During the late 18th-century, a new theory emerged in response to a growing trend of rapidly increasing populations. In An Essay on the Principle of Population, Malthus argues that humans’ current unrestrained and dangerous growth will lead to an inevitable global famine when population outstrips food supplies. Today, his theory persists and continues to be debated upon by Neo-Malthusians, Malthus’s supporters, and their critics.
Neo-Malthusians believe in a sudden population drop because of factors that contribute to an exponentially increasing population and a lack of resources for everyone that Malthus never took into account. One, when Malthus conjured his theory of overpopulation, only countries in Western Europe and the United States were in Stage two of the Demographic Transition, where crude death rates decrease from medical advancements causing a rapid increase in population. However, today, the majority of the population growth is focused in places such as Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, and arguably growing at much faster rates. In fact, during the time when today’s developed countries were in stage 2, it took 150 years for the population to increase from 1 billion to 3 billion. However, when the still developing countries began stage 2 of their Demographic Transition in the 1960s, the population increased rapidly from 3 billion to an astonishing 7 billion within 60 years. Malthus’s failure to predict this only further strengthened his argument of population outstripping food supplies. Second, in his thesis, Malthus only argued that food supplies were being outstripped. However, today, water and energy supplies are also depleting. Sub-Saharan Africa where population grows most rapidly is also where water is currently most strained. Water is a basic necessity of life, and our abuse of water supplies to “feed” our farms in irrigation systems as well as having enough for people to drink is causing increased tensions in a fight for water. Oil and other energy sources are resources that humans have grown to rely greatly on. Oil supplies are depleting rapidly and predicted to run out within the next 50 years. Without these energy sources, much of our transportation tools and everyday devices such as overhead lighting or phones become useless, and countries will descend into chaos. In addition, another emerging natural phenomenon may also contribute to Malthus’s theory. That is climate change. Climate change may decrease the production of food as it changes the environment that offers the optimal growth of a crop. Environmental degradation was also not considered and examples such as desertification or overgrazing of meadows may create a bad habitat for the growth of life-supporting crops. These are all possible factors that support Malthus’s theory.
However, many geographers today criticize Malthus’s theories as being inaccurate. For one thing, Malthus argues that food supplies will be running low as population increases rapidly. Many of Malthus’s critics have observed that food supply isn’t fixed and is, in fact, expanding. More effective cultivation of crops such as mechanization, factory farming, use of chemicals (fertilizers), and better irrigation allow for surplus of food supplies. Our world is a constantly advancing one and farmers around the world were able to use their area of land more effectively than they did in the past, allowing for a much larger food supply, which is actually outgrowing human population. With science, people have been creating genetically modified plants that produce larger supplies of food or crops that grow faster and larger. Related to this, many critics also believe that there is in fact enough food for everyone in the world, and thus, better distribution needs to be taken into consideration too. Today, improved transportation offers cheaper and more effective methods to give food aid to places that need it and better food preservation allows longer storage of food, creating a large surplus. The critics’ second point argues on the positive aspect of population increase. They believe that population increase stimulates a growing economy because of the larger workforce. A better economy has the potential to increase wealth within the country, given that the money isn’t always focused in the rich minority but more evenly distributed. More consumption gives rise to more jobs and more brains to improve our lives such as increasing our food supplies. They believe that population growth can be used to benefit a country. Finally, Malthus previously predicted that population would quadruple in a mere 50 years. However, population has not grown nearly at that speed. It’s been much slower than he predicted. In 50 years, the population grew at first, 1 billion, and towards the peak of our growth in the 1960s, there was no more than an increase of 3 billion per 50 years. However, none of it pointed towards a quadrupling population. This has largely been because of an expanded use of contraception, political policies discouraging large families, such as China’s One Child Policy, and also as the later stages of the Demographic Transition describes, a change in social norms. A more expensive society tends to repress the belief of having many children for support as the economy will be more technologically based not agriculturally.
Neo-Malthusians believe in a sudden population drop because of factors that contribute to an exponentially increasing population and a lack of resources for everyone that Malthus never took into account. One, when Malthus conjured his theory of overpopulation, only countries in Western Europe and the United States were in Stage two of the Demographic Transition, where crude death rates decrease from medical advancements causing a rapid increase in population. However, today, the majority of the population growth is focused in places such as Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, and arguably growing at much faster rates. In fact, during the time when today’s developed countries were in stage 2, it took 150 years for the population to increase from 1 billion to 3 billion. However, when the still developing countries began stage 2 of their Demographic Transition in the 1960s, the population increased rapidly from 3 billion to an astonishing 7 billion within 60 years. Malthus’s failure to predict this only further strengthened his argument of population outstripping food supplies. Second, in his thesis, Malthus only argued that food supplies were being outstripped. However, today, water and energy supplies are also depleting. Sub-Saharan Africa where population grows most rapidly is also where water is currently most strained. Water is a basic necessity of life, and our abuse of water supplies to “feed” our farms in irrigation systems as well as having enough for people to drink is causing increased tensions in a fight for water. Oil and other energy sources are resources that humans have grown to rely greatly on. Oil supplies are depleting rapidly and predicted to run out within the next 50 years. Without these energy sources, much of our transportation tools and everyday devices such as overhead lighting or phones become useless, and countries will descend into chaos. In addition, another emerging natural phenomenon may also contribute to Malthus’s theory. That is climate change. Climate change may decrease the production of food as it changes the environment that offers the optimal growth of a crop. Environmental degradation was also not considered and examples such as desertification or overgrazing of meadows may create a bad habitat for the growth of life-supporting crops. These are all possible factors that support Malthus’s theory.
However, many geographers today criticize Malthus’s theories as being inaccurate. For one thing, Malthus argues that food supplies will be running low as population increases rapidly. Many of Malthus’s critics have observed that food supply isn’t fixed and is, in fact, expanding. More effective cultivation of crops such as mechanization, factory farming, use of chemicals (fertilizers), and better irrigation allow for surplus of food supplies. Our world is a constantly advancing one and farmers around the world were able to use their area of land more effectively than they did in the past, allowing for a much larger food supply, which is actually outgrowing human population. With science, people have been creating genetically modified plants that produce larger supplies of food or crops that grow faster and larger. Related to this, many critics also believe that there is in fact enough food for everyone in the world, and thus, better distribution needs to be taken into consideration too. Today, improved transportation offers cheaper and more effective methods to give food aid to places that need it and better food preservation allows longer storage of food, creating a large surplus. The critics’ second point argues on the positive aspect of population increase. They believe that population increase stimulates a growing economy because of the larger workforce. A better economy has the potential to increase wealth within the country, given that the money isn’t always focused in the rich minority but more evenly distributed. More consumption gives rise to more jobs and more brains to improve our lives such as increasing our food supplies. They believe that population growth can be used to benefit a country. Finally, Malthus previously predicted that population would quadruple in a mere 50 years. However, population has not grown nearly at that speed. It’s been much slower than he predicted. In 50 years, the population grew at first, 1 billion, and towards the peak of our growth in the 1960s, there was no more than an increase of 3 billion per 50 years. However, none of it pointed towards a quadrupling population. This has largely been because of an expanded use of contraception, political policies discouraging large families, such as China’s One Child Policy, and also as the later stages of the Demographic Transition describes, a change in social norms. A more expensive society tends to repress the belief of having many children for support as the economy will be more technologically based not agriculturally.
Mid-Term FrQ Part B
Above, we have a population pyramid of two different countries. Country A depicts a traditional pyramid with a heavy bottom and a narrow top, pointing towards a growing population. Seeing as no countries are in Stage 1 of the Demographic Transition and it’s rapidly growing population, seen by its dense base, means that it is in Stage 2. Characteristics of Stage 2 means that the country has a falling death rate due to medical advancement, however, as cultural norms lag behind, the birth rate staggers behind, still remaining relatively high. Thus, with so many newborns, the youth population is naturally much higher. With the evidences given, the country is obviously a developing one. Its economy is focused mainly in the agricultural sector, hence the need for a large family.
Country B, on the other hand, has a more even graph. Its population is spread out much more evenly, and therefore, is probably more so in the 4th stage of the Demographic Transition as Stage 3 would mean that the graph would still be more so like a traditional pyramid although much more narrow. That is because the birth rate is only decreasing, however, the process is not complete, and when it is, the country has reached stage 4. The characteristics that mark Stage 4 is a low birth rate, a low death rate, and a graying society as the people have less and less children, causing an increase of percentage of older people in the total population. This obviously means the country is a developed one in which its economy is much more technology-based and less so on agriculture.
Stage 2 of the Demographic Transition means there’s a large youth population and therefore, there would be a large work force at the expense of the country. This may stimulate rapid economic growth with either agriculture, or as shown in China, mass production of goods at a cheap price. In addition, young adults, or adults in general, are more receptive to change and are more likely to be the ones leading the change in society. Older people are more fit in traditional values and the young people, as receptive as they are, simply do not have the strength, even combined to act. However, the adult population has more say in society as they are in the prime of their life. Therefore, this country may be going through a time of rapid and dramatic changes. In addition, with a smaller elderly population, a large youth population, there is less need to focus heavy budget on elder social safety net such as Social Security.
In Country B’s case, seeing as they are in Stage 4, the workforce is more focused on technology and much less so on agriculture. This generally means the population is much more educated. In addition, with much less children, there is a low youth dependency ratio, meaning, there’s not as many children to care for, which may be expensive to feed as well as send to proper education. Also, countries in Stage 4 have undergone a social change which usually means women have achieved much more equality and have joined the workforce, allowing a more innovative society. Also, as education is much more promoted in countries here and children are not forced to work (because agriculture follows seasons and some need a larger work force during harvest season), thus, people spend more on education. Also, a population that’s not growing may require immigrant workers, allowing native workers to increase status as well as bring more ethnic diversity to the country.
However, both population pyramids may have setbacks for their respective countries. On the one hand, for Country A, because of their growing population, they will have a large youth dependency ratio meaning that many children will be relying on a substantial but still comparably less adults. In addition, a large population means high demand on resources and straining resource supplies. An example would be water which is already strained in places such as the Middle East or North East Africa, where the Nile is the sole water source. Water, a bare necessity, may lead to violent conflicts. As the Demographic Transition states, countries in Stage 2 have not gone through a social revolution and thus, there is usually less rights for women in these countries. With less education, there is less literacy for women and, therefore, fewer women in the work force.
In Country B, however, with a decreasing work force, it may lead to labor shortages in the future. Labor shortage may lead to a slower increase of economic improvement. In these countries, they may have to rely on immigration for their work force. Also, with a larger percentage of older people and less youth, it will result in high elder dependency ratio, straining the youth. The funding for Social Security will increase drastically and become very costly.
Country B, on the other hand, has a more even graph. Its population is spread out much more evenly, and therefore, is probably more so in the 4th stage of the Demographic Transition as Stage 3 would mean that the graph would still be more so like a traditional pyramid although much more narrow. That is because the birth rate is only decreasing, however, the process is not complete, and when it is, the country has reached stage 4. The characteristics that mark Stage 4 is a low birth rate, a low death rate, and a graying society as the people have less and less children, causing an increase of percentage of older people in the total population. This obviously means the country is a developed one in which its economy is much more technology-based and less so on agriculture.
Stage 2 of the Demographic Transition means there’s a large youth population and therefore, there would be a large work force at the expense of the country. This may stimulate rapid economic growth with either agriculture, or as shown in China, mass production of goods at a cheap price. In addition, young adults, or adults in general, are more receptive to change and are more likely to be the ones leading the change in society. Older people are more fit in traditional values and the young people, as receptive as they are, simply do not have the strength, even combined to act. However, the adult population has more say in society as they are in the prime of their life. Therefore, this country may be going through a time of rapid and dramatic changes. In addition, with a smaller elderly population, a large youth population, there is less need to focus heavy budget on elder social safety net such as Social Security.
In Country B’s case, seeing as they are in Stage 4, the workforce is more focused on technology and much less so on agriculture. This generally means the population is much more educated. In addition, with much less children, there is a low youth dependency ratio, meaning, there’s not as many children to care for, which may be expensive to feed as well as send to proper education. Also, countries in Stage 4 have undergone a social change which usually means women have achieved much more equality and have joined the workforce, allowing a more innovative society. Also, as education is much more promoted in countries here and children are not forced to work (because agriculture follows seasons and some need a larger work force during harvest season), thus, people spend more on education. Also, a population that’s not growing may require immigrant workers, allowing native workers to increase status as well as bring more ethnic diversity to the country.
However, both population pyramids may have setbacks for their respective countries. On the one hand, for Country A, because of their growing population, they will have a large youth dependency ratio meaning that many children will be relying on a substantial but still comparably less adults. In addition, a large population means high demand on resources and straining resource supplies. An example would be water which is already strained in places such as the Middle East or North East Africa, where the Nile is the sole water source. Water, a bare necessity, may lead to violent conflicts. As the Demographic Transition states, countries in Stage 2 have not gone through a social revolution and thus, there is usually less rights for women in these countries. With less education, there is less literacy for women and, therefore, fewer women in the work force.
In Country B, however, with a decreasing work force, it may lead to labor shortages in the future. Labor shortage may lead to a slower increase of economic improvement. In these countries, they may have to rely on immigration for their work force. Also, with a larger percentage of older people and less youth, it will result in high elder dependency ratio, straining the youth. The funding for Social Security will increase drastically and become very costly.