Revisiting Malthus

Posted by David Roberts at 5:26 PM on 03 Jul 2008

Read more about: politics | food | population | progress

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.

For story: Revisiting Malthus
21 Comments | Post a Comment

The fear comes from what you don't understand

Those who don't know the math are doomed to have to prove, by seeming example, that Malthus was wrong. A lack of understanding of systems dynamics and complexity will catch them by surprise.

George

George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life

by gmobus at 8:46 PM on 03 Jul 2008

Malthus wrong?

Malthus should be read as exponential growth forever is clearly impossible in a finite world. How could that be wrong? High school students have all the math they need to calculate when a given growth rate has the mass of any quantity exceed the mass of the Earth (e.g. the mass of humans in 3500 years at 1% growth). Unless we escape the planet, growth must stop.

The mistake is to predict the end of growth early. When you're wrong, foolish people conclude growth will never end instead of realizing you made an incorrect assumption for some parameter and were off by a few hundred years.

Take merely the time that certain land has been continuously farmed in China (the subject of D.F.H.King's wonderful 1911 book, Farmers of Forty Centuries). Just 1% growth for 4,000 years multiplies what you start with by 192,972,369,947,315,104.

Malthus talked about a shortage of food. Clearly when insolation per person-day falls below 8 MJ per person, we can no longer feed ourselves (and that only if we can convert sunlight into food at 100% efficiency instead of the 0.1% that plants achieve). (This calculation, using Earth's 3850 ZJ/year insolation, yields 3500 years again.) Practical limits are obviously much sooner.

Growth is possible for short periods of time (centuries). Then comes collapse, dark ages, wars, depressions, etc. to wipe out growth and keep things within bounds. There is no mathematical escape from this reality.

by Earl Killian at 9:56 PM on 03 Jul 2008

The Malthusians are always with us

The problem with Malthus is that he was profoundly reactionary - a fact which Kaplan glosses over. This makes it hard to disentangle the truths in Malthus from the ideology.

His ideas become a justification for inaction in the face of preventable death and suffering since "the poor are always with us."

For example, Wikipedia notes that Malthus's idea influenced British policy of "not entirely benign neglect" in allowing famines in India and Ireland.

The problem with Malthus's analysis is that there is more at work in human society than biological factors. Yes, there are biological limits but what's critical is how we as a society deal with them.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

by Bart Anderson at 10:05 PM on 03 Jul 2008

Was Malthus anticipating biofuels?

We shall, hopefully, soon see a report from the World Bank confirming (as most of us suspected) that growing population was much less a factor in the recent run-up in the prices of grains than the diversion of crops to biofuels. According to a report in the UK's Guardian newspaper:

Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.
The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.
The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil.
Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush. "It would put the World Bank in a political hot-spot with the White House," said one yesterday.

A word of explanation: I presume that the World Bank's point of measurement is farm-gate or wholesale prices for foods, which is closer to the cost actually born by hungry people in low-income countries. The Administration's point of measurement is final consumer expenditure, which includes the cost of meals eaten in restaurants (45% of the weighting in the case of the United States).

These are only my personal opinions.

by Ron Steenblik at 11:31 PM on 03 Jul 2008

the replacement pair

For couples who have let things get out of hand and so have found themselves with more than two children, perhaps we might recommend that when the eldest has his/her tenth birthday, there should be a kind of lottery: two winners, everybody else losers.

The winners can live.

The losers are drowned. (The bathtub would probably be most convenient. But if you have a laundry room with a deep basin, that would do as well. Swimming pools are OK too, but make sure you keep a firm grip on the hair or the waistband of the underpants, otherwise you might lose much time sloshing about to recover the small, slippery cadaver.)

And, needless to say, the parents are neutered.

Any items belonging to the deceased losers, e.g. clothing, toys, First Holy Communion gifts, boy-band posters, MySpace accounts, etc., should be offered first to the surviving siblings; if they are not interested, they should be charitably offered to children in orphanages and foster homes.

: ( / : ) / : ( / : ) / : ( / : )

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 1:38 AM on 04 Jul 2008

This sounds like Wolverines solution

Since collectively we are not capable of the Draconian measures it would take to deal with population control. Therefore the poor will simply die when there's too many people. Not much can be done to prevent that I'm sad to say.

Victory in Pattani

by MAD MAC at 1:48 AM on 04 Jul 2008
[ Parent ]

A Modest Proposal

Canis's post made me think of Jonathan Swift's impressively efficient population control scheme, which has the added benefit of increasing the food supply...

If you haven't read it, it's here:

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

by SKenzie at 3:28 AM on 04 Jul 2008

One proposal for consideration...............

........ the immediate implementation of a voluntary and fair "one child per family" policy worldwide.

Free and easy access to family planning, health education and safe contraception would be made available to people everywhere who want such assistance.

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php

by stevenearlsalmony at 4:50 AM on 04 Jul 2008

NeoMalthusian

Is the word that keeps coming up.
It will happen.

by billgee at 5:56 AM on 04 Jul 2008

Reproductive (and all other) rights

For women. Let women decide and the overpopulation will subside.

Take the government, religion, and eternal growth craving bottomline corporate think that rules them out of the equation. Every religion and corporate culture trying to outpopulate the others.

A steep rise in the quality of life employing renewable energy and agriculture and conservation of resources would allow that human rights transition to proceed. With clean, safe water and at least minimal nutrition and medical guarantees, the situation of desperate survival reproduction would dwindle.

No more hummers and mcmansions. We can't afford them. Resources devoted to quality of life, peace and tranquility, and human (women's) rights; we can't NOT afford them.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 7:27 AM on 04 Jul 2008

Steve, I assume you realize......

..... that this is an incredibly naive proposal.

In much of the third world having children is a form of social security. Some are going to die before reaching adulthood. The remainder exist to provide for you in your old age.

Victory in Pattani

by MAD MAC at 9:07 AM on 04 Jul 2008
[ Parent ]

Neo-Malthusian is a better desciptor.

As the current commodities driven crisis is more the result of an increasingly large fraction of the population becoming able to compete for the same resources, than of the growth in the worlds absolute population. The "debunkment" of Malthus, was always that we could improve efficency faster than the population could increase. It is interesting that we are hitting the limits during a period of very fast technological advancement.

by bigTom at 10:57 AM on 04 Jul 2008

Caniscandida - Please get some help

I hope you were kidding about infanticide. But even then you need to get some help for even harboring such thoughts.

That nobody on this blog has even called you on it speaks volumes about the posters here. Jokes or suggestions about parents killing their own children crosses a line into anti-social behaviour.

Please for your own sake speak with a professional mental health provider, priest, rabbi, or someone who can help you. Such thoughts are not normal.

by DarthPetrol at 11:03 AM on 04 Jul 2008
[ Parent ]

More politically correct?

Post natal abortion? Yep, that's better.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 11:42 AM on 04 Jul 2008

Deficiency In Malthusian Concept

The problem with Malthus is that he and his ideas were and are totally anthropocentric. Overconsumption because of overpopulation aside, overpopulation is a problem per se because it takes too much land away from other species. We need many large areas where humans and their infrastructure, contraptions, and all other human things are strictly prohibited, and that's not possible with anywhere near the level of current -- and growing -- human population.

by Wolverine at 12:32 PM on 04 Jul 2008

Yes, Darth

I think you would want to avoid this site so as not to be one of the posters here ...

The 5% Project

by JMG at 1:30 PM on 04 Jul 2008

Wolverine

For once you and I agree on something.

Victory in Pattani

by MAD MAC at 10:30 PM on 04 Jul 2008
[ Parent ]

Burma was quite a big bathtub

Could we consider instead some sort of lottery that gives millions to 18 year old males who undergo vasectomies? Give them $15k at the time of the vasectomy and a one in 10k chance at $25 million and the fools would line up to check out of the breeding pool.

You could even bank some sperm samples for later use should they get married.

A paid 'Darwin Award' for Darwin award candidates. Plus reduced incidence of unwanted pregnancy and savings on education for unplanned children.

Young ladies are not going to check the boys sperm counts before choosing mates. It's not romantic.

Put the Carbon Back

by Pangolin at 3:17 AM on 06 Jul 2008

Great idea - you paying for it?

Who is going to pay for this vasectomy plan? Or is this another case of "My great idea, now we need a donor"?

Victory in Pattani

by MAD MAC at 4:04 AM on 06 Jul 2008
[ Parent ]

We'll just print the money....

just like we are doing to pay for the damned oil war. But this time we can get a return on investment.

The concept that the government uses any kind of reality accounting has been roundly debunked. Does anybody really know what happens to the Pentagon budget?

Put the Carbon Back

by Pangolin at 4:16 PM on 06 Jul 2008
[ Parent ]

The US government and hence taxpayer

is paying for the Iraq war.

My question was, who is paying for YOUR plan? Or is this another "My good idea, now I want someone else to pay for it?"

Victory in Pattani

by MAD MAC at 10:08 AM on 13 Jul 2008
[ Parent ]

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.