Malthus and Population

PREVENTIVE

MEDICINE

4, 378-383

(1975)

A Corner Malthus

of History

and Population

Thomas Robert Malthus, the political economist, was born in England in 1766, educated at Jesus College, Cambridge, where he read mathematics, French and English history, and literature, and was elected to a fellowship in 1793. He took orders in 1797, as was customary for younger sons, and held a curacy for a brief period of time. In 1805 he married and was appointed professor of modern history and political economy, the first appointment of its kind in England, at the East India Company’s college at Haileybury. He retained his professorship throughout his lifetime and died at Haileybury in 1834, the same year of the passage of the Poor Law Amendment, which owed its restrictive aspects to Malthusian ideas. Due to the growing need for industrial workers, the welfare provisions of the original Poor Laws tended to encourage population growth. In 1807 Malthus argued, in an open letter to Samuel Whitbread, M. P., who was attempting to reform the Poor Laws, that the population would always increase to the limit of “the means of subsistence” and that, therefore, the housing benefits should be restricted, although educational and other welfare benefits should be maintained. His primary fame today rests with his theory that our society would be eventually destroyed because the uncontrolled population, increasing geometrically, would always be greater than the available food supply, which would increase only arithmetically. In 1798, stimulated by discussions with his father who, although disagreeing, encouraged him to write down his ideas, Malthus published a pamphlet, the cover of which is shown in Fig. 1. The pamphlet, published anonymously, had an immediate impact, and though Malthus did not present any new data, he strongly opposed the contemporary view that underpopulation rather than overpopulation was the chief problem of the day. He soon became known as the author of the tract, and when the 1801 census provided some evidence of significant population increases, Malthus enlarged his pamphlet into a book, which was published in 1803. This book had a new subtitle (differing from the one shown in Fig. 1) that read: “A view of past and present effects on human happiness with an inquiry into our prospects respecting the future removal or mitigations of the evils which it occasions.” Thus the tract turned into a major treatise on the subject of demography. The book underwent several revisions, with the sixth, and last, edition published in 1826. It is not within the scope of this article to argue Malthus’s thesis, which itself has undergone much debate since it first appeared, Recently the World Conference on Food in Rome and the World Population Conference in Bucharest aired both the scientific and political aspects of these issues. Rather than discussing this obviously important subject in detail, with its economic, medical, and politi378 Copyright 0 1975 by Academic Press, Inc. AU rights of reproduction in any form resewed.

A CORNER OF HISTORY

379

ESSAY

PRJNCJPLE

OF POPULATION, *I m ll,lCT,

THE FUTURE

IMPROVEMENT WIT”

OF SOCIETY,

IPMIRKI

ON THE SPEC”LATIONS OF MR. conwlN, M. CONDORCET, AND OTHER WRlTERS.

1798.

FIG. 1. Cover page of Malthus’s pamphlet, “An Essay on the Principle of Population,” published in 1798.

cal ramifications, we have chosen to present to the reader of “A Corner of History” some historical facts about Malthus, an opportunity to read from the printed pages of his first edition in 1798 (Figs. 2,3), and then take a jump of nearly 200 years to read from the contents of the report “Malthus and America” by the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture, the title page of which is shown in Fig. 4. The Introduction to this 1974 report reads as follows: The purpose of this report is to inform you and to make you think about the food-population equation. We mean to first inform the Congress and the public about the existence of problems that rank in enormity and complexity with none other in the history of the human species. Then we seek to begin to define more precisely some of the basic questions that Americans must answer, one way or another, right now or soon. The Subcommittee found, as many scholars and thinkers have already discovered, that the problems occasioned by the growth of humanity are indeed most diverse. The Subcommittee found that there isn’t even a single problem, much less a single answer, for nearly uncountable variations of the numerology of people as compounded by rising affluence and inflation throughout a world being molded or remolded by a technology that both cures and sickens us all. The unrelentless growth of the numerical mass of human beings in our world “lily pond” forces all of us to an intellectual state where we must ask ourselves: What is it doing in our ethical and moral standards? What is it doing to the earth’s “commons” otherwise known as our environment? What is it doing to our political, social, and cultural system? What is it doing to both our standard and our style of life? What is it doing to the national strength and safety of our great republic? Do we humans live, as has been popularly noted, in a “spaceship earth” or are we Americans luckily adrift in a “lifeboat” surrounded by a sea of hungry people as described by Garrett Hardin?

380

A CORNER OF HISTORY

Will you and 1 as American citizens some day have to participate in the choice of “Food Triage” similar to that facing a combat surgeon in war? Or can we putt with a clear conscience on a golf green fertilized by ammonia that could be used to grow wheat in Bihar? Are we Americans the ants of the world . or are we the grasshoppers . or does the answer to that question depend on whether we talk about grain or about metals? What then should be our export and import priorities in terms of agriculture, in terms of foreign policy, and yes, in terms of humanitarian ideals and how do we select those priorities while avoiding what Secretary Butz has identified as “apocalyptic nonsense”? Is the great historian Arnold Toynbee right when he says “The wartime austerity was temporary; the future austerity will be perennial, and it will become progressively more severe.“? Or is there, as Elliot Janeway says, “Bad news on the food front, but not for America.“? And, oh yes, is this report and these hearings and theorems set forth in current public dialogue an echo from the grave of Thomas Malthus or is it merely another cry of “wolf’ that can be mastered by the magic of science and the adaptability of man? Think about it, Congress. Think about it, America.

It may well be asked how far we have come in understanding the problem of population control as so eloquently voiced by Malthus. It is obvious today, as in Malthus’s time, that there are “positive” checks such as war, famine, and pestilence that increase death rates and there are “preventive” checks such as abortion, infanticide, and birth control that reduce birth rates. Although the actual checking mechanisms have changed significantly over the last century and a half, and to this day vary from population to population, the basic concepts Assuming I say,

then, my postulata

that

the

indefinitely earth

power

greater

to produce

of

as granted,

of population

is

than the power in the subsistence

life

and

when

in a geometrical creases

only

A slight shew

ratio. in

immensity

in comparison that

increases

Subsistence

an

arithmetical

acquaintance

the

By

unchecked,

with

numbers

of the

inratio.

first

will power

of the second. law

of

makes food necessary

our

nature

which

to the life of man,

the effects of these two

unequal

powers

must be kept equal.

room

This

implies

a strong

check

difficulty

of subsistence.

and

constantly

on population This

from

the

difficulty

years.

all

pervading

trains

them within

The

race

tive

law.

not,

by

from

it.

is an

sequence,

portion

of mankind.

dantly haps,

Through kingdoms, FIG.

the nature

animal

and

has scattered

and

expand

in,

would

fill

law

that

and

the great

the

race

efforts

plants

The

canescape

is a highly

but

to be called

probable

sary consequence.

is to resist all temptation

The

con-

see it abun-

it ought

the seeds

misery,

consequence

an absolutely

vegetable

its and

mankind,

former,

necessary

;

man

and animals

Among

vice.

of

restric-

reason,

and we therefore

prevail

race

of seed, sickness,

death.

Vice

of

of

rcs-

bounds.

this

And

impc-

of nature,

under

absolutely

of it.

felt by a large

food,

the prescribed

Among

must fall some where ; and must neces-

in

ample

plants,

and

them.

with

Necessity,

are waste

misery

rear contained

of

premature

com-

and the

shrink any

profuse

in the course of a few

thousand

sarily

be severely

to

of worlds

animals

to

existence

rious

effects operating

of

this spot of earth, millions

most

in the room,

necessary

germs

ample

the

She has been

sparing

nourishment

for man.

with

hand.

paratively The

Population,

abroad

liberal

ordeal

not,

perneces-

of virtue

to evil.

2. Excerpt from Chapter 1 of “An Essay on the Principle of Population.”

381

A CORNER OF HISTORY But

to make

neral, tial

views

whole were

that for

was

be increased

to by

world

would

allow

time would

than exer-

of the world

a thousand

112,

2, 3.

for

would

in-

2, 4. 8, 16, kc.

and

sub-

4. 5. 6, 7. 8, 9.

In two centuries would

at

millions,

species

256,

and a quarter,

be to the means of

THE

cen-

to 13 ; and in two thouwould

be almost

the produce

have increased

greater

32,

128,

and

possible

of--r,

as-t,

in

unlimited,

any

ratio

64.

this

much

the population human

the

;

of production

crease in the

as 512 to to : in three

though

to what

could make it.

the

affords

produces

tions of mankind

number,

the sub-

twenty-five

that

IO, 6x.

incalculable,

the power

of increase

the population

sand years the difference

If earth

equal

its ratio

sistence

as 4096

to population

every

at present

spot,

we can conceive

instance,

turies

and

the

to be absolutely

Taking

ON

that

the earth

any

ESSAY

man

a quantity

whole

the

one

removed.

sistence

gepar-

let us take of

the restraints

universally

years

AN

instead

more by the

of emigration,

earth,

suppose

subsistence

the argument

and less interrupted

in that

to an immense

extent.

Among pelled

productions

whatever

are placed

of the earth ; they

may in-

crease for ever and be greater assignable

quantity

of population order.

are all im-

by a powerful

instinct

to the in-

crease of their is interrupted

be kept

which

ccunmen~urate

to the

of the means of subsistence,

of necessity

acting

The

the power

of the strong

as a check

upon

and

species ; and this instinct by no reasoning,

providing

for

therefore

or doubts

their

there

of increase

superabundant wards

species

operation

power

any

of the human

the constant greater

than

being a power of a superior

the increase

can only increase

: yet still

to the

the view of

They

about limits

and animals

is simple.

Wherever No

plants

the subject

offspring.

is liberty,

is exerted

;

and

the the

effects are repressed after-

by want of mom and nourishment, is common among

to animals

animals,

by

and plants ;

becoming

the

prey of others.

by law the

power. effects of this check

remain

now

to be considered.

FIG. 3. Excerpt from Chapter 2 of “An Essay on the Principal of Population.”

proposed by Malthus continue to receive much attention today. It is claimed that overpopulation, at least in certain parts of the world, together with increasing demands for foodstuffs and raw materials are factors with which the world cannot cope. Have modern technology and mass food production, which are aspects of today’s problem that could hardly have been foreseen by Malthus, reached the

382

A CORNER

OF

HISTORY

MALTEUSANDAMERICA

A REPORT

AROUT

FOOD AND PROPLR

BT THI

OPEBATIONS Wlw COMMITTEE ON AQRICULTURE HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES

SWCOFdMITTEE

ON DEPARTMENT

FIG. 4. Cover page of the report “Malthus and America” by the Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives, 1974.

“end of the line,” and does the arithmetical:geometrical proportion of food supply and populatioq increase that worried Malthus finally apply today? A few facts from the Committee on Agriculture’s report, under the heading, “Population and the Demand for Food,” will serve to illustrate this: The earth’s population is growing at such a fantastic rate that all of us are going to be drastically affected by that phenomenon. A quick look at how fast our world’s population is growing tells us that. From the time man-creatures first stood erect until the year 1830, there were less than one billion people in the world. In the next 100 years a second billion souls appeared. In the next 30 years (by 1960) a third billion was present and accounted for. In the next 15 years (by 1975) the fourth billion will be here. In the next decade (by 1985) we can look forward to meeting the fifth billion of our fellow humans. By the end of this century we can expect 6.5 to 7.5 billion people on our globe at the present rate of growth. And if current rates were to prevail, our lineal descendants would, during the following century, populate the earth with 37 billion folks . . . a number staggering to even our most fanciful imagination. Take some key countries: l&a-now with a population of 650 million and growing by twelve million plus per year-can look to the year 2000 to having over a billion people within her borders. Bangladesh-a nation the size of the State of Wisconsin-is expected to have almost as many people within its borders by the year 2000 as now populate the entire United States

A CORNER

383

OF HISTORY

Mexico-our good neighbor to the south, with 48 percent of her population under the age of 15-will have approximately 1.3 billion inhabitants in another century if present population trends continue. And so it goes in nearly every developing country of the world-the unrelenting geometry of human growth! Even though population growth continues to be rapid and is causing severe problems in parts of the world today, rising tiuence now has emerged as another claimant on the world’s food-producing resources. The impact of population growth on the demand for food is easy to understand. A 3 percent increase in population generates a 3 percent increase in the demand for food, but the impact of rising affluence complicates the picture and is not as easily understood. One method of measuring the affluence factor is in terms of per capita grain requirements. For example, in the less developed countries, approximately 400 pounds of grain per year is available to the average person, nearly all of which must be consumed directly merely to meet minimal food energy needs. Very little of this grain can be converted into livestock products. Contrast this example to the average North .r\merican who uses nearly a ton of grain per year. Of this ton, less than 200 pounds is consumed directly as bread, pastry, and breakfast cereal. The remaining 1800 pounds plus is consumed indirectly in the form of meat, milk and eggs. Thus, the average North American currently uses up five times as many agricultural resources as the average Indian, Nigerian or Colombian.

of America.

In many parts of the world today, from Sahelian Africa to Bangladesh, food shortages have already led to large-scale starvation. Is this, as well as the present energy crisis, a warning to the world to take preventive action now? Or will this society continue to live from moment to moment and run from crisis to crisis and leave it to future generations to pay for our negligence? Preventive approaches have always been less popular than therapeutic regimens, but in cases where a therapeutic prescription is too late, should we not give preventive measures a chance? ERNST

L.

WYNDER