In his Essay on the Principle of Population, Malthus addressed the concern for the human population's growth and the toll that it would eventually take on the resources available to sustain it. Claiming that population would experience "geometric growth," while resources (i.e. food supply) would only grow at "arithmetic growth." (Backhouse 134) Malthus begins with providing two sources to handle population growth. Through preventative checks lowering the birth rate (misery) and positive checks increasing the death rate (vice), Malthus proposed to format a type of population control. In a further addition of the Essay, he added the last category of moral restraint to his other solutions for population growth, thereby covering for his evidence lacking in supporting facts. (134) Failing to have an optimistic outlook on human nature, Malthus tried to give moral guidance through his controls on population. (135)
While Malthus did have a point about population growth becoming a problem, he failed to bring the factor of technology into his discussion. Technology allows for an exponential increase in resources, thereby allowing for a larger population growth than Malthus would have otherwise predicted. Lacking this factor, the population situation would have indeed been concerning. However, with the factor of technology, this concern need not have been as pressing.
Technology aside, there is a larger question that I see here, and that would be the ethics inherent in population control. When Malthus gives examples of misery through war and famine, and then vice through war, infanticide, prostitution, and contraception, he seems cold and cruel to the humanity present I would consider as present in this situation. (134) Ethically could you really control the ability of one to have children or use their body as they see fit? Are natural rights a factor in his argument at all?
Malthus was wrong in one other respect. Like the Industrial Revolution, he had now way of seeing this coming so we can, perhaps, cut him some slack.
ReplyDeleteAt higher levels of income, nations and people tend toward smaller family-size. This is because they no longer need children to ensure security in their old age. They can rely on savings.
I found Malthus's observation on the checks and consequences of population to be something valuable, I too, recognize his underestimation of the power of technology. I think we all recognize that we are dealing with limited natural resources, which is what Malthus saw along with a rising population. Technology has allowed us to more efficiently use these resources, exponentially expanding their lifespans. Malthus failed to account for this technological effect, however I do view his point as valid because at some point, whether it be now or centuries down the road it is logical to think that we will exhaust the resources we need on this planet to survive. This, I view, is an extreme miscalculation on the part of Malthus as to the power technology would have.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the natural rights question, I don;t necessarily believe that natural rights play a factor in Malthus's argument. I believe his vices and checks on population are observations as to how societies were operating, more than solutions. As far as human rights control in general, I believe that although not right, it is feasible to control the ability of those to have children in a rather closed society if you use enough punishment and oppression when dealing with the people. Ethically, however, I do not feel as though you can control individual's decisions to have children or use their body as they see fit. Ultimately it comes down to the role of the state. Is it there to protect the individuals of society, or try to run society in a way it sees fit to benefit the whole rather than each individual. It seems as Malthus is looking at a way of maximizing the whole.
The level of the population is definitely an economic issue. With or without advancements in technology, the increasing population will eventually outstrip some of the lands natural resources. A large population also affects a country’s ability for economic growth. In one of my other courses I am studying India, which is currently the second most populated country and is expected to be the most populated within the next decade. Although India has seen several decades of economic growth greater than five percent, it struggles to improve the conditions of majority of its citizens because the population is too great for the country’s resources. With such a large population, India is going to have trouble improving the conditions of its citizens, even as new technologies are introduced. That being said, I do not think that, in attempting to deal with this situation, India should regulate individuals’ reproductive rights (they did enforce compulsory sterilization during the 1970s). I do not think that it would be ethical for the government to get involved in deciding what an individual does with their body, whether or not they have children, or how many children they have. At the same time, I am sure that there are individuals who would say that it is unethical for a population to be allowed to reproduce beyond its means and continue to make conditions worse for the millions of individuals who already live in poverty. Being that population is definitely an economic concern, I think that it is important that the government provide access to preventative measures, as well as education about population control. It should not, however, be involved in any legal regulation of reproduction and family size.
ReplyDelete