There are a lot of really good critiques of the Malthusian Theory of Population in Critical Development Studies and Social Geography. The changes in agricultural production such as the Green Revolution, Agribusiness, fertilizers and pesticides, and now more recently GMOs have really undercut the Malthusian Thesis which was written well before any of the aforementioned existed.

The biggest problem with food isn't production but rather distribution. Based on current methods of production I believe geographers have the carrying capacity of the earth at around 20 billion. Sorry, I don't have a source for that figure.

Nice argument Guy! Thank you for your valuable contribution.

Considering that probably at least one third (if not more) of the current world population do not have access to proper and adequate food I think the current trend tends toward a world that can, for the foreseeable future, cope with food demands. Especially with the techniques and technology currently available mentioned by Guy above.

I think the greatest challenge will be faced, if and when the third world countries in Africa and the like become more affluent, and therefore the need for resources, including more food will be sought from areas with large population groups. But it is worrying, how exponentially fast the world population is rising, food shortage or not, one only has to look into the future, with medical advances, longevity etc. to realise how much more can it increase before we reach a 'tipping point'? Not just looking at this from a food and agriculture stand-point, but all resources. I guess time, as always, will tell.

No theory in social sciences holds true/ is valid in all situation and all the time. Taking into account the socio-economic situation of his Time Ricardo would have proposed this, however, his postulates seemed to have refuted after the launch of GREEN REVOLUTION.

Resources are undoubtedly scarce but optimum utilization can stretch them. On philosophical note Mahatma Gandhi once said- "Nature has in abundance to satisfy human needs but nothing for his greed." This also indicates the balancing mechanism of the nature.

Good points Rick, Balazs, and Arun! Thank you!

Malthus obviously was wrong - I learned that thing about the green revolution and new technologies already in school. I just wonder - if he was so wrong, why is he still known? Why everyone knows about his theory? And - why is there -seemingly- a new trend to publish his books and read him? It cannot be only due to the "neo-malthusist" tendencies - that generally do not cite him.

Thanks Philipp, Bassam, and Peter for your interesting contributions.

Nice argument Peter! I share you the same concern!

Hello Ziad and friends, I have been kept busy. So I arrive late on this thread. We also have to consider that humans are not like other organisms. Humans have a mind to consider the needs of their children and whether they can meet this need, before they decide to have more children. It's not just the very basic need for food as Malthus defined.

A man also considers the health of his wife. Even though the biotic potential may be very many, the family size is now usually less than 5. Two generations ago, there may be families of 20 siblings, but now 10 seems too many :)

Thanks Miranda for your interesting point of view.

I agree Peter. The time will come, where our population growth will out-weigh supply of not only food, but other resources. One only has to look at how the world population has grown over the past 100-200 years..if you draw this current level of growth forward say, another 200 years...it really is scary stuff. Unsustainable is the word that comes to mind...

Let me add my one cent of value here. The continuous development of technology (which is much faster than either the population growth or decrease in earth resources) may lead to new resources specially that genetic engineering is working to develop alternative resources (although at this point with some controversy), the birth rates are less, and not to forget wars are at its peak.

Will that mean, that the earth will heal the anomalies, some extra phenomena in nature is appearing causing lots of damage and death. So, it seems we have many intertwined variables with different trends. Results at this point may not be forecasted.

Even if we feel distressed about the realities of the problem in question, many alternatives are developed as we speak. But what matter the most is that human have to realize that they have to respect nature and plan to help in its revival!

Dear Hussin:

Thank you for your interesting comment!

Wars, crimes, diseases, cigarettes, tsunamis, earthquakes, famine, et al. have shown to wipe people in the millions. Yet, this remains as a fraction of the worlds population. I am afraid that mass extinction (e.g. meteor hit) would likely be the only source of balancing the book between population and resources! I apologize for this rather radical thought.

Hi Ziad

You do not need to mention the Meteor Hit, remember that when nature is angry, there are no statistics to the devastation it may cause!

THANK'S TO HUSSIN AND ZIAD FOR YOUR BRELIANT CONTRIBUTION; I conqur with all of you ,but to a greater extent i belive  Ziads perspective of meteor hits will be the best way of saving the planet from the effects of growing population ,look technologies are advancing every hour and then to make the earth accomodate the ever increasing population.remeber sofer these technology has made the population to inharbit three quaters of the second earth and new planets are being identified every hour, so since technology is standing as the major optimistic suppreser of the natures ability to regulate population, what should we do to it? i surpose we minimise it.    

I believe the Malthusian theory of population holds true even in today's context, however, the relationship that he has established between the resources and population growth may not be the same verbatim as with the advent of mass production during green revolution the quantum of food  production increased exponentially compared to the growth in population.

Despite these exceptions the fundamental tenets of the theory can not be contradicted.

I think that Malthus' theory was not even true in his time. He was rather elitist and did not consider that even at his time hunger was the result of poverty in a society that was industrializing, where people in the industries hardly earned a living wage, where people when they fell sick or had work accidents had nothing as no health insurance or workmen's compensation acts existed. Manchester capitalism did produce many poor people in the industries and those affected by the industries (such as the handloom weavers; interesting in the early 1990s there was an episode of starvation of handloom weavers in Andhra Pradesh….)

Also Malthus' suggestion that poor people should be prevented to marry to keep population growth down sound strange as if unmarried people could not have children.

Today it is clear that Malthus' prediction did not come true. In the past few decades per capita food supply has increased by around 20 percent worldwide. Hunger is caused by poverty.

When Malthus lived (1766 – 1834) the global population reached its first billion (in 1804). Today we have 7.6 billion. Even when we can find many arguments that this number is far too high for a sustainable situation on our planet there is statistically enough food produced for everybody of these 7.6 billion. Malthus predicted already in 1798 that population will outrun food supply leading to famine, conflicts over resources, etc.

Although since then many famine have happened, not all were the result of insufficient food production, and in all cases it affected poor populations. Most famines of the 20th century had in addition to povery specific situations, such as wars, civil wars, etc. It is very difficult to argue that they were soley the result of crop failures or sharp population growth.

Social science theory is based on a time frame when they is/are written. Technologies are change with historical context which all are known in a historical time frame. Malthus theory is valid on that period but in present the context has been changed so that is not fully applicable. But the concept of the deterministic approach which is available in that theory that is strongly valid in present context. Sustainable development is a concept which is an outcome of the deterministic approach which Malthus uses in that time frame. Control on human greed by the ethical value is a good indication of Malthus theory which is still valid in the present context. In conclude Malthus theory is not fully functioning in present context but in some point of this theory is still valid.

perhaps valid, but wrong.

I think yes. Some papers describes that human population grows hyper-exponentially. To model this, from the logistic growth, is necessary to state a scalling relationship between K(t)/dt~bN(t)/dt where b needs to be b>1. This condition states that each person adds resources to carrying-capacity to its own survive and contributes to enhance resources to others. Assuming this and modelling, results show that a given populaiton never reaches K, because all the time N(t) grows, some aditional resource is incorporated in K, putting K always in higher levels (COHEN, 1995). From another point of view (synergetics) when we derive dN(t)/dt = rN^b, we have a hyper-exponential growth whan b>1 (MENDE, 1984). So human population shows b>1 and, from synergetic point-of-view, b>1 indicate that all parts of the system (each person) contributes to growth in a cooperative (synergetic) way.

Malthus hypothesised on the relationship of population to food supply. His hypothesis has already proved correct in relation to a flock of sheep on a tiny island, Soay, one of the St Kilda group. Sheep population rises to about 1200 then crashes as pasture becomes overgrazed to around 500, then recovers later. This must happen in many similar locations. Globally, though, it appears that advances in agriculture have permitted unchecked population growth.

It is important, however, to consider resource availability much more widely than simply food. The World’s present population is already far beyond sustainability levels as regards many resources. Global warming, environment, sustainability are all discussed freely today, but no one wants to discuss the need to control population growth. I would argue that this is the critical issue, not the others which would sort out as a consequence of reduced population. China’s one child policy had many faults but at least it tackled the population issue.

Regards

George Strachan

I think diseases will never let the human population grow to a point where it exponentially grows to a point where it threatens our ability to produce enough food for the global population. Humans can always adapt whether it is cheap solar energy to pump more water to produce more food or switching to more of a plant based diet to increase carrying capacity of the land. However diseases always thin back populations. As long as we have cheaper and cheaper renewable energy we can always produce a greater abundance of food. Diseases pose a much greater threat to a growing global population.

Hi roger..hope you are correct..that we can produce cheaper renewable energy ie. Solar...still expensive now..diseases are consequences of..1..polluted drinki g water. 2.toxins in food...3..hi fats meat based diet with bio manified toxins from pesticides..4.hi sugar diet...5..stationary..lack of exercise..sleep ..and many others....

Its here Ted. https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/origins-of-the-solar-learning-curve#gs.ZAu063g

Assessments of the Malthusian Theory of Population should be based on the later editions of his essay (1803-1826). You will see that these fundamentally differ from the one proposed in 1798.

My Answer would be: The theory from 1798 has been falsified and was therefore incorrect. The theory from 1803-1826 is correct.

If Malthus’ Theory is restricted to its simple problem of feeding a growing population, then advances in food production technologies may continue to keep pace, thus falsifying his theory.

If, however, the theory is broadened to encompass the Earth’s finite resources, then the answer is clear. The exponential growth in population cannot continue indefinitely. Indeed, I would argue that global population is already far in excess of what it should be. At present scientists, politicians and a large proportion of the world’s population are raising grave concerns about global warming, deforestation, depletion of scarce resources and today talking of the extinction of over one million species worldwide in the next few years. What none mention is that unbridled population growth is the main reason behind all these domesday scenarios. China’s one child policy was roundly condemned at the time, but surely it is time for politicians to waken up to the issue of how to control (even reduce) the level of population worldwide in as painless a way as possible. Failure to do so will bring dire consequences in its wake

George Strachan

This theory said about that time,the population increases double with recourse .Now it is looking absolutely true .population growth rate is faster than economics growth.

Mahpara is right. Malthus predicted population would eventually outstrip the ability to feed itself. This so far has not proved true, due to the ability of agriculture globally to keep pace with population growth. BUT, and this where Malthus theory is proving correct, population growth is the major factor in the over-exploitation of global resources. Such over-exploitation lies behind the increase in carbon dioxide within the atmosphere. The great folly of today is the futile attempt to reduce CO2 without reference to how to control population growth. The need to stem that growth and then plan how to reduce global population must supercede any attempts at reducing carbon. The fact is that politicians flatly refuse to deal with the global population question.

regards

George

thank you sir

It is absolutely correct that the global population today is threatening all aspects of human existence interms of global peace and security, inequality in global distribution of wealth, variance in human longitivity to index, rapidity in depletion of natural resources, erosion of human civility values and morality and a host of others .

Like Malthius observed that in the event that nothing positive is done in ameriorating global population explotion, then the invisible hand Adam Smith eluded to in his wealth of Nations work come to play as is being witnessed today in the global arena with conflicts and wars of all sorts, rise of nationalistic sentiments by leaders, and the current resurgence of diseases that theatens human existence like the covid 19 pandemic. But there is hope inspite of all the dark clouds considering all the advances made in the area of science and technology.

How the population theory of Malthus is reconciled with the empirical and prevalent situation of population problems over the world ? His prediction of population problems had been justified by reality of demography in the world. Depopulation related with the current pandemic situation, baby bust in some countries are not a new lesson of population science. Authenticity of population hazards in several cases like food scarcity and maladjustment of calories ,migration are some new phenomenon of population dynamics , static dynamics, and static or esthetic.

Não, a humanidade tem condições de produzir os alimentos necessários a toda população mundial. Contudo, não há renda para adquiri-los.

Relating to the above response by Ronjon Handique. It had crossed my mind that the current pandemic that is reducing the population was following the theory of Malthus back in the eighteenth century. The world's population was increasing and the planet's ability to sustain humanity due to climate change was causing concern:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/08/climate-crisis-reducing-lands-ability-to-sustain-humanity-says-ipcc

And now there is a 'natural' cause that is reducing the population

Von Foerster in 1960 found a human population crash that will happen in 2026, based in super-exponential growth function. In 1995 Cohen showed the socio-economics origins for super-exponential dynamics. Nowadays is described the phenomenological reasons for super-linear exponents that rises when we compare population data with an tecnological develoment variable, GDP or phD's number in a given city. We aré seeing in this time this counterparts: an important crash in human population and the tecnological and innovative improvement that will be inserted in all world populations and countries around the world. And human population will continue to growh faster-than exponential, following von Foerster dynamic. We can conclude that we are in a von Foerster-Cohen dynamics, very different when we compare to a Malthusian dynamics.

I think the translation to the above response from Carlos Ferraz is:

"No, humanity is able to produce the food necessary for the entire world population. However, there is no income to acquire them"

Am I right?

The response from William Roberto Luiz Silva Pereira is really interesting. Do you have any links to papers about the von Foerster-Cohen dynamic?

Regarding the response from William Roberto Luiz Silva Pereira

I found these papers:

VON FOERSTER H, MORA PM, AMIOT LW. Doomsday: Friday, 13 November, A.D. 2026. At this date human population will approach infinity if it grows as it has grown in the last two millenia. Science. 1960 Nov 4;132(3436):1291-5.

http://immune.math.yorku.ca/jmheffer/sites/default/files/Doomsday.pdf

Cohen, J. E. (1995). Population Growth and Earth's Human Carrying Capacity. SCIENCE, 269, 21.

http://lab.rockefeller.edu/cohenje/PDFs/226CohenHumanCacience19951.pdf

. . . and are just about to take a look at these. Are there any other relevant papers that anyone is aware of and what do other RG members think about this?

Yes, these are the seminal papers. Pay attention in the mathematical background in Cohen. There is a relationship between population N(t) and carrying capacity K(t) determined by a constant c. If integre this we have a power-law regime. And if c>1 we have a von Foerster dynamic. This is a very special behavior and we don't empirical evidence for this in natural and animals populations, so this is a human special dynamic. I'll send you some recent papers that explain the super-linear power-laws in urban and socio-economics variables. Its clear that Malthusian arguments was validated in his time, because we didn't have mature and developed countries, but nowadays developed (and in development) contries is pervasive. Wait a time please, I will send these papers.

William Roberto Luiz Silva Pereira

Thank you very much; whenever you have time, I'd be really interested in the papers!

Mary