“There are differing interpretations of the relationship between world population and resources. Some people believe that the amount of resources available acts as a limit to the growth of population; others believe that population growth stimulates
"There are differing interpretations of the relationship between world population and resources. Some people believe that the amount of resources available acts as a limit to the growth of population; others believe that population growth stimulates the development of technology which will use resources more efficiently".
Discuss each of the view in more detail, and describe and evaluate the evidence which leads you to agree or disagree with each of them.
The views should be discussed in terms of the global scale, but you may support your answer with examples at national and/or continental scales.
There are two main theories relating to population growth and resources. These theories are the Malthusian theory and Boserup's theory. They offer their own different interpretations of the relationship between world population and resources, Malthus giving a pessimistic view and Boserup a positive view. In this essay, I will discuss their views, and then give my individual view on each interpretation giving examples at national and continental scales.
Thomas Malthus devised the Malthusian theory in 1798. It offers a pessimistic view over the dangers of over-population and states that it would eventually lead to a shortage of food on a global scale, poverty, hunger and disease.
He believed that human population increases geometrically (i.e. 2, 4, 8, 16, etc.) whereas food supplies can only grow arithmetically (i.e. 2, 4, 6, 8, etc.) as it is limited by available land and technology. The geometric population growth outruns an arithmetic increase in food supply. He stated that the 'laws of nature' dictate that a population can never increase beyond the food supplies necessary to support it.
Malthus was an 18th century clergyman and had very strict religious views. He believed that population growth was controlled by 'checks', checks being methods to prevent numbers of people increasing beyond the optimum population. He saw the checks as nature's way of controlling excessive growth in the population. The checks fall into three categories. These are misery, vice and moral restraint. Misery included the effects of disease, famine or war, all the causes which shorten the duration of human life. He warned against vice, i.e. family planning, as he believed that it could only lead to promiscuity. He ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Malthus was an 18th century clergyman and had very strict religious views. He believed that population growth was controlled by 'checks', checks being methods to prevent numbers of people increasing beyond the optimum population. He saw the checks as nature's way of controlling excessive growth in the population. The checks fall into three categories. These are misery, vice and moral restraint. Misery included the effects of disease, famine or war, all the causes which shorten the duration of human life. He warned against vice, i.e. family planning, as he believed that it could only lead to promiscuity. He believed that population growth was caused by lack of moral restraint and he advised delayed marriage and abstinence from sexual relations.
Contrary to this, Boserup believed 'necessity is the mother of invention'. She asserted that an increase in population pressure acts as an incentive to develop new technology and produce more food. Her theory concluded that population growth naturally leads to development.
Their beliefs are still supported today. Generally, Environmentalists believe in the Malthusian theory. This is a view of people and resources given by an environmentalist, Paul Ehrlich: "People are condemned to live in poverty and hunger because of food shortages, lack of development and limited resources; natural environments can only support a limited population". An economist's view however is entirely different. This is Professor Julian Simon's view on people and resources: "People are the 'ultimate resource' - not the problem; every newly born human is a fresh source of ingenuity who can provide many more solutions to problems than they ever cause".
The 'Club of Rome' has supported the Malthusian theory. This is a group set up in 1968 by representatives from ten countries. The aim of the group was to research into world population issues. They studied the effects and limitations of continued world growth. They used a large-scale computer model to simulate the behaviour of the world and forecast areas of, or limits to growth. Five variables were used in the model: population growth, food per capita, industrial output, resources and pollution. They came up with the following theory. "If the present growth trends in world population, industrialisation, pollution, food production, and resource completion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime in the next one hundred years. The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity".
One of the biggest failures in the Malthusian theory was that Malthus failed to foresee the immense technological innovation that was to occur, which increased crop yields and discovered new resources. Development experts have also criticised the Club of Rome's theory on the same basis. Possible advances in technology and the ability of market forces to adjust to supply and demand were not considered. Also, the model has been criticised for ignoring the human ability to develop new and sustainable methods of production. In spite of the criticisms, some scholars agree with the basic idea of the model. They claim that, even with the best technology and resource management, there are still limits to the numbers of people that can be supported by the resources available in a geographic region.
A population and resource crisis in Mauritius, where the country has been able to turn its economy around and increase the standard of living of its occupants with a rising population, has proved contrary to Malthus' view and in favour of Boserup's optimistic view. Although the community was in fact 'open' (there is only a truly 'closed' community at a global scale), Mauritius is a country where an increasing population pressure did in fact lead to technological innovation. New agricultural methods meant that higher yields could be taken from the same area of land. These agricultural advances were in the form of HYV (High Yield Variety) crops, mechanisation and crop fertilisers.
If Malthus had been correct in 1798, we would see the effects of global starvation occurring today. Many people say that the famine in Ethiopia was the start of his predictions being realised. However, the famine in Ethiopia was not caused from lack of food on a global scale. Food surpluses exist and agricultural production is increasing. In 1992, European surpluses reached 26 million tonnes. The famine in Ethiopia was caused by civil war - some areas in Ethiopia had food surpluses but could not distribute the food to other areas.
Anti-Malthusians criticise the theory for being too simplistic - a shortage of food is just one possible explanation for starvation, disease and war. They say that the Malthusian theory ignores the reality that only the poor go hungry. This is Marx's theory. He claimed that poverty results from the poor distribution of resources, not physical limits on production. Marx's theory can be seen to be proved in Ethiopia.
Malthus and Boserup do agree on one common fact. That is that over-population can lead to unsuitable farming practices which may degrade the land. Consequently, some geographers have partly blamed population pressure for desertification in the Sahel region. This is also an example of where Boserup's theory has been disproved - in some cases, population pressure does not always lead to technological innovation and development.
Both Malthus and Boserup's theories are based on 'closed' communities. As, in reality there is no 'closed' community except on a global scale, it is impossible to say which theory holds the most truth. I believe, like Boserup, that technological innovation will support a population due to population pressure and I think that this is true for the present and the near future. However, I don't think that this constant innovation will occur for ever and, as the Earth only has limited resources, eventually there won't be enough food to support the global population if the population continues growing at the same rate. Therefore I also believe Malthus' theory to be true - that the amount of resources do act as a limit to the growth of population.
