Thomas Malthus once said, “The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man.” Albert Einstein might argue, on the other hand, “Necessity is the mother of all invention,” albeit in another context. So, which is it? Are we doomed to unchecked population growth followed by Malthusian catastrophe, or can we avoid it through increased food production, decreasing population growth rates, or some other means?
To say Malthusian catastrophe is inevitable is completely unwarranted. Is it possible? Certainly – it is only logical that if human population reached levels which far outstripped food supply, the resulting global famine would create easily ignitable tensions between nations, and facilitate disease through malnutrition and crowding – both contributing to a potentially massive death toll from starvation. This is a chilling prospect to be sure, but the words “plausible” and “likely” should not be confused. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that we may have already have moved away from the path towards such collapse. Even if that is wrong, it is incredibly unlikely that it is already too late to avoid through aid and intervention on behalf of developed nations to those nations most at risk.
First, according to Boserup’s research on agriculture development, Malthus’s hypothesis that population growth results from the intensification of agriculture is unjustified, and it is more likely that increasing agricultural productivity is the cause of population growth rather than the effect. The problem in establishing this conclusively, of course, is that growth rate and food production increases occur over long periods of time, and it is thus difficult to determine definitive...
... middle of paper ...
...igh to adapt to the supportable limits of the environment. What’s more, the desperate situation members of these nations will find themselves in may cause them to make similarly desperate measures to support them and their families, with potentially devastating ripple effects spreading globally. In other words – a Malthusian catastrophe. Such is the case with the tragically impoverished Somalian pirates. In this sense, it is not only humanitarian but also self-considerately wise of highly developed nations with sufficient resources to both aid the social development and curb population growth rates of those countries who threaten to return to stage one through social catastrophe if left unaided.
Naturally, this too raises many issues of its own. There are many sensitive cultural considerations must be taken into account when interacting with local populations.
One of the most pressing matters the world is facing today is the problem of poverty. There are many things that should be done about poverty, yet much of the world is split, on one side people wanting to help and on the other side people not knowing how to go about it. In Garrett Hardin’s “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor,” Hardin present this case to us using the lifeboat as an analogy for nations on earth. Hardin asserts that all nations on earth are viewed as a series of lifeboats adrift at sea. Each lifeboat has a Foreign limited carrying capacity and limited resources. The richer lifeboats have more capacity, more resources, are better managed, and are self-sufficient. Whereas the poorer lifeboats are overcrowded, and their resources are overburdened, so much so that passengers are abandoning poor lifeboats in hopes of being rescued by the richer lifeboats or at least to be aided threw handouts. With limited resources, and very little capacity, what are the passengers on the rich lifeboats to do? Morally, the just thing to do would come to the aid of the passengers in the water and allow them to board the
Garret Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons” is an article that identifies the nation’s current problems and predicaments that can’t be resolved through the use of technical solutions. Hardin’s work heavily focuses on overpopulation, a prominent and unceasing issue that significantly distorts and affects the stability of the Earth and the abundance of the planet’s resources. In his article, he mentioned some reasonable and important solutions to overpopulation, but he also explained its downside and how the said solutions may not be ideal and practical. “Tragedy of the Commons” revealed that the human population will continue to flourish and how it will be greatly detrimental to our society unless individuals get the education that they need and
He believed that population growth would quickly far outstrip the food supply causing famine and depletion of natural resources unless countries applied “moral constraint”. Neo-Malthusianism is the view that the rate of population should be controlled to prevent overpopulation and famine, such as policies enforced by the Chinese government. They also believe that Malthus’s is much more frightening than ever before due to the large growth in population. They argue that world population is also destroying the world’s natural resources, using at a highly unsustainable level, which will have many future implications if they run
Now, the ideas of Thomas Malthus generally do not apply to the world today. It is important to understand that Malthus wanted to create a theory that explained the success of people in a population. Like Darwin’s theory of evolution (which was helped formed by Malthus doctrine) it is survival of the fittest. I do bel...
We also looked into the precautionary measures in interacting with peers, clientele or students across cultural boundaries and establishing a code of conduct for communication. This can be helpful for people engaged in human resources, medicine, counseling and roles that involve cross cultural communication.
The world naturally corrects the over-population problems with famine and disease and Americans make any effort they can to stop the suffering. The “guilt factor” represented in scenario four of the lifeboat ethics directly relates to this. We feel bad the poor and homeless can’t protect themselves from these disasters so Americans do anything to save them. We save those who would’ve otherwise died in the crisis. We increase the population of an environment without expanding, causing more crisis. Inevitably, more people end up dying due to starvation or malnutrition. Thus, the never-ending cycle of the rich saving the poor continues. If other countries keep intervening by delivering food and aid to nations when they are in trouble, they end up making the next crisis even more
Being narrow-minded and not being able to take a look at a situation from another person’s point of view can interfere with many situations in life. Culture varies from person to person, province to province, and country to country. Making the adjustment to be able to make adjustments to things such as healthcare to accommodate someone because of their culture is important. Cultural differences will be apparent in all hospital settings no matter where you travel to, so being mindful of it all will go a long way so that the treatment is done correctly and culturally competently. While healthcare may seem as the most important time where culture is sensitive, as Dettwyler sees during her time in Mali, culture affects all parts of life.
Malthus’ An Essay on the Principle of Population, he states “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.” He came up with the Population Principle in which he argued that population, when unregulated, increases geometrically, whereas subsistence increases arithmetically. This then becomes an issue when the population outweigh the amount of food available. Malthus then said that once this level was surpassed, that famine would be the main source of the limit to population growth and that premature death was the most natural way to control the
Poverty has conquered nations around the world, striking the populations down through disease and starvation. Small children with sunken eyes are displayed on national television to remind those sitting in warm, luxiourious houses that living conditions are less than tolerable around the world. Though it is easy to empathize for the poor, it is sometimes harder to reach into our pocketbooks and support them. No one desires people to suffer, but do wealthy nations have a moral obligation to aid poor nations who are unable to help themselves? Garrett Hardin in, "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping The Poor," uses a lifeboat analogy to expose the global negative consequences that could accompany the support of poor nations. Hardin stresses problems including population increase and environmental overuse as downfalls that are necessary to consider for the survival of wealthy nations. In contrast, Peter Singer's piece, "Rich and Poor," remarks on the large differences between living conditions of those in absolute poverty with the wealthy, concluding that the rich nations possess a moral obligation to the poor that surpasses the risks involved. Theodore Sumberg's book, "Foreign Aid As Moral Obligation," documents religious and political views that encourage foreign aid. Kevin M. Morrison and David Weiner, a research analyst and senior fellow respectively at the Overseas Development Council, note the positive impact of foreign aid to America, a wealthy nation. Following the examination of these texts, it seems that not only do we have a moral obligation to the poor, but aiding poor nations is in the best interest of wealthy nations.
Hardin argues how the world only has so many resources and opportunities for agriculture to be expanded. Therefore, with enough increase in population, these resources will become extinct. Thus, humans will run out of food and eventually starve to death. As Hardin declares, “a finite world can only support a finite population” (Hardin 98). Simon goes on to discuss how humans always seem to come up with the means to satisfy their needs.
In the past ten years the world population exceeded six billion people with most of the growth occurring in the poorest, least developed countries in the world. The rapidly increasing population and the quickly declining amount of land are relative and the rate at which hunger is increasing rises with each passing year. We cannot afford to continue to expand our world population at such an alarming rate, for already we are suffering the consequences. Hunger has been a problem for our world for thousands of years. But now that we have the technology and knowledge to stamp it out, time is running short.
Malthus, on the other hand, in his book An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798) imparted a tone of dreariness. Malthus’s main contribution to economics was his theory that a population tends to increase faster than the supply of food available for its needs.
One of the major effects of the huge population increase has been the depletion of natural resources and the destruction of ecosystems. In the 1960's, theorist Paul Ehrlich predicted that, given the skyrocketing figures of human population, the amount of food produced would not grow at a fast enough rate for human survival (Professor Carr Everbach, personal communication). He predicted mass starvation and death by the year 2000 as the result of uncontrolled population growth. Clearly, this did not occur. Ehrlich did not foresee the advancements ma...
In a first case scenario, as shown in the symbiosis of the different elements, rapidly expanding population growth can cause unwarranted exploitation of natural resources. Humans use more and more land, water and other resources to address development issues such as poverty, hunger, disease and illiteracy. A growth in population means additional resources being used to increase the standards of living for more people who in the end put untold pressure on the environment to provide for them. It is safe to say if the expansion of population continues to increase at the current rate, there is no way the natural resources we have can meet the demand.
Humans have become a threat to our own way of life by consuming more resources than needed, blind to the consequences that we may face in the future. As of 2016 the world population is at 7.4 billion and it is estimated to be at 11.2 billion by the year 2100. However 10 billion is the maximum population that can be sustained in terms of food security, only one of the many factors to global sustainability. Due to the fact that human consumption exceeds the amount of resources available, the United Nations “recognizes that eradicating poverty is the greatest global challenge” in A/RES/70/1. Sustainable development is not only required to fulfill the necessities of the present but to guarantee the capability for future generations to satisfy theirs.