The Cornucopia/Maltheusian Debate

In 1798, an Anglican scholar named Thomas Malthus suggested that humans used their ability to produce abundance not so much to better their lives but to increase the population. The number of people, he believed, was multiplying geometrically (1,2,4,8, 16, 32) whereas food resources were increasing arithmetically (1,2,3,4,5). Do the math as he did and there was the problem. Malthus advocated the need to reduce population growth to avoid catastrophe. Despite his unmet prediction, his ideas continue to have resonance in a world that has put its faith in technology.  

Chart 1

Since his death, the population has indeed grown exponentially. With the coming of the industrial revolution, humans figured out how to keep people alive, especially children, and soon one billion turned to seven (see chart 1). What Malthus didn’t count on was coming technologies that would radically increase the food supply, and the eventual slowing of population growth. 

Innovations  made land more productive, including irrigation, drainage of wetlands, reclaiming land from the sea, creating high yield crops, terracing hillsides, and greenhouses. In more recent times, vast corporate systems have taken advantage of these technologies to produce and distribute food world-wide. The widespread availability of birth control, the emancipation of women, and the changing nature of work led to major reduction in fertility. In some countries, such as Japan, the population is in decline. Most demographers predict that towards the end of the century, population will top off at around ten billion, give or take some. Food production has outpaced population growth world-wide with the exception of Sub-Saharan Africa and a few other contries.

Fossil fuels played a major role in this great transformation of humanity. They provided energy for the industrial revolution, including the necessary farm machinery and distribution networks. Oil also provided for the chemistry necessary to radically increase yields, fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides. The petrochemical industry was the latest and perhaps most consequential technology in what came to be called the “Green Revolution.” Beginning in the 50s in places like India, these technologies spread across the developing world illustrating the power of technological innovation.

Still, neo-Malthusian continued to make the case for the dangers of overpopulation. Paul Ehrlich in his famous 1968 book “The Population Bomb,” predicted wars, famines and severe resource depletion. Though his predictions, like Malthus, didn’t quite pan out, areas of the world remained deeply affected with famine and poverty, areas with high rates of population growth. There has continued to be many proponents and variations of neo-Malthusean thinking in the environmental movement.

Chart 2

The last decades revealed significant drawbacks to the wonders of food technologies. Petrochemicals, for example, did not turn out to be as safe as predicted. Rachel Carlson’s seminal book “Silent Spring,” in 1962 was first to revealed the dangers to the world. Many argue that the Green Revolution has come at a great cost. Ecological damage to the soil and critical natural systems have degraded productive lands. Millions die from pollution every year, and climate change disruptions threaten to make the situation far worse. GMO technology offers great possibilities, but there are significant concerns and many countries have banned them.   

Today, a new crop of Neo-Malthusians continue to advocate for population control programs as part of the effort to create sustainable systems. These advocates point out that world indicators are showing signs of concern. Food security (affordablity and access) improved after the Green Revolution, but unfortunately, the trend has reversed of late (see chart 2).  Has the "Malthusian Catastrophe" simply been postponed rather than conquered? 

Chart 3

Cornucopians, or anti-Malthusians, maintain innovation will continue to come and humanity will find ways to feed itself indefinitely. These "optimists" argue that advances in technologies are the key and that rising populations are a plus because they are more minds to innovate. The 'more people, the better' view was first proposed by the Danish economist, Ester Boserup. She believed in the adage, necessity is the mother of invention and that "The power of ingenuity would always outmatch that of demand." As chart 3 attempts to illustrate, leaps in technology will allow humanity to meet the needs of population growth in the coming future.

Is the earth a finite ecosystem with limited resources, or are human minds capable of inventing ways to ensure resources for the future? Are you persuaded more by the neo-Malthuseans or the cornucopians? Do you have a different view? What do you think?