In: Economics
Why did Thomas Malthus argue that food production could never keep up with population growth?
Malthus argued the tendency of population to grow geometrically
while food production would increase only arithmetically.
For 200 years, economists have contended that Malthus overlooked
technological advancement, which would allow human beings to keep
ahead of the population curve. The argument is that food production
can indeed grow geometrically because production depends not only
on land but also on know-how. With advances in seed breeding, soil
nutrient replenishment (such as chemical fertilizers), irrigation,
mechanization and more, the food supply can stay well ahead of the
population curve. More generally, advances in technology in all its
aspects—agriculture, energy, water use, manufacturing, disease
control, information management, transport, communications—can keep
production rising ahead of population.
Another factor undermining Malthus’s argument, it would seem, is
the demographic transition, according to which societies move from
conditions of high fertility rates roughly offset by high mortality
rates to conditions of low fertility rates together with low
mortality rates. Malthus did not reckon with the advance of public
health, family planning, and modern contraception, which together
with urbanization and other trends, would result in a dramatic
decline in fertility rates to low levels, even below the
“replacement rate” of 2.1 children per household. Perhaps the human
population would avoid the tendency towards geometric growth
altogether.