In 1798, the Englishman Thomas Malthus published his book “An Essay on the Principle of Population”, which put forward the theory that uncontrolled population growth would lead to hunger throughout the world. The reasons for this conclusion were the assumption that population increases geometrically, while the means of subsistence grows arithmetically – in other words, much slower. According to Malthus, if the mankind does not start controlling the birthrate, population growth would be slowed down by more severe phenomena such as hunger, epidemics and wars
 |
| PHÎÒÎ: AP |
This doctrine had a major influence on the further development of biological, social and political sciences. In particular, it is from the book of Malthus that Charles Darwin drew the concept of “the struggle for existence”, putting it in the framework of his work “The Origin of Species. The Malthusian notion of “living space” was the foundation for the theories of sociologist Karl Haushofer, the founder of the German school of global politics (he was the founder and editor-in-chief of the magazine Geopolitik published in 1924-1944). He saw the task of each state in the expansion of this living space. In England in the 1870´s there was a movement for birth control. Later, not only liberals, but even members of the Labour promoted the reduction of birthrate as the main way to fight unemployment.
From whence comes the threat?
After World War II, the Malthusian theory was disproved. More precisely, the assumptions set as its base were proven to be groundless. Nevertheless, the myth started by Malthus that humanity faces global hunger due to overpopulation has been very tenacious. And not only among the extreme right-wing followers of the doctrine of living space, but also among representatives of organizations that consider themselves progressive. “Such environmentalists as the Worldwatch Institute, Greenpeace and the UN Population Fund say that ... if nothing is done to stabilize the world’s population, reduce the unconscious energy, food and other raw materials consumption and if we are not attempting as quickly as possible to limit the damage caused to the environment, the earth will be so crowded and devastated very soon and we will pay dearly for our neglect,” noted American historian Paul Kennedy.
Gerald Heilig of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria (IIASA) in his review “How many people can the Earth feed?” drew the conclusion that under reasonable assumptions the Earth can sustain 15-25 billion for a long time to come. After a detailed analysis of opportunities and constraints of agricultural production Heilig concluded: “The notion of physical limits to growth is a false notion. It provides an opportunity to technocrats from agriculture to deny the fundamental problems of increasing global food production. We need, therefore, more serious arguments to convince people that global food production has its limits.”
Mankind does not face a problem of global hunger, rather the problem of extremely low investment in agriculture in the poorest (and therefore most prone to famine) regions of the world. Paradoxically, the agrarian Asia, Africa and Latin America, where half the agricultural workforce is concentrated, were unable to provide themselves with food, while in developed countries this problem is resolved by 10% or less of the population engaged in farming. In developing countries, an agricultural worker feeds two people at most, whereas in Western countries more than 20 people, in particular, in the U.S. – 80 and in Belgium and Netherlands – 100. The situation is compounded by the fact that to this day the priority in agriculture in developing countries is given to export crops (such as coffee and tea) and food production remains at the level of traditional semi-natural farms and the best land has always been seized under plantation. Besides that, a sharp increase in food exports from developed countries has been observed.
British economist Amartya Sen, a native of India (Nobel Prize winner in 1998) affirms: “All famines in the modern world could have been prevented.” He further stressed that there has never been a really massive famine in democratic countries. One of the factors, which strengthens the negative impact of hunger, Sen calls censorship, as in countries where access to information is not artificially restricted by the authorities, famine is a much rarer phenomenon. According to Sen, “hunger is so easy to prevent it is a surprise it still exists.”
Who’s to feed the mankind
In recent decades, the population growth rate on the planet has slowed down. The shortest amount of time was needed for the emergence of six billion earthlings – 12 years (1987-1999). According to the latest forecast of the U.S. Census Bureau, the seventh billion will require 13 years (1999-2012), the eighth – 14 years (2012-2026) and the ninth – 18 years (2026-2044). The annual increase of 1.12% in 2009 should fall by 2019 to 0.95% and by 2049 to 0.45%, meaning the in 2050 the world population will be 9.284 billion. The UN forecasts that by 2200 the number of people on the planet will stabilize at around 10 billion.
Forecasts of food production do not go that far in time. A month ago the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) issued a joint agricultural forecast for the period 2010-2019. It argues that in the next decade the volume of agricultural production in the world will grow by 22%. This means that the average annual growth rate of agricultural production will be almost twice the population growth rate on the planet. According to the forecast, the highest growth in agricultural production will be demonstrated by Brazil (40%), Ukraine (29%), Russia (26%), China (26%) and India (21%). At the same time, this growth rate in the U.S. and Canada will be only 10-15% and in EU countries – less than 4%.
Printable version
