Malthusian Prophecies
Jason Anton
Axia College of University of Phoenix
SCI 275 Environmental Science
Priscilla Dingle
August 10, 2008
Economist Thomas Malthus came up with a theory: a population is relational to it's available food resource. Mr. Malthus didn't stop with an empty theory, he backed up his claims with math...silly math. Thomas lived in the 1700's and 1800's and had little advance knowledge of the advancements in theory and substance the 1900's would provide and ultimately his theories--or catastrophes as they're also called—would prove limited. The Malthusian Theorem was defunct by Industrialization; however recent crisis epidemics over food supply and oil availability has made his theories on resource and population relevant again, and many economists and scientists are taking notice.
The problems we face in infinite numbers are ultimately tied to our numbers. This is the core of the theory set forth by Thomas Malthus, though the particulars of his argument are up for debate. Modern economists, or Neo-Malthusians, have eliminated much of the argumentative substance surrounding Malthusian Economics making it simply a statement: that unless a population is at or below its substance level the fertility rate will rise (f(x)= a X 1.01^t + b X 1.02^t, where a > 0 and b > 0). Over time the most fertile group will dominate the substance availability and deplete it making the same equation g(t)= b X 1.02^t. In the advent of industrialization and modernization we must take into consideration resource availability and technological advancement towards the ease of resource availability to determine our problem. So, from a global perspective, this theory hasn't played out so far since the most fertile group(s)--China and India—have not been the largest consumers of resource.
What happens when these large populations come into the modern era and consume at the rate the United States has? This posing threat is exactly why we face high prices at the gas pump, and liberal jargon about energy conservation. Global warming and survival, from a general human perspective, is only as real as our markets dictate. Traditional as well as Neo-Malthusian concepts cite the social “checks” to over-population, claiming that societies will become uncomfortable purge their numbers if not subconsciously; however even political unrest, war, and famine seem to undercut the problems we seem to be coming upon. If we are not careful we may face the complete failure of our ecosystem and food-chain.
In reality there is only so much resource to go around. This fact is true across the board; be it fresh water, oil, or food: nothing we consume is immediately replenishable if it is even replenishable at all. “One danger is that governments, rather than searching for global solutions to resource constraints, will concentrate on grabbing share” (Barta, Batson & Lahart, 2008). While the US is one of the biggest countries in the world today by population, the two biggest players are just entering the area of consumption that we've dominated for 50 years. Our massive consumption powers have already put the world on high alert for global warming and food shortages, but alert isn't always a call to action as needed.
Currently there are 6.6 billion people on the planet, and by 2020 that number is estimated to jump to 7.5 billion (Bartlett, 2004) and then again to almost 13 billion by 2050. Right now the planet seems to be reacting—to varying degrees—to what we're doing now and only about a third of the global population is contributing, in a meaningful way, to the ecological problems we're facing. As the larger nations of India and China become more modernized they will rightly want to use as much resource as European and American countries and this addition to the consuming populace may tip the scales of replenishment to a place where humanity can no longer sustain itself. Markets are starting to trend towards renewable energy resources to combat high energy costs and Global Warming threats, however these trends only seem to be focusing on part of the issue.
Besides the consumption of fossil fuels and energy people end-mass consume food and water and land. Our technology—being the double-edged sword that it is—can solve the problems the limits on those needs warrant, but sometimes those technologies cause as many problems as they solve. Take ethanol for example:
The expected priority for corn and other food crops would be for food and feed. Increasing ethanol production would increase degradation of agricultural land and water and pollute the environment. In U.S. corn production, soil erodes some 18- times faster than soil is reformed, and, where irrigated, corn production mines water faster than recharge of aquifers. Increasing the cost of food and diverting human food resources to the costly and inefficient production of ethanol fuel raise major ethical questions. (Pimental, 1991)
From a certain perspective we are doing just fine from a procreative standpoint. A certain Darwinian view would lean one to believe that we are fine since our numbers are swelled since the more of us there are the more likely we are to survive a catastrophe. This is not an invalid perspective, but from a human dignity standpoint it is invalid. This is a problem of over population caused by our own processes and it directly effects the way we conduct said processes. This is nothing but a human problem that effects everything. As the scales tip towards doom with help from human impact it becomes our responsibility to use our impactful nature to subdue this disaster in the waiting.
Currently countries like China have procreation laws that limit the number of children a household can have. Similarly there are laws in The United States that subject a household to a standard of living...even if that standard is variable. This, coupled with other sanctions that could be held in example by association, is about the extent of humanity's solutions to this problem. While humane in its simplicity, it certainly isn't enough to ward off disaster from a purely ecological standpoint. As with any other advancement there is trial and error as well as growth. As we watch the social ramifications of a 19 to 2 male to female population ratio (exaggeration) we see the falability of our current law/check structure.
The most immediate way to limit resource use is by allowing commodities to be traded at a inflated value. Like the current oil debacle has slowed oil consumption (if only slightly) we can slow the consumption of many goods by making them more expensive than others. The negative effect of this is that, in a free-market, the bigger companies controlling the item in question will become richer and thereby control the means of developing alternatives thusly defeating the entire purpose of this exercise. This can be avoided through legislation like tariffs or taxes, or by having the government control the commodity all together.
Slowing consumption is not the overall solution to population control, however a fair limit to resource puts the responsibility of comfort directly into the hands of each individual consumer. So besides tariffs, taxes, and big government we need to develop an educational environment that empowers the consumer with the knowledge of that responsibility. A greater understanding of global economics on an individual level would leverage common consumers to think about commodities with a grander scope. While this may not directly address the problem of over-populating, as with the previous suggestion, it does create socio-economic ramifications to breeding.
These suggestions coupled with sanctions mirroring those in the US could yield a positive Malthusian balance. If we take into account the ramifications of a commodity as it is sold, and make families accountable for a certain quality of life standard, then the general populace is gently forced to comply with the self-preservation tactics of big-government.
Timing is the essential element to this plan. If we impose tax before reason we will only see the negative results of a Malthusian Catastrophe, which is exactly what we're trying to avoid. Therefore we must change our educational habits first. A better understanding of capital and resource limitation would not only yield a peaceful transition to economical sanctions, but it would also curb spending in the meantime. As the educational process progresses taxes and tariffs can be introduced.
It is important to note the influence of government at this point. In the interest of keeping ultimate power to the people and not one entity it is not advisable to have the government hold total power over these commodities deemed eco/ergonomically threatening. Similarly it is not advisable to allow any one group of individuals within an economic model to determine price as that would lead to price gouging. A delicate balance can be achieved here, but only through acts of a purely rational republic working in the people's best interest. So, to avoid tampering, the government has to exist with capital but with no gain from it.
Laws are on the books in many countries that dictate a standard of living, and there are even checks within the system to ensure each citizen has a right to that standard of living. This is the last step of the plan because it is already in place in most places. The standards that exists are that of health codes, fire codes, social services, welfare, etc. Each of these types of societal checks to itself represent the standard of living that that independent nation and culture deems appropriate for its time and place.
A time line for this has to be fast. As mentioned earlier our numbers are swelling and could reach 7.5 billion as soon as 2020 so we must fulfill these pillars I the plan by 2015. A breakneck pace, but a necessary pace. The educational structure must be in place within the next 2 to 4 years. This is a delicate process but it must start at the bottom: school children. If we are to sustain it is imperative that younger generations understand this problem, even before we do! After a solid early education platform is established a more broad marketing and adult-learning plan should be established and implemented.
New taxes could begin immediately, if in moderation. A full gambit of such taxes and tariffs should be in place by 2012 with standard of living laws in place by 2015.
The benefits to this plan are multifaceted and broad. From a higher standard of living across the globe to ease of access to necessary commodity. But with higher taxes and limits wouldn't commodities be more scarce? No, in fact with limited use they will be more abundant since they will only be consumed when needed. Over the next generation our numbers should diminish by 2^-2 which would take the 2050 estimates from 13 billion down to about 5 billion or less. Even though there would be less commodity by this time (since, as mentioned, no resource is infinitely renewable) the number of consumers would be less as well. This would also reduce the population's carbon footprint and ease political tensions.
A severe limitation to this plan is global cooperation. Each individual country has a right to determine it's own position on all matters, but this matter is very interdependent. It is the responsibility of those who implement the plan in their own locale to convince others of its validity and importance of implementation.
While this plan seems entirely governmental it couldn't be more individualized. It has been implied that a republic rule should be established, and this is due to the controversial nature of the process. A purely democratic environment may lack the conviction necessary to fulfill the requirements of this plan, however a “ruling class” should know better. Fortunately such a system already exists in many countries today including part of the United States government model (see: the Executive branch).
While it isn't the responsibility of common individuals to enforce government policy it is their responsibility to recognize the problems we face and the solutions we are working towards. Without that recognition the entire model breaks down and the rape of the natural world will continue until we all pay for our crimes.
References
Barta, P., Batson, A. & Lahart, J. (2008, March, 24). New limits to growth revive malthusian fears. The Wall Street Journal Online, Retrieved August 10, 2008, from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120613138379155707.html
Kendall, H (1994).Constraints on the expansion of the global food supply. Ambio. 23, 198-205.
Malthus, T (1798). Essay on population. London, England:
Pimentel, D (1991).Ethanol fuels: Energy security, economics, and the environment. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 4, 1-13.
