Malthusianism

Thomas Robert Malthus, after whom Malthusianism is named

Malthusianism is a theory that population growth is potentially exponential, according to the Malthusian growth model, while the growth of the food supply or other resources is linear, which eventually reduces living standards to the point of triggering a population decline. This event, called a Malthusian catastrophe (also known as a Malthusian trap, population trap, Malthusian check, Malthusian crisis, Point of Crisis, or Malthusian crunch) has been predicted to occur if population growth outpaces agricultural production, thereby causing famine or war. According to this theory, poverty and inequality will increase as the price of assets and scarce commodities goes up due to fierce competition for these dwindling resources. This increased level of poverty eventually causes depopulation by decreasing birth rates. If asset prices keep increasing, social unrest would occur, which would likely cause a major war, revolution, or a famine. Societal collapse is an extreme but possible outcome from this process. The theory posits that such a catastrophe would force the population to "correct" back to a lower, more easily sustainable level (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 unchecked growth or growth affected by preventive checks).[1][2] Malthusianism has been linked to a variety of political and social movements, but almost always refers to advocates of population control.[3]

These concepts derive from the political and economic thought of the Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus, as laid out in his 1798 writings, An Essay on the Principle of Population. Malthus suggested that while technological advances could increase a society's supply of resources, such as food, and thereby improve the standard of living, the abundance of resources would enable population growth, which would eventually bring the supply of resources for each person back to its original level. Some economists contend that since the Industrial Revolution in the early 19th century, mankind has broken out of the trap.[4][5] Others argue that the continuation of extreme poverty indicates that the Malthusian trap continues to operate.[6] Others further argue that due to lack of food availability coupled with excessive pollution, developing countries show more evidence of the trap as compared to developed countries.[7] A similar, more modern concept, is that of human overpopulation.

Neo-Malthusianism is the advocacy of human population planning to ensure resources and environmental integrities for current and future human populations as well as for other species.[2] In Britain the term "Malthusian" can also refer more specifically to arguments made in favour of family planning, hence organizations such as the Malthusian League.[8] Neo-Malthusians differ from Malthus's theories mainly in their support for the use of birth control. 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 Georgists, Marxists[9] and socialists,[10] libertarians and free market advocates,[11] feminists,[12] Catholics,[13] and human rights advocates, characterising it as excessively pessimistic, insufficiently researched,[13] misanthropic or inhuman.[14][15][3][16] 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.[17] Some 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.[18][19][better source needed] 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.

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference intellectual roots was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Marsh, Meredith; Alagona, Peter S., eds. (2008). Barrons AP Human Geography 2008 Edition. Barron's Educational Series. ISBN 978-0-7641-3817-1.
  3. ^ a b Dolan, Brian (2000). Malthus, Medicine & Morality: Malthusianism after 1798. Rodopi. ISBN 978-90-420-0851-9.
  4. ^ Galor, Oded (2005). "From Stagnation to Growth: Unified Growth Theory". Handbook of Economic Growth. Vol. 1. Elsevier. pp. 171–293.
  5. ^ Clark, Gregory (2007). A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-12135-2.
  6. ^ Zinkina, Julia; Korotayev, Andrey (2014). "Explosive Population Growth in Tropical Africa: Crucial Omission in Development Forecasts (Emerging Risks and Way Out)". World Futures. 70 (2): 120–139. doi:10.1080/02604027.2014.894868. S2CID 53051943.
  7. ^ Tisdell, Clem (1 January 2015). "The Malthusian Trap and Development in Pre-Industrial Societies: A View Differing from the Standard One" (PDF). University of Queensland. Retrieved 26 February 2017.
  8. ^ Hall, Lesley (2000). "Malthusian Mutations: The changing politics and moral meanings of birth control in Britain". Malthus, Medicine, & Morality. Clio Medica (Amsterdam, Netherlands). Vol. 59. Dolan (2000), Malthus, Medicine & Morality: Malthusianism after 1798, p. 141: Rodopi. pp. 141–163. doi:10.1163/9789004333338_008. ISBN 978-9042008519. PMID 11027073 – via Google Books.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  9. ^ Meek, Ronald L., ed. (1973). Marx and Engels on the Population Bomb. The Ramparts Press. Archived from the original on 21 May 2000.
  10. ^ Commoner, Barry (May 1972). "A Bulletin Dialogue: on "The Closing Circle"  – Response". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: 17–56. doi:10.1080/00963402.1972.11457931 – via Google Books.
  11. ^ Simon, Julian L. (1980-06-27). "Resources, Population, Environment: An Oversupply of False Bad News". Science. 208 (4451): 1431–1437. Bibcode:1980Sci...208.1431S. doi:10.1126/science.7384784. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 7384784.
  12. ^ Knudsen, Lara (2006). Reproductive Rights in a Global Context: South Africa, Uganda, Peru, Denmark, United States, Vietnam, Jordan. Vanderbilt University Press. pp. 2–4. ISBN 0-8265-1528-2., ISBN 978-0-8265-1528-5.
  13. ^ a b McHugh, James T. Catholic Teaching on Population Issues. Diocesan Development Program for Natural Family Planning. https://www.usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/respect-life-program/upload/Catholic-Teaching-on-Population-Issues.pdf
  14. ^ Kunstler, James Howard (2005). The Long Emergency. Grove Press. p. 6. ISBN 978-0-8021-4249-8 – via Google Books.
  15. ^ Serge Luryi (May 2006). "Physics, Philosophy, and ... Ecology" (PDF). Physics Today. 59 (5): 51. doi:10.1063/1.2216962. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 July 2011.
  16. ^ Elwell, Frank W. (2001). "Reclaiming Malthus, Keynote address to the Annual Meeting of the Anthropologists and Sociologist of Kentucky". Retrieved 2011-04-19.
  17. ^ Lomborg, Bjørn (2002). The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World. Cambridge University Press. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-521-01068-9.
  18. ^ Fraser, Colin (3 February 2008). "Green revolution could still blow up in our face". The Age.
  19. ^ Luiggi, Cristina (2010). "Still Ticking". The Scientist. 24 (12): 26. Archived from the original on 1 January 2011.