Population models

It is possible you will be asked about the consequences of Population growth. Firstly, it is important that
you appreciate two contrasting viewpoints.

The first is from Malthus, who was writing at the end of the 18th century. He believed that only bad could
come from population growth. Population he said grows faster than food supply. This he said was because
food supply can only grow arithmetically, for example, 1 then 2 then 3-4-5-6-7-8 but, population grows
geometrically 2-4-8-16-32-64.

Consequently, there is no way food supply can keep up with population growth.

Population grows exponentially, for example, 1-2-4-8-16-32-64.

Food supply grows arithmetically, for example, 1-2-3-4-5-6.

Therefore, population will inevitably exceed food supply.

He then went on two say that there are two possible outcomes.

Firstly, he said population could exceed food supply only to be positively "checked" (reduced) by famine,
war, and disease.

* Population exceeds food supply and is kept in check by war, famine, or disease. It then
drops below the food supply. As the population recovers, so the cycle continues.
Alternatively, the population could pre-empt the food shortages and so slow their population growth
keeping it within the limits of the food supply. Malthus called these negative checks. These negative checks
would include later marriages and abstinence from sex (Remember Malthus was writing before wide spread
contraception!). People would make these decisions sub-consciously as food prices increased and standard
of living fell.

* Here, as population starts to approach the limits of the food supply, so growth slows.
Malthus says this slowing is caused by delayed marriage.

Boserup, on the other hand, said that food supply would increase to accommodate population growth. As a
population found that they were approaching food shortages they would identify ways of increasing supply
whether through new technology, better seeds, new farming methods. In the graph you can see that
food supply will increase with population:

* Boserup argues that as the population approaches the limits of the food supply, that food
supply increases as new technology improves yeilds.

So who is correct? The following table lists arguments for both sides:
Evidence for Malthus: Evidence for Boserup:

Famines are frequently happening in less developed There is enough food to feed the world - this is an
world countries. These are also often in countries that indisputable fact. The problem lies with distribution
have a fast growing population. - it is not always where it is needed.

Whilst a very old theory Malthus can be adapted for

Famine is more likely to be the result of a natural
today if we say that increasing population cannot be
disaster, war or the country growing too many
sustained by the environment. The 'Club of Rome'
cash crops. Cash crops are grown to sell overseas -
applies Malthusian ideas to the modern world and says
such as cotton or tea. In times of famine the
that if population continues to grow our attempts to
countries are often producing large cash crop
cater for it will lead to great environmental disasters.
harvests. They need the money to try and pay off
This would include global warming, oil spillage, ozone
foreign debts.
depletion, desertification.

Malthusian supporters argue that everything at the New farming machinery and re-organisation has
moment may appear ok but this doesn't mean we greatly increased the efficiency of farms and
won't face future disasters. consequently the yields.

A lot of people believe that future conflicts could be

The green revolution produced seeds that could
fought over water supplies. Is Malthus' idea correct
increase yields by up to eight times.
except that he should have replaced food with water?