Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on September 3, 2014
Will Malthus Eventually Be Right?
One of the more wrong-headed predictions of a famous 19th century thinker, Thomas Malthus, was that because world population would grow more rapidly than food production, mankind faced a bleak future of mass starvation. Continued improvements in farming have proved him wrong despite a mushrooming of population growth since Malthus issued his doomsday forecast.
I’ve been thinking of Malthus again lately as I’ve reading Dan Brown’s latest thriller, Inferno. I won’t give away the story – and it is a great read — but just tease you that a resurrection of Malthusian economics lies at the heart of it.
As world population, now about 7 billion, heads toward maybe 10 billion in 2050, is there any chance that Malthus may eventually be right? Not for the foreseeable future, according to some of the latest thinking at the OECD, the research think tank of rich-world governments based in Paris.
This isn’t to say everything is perfect. There are parts of the world where people are starving, either because of war or bad economic policies, or both. In addition, the OECD warns that future climate change could lead to disruptions, or higher food prices at the very least.
Actually, the higher food prices go, the less worried we have to be worried about Malthus. Higher prices are always the inducement to innovation, much as necessity is the mother of invention. Continued innovation has proved Malthus wrong so far, and as long as markets are allowed to function, Malthus will continue to be wrong.
Robert Litan is a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the author of “Trillion Dollar Economists.” He is on Twitter: @BobLitan.
20 Comments on "Will Malthus Eventually Be Right?"
Plantagenet on Wed, 3rd Sep 2014 3:01 pm
LIMITS TO GROWTH—the famous study by the Club of Rome— predicts that Malthus will be proved right in about 20 years.
nemteck on Wed, 3rd Sep 2014 3:31 pm
“the higher food prices go, the less worried we have to be worried about …”. That is macabre but true, because so much more will die and the world population will decrease. And the survivors will have more food.
kervennic on Wed, 3rd Sep 2014 3:32 pm
If you would let the market to function i should be able to sell crack, heroin and machine guns in kindergarden
longtimber on Wed, 3rd Sep 2014 5:18 pm
http://washingtonexaminer.com/new-isis-threat-americas-electric-grid-blackout-could-kill-9-of-10/article/2552766
Got Juice? Need Juice?
Hugh Culliton on Wed, 3rd Sep 2014 5:25 pm
“Continued innovation has proved Malthus wrong so far, and as long as markets are allowed to function, Malthus will continue to be wrong.”
Innovation doesn’t substitute for energy. The market’s are hopelessly gamed, and everyone who has ever predicted that their society is beyond any natural or historic constraints have inevitably been proven wrong.
Kylon on Wed, 3rd Sep 2014 5:32 pm
As long as you have sufficient energy you can ramp up food via one process or another. With sufficient invention and innovation in OTEC and solar technology I believe we could produce all the energy we need to maintain an increasing quality of life in a sustainable manner(for the nearterm future). Unfortunately due to a number of factors I don’t believe we will ever get to that point. Rather I believe that nature will take it’s course, and the population will collapse. The default position of societies is not to invent, or do manhattan project type projects to fix their problems. The default is for those in power to direct the population to kill the population of another country, while the ruling class in the other country does the same. This potentially frees up resources and enriches those at the top who happen to win, while not really solving any problems long term, while wasting massive amounts of resources human and otherwise that could have been directed towards a sustainable solution.
So while a population collapse due to resource constraints isn’t inevitable, it’s highly likely.
Makati1 on Wed, 3rd Sep 2014 7:47 pm
Another “tech can save the day, if only” person. The “if only” is the Satan in their religion. Fun to read their dreams…if only.
With a few changes in what we eat and who eats it, there would be enough food to keep 8 or 9 billion of us happy and healthy, but ‘for profit’ capitalism and greed prevents that. Just cutting the amount of beef we eat by 50% would provide grain for another billion people. Take the extra calories consumed by the obese and overweight consumers and give them to the starving, and you would level out the food chain.
Maybe I will live to see that day. I can only hope. But, I doubt it. If only…
trickydick on Wed, 3rd Sep 2014 9:33 pm
Would be interesting to see WWIII be fought with only solar power. They could only fight from 10am to 4pm each day and the tanks would be able to drive only about 1 mile per day. No power to spare for running B-2 bombers or F-117 fighters. It could be the first green war, an eco-friendly war.
Will war die off without oil? I mean the kind of modern warfare from WWI and beyond. I suppose we’d have to shoot off all the existing nukes first and use up all the gas and oil on mobilizing tanks and helicopters. THEN it would end.
Kevin Cobley on Wed, 3rd Sep 2014 9:36 pm
Mathematics is the only truth, because every concept is proven. Nothing is Opinion or Hypothesis(the word people should be using in lieu of the commonly used theory).
Mathematics will always defeat politics and publicity.
SilentRunning on Wed, 3rd Sep 2014 10:47 pm
I’ve never heard a self-satisfied pompous economist or worshipper on the altar of free markets explain how the population of this finite planet can go on multiplying at an exponential rate, until every atom on the planet has to be part of a human body.
Indeed, in only 10,000 years of exponential growth of *only* 1%, EVERY ATOM IN THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE has to be part of a human body! This is a mathematical fact.
So either these Malthus poo-pooers are ignorant of mathematics – or they KNOW that a population crash is inevitable following their course, and they just are being dishonest turds.
Richard Ralph Roehl on Wed, 3rd Sep 2014 11:59 pm
By 2050… the United States of Perpetual War Profiteering is projected to have a population nearing a half billion people.
And statistical demographic studies ignoring the carrying capacity of the Earth claim the U.S. population will exceed ONE BILLION baboony consumers by 2100… with the majority of them speaking Spanish.
Behold the bizarre insanity of the Amerikan dream: mindless profligate consumption of planetary resources… and perpetual war.
HARM on Thu, 4th Sep 2014 1:14 am
“Behold the bizarre insanity of the Amerikan dream: mindless profligate consumption of planetary resources… and perpetual war.”
It’s hardly only an American thing –we’re just a lot better at it than most countries.
HARM on Thu, 4th Sep 2014 1:17 am
In other news,
The Laws of Thermodynamics have been officially repealed.
Trees really *do* grow to the sky.
Universe space-time expansion nullifies “finite Earth” theory.
After wishing in one hand and $hitting in another, WSJ op-ed writer finds his ‘wishing hand’ full.
Richard Ralph Roehl on Thu, 4th Sep 2014 5:17 am
HARM:
Hooray! Phuck! Phuck! Hooray! We’re number one! We’re number one!
Amerikans are number one… at mindless profligate material consumption of planetary resources and perpetual war! And you’re proud of that?
RRR
Ralph on Thu, 4th Sep 2014 6:02 am
Silent running, I checked the numbers and you are wrong – you need 1.2% annual growth…
Davy on Thu, 4th Sep 2014 6:53 am
We are at the Malthusian point now for most of the world and this includes most of the middle class in the rich world. The 1%’ers are not feeling it. I like to look at things systematically. The systematic point of bifurcation of our complex global system that all our delocalized locals depend on in a dangerous co-dependence with the global is near. Sure we have food, energy, resources, and the systematic organization to run our global world as-is but there is no sustainability and or resilience in this construct. IOW we are at great risk of a bifurcating contraction with no hope of a reboot at levels of complexity we currently enjoy. Once complexity is lost it will be gone for good never to return this is because the complexity we see today is hyper and extended. With the loss of complexity will come the loss of distributive and productive capacity to maintain our current economic levels. Our current economic levels are absolutely necessary to maintain complexity and population. We will see real and concrete limits of growth with liquid fuel and food shortages. We currently are not in food and fuel shortages but tell me that we are not close to that point and I will laugh. We may be able to continue our bumpy plateau with food and fuel. The reality is food and fuel are what matters. Every indication is these two vitals are under stress but not yet in shortage. If this were the only problem we maybe would have several years of concerted effort to conserve both of these vitals. Instead we have multiple predicaments that are converging and reinforcing into a Mega Human Predicament. This will ensure we do not have the treasure, cooperation, and time to ensure the vitals of food and fuel are not disrupted. Our vital financial system and geopolitical system are fracturing as we speak. If confidence is lost our complex intensive global system cannot maintain the current level of complexity and production required to maintain economic activity. Without the current economic activity food and fuel levels cannot be maintained. Growth is not possible without food and fuel growth. Just look at any large complex organizations and it is apparent when moral is lost the management degrades and productivity falls. Militaries are prime examples. We can probably continue the wealth transfer to maintain the wealthy for a time but how stable is that. We see with corporations and armies what happens when you hollow out the core structures of the workers and troops. I think the Malthusian question is when not if. I see this whole process like water phase change. Our BAU is undergoing destructive change that has been gradual like water warming to a boil. When the water boils the real contraction will begin.
henriksson on Thu, 4th Sep 2014 8:10 am
There’s a difference between sustainable improvements and non-sustainable ones. Food being grown by using nitrogen derived from natural gas, phosphorus from minerals and tractors made by coal and fueled by oil, it is not sustainable.
JuanP on Thu, 4th Sep 2014 8:37 am
Attention! Deep insight from the WSJ:
“Continued innovation has proved Malthus wrong so far, and as long as markets are allowed to function, Malthus will continue to be wrong.”
And they get paid for this, too!
Jerry McManus on Thu, 4th Sep 2014 12:23 pm
“as long as markets are allowed to function”
I think people have missed the real significance of this statement. It is the ultimate “cover-your-ass” (CYA) moment.
Think about it, this one little snippet of propaganda is laying the groundwork for an entire industry of finger-pointing by the cornucopian acolytes.
When the days of plenty come crashing down with apocalyptic thunder, the pointy-headed economists will all be able to wail, in unison:
“Not our fault! You didn’t let the markets function!”
Makati1 on Thu, 4th Sep 2014 9:03 pm
Have to agree with you on this one Davy.