponentially...)
It isn't about whether he was right or wrong, but that he provided insight to all future mathematical models, especially in regards to population. He gave means and methods of measuring population changes.
Keynes, as well as Darwin, found Malthus to be ridiculously useful.
Good to see the the author confine the topic to food/population, and not branch out into oil theory or global warming, which abuse the work of malthus.
The reason we keep coming back to Malthus is even in the short instance where technology fails us ... as in the case of the power blackouts ... Malthusian conclusions reassert themselves with a vengeance. Then the power grid goes back on ... friediens wipe their brow and ignore the fact that he was right ... better technology they cry ... the markets supply and demand make malthus obselete they say.
Even in the face of instances in the past where south sea natives isolated by being on an island resort to unspeakable things ... the donner party trapped in a snow storm ... innumerable instances where technology or circumstance lets them down.
The premis is that technology will never let us down ... distribution is the answer they say ... the markets will regulate population contrary to the fact that it is not the rich that have the most kids ... its the poor.
Ignore anything that doesn't fit the model ... explain away famine ... mediate overpopulation it doesn't matter ... People jumping off buildings don't really want gravity to exist ... but it does.
Dear Mr. Kaplan,
Thanks for a good essay. You certainly stimulated a lively set of comments.
You might be interested in a paper that came out of UCLA recently that addresses in a quantitative way the interplay between human growth and technological progress:
http://hjem.get2net.dk/kgs/growthphysA.pdf
"Finite Time Singularity in the Dynamics of the World Population, Economic and Financial Indices" by Anders Johansen and Didier Sornette
They found that "contary to common belief the world's population and economic output have both grown faster than exponential ... for most of known history." In order to model such accelerating growth (which does not occur in the natural world apart from humans) they had to account for advancing technology and the fact that the rate of advancement of technology was also accelerating. The really interesting result is that the coupled equations they derive, while accounting nicely for the accelerating growth patterns, also predict a "singularity" near the year 2050. That is, the system "explodes" to infinite population and technical advancement at about that time. Since infinities can't happen in the real world they conclude that what is actually likely to happen is some kind of fundamental transition to an entirely new regime which will be governed by a different formula. There is evidence in the slowing of world population growth since about 1980 that we are already well into the transition period. We can only guess about how the transition will proceed and what the outcome will be. But we already have plenty of evidence that it may not be a pleasant affair. We may already be seeing resource wars and widespread lack of understanding about resource limits that bodes ill for a smooth transition.
Socialism keeps oozing into the world even though it continues to demonstrably fail.
Malthus appeals to those 'primitives' who still believe the size of the pie is fixed.
Goodness, Malthus needs to be proven wrong again and again because it's human nature to make the same easy mistakes when confronted with a counter-intuitive fact o' nature again and again.
I mean, you might as well ask why the battle against drunk driving, unprotected anonymous sex, and prejudice is never-ending. The older generation, having sadly learnt lessons in the School O' Hard Knocks, dies off, and a new ignorant generation grows up, thinking it knows everything...until experience proves otherwise. It would be nice to think that, once as a species we learned some lesson, we efficiently imparted it to each new generation. But we don't. So the struggle against plausible-sounding but wrong ideas goes on forever.
In the case of Malthus, he makes two mistakes: (1) he arbitrarily assumes food (or whatever necessity of life) production goes up arithmetically, and (2) population goes up geometrically.
Neither is axiomatically true. In the first case, obviously the effect of improved technology can make food production rise far faster than arithmetically, and so it has, historically. In the second case, population rises geometrically only as long as each person has more than one child, on average. While they certainly did in the 18th century, history since then has shown that they tend not to do so as soon as they reach a certain level of per capita wealth. Indeed, the population of Japan is currently falling, and the population of much of Europe is poised to follow. Without immigration, even the US population would no longer be growing. The assumption that people will continue to have large families indefinitely, unless forced not to, turns out to be wrong. People voluntarily, perhaps even instinctively, reduce their fertility to replacement levels or below, once they reach a certain level of individual wealth.
As for those arguing "finite" resources: in the first place, human population is finite, too. So what's your point? No one is trying, or will ever try, to support an infinitely large population on a finite planet, for the simple reason that population does not, and never will, grow without limit.
Secondly, if the population were to continue to grow indefinitely, it could only be because humanity became no longer restricted to one planet, i.e. humans started colonizing the rest of the Solar System, or the Universe. And in that case, the resources available -- those of the entire Universe -- might as well be infinite.
If I recall, Malthus was not just interested in the big picture but also personal, sociological factors as well, like how old people should be before marrying, so as to limit family size in a pre-pill era. He was not interested in letting nature take its course and killing off surplus population, but in convincing young people to wait until they had the resources to start families.
By pushing people to fight their natural urges to postpone gratification (and thereby save the planet as well) Malthus helped shape modern western history more than is often recognized. It is no wonder he continues to fascinate.
Ironically, if we look at the demographic crisis facing Europe today, it appears Malthus made too great an impression. Postponing is one thing, rejecting procreation is now the norm. What would poor Thomas make of this strange new world?
No one, absolutely no one, in the Malthus and population discussions has any idea of the real problem. We are facing a NITROGEN CRISIS. Sustaining the current level of population requires 100,000,000 TONS of ammonia fertilizer per year. This has to be made from NATURAL GAS which used to cheap. We can no longer afford to run the hundred odd gas-to-ammonia plants in the US. Increasing amounts must be imported from places like Trinidad, the Middle East, and other producers of gas for export.
NO ONE CAN SEE THIS and my attempts to write a publishable article do not even get a first reading by editors.
Howard Garrison Retired Energy consultant living in Madrid
Malthus was wrong about a few things.
Scarcity might cause civil strife but not war. Wars are fought by those with money to spend on wars. Poor countries are limited in the ability to go to war.
Strife due to scarcity is more a phenomenon in slave states than free states. Free people take responsibility for themselves and respond possitively to strife. Slaves do not. Just look at the difference between Haiti and Dominican Republic. Same island, different culture and mind set. Look at the difference between New Orleans after Katrina and the Mid West after the recent floods.
Malthus also did not for see the advent of mass birth control. People choosing to have only the number of children they want to have. Not his fault. Thus Malthus did not anticipate population growth going down in times of plenty, as is happening in Europe and Japan, and as would be happening in the US if not for immigration.
Malthus was right about there always being "poor" and "rich." People will never be perfected. It is a notion that flies in the face of reality. Same goes for a common contiouseness. In a free society, poor have to have the opportunity to be rich. "Poor" and "rich" are not well understood and are over used. "Poor" and "rich" could be substituted for "free" and "slave."
Climate change has played havoc in the historical past and created shortages and strife. But it was always cooling and not warming. Warming has been a net good thing for humanity for the last 10, 000 years. Human cause global warming hysteria will be another social movement studied and pondered for it's obserdity many years into the future.
Malthus was wrong about a few things.
Scarcity might cause civil strife but not war. Wars are fought by those with money to spend on wars. Poor countries are limited in the ability to go to war.
Strife due to scarcity is more a phenomenon in slave states than free states. Free people take responsibility for themselves and respond possitively to strife. Slaves do not. Just look at the difference between Haiti and Dominican Republic. Same island, different culture and mind set. Look at the difference between New Orleans after Katrina and the Mid West after the recent floods.
Malthus also did not for see the advent of mass birth control. People choosing to have only the number of children they want to have. Not his fault. Thus Malthus did not anticipate population growth going down in times of plenty, as is happening in Europe and Japan, and as would be happening in the US if not for immigration.
Malthus was right about there always being "poor" and "rich." People will never be perfected. It is a notion that flies in the face of reality. Same goes for a common contiouseness. In a free society, poor have to have the opportunity to be rich. "Poor" and "rich" are not well understood and are over used. "Poor" and "rich" could be substituted for "free" and "slave."
Climate change has played havoc in the historical past and created shortages and strife. But it was always cooling and not warming. Warming has been a net good thing for humanity for the last 10, 000 years. Human cause global warming hysteria will be another social movement studied and pondered for it's obserdity many years into the future.
Socialism keeps oozing into the world even though it continues to demonstrably fail.
Malthus appeals to those 'primitives' who still believe the size of the pie is fixed.
--It absolutely is fixed.Fact. Growth and progress are nothing more than a religion and a result of human conditioning. They are most pervasive now because we have never had a higher % of Westerners who have lived their entire lives in era of abundance and ascendancy. We can't envision something like decline or even a plateau because the narrative doesn't even even exist. It is beginning to be written now. The virulant reaction to anyone who speaks in such terms is to be epected from people who's entire worldview is being challnaged.
Matt Felix
"-It absolutely is fixed.Fact. "
How has a world that only a few generations ago could barely support 1 billion people but will now support nearly 7 billion?
Every second, the earth receives over 1000 joules/square meter of energy from the sun. Most of that energy is not used.
With unlimited energy, which we have for all practical purposes with the sun and nuclear energy, food can be grown anywhere. Even on the moon. (Read the Moon is a Harsh Mistress, by Heinlein.)
The entire population could fit into Australia with a density of 1 person /1500 sq ft.
The earth has plenty of room, plenty of energy. What it lacks are enough people who can see and develop the potential.
Instead, we have too many who have no vision who try to pull people down.
Excellent post by Chris Ford! I might add that this discussion shouldn't be a liberal-conservative, either-or thing. Given enough time and the untimely coincidence of crop failures, war, disease, or other misfortune, within at least some geographic areas Malthus will prove prescient. Whether the entire globe will ever suffer such a calamity is what seems to be the issue here. The extraordinary interconnectedness of nations, honed to a high-pitched efficiency by loosely regulated business doing what it does best, is probably not conducive to surviving a serious, unexpected challenge to its health!
Think along the lines of biodiversity disappearing in favor of bioengineered, widely-planted designer grains that leave us open to massive crop failure.
The connections and dependencies of modern society may be hidden from consumers, but rest assured they are there, and pulling one card out of the stack can make whole sections of this house of cards come tumbling down. That�s bad enough, but steroidal capitalism pushes these interconnected systems to dangerous extremes by cutting out redundancies, putting off repairs and replacements, ignoring waste and pollution, and buying off talk radio gasbags and politicians to ensure that �liberal� regulation is held to a minimum. If this continues long enough, the chances of a catastrophic collapse increase. We just don�t know the form it will take:
Famine after a widely-planted bioengineered grain fails due to an unforeseen disease or circumstance.
A deadly avian flu, incubated in South Asia, spreads rapidly due to the failure of local governments to act immediately for whatever reasons, causing serious delays in transport of commodities. Widespread death by disease and starvation are not out of the question, at least in the most fragile areas. Shortages, however, appear everywhere as governments look inward.
Religious fanatics get hold of a biological or nuclear device, decimating a major population center. Markets collapse, and again those fragile areas with the least resources suffer the most.
Brittle infrastructure fails, causing a domino effect of widespread outages � like our aging (it-costs-too-much-to-fix) power grid. Think there are redundancies? Think again.
Granted, these are not likely, and the world is a big place that still has enough diversity to keep us around as a species. Well-regulated capitalism can still do the job, rewarding human endeavor while not throwing the collective good to the wind.
"Instead, we have too many who have no vision who try to pull people down."
--Why is it "pulling people down" for me to state what I believe? I am just trying to be objective. I think the mistake you make is confusing potential with reality. We have the potential to make Detroit a shining city? Why is it not done? Answer:Because there is simply no political will to do so. You are viewing things in a vacuum and removing the human element ie psychology. Many of the optimists on this baord seem to have an inordinate faith in the ability of capital to pull us out of the way of these dangers. OK then what if most capitalists decide that risk/reward does not merit an investment in these projects? Then what do we do blame socialists? I am not arguing that either is a better system ,I am merely pointing out that humanity is a very messy and chaotic thing and that reality is not like a lab experiment.
Matt
My goodness! Mention Malthus and all sorts of arguments come flying out from every direction. And well they should. Life should be discursive, for all our sakes.
But I cannot help but think that, in the exceedingly long view, we are stuck with finites. This planet has not received any new water for at least four billion years, an the likelihood of the galactic water truck stopping by to refill us is slight at best.
And then there is time. Or, in this case, there isn't time. Our planet has reached its midlife: over four billion years old and about five billion years (give or take a month or two) until old Sol explodes.
Everything and everyone is finite. Malthus was, in the main, quite correct. And still is... for the time being.
For those of you who are a bit skeptical about the accuracy of the Malthusian worldview you might be interested in another take:
http://thecultureproject.org/Default.aspx?pageId=125043&mode=PostView&bmi=41855
Malthus is dead on. The amount of denial and delusion in our society is unbelievable. In the final days of the Aztec Empire, the priests simply sacrificed more people as conditions deteriorated -- this created a downward spiraling loop. The same thing is happening again. We grab our religion, technology, and government security blankets, hold on to them, and suck our thumbs as we slowly go to hell.
Q: "Nevertheless, if Malthus is wrong, then why is it necessary to prove him wrong again and again, every decade and every century?"
A: Because politicians repeatedly bring this up when times get tough as a result of their own moronic short-sighted decisions.
Why is Malthus being regurgitated ad nauseam? Should today's facts not suffice to understand that we are on the wrong track? Our modern world is almost totally based upon the consumption of non-renewable resources, which are being depleted at an ever faster rate because of economic expansion and population growth. The earth is finite. Hope and optimism can't change the stark facts of finite resources and irreversible changes of the environment. Technology and ingenuity cannot revive extinct species or recreate depleted minerals or undo climate change. Droughts and floods, biodiversity loss, toxification, soil erosion, and potable water scarcities will add to the problems of declining industrial and agricultural production and transportation after peak-oil. Never mind when - this year, in five years, ten years? It will come as sure as one plus one makes two. No need to invoke Malthus to predict the end of humanity in famines, resource wars and total collapse. When? By 2050, when oil and natural gas and forests and fish and potable water will all be gone? Is that soon enough to get really worried, stop this madness of economic growth and start contracting now?
"Why is it "pulling people down" for me to state what I believe? I am just trying to be objective. I think the mistake you make is confusing potential with reality. We have the potential to make Detroit a shining city? Why is it not done? Answer:Because there is simply no political will to do so. You are viewing things in a vacuum and removing the human element ie psychology. Many of the optimists on this baord seem to have an inordinate faith in the ability of capital to pull us out of the way of these dangers. OK then what if most capitalists decide that risk/reward does not merit an investment in these projects? Then what do we do blame socialists? I am not arguing that either is a better system ,I am merely pointing out that humanity is a very messy and chaotic thing and that reality is not like a lab experiment.
Matt"
It is interesting you mention Detroit.
Go west across the state to Grand Rapids, the birth place of Amway. The van Andels embraced the American Way, optimism, free markets and quality. Although I did not make money with my Amway business, the education process recommended by my sponsors included books by Covey, Napoleon Hill, and many others proving that positive thinking is the first step to success. Detroit, like many other cities, dwell upon retribution and blame, not how to solve problems.
A government system that acknowledges the human right to property, and protects that right unleashes the power of millions of individual creative minds to solve problems. As Toyota has proven with its quality production system, the best people to solve problems are those closest to the problem. Socialist government usurps your property rights and believes it knows better than you how to solve your problems. I have watched NatGeo shows documenting what happens when a watering hole in Africa dries up before the monsoons. Animals fight for the last drop. Humans must be hard wired for such survival instincts as so many fall into that pattern of pulling people down thinking they will get their small piece of the pie. Human ingenuity and liberty has created a world where we no longer must kill each other for resources. Certainly some quantities of matter are fixed on the earth. But they can be recycled. Submarines need not surface for air or water. They make their own. If they could fish, they would have their food as well. All they need is the energy and the 'capital' (the sub's technology). Resources are not fixed and the attitudes we take do matter. If you don't believe the part about attitudes, read Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning" about his survival from NAZI concentration camps.
Capitalism unleashes the power of individuals to solve their problems.
Socialism leashes that power.
Capitalism is not pure, like Govenment, it's simply a group of humans performing actions within a system. Some seem to believe that Government is incapable of doing right and Captialims is incapable of doing bad. Capitalism gave people the SUV and they bought them like trained robots.
We escape the Malthus Doctrine repeatedly, because of advances in technology and distribution.
The current largest threat is scarcity of fresh water. It is a real threat. Will we be able to defeat the Doctrine again this time? I think the question is open.
My long-term optimism relies on our mastery of nuclear fusion. If you think it is unsafe, you are thinking of nuclear FISSION. Think again. And more importantly, INVESTIGATE IT!!!
Mastery of nuclear fusion appears to be at least thirty years away. That's the problem.
However, if humanity masters nuclear fusion, a golden age will dawn. Mastery of Fusion is as important as any of the other major human triumphs: agriculture itself, the written word, the printing press, mastery of electricity.
The use of coal, oil, and gas will disappear within two decades, as will the combustion engine. All of the attempts to harness "natural energy sources" such as solar, wind, geothermal, will become niche efforts - especially since they cannot support any economy on the macro scale. Energy itself will become managed and distributed as simply and cheaply as waste and trash collection are now. The creation and distribution of energy WILL be managed by cities, counties, and regulated by the government. It will not be a commodity that is traded, it will not be manipulatable by futures markets - because it will become so cheap! - and it will not be a resource managed for profit by companies. Nuclear fusion will simply be that transformative.
But will we get there in time? I'm optimistic.
I forgot to add how nuclear fusion solves the fresh water issue.
The solution lies in desalination technology. Energy is the only barrier to desalination. (Well, along with the intercontinetal aqueduct or canal transport of fresh desalinized ocean water into continental interiors.) The second will naturally occur as water shortages develop, ONCE fusion is mastered.
In the USA, for example, you'll have probably three or four large-scale desalination complexes along each of the Pacific and Atlantic, and perhaps two more in the Gulf of Mexico. (If all become needed.) Freshwater transportation grids of canals or aqueducts will branch inward for each. One could expect only one aqueduct or transport route through the Rocky Mountains, and that would be only in case of emergency. Far more likely for the Plains is delivery via desalination canals from the Gulf Of Mexico plants.
All of this is likely more half of a century away, even if needed, and assuming we solve the nuclear fusion technology issues within thirty years. The world will have serious fresh water shortages far before we do in the USA, however.
"Capitalism is not pure, like Govenment, it's simply a group of humans performing actions within a system. Some seem to believe that Government is incapable of doing right and Captialims is incapable of doing bad. Capitalism gave people the SUV and they bought them like trained robots."
When individuals make bad choices in capitalism, it only affects them.
When the state makes bad choices in socialism, it affects millions.
Capitalism self corrects swiftly. Socialism requires decades to detangle.
As for SUVs, people are trying to sell them and companies have cut production in response to capitalism. Also, as a result of capitalism, GMC has a hybrid SUV.
One more product of capitalism, the hybrid Toyota Prius and every other hybrid vehicle.
What is wrong with nuclear fission?
Dozens of ships and submarines use that for power and desalination everyday.
The waste issue is easily managed and is much safer that blowing radioactive material from coal fired smokestacks.
I'm cautiously optimistic that the energy problem will be solved -- by renewables and/or nuclear power. There are a lot of capitalistic forces coming together on this.
But that does not solve the problem of the expanding human population -- loss of habitat and biodiversity.
It would be nice if we can solve that problem before the Earth takes care of it for us (disease, famine, environmental collapse).
"But that does not solve the problem of the expanding human population -- loss of habitat and biodiversity.
It would be nice if we can solve that problem before the Earth takes care of it for us (disease, famine, environmental collapse)."
How do humans 'solve' the loss of habitat and biodiversity 'problem'?
In the USA, today, there are many more animals in the wild than 200 years ago when Lewis and Clark explored the continent. There may be fewer bison, and passenger pigeons, but the rest of the fauna are doing quite well. How this could be is the technical and economic advancement of the USA.
If you mean genetic variety for 'biodiversity', new species are discovered everyday, and even some that were thought extinct are found.
Oh, BTW, species were becoming extinct and habitat was lost long before humans existed. This has been called evolution, adaptation, natural selection, etc.
Based on my own opinion, Scarcity of resources is not due to over population, explosive growth or lack of natural resources, it is due to government mismanagement of resources and bad, comand and control policies.
Malthus was wrong about his prediction that the system of capitalism are going to down and the system of socialism will arised. He didn't think about the long term.. he's prediction is for short term only.. we keep it that in mind.. Just think your position and situation in your life.. yeah it is regarding to us if we are going to be success or not....
Current death rates from starvation add up to 18 million people per year. That's eight million adults and 10 million children. Malthus called it like he saw it and what he saw occurs daily across the globe. As we add 77 million annually to the planet, those death rates will accelerate on our way to 9.2 billion humans. It's going to get ugly and then, much uglier. How do I know? I've seen it on my bicycle travels around the planet more than 100,000 miles across 6 continents. We're in for a world of hurt and Mother Nature will be the ultimate population Nazi.
Frosty Wooldridge Denver, CO www.frostywooldridge.com Join www.numbersusa.com and www.thesocialcontract.com to take action to stop it in the USA
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Current does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
-->
There's a name you don't hear very often ...
Malthus predicted human famine based on his theory that didn't happen to be correct BUT ... his rather simplistic essay went with Darwin on the Beagle (or did he read it right before he left?) and help lead him to the "survival of the fittest" theory.
Are we headed for widespread human famine? What are we going to do if we are? What role is America going to play in a world where regional conflict is our-ranked by devastation of the human population? Energy and food resources ... we should be leading the world. Diversify. Diversity. Diversify. Go to the "worst case scenario" for global warming and start the plan. Come on people!
Posted by mbi | July 2, 2008 1:37 AM