Is Thomas Malthus relevant
today? Are his predictions of mass human starvation caused by overpopulation
true?
In 1798, Malthus said,
"The power of population is so superior to the power of earth to produce
subsistence to humanity that premature death must in some shape or other
visit the human race."
According to the World
Health Organization, 18 million human beings die of starvation around the
planet annually. That delineates down to 10 million children under 12 and 8
million adults dying of hunger year in and year out. Last week, humanity
reached 7 billion on its way toward 10 billion by mid century. Those
starvation numbers will accelerate as human numbers grow past the carrying
capacity of the land.
The green revolution was
instigated as a result of the efforts of Norman Borlaug, who, while accepting
the Nobel peace prize in 1970, said: "The green revolution has won a
temporary success in man's war against hunger and deprivation; it has given
man a breathing space. If fully implemented, the revolution can provide
sufficient food for sustenance during the next three decades. But the
frightening power of human reproduction must also be curbed; otherwise the
success of the green revolution will be ephemeral only."
My Australian friend, Mark
O'Connor, author of Overloading Australia, gives his rendition of what
humanity faces. Please Mr. O'Connor, give readers an understanding of
Malthus' brilliant work:
"There has been a
view, much put about by rightwing pro-business think-tanks, that Malthus was
a gloomy pessimist from whose story we should learn not to listen to
"pessimists," said O'Connor. "This view is now looking very
shaky as famine stalks more and more countries. Journalistic articles are
beginning to appear that use as their opening "peg" the remark that
Malthus may not have been such a false prophet as we all assume.
"In fact scholars and
reputable encyclopedias never did so assume -- that claim was wishful
thinking by those with their own reasons for wanting to believe population
growth is not a problem.
"Just lately there
has been much interest in the researcher Alison Bashford's study of Malthus.
She emphasizes the importance of 10 chapters that have traditionally been
omitted from reprints of his 1803 Essay on the Principle of Population, and
claims the missing chapters show his thinking in a new light. See
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/hindsight/stories/2011/3349279.htm
"I'm not getting too
excited about this argument, since the Essay, even in its traditionally
abbreviated form, was (for its day) an impressive piece of work. And
scholarly information is of limited value in dealing with the propagandists
of the growth lobby. When they talk of Malthus, they are not interested in
scholarly precision, and not fond of reading his works closely. They have two
simple (and quite invalid) arguments that they use; and anyone debating with
them needs equally brief refutations to these. I call their two arguments the
two-card trick and the three-card trick."
The two-card trick is a
simple two-stage argument (or syllogism):
1. Malthus is the greatest
and most famous expert on the supposed dangers of population growth. He
prophesied that population growth would lead to famines, which did not come
true.
2. Therefore all later
warnings, no matter by how many eminent experts, that famines or other
disasters due to population growth may happen, or will probably happen (or
are already happening) will not come true and should be ignored.
"This is an obviously
fallacious argument," said O'Connor, "One might as well say,
"Eminent seismologists have warned of tsunamis that did not occur;
therefore no one should heed such warnings".
The logical fallacy,
reduced to a syllogism, is of the form: "My horse is grey. Therefore all
horses are grey."
"Of course the
cleverer growth lobbyists realize that if they present this argument as a
syllogism, its logical flaw will be noted. Their skill is to disguise the
logic, and make a great parade of talking about, say, the fruits of
historical experience, what we can learn from the case of Malthus, etc.
"In replying to the
two-card argument, I always point out the main logical error first. Then I go
on to point out a second logical flaw: If in fact Malthus is simply a man who
made a spectacular mistake, why are you buttering him up, representing him as
pre-eminent in the field, and implying that he is more likely to be right
than the modern experts you seek to discredit? Have demographers and
agricultural experts learnt nothing since his day? And have there been no
improvements in our ability to gather data and to observe global patterns?
Would you argue "The founders of modern medicine used to deny the heart
pumped blood, so why should I believe my cardiologist?"
"We must alert and
organize the world's people to pressure world leaders to take specific steps
to solve the two root causes of our environmental crises - exploding
population growth and wasteful consumption of irreplaceable resources.
Over-consumption and overpopulation underlie every environmental problem we
face today." -- Jacques-Yves Cousteau, Oceanographer
"Also, did Malthus in
fact prophesy, or merely warn?" said O'Connor. (In which case the first
card is as false as the second). "And then, how specific were his
predictions of human numbers exceeding food supply, and how often has what he
warned about in fact occurred? Would yourefuse to believe eye-witness
accounts of famines on the grounds that someone once predicted a famine or
famines that didn't occur?
"By the time I've run
though these points, and then suggested the opposition should apologize for
using this misleading argument, they tend to look "tolerably
foolish". But note that it is important to start with the two
good-as-gold logical points: that one prophet being wrong doesn't mean all
prophets are wrong, and that if Malthus was simply the false prophet they
claim, he would not deserve the pre-eminence they have pretended to give him.
"But if you start
instead with the last point, and defend Malthus by saying that he wasn't
necessarily prophesying and wasn't necessarily wrong, it will sound like you
are defending a weak point in your own position. They will then contest your
defense of Malthus, and you will find yourself in the glue-pot, since the
more you defend Malthus the more you will seem to be conceding their basic
(and illogical) contention, that unless Malthus can be exonerated, no
subsequent prophesy or even observation of famine should be believed. Target
that absurdity first, and then mop up the minor dishonesties at leisure.
"Incidentally, the
main reason Malthus's expectation of continuing famines in the UK (as future
population outstripped future food supply) did not come true, is that during
and after the Napoleonic wars Britain and France emerged as pre-eminent
colonial powers, and proceeded to bleed each other white of young men. They
did this via a long series of land battles and sea battles, not to mention
the practices of sending troops and bureaucrats to tropical colonies where
they died like flies.
"Since in those days
single women tended not to have babies, population growth was much reduced.
As well, relations with the United States improved, so that even though the
US was lost as a colony, it obligingly took off a substantial proportion of
the UK's population (including the Irish who were starving after the potato
famine) as emigrants. Further Britain happened to emerge as the dominant
colonial power, and with complete control of the seas, and so could afford to
import food from other countries -- which to this day is the only thing that
keeps its bloated population from starving.
"It was not
improvements in C19th agriculture that kept up with population growth and
prevented the Malthusian famines occurring; it was the combination of death
in war, death from colonial diseases, and massive emigration to North
America. This unlikely combination of factors was not inevitable, and could
not in Malthus's day have been given a high probability of coming true. But
don't waste your breath explaining all this to those who don't want to
know."
The three-card trick is a
more elaborate version of the two-card. It goes like this:
1. Thomas Malthus was the
first or at least the greatest thinker to argue that population growth tends
to outgrow food and resources. (Largely true).
2. Malthus was a
pessimistic false prophet who prophesied a famine the British never
experienced. (Grossly unfair, as any good encyclopedia article on Malthus
will show. If that was all he was, he would not be the most famous thinker on
the subject, and the three-card trick would collapse at this point. In fact
Malthus did not claim to know the future, and he did not so much predict a
future famine as provide an intelligent account of existing famines -- and of
reasons they were likely to recur.)
3. Therefore those warning
of famine today are minor Malthuses, and even less worthy of respect. (Note
that even if the second card was valid, the conclusion would still be clearly
invalid.)
"In the debate-book
on population that I am currently (late 2011) writing for Pantera Press,
called Big Australia Yes/No?, my opponents are two "fellows" from
the rightwing Centre for Independent Studies. Their beguilingly gentle
version of the three-card trick begins: Thomas Malthus, an early 19th century
English philosopher, famously said that unchecked population growth would
lead to worldwide famine and disaster. Two hundred years later, entrepreneur
Dick Smith is running a similar line."
"In a brief right of
reply, my comment, which may or may not survive the editing and compression
process, is that they may have been innocently misled into repeating this
nonsense, but they should now distance themselves from it, and apologize.
World hunger is not an issue to dismiss with such glibness."
"The raging monster
upon the land is population growth. In its presence, sustainability is but a
fragile theoretical construct. To say, as many do, that the difficulties of
nations are not due to people, but to poor ideology and land-use management
is sophistic."
Harvard scholar and
biologist E.O. Wilson
Mark O'Connor
mark@Australianpoet.com
www.australianpoet.com
.....
Frosty Wooldridge has
bicycled across six continents - from the Arctic to the South Pole - as well
as six times across the USA, coast to coast and border to border. In 2005, he
bicycled from the Arctic Circle, Norway to Athens, Greece. He presents
"The Coming Population Crisis in America: and what you can do about
it" to civic clubs, church groups, high schools and colleges. He works
to bring about sensible world population balance at www.frostywooldridge.com
He is the author of: America on the Brink: The Next Added 100 Million
Americans. Copies available: 1 888 280 7715
|
No comments:
Post a Comment