Malthusian Theory
Thomas Malthus was an English doctor and philosopher, born in England in 1766. His “An Essay on the Principle of Population” proposed that population growth eventually will place catastrophic pressure on resource use - leading to famines, conflict, and other stress. Malthus suggested that population pressures lead to resource overuse, famine and misery, in particular, because exponential population growth outstrips food production. He argued that famine and misery in turn lead to vice (such as theft).
Driven by some of the pressing issues of his day, Malthus was particularly interested in connecting the predicament of England’s poor to these issues of resources use and proposed imposing restrictions on the poor, suggesting that the poor practice sexual abstinence. Malthus took issue with England’s Poor Laws (a kind of welfare system for those unable to work). He argued that supporting the poor with social welfare only postponed the inevitable famine and conflict and placed undue pressure on the rest of society. He argued that the laws (social security) simply exacerbate the predicament of the poor by enabling the population to increase even more and requiring even more food to feed even more poor people. He argued that the poor should be left to starve to prevent environmental catastrophe.
Excerpts from An Essay on the Principles of Population, Chapter 1:
I.14
I think I may fairly make two postulata.
First, That food is necessary to the existence of man.
Secondly, That the passion between the sexes is necessary and will remain nearly in its present state.
I.17
Assuming then, my postulata as granted, I say, that the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man.
I.18
Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will shew the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second.
I.19
By that law of our nature which makes food necessary to the life of man, the effects of these two unequal powers must be kept equal.
I.22
This natural inequality of the two powers of population, and of production in the earth, and that great law of our nature which must constantly keep their effects equal, form the great difficulty that to me appears insurmountable in the way to the perfectibility of society. All other arguments are of slight and subordinate consideration in comparison of this. I see no way by which man can escape from the weight of this law which pervades all animated nature. No fancied equality, no agrarian regulations in their utmost extent, could remove the pressure of it even for a single century. And it appears, therefore, to be decisive against the possible existence of a society, all the members of which, should live in ease, happiness, and comparative leisure; and feel no anxiety about providing the means of subsistence for themselves and families.
Excerpts from Chapter 5:
V.1
The positive check to population, by which I mean, the check that represses an increase which is already begun, is confined chiefly, though not perhaps solely, to the lowest orders of society.
V.3
To remedy the frequent distresses of the common people, the poor-laws of England have been instituted; but it is to be feared, that though they may have alleviated a little the intensity of individual misfortune, they have spread the general evil over a much larger surface. It is a subject often started in conversation and mentioned always as a matter of great surprise, that notwithstanding the immense sum that is annually collected for the poor in England, there is still so much distress among them….
V.10
The poor-laws of England tend to depress the general condition of the poor in these two ways. Their first obvious tendency is to increase population without increasing the food for its support. A poor man may marry with little or no prospect of being able to support a family in independence. They may be said therefore in some measure to create the poor which they maintain; and as the provisions of the country must, in consequence of the increased population, be distributed to every man in smaller proportions, it is evident that the labour of those who are not supported by parish assistance, will purchase a smaller quantity of provisions than before, and consequently more of them must be driven to ask for support.
V.27
Notwithstanding, then, the institution of the poor-laws in England, I think it will be allowed, that considering the state of the lower classes altogether, both in the towns and in the country, the distresses which they suffer from the want of proper and sufficient food, from hard labour and unwholesome habitations, must operate as a constant check to incipient population.
V.28
To these two great checks to population, in all long occupied countries, which I have called the preventive and the positive checks, may be added vicious customs with respect to women, great cities, unwholesome manufactures, luxury, pestilence, and war.
Neo-Malthusian Thought and Arguments against Overpopulation
Overpopulation is the idea that there are not enough resources on the earth to sustain the earth’s population. Key to this idea is that there are certain human needs that must be filled, and that there are finite resources to fulfill these needs. You might notice that many of the ideas and language Malthus uses resonates with discussions of population, food, and poverty heard in the press today. Malthus’ ideas gained renewed interest in the 1960s and 1970s with the publication of Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb which revisited Malthus’ prediction that overpopulation would outpace food production, resulting in catastrophe. The ideas presented in these works conceive of resources as finite. This viewpoint begets discussions of resource scarcity, as it assumes that there are limits to the capacity of nature to produce or supply resources. .
Many scholars have taken issue with these ideas, in particular pointing out that human needs can be met by multiple forms, that needs can be a product of social pressures (do you need Doritos to satisfy your hunger? or an iPhone to have human interaction?), and human ingenuity and technological fixes have helped us adapt ways to meet our needs. Humans are not just parasites on the natural environment. This mindset fails to account for the ways humans modify the environment to increase production. Overpopulation arguments tend to place blame on the poor for having too many babies and not consider over consumption by wealthy that are fueled by artifact colonial regime structures.
The Impact-Population Affluence-Technology (IPAT) equation is used to highlight that it is not just population that matters, but also, affluence or consumption and technology. The equation identifies three factors which contribute to environmental impacts (I): population (P), affluence / consumption (A), and technology (T). Typically, the equation is expressed as seen in the image below.
Overpopulation
Watch this video (6 min 40 sec) to better understand population growth, changing birth rates, demographic transitions and poverty (the content might be on your quiz this week).
Overpopulation: The Human Explosion Explained (6:40)
Transcript: Overpopulation The Human Explosion Explained (6:40)
Never before in history have there been so many people on Earth as right now. Our numbers have skyrocketed—from 1 billion in 1800, to 2.3 billion in 1940, 3.7 billion in 1970, and 7.4 billion in 2016. The world population increased fourfold in the last century. So what can we expect for the next century? And what does population growth mean for our future?
Will there be mass migration? Overcrowded slums and megacities covering continents? Diseases and pollution? Chaos and violence over energy, water, and food? A human species focused only on sustaining itself? Will population growth destroy our way of life? Or is this prophecy just ungrounded panic?
In the 1960s, population growth reached an unprecedented rate, which led to apocalyptic prophecies. The poor would procreate endlessly and overrun the developed world. The legend of overpopulation was born.
But it turns out high birth rates and the population explosion are not permanent features of certain cultures or countries. Rather, they are part of a four-stage process the whole world is going through—the demographic transition. Most developed countries have already made the transition, while others are doing it right now.
Let’s go back to the 18th century, when the entire world—including Europe—was in the first stage of the demographic transition. By today’s standards, Europe was worse off than a developing region, suffering from poor sanitation, poor diets, and poor medicine. A lot of people were born, but many died young, so the population hardly grew. Women had between 4 and 6 children, but only 2 of them would reach adulthood.
Then the Industrial Revolution happened in the UK, bringing the greatest change in human living conditions since the Agricultural Revolution. People went from being peasants to workers. Manufactured goods were mass-produced and became widely available. The sciences flourished, advancing transportation, communication, and medicine. The role of women in society shifted, creating the conditions for their emancipation.
Slowly, this economic progress not only formed a middle class but also raised standards of living and healthcare for the poor working population. The second transition stage began. Better food supplies, hygiene, and medicine meant people stopped dying so frequently—especially at a very young age. The result was a population explosion—doubling the UK’s population between 1750 and 1850.
The main reason families used to have many children was that only a few were likely to survive. Now that had changed, so the third stage of transition was set in motion. Fewer babies were conceived, and population growth slowed down. Eventually, a balance emerged: fewer people were dying and fewer children were being born, so death and birth rates became stable. Britain had reached the fourth stage of the demographic transition.
This didn’t only happen in the UK—more and more countries went through these four stages:
High births and high deaths due to poor living conditions. Improved living conditions leading to fewer deaths and a population explosion. Fewer deaths leading to fewer births, and population growth slowing. A stable balance of low birth and death rates. But if birth rates have dropped so much, why is the population still growing so fast? Well, the children born during the population explosion of the 70s and 80s are now having kids themselves—leading to a noticeable spike in overall population. But they are having far fewer children on average than their parents. The global average today is 2.5 children per woman—down from 5 just 40 years ago.
So as this generation ages and fertility declines further, the rate of population growth will continue to slow. This is true for every country.
In the West, we tend to overlook progress in other regions of the world. But in reality, most of the world’s countries have already reached the fourth stage. Take Bangladesh, for example. In 1971, the average woman had 7 children, and 25% of them would die before age 5. By 2015, the child mortality rate had dropped to 3.8%, and women were having only 2.2 children on average.
This is the rule, not the exception. We’re not special—we just had a head start. It took developed countries about 80 years to reduce fertility from over 6 children to under 3. Others are catching up fast. Malaysia and South Africa did it in just 34 years; Bangladesh in only 20. Iran managed it in just 10 years.
These countries didn’t have to start from scratch—and the more support they receive, the faster they catch up. That’s why programs that help lower child mortality or support development in poorer nations are so important.
No matter your motivation—whether you dream of a world where all people live in freedom and prosperity, or you simply want fewer refugees coming into your country—the simple truth is that it benefits you personally if people on the other side of the globe can live a good life.
And we are getting there. The percentage of people living in extreme poverty has never been as low as it is today.
So the future of global population growth is not an apocalyptic prophecy—it’s a promise! Population growth will come to an end. The UN forecasts that the 12th billionth human will never be born at all.
And as the development level of the world rises, the number of people receiving higher education will increase tenfold. Countries that once needed help will instead become contributors to global progress. More people will mean more minds able to advance our species.
This video was a collaboration with Max Roser and Our World in Data, where he explores the progress of humanity through research and data visualization. Make sure to check it out!
In 2016, we were able to create more and better content than ever before, thanks to your support on Patreon.com. Thank you so much—and we’ll be back in the year 12,017.
When we think about population we also need to think about consumption.
Optional Additional Material:
- Peter Menzel's photo journal "Hungry Planet Family Food Portraits" is a great visual documentation of how important consumption (A) is in therm of environmental impacts.
- Eric Holt-Gimenez's article "We Already Grow Enough Food For 10 Billion People -- and Still Can't End Hunger" is a good start to thinking about the "doubling food production by 2050" discourse.
- The Population Research Institute’s videos on “Overpopulation is a Myth”, Episodes 1-6 may also be helpful. These videos are short, only a few minutes each.