Will Malthus always be wrong?

King_David

We know that Thomas Malthus theorized that the growth of human population will always be kept in check by war, famine, disease, etc. However, over two centuries have passed since he proposed his theory, and the human population around the globe has reached 6 billion. The large-scale collapses predicted by Malthus never occured.

kuroihikari

Population probably even increased exponentially since then

I think the reason it didn't work was because since Malthus's idea, there also was an exponential increase in resources used due to huge advancements in technology. When the "peak oil" scenario comes true we could see a change in the trend, but I also doubt if by that time we don't find another resource to exploit.

SamLowry

ironically, prosperity is turning out to be the most effective population control. most economically sound countries have lower birth rates.

SmartDessa

SamLowry wrote: »

ironically, prosperity is turning out to be the most effective population control. most economically sound countries have lower birth rates.

last I heard, it's the other way around

King_David

But I still na darating ang panahon na magkakatotoo ang teorya nya... kaya lang matatagalan pa... aabutin pa siguro ng libu-libong henerasyon

Hindi pa kasi naabot ng world population yung plateau phase... most likely nasa exponential phase pa lang tayo

SamLowry

SmartDessa wrote: »

last I heard, it's the other way around

Ah. Kaya pala overpopulated Japan, South Korea, singapore, and most of Western Europe.

SmartDessa

SamLowry wrote: »

Ah. Kaya pala overpopulated Japan, South Korea, singapore, and most of Western Europe.

actually, the problem is inefficient usage of resources.

ok lang na may 5 guys na makaubos ng isang friend chicken

kesa 1 guy na hita lang ang kakainin, tapos tapon na the rest.

Ghost Rider

King_David wrote: »

We know that Thomas Malthus theorized that the growth of human population will always be kept in check by war, famine, disease, etc. However, over two centuries have passed since he proposed his theory, and the human population around the globe has reached 6 billion. The large-scale collapses predicted by Malthus never occured.

It will happen eventually, but not as of the moment since we still have resources to use. Second, the advancement in technology and medicine helped people to live longer and multiply faster.

We should also view Garrett Hardin's concept of Tragedy of the Commons. There are many resources that we share and among them are potable water and marine resources. When these resources starts to decline, eventually a decline in human population will follow.

That's why the concept of sustainable development was introduce but sadly to say as of now, we humans are not practicing sustainable lifestyle. Maraming tao ang walang pakialam sa environment, so kahit anong advance ng technology, walang mangyayari.

Ghost Rider

SmartDessa wrote: »

actually, the problem is inefficient usage of resources.

ok lang na may 5 guys na makaubos ng isang friend chicken

kesa 1 guy na hita lang ang kakainin, tapos tapon na the rest.

Mali ang analogy mo, kung mag-isa ka lang, why cook 1 whole chicken na hindi mo naman kayang ubusin? Learn to practice sustainability, hindi porke't may resources ka uubusin mo ng isang biglaan, learn to think for the future.

Ang point ko, learn to manage your resources, hindi porke't "renewable" ang resources, aabusuhin mo ang gamit o magpaparami kayo.

Ang sobrang dami ng isnag species sa isang ecosystme ang sumisira sa sistema, nawawalan ng balanse at umaabot sa point na hindi na kaya ng carrying capacity, doon pumapasok ngayon ang concept ng overpopulation.

ZyklonBUnit731

America wasn't discovered yet when Malthus proposed his theories, and the threat of overcrowding in Britain was no laughing matter at the time. Although, if world leaders fail to redistribute resources in a cooperative manner in addition to equalizing the GINI coefficient-- a Malthusian disaster could take place in the distant future. Thankfully, we'll be long dead by the time such a dystopia ever occurs.

Ghost Rider wrote: »

That's why the concept of sustainable development was introduce but sadly to say as of now, we humans are not practicing sustainable lifestyle. Maraming tao ang walang pakialam sa environment, so kahit anong advance ng technology, walang mangyayari.

Exactamundo. The problem is, advanced nations tend to impose sustainable development initiatives at a drop of the hat without bothering to check if developing countries can keep up technologically. Solar powered facilities are a rarity here in the Philippines, and a vast majority of power firms here in the country are quite hesitant when it comes to adamantly integrating solar powered energy for the benefit of consumers. The same thing can be said for eco-friendly transport vehicles-- rarely a day passes by when I don't come across a gas belching jeepney on the road while commuting.

The good news is we're making an effort to shift to renewable energy, albeit at a glacial pace.

King_David

Ghost Rider wrote: »

It will happen eventually, but not as of the moment since we still have resources to use. Second, the advancement in technology and medicine helped people to live longer and multiply faster.

We should also view Garrett Hardin's concept of Tragedy of the Commons. There are many resources that we share and among them are potable water and marine resources. When these resources starts to decline, eventually a decline in human population will follow.

That's why the concept of sustainable development was introduce but sadly to say as of now, we humans are not practicing sustainable lifestyle. Maraming tao ang walang pakialam sa environment, so kahit anong advance ng technology, walang mangyayari.

Yeah it will happen... So the question now is "When?"

Of course we'll be already dead by that time...

King_David

Theoretically, he first principle of population dynamics definitely applies to human population...

P(t) = Poe^(rt),

* Po = P(0) = initial population,
* r = growth rate, sometimes also called Malthusian parameter,
* t = time.

We're also being governed by the principles of population ecology...

SmartDessa

Ghost Rider wrote: »

Mali ang analogy mo, kung mag-isa ka lang, why cook 1 whole chicken na hindi mo naman kayang ubusin? Learn to practice sustainability, hindi porke't may resources ka uubusin mo ng isang biglaan, learn to think for the future.

Ang point ko, learn to manage your resources, hindi porke't "renewable" ang resources, aabusuhin mo ang gamit o magpaparami kayo.

Ang sobrang dami ng isnag species sa isang ecosystme ang sumisira sa sistema, nawawalan ng balanse at umaabot sa point na hindi na kaya ng carrying capacity, doon pumapasok ngayon ang concept ng overpopulation.

wala naman akong analogy na binigay a.

at wala namang pagkakaiba sa point yung pinost natin e

at hindi naman ako yung kumain nung hita e, guy nga yun e, ano ka ba.

Ghost Rider

King_David wrote: »

Yeah it will happen... So the question now is "When?"

Of course we'll be already dead by that time...

Actually I think we are already getting there maybe we are already in the tipping point. There is a study that we need 4 earths to make all humans have a decent living.

I agree that there is an uneven distribution of resources, but I also believe that certain population growth and numbers should be imposed in a country/ area depending on the carrying capacity of the environment. The problem is people keep in multiplying even the resources in one area is scarce. Maraming nalilito dyan kaya akala nila walang overpopulation kasi malawak ang lupa (well magbasa ka ng RH Bill threads marami kang ma-encounter na ganyan mag-isip). Okay andyan din ang importation and exportation but since interconnected ang lahat ng bagay, it also creates a global effect scale on the planet.

Maaaring sa lifetime pa lang natin makita na natin eto, for example base on studies by 2020-2025 magkakaroon na ng kakulangan sa potable water ang Pilipinas, this can start our population to go down. Water-borne diseases will arise and deaths particularly to poor areas kung saan mataas ang population. The price of water can also present a great impact sa society, baka mag-start ng mag-isip ang mga tao na to manage their family size kung ang price ng basic needs will sky-rocket. War may also erupt.

One more yung marine resources, halos wala ng mahuli sa dagat, considered renewable resources pero what's happening, overgrazing kaya ayan.

Kaya marami ng ginawang mga programs to save forests and marine areas pati water resources, yan pa lang malaking evidence na dumadating na tayo sa point na nauubos na sa sobrang gamit ang resources.

kuroihikari

King_David wrote: »

Theoretically, he first principle of population dynamics definitely applies to human population...

P(t) = Poe^(rt),

* Po = P(0) = initial population,
* r = growth rate, sometimes also called Malthusian parameter,
* t = time.

We're also being governed by the principles of population ecology...

OT: But I find it funny that someone actually made a law with that equation. It's like when they discovered e and the derivative of ln, everyone had a field day creating laws based on that simple integral .

Paunahan na lang, hehe.

Ghost Rider

SmartDessa wrote: »

wala naman akong analogy na binigay a.

at wala namang pagkakaiba sa point yung pinost natin e

at hindi naman ako yung kumain nung hita e, guy nga yun e, ano ka ba.

Uy nagpapatawa si dessa, lol!

SmartDessa

Ghost Rider wrote: »

Uy nagpapatawa si dessa, lol!

anong nakakatawa don kaya?

Ateo

King_David wrote: »

We know that Thomas Malthus theorized that the growth of human population will always be kept in check by war, famine, disease, etc. However, over two centuries have passed since he proposed his theory, and the human population around the globe has reached 6 billion. The large-scale collapses predicted by Malthus never occured.

Malthus was immediately wrong when he failed to consider unprecedented improvement in food production and health care. So, his mathematical model was wrong. His broad theory though -- that increasing population is ultimately unsustainable and massive deaths will bring population to sustainable levels -- might come to reality eventually. I am looking at climate change at the key factor. Once the glaciers in the Himalayas dry up, two billions in South Asia will die in thirst. They won't die peacefully, of course, so massive global tumult precedes the deaths.

gs09

There is always the possibility of colonizing other planets to support the growing human population, but this is the kind of stuff put under science fiction for now.