Malthus is right after all

Thomas Malthus, the theologian who also became this country’s first professional economist in the 19th century — for the East India Company — wrote in 1798 that the human capacity to multiply exceeded the natural growth of food supply. Many people would therefore starve to death. Since then, Malthus has been scorned by those economists who believe in virtually unlimited economic growth  and, this morning, by Allister Heath, the deputy editor of the Daily Telegraph.

Malthus only had vague data for this country at the time.  If he’d had accurate data from this country and also from all round the world, he would have realised that although he was wrong about England at the time — and briefly — he was right in principle over the whole world.

By the time he wrote An Essay on the Principle of Population. the world had just reached a stable population of less than a billion. This had been  reached by means of man manually cultivating every square yard of the world’s surface that could grow food my manual methods — even in terraces up the steep sides of mountains. But the stable population also meant that a great many mothers would die in childbirth, a high death rate of young children and a high death rate of people who were worn out with labour by what we would call middle-age today.

Because of medical discoveries and better health care, we now have 7 billion people — which will inevitably grow to about 11 billion before (probably) stabilising — which already includes 5 billion without a sufficiently nutritious diet, of which 2  billion who don’t eat enough calories to do a full day’s work, of which at least 0.5 billion at any one time are close to starvation. In principle, Malthus was right — much more right than he was aware of at the time.

2 thoughts on “Malthus is right after all

  1. Rev Malthus was right — but only for the given conditions of his time. But technology has a way of changing the rules. In just a few decades technology will alter the rules of the game in ways that we cannot foresee.

    1. The problem with the Malthus question is that food means different things to different people. It is one thing for people to get by with a predominantly carbohydrate (either cereals or a potato-type) diet and another to have a nutritious balanced diet with adequate fruit, nuts, meat and/or fish. In the former case, many people can just about survive but with poor health and little or no surplus energy to do a full day’s work, ranging up to those who have a fully balanced diet. Today, only about 1.5 billion out of the 7 billion are in the latter category.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s