Letters to the Editor
-
Malthus' "vice" or Ferguson's?
It seems that Ferguson is just borrowing Malthus' definition of "vice" without necessarily adopting it. He does offer a disclaimer, of sorts, by saying that Malthus' viewpoint is that of a minister, circa 200 years ago. It doesn't appear to be the case, based on this missive, that Ferguson truly considers family planning a vice.
-
Reading Malthus would help
Although the operative word is in the quote compressing Malthus thesis, neither Ferguson nor anybody else[sorry, Mr Ferguson] seems to note it: 'if unchecked'.
Whatever the Catholic church, Muslim, Jewish and Protestant fundamentalists want and declare a deathly sin, in all Western and Eastern highly developed countries population grwos is checked. We do use several forms of family planning - and they have not been declared 'sin' by Malthus.
In third world countries the situation is different, though limited resources are the primary limiting factor, obviously these haven't been reached, yet - neither natural ones nor artificial ones through foreign aid.
-
Maybe you need to cut down on those free cocktails yourself?
Throw in some free cocktails every time some declares that "Malthus was right" and you could be living large for the rest of your natural-born life. (Thanks to Mark Thoma for the link.)
Every time some what declares that "Malthus was right"?
Walrus? Christian? Anonymous Salon poster?
No more drinking without an editor.
Besides, since when did alcoholism become "living large"?
I think you probably meant "enlarged liver."
Editor!!!
-
Malthus was a genius
See, Malthus is always right. If human population outstrips resources, it is because we reproduce faster than our technology allows us to increase food production. If it doesn't, it is because the "invisible Malthusian hand" is causing us to voluntarily reduce our population growth. Brilliant. I wish I could come up with such an elegantly unfalsifiable hypothesis.
-
Malthus
Although I usually find myself in agreement with Mr. Leonard, I'm afraid I have to disagree with his take on Ferguson's analysis. Two thing: First, the use of the word 'vice' is trivial. If Ferguson wants to call abortion and birth control 'vice,' who cares? Substitute another word of your choice and examine the argument on it's merits, not on word choice.
But the second and more serious problem with Mr. Leonard's analysis is twofold. First, he seems to want to deny that population is growing at a dangerous level. Certainly, in first world countries, population growth has declined. But in India? China? Mexico? Indonesia? Bangladesh? In my lifetime (58 years) population of the world has gone from 2.5 billion to 6.5 billion. Perhaps this is not totally 'geometric' but it is certainly not some slow, incremental change.
But the end of the article echoes an oft repeated assertion that implies that as the underdeveloped nations 'develop,' their birth rate goes down. So we have nothing to worry about? All we need to do, apparently, is let China and India develop to the level of Western Europe and everything will be just swell. I would suggest that the chances of this happening are about as good as the Earth being invaded by Extraterrestrials who impose mandatory population limits.
Even IF the whole world becomes affluent, magically, can the planet support 6.5+ billion people living at 1st world levels of consumption? Of course it can't. It can't even tolerate the current levels of consumption and waste products (greenhouse gasses, for example) produced by the CURRENT 1st world inhabitants. Global warming and peak oil... It's hard to understand how Mr. Leonard thinks we don't need to worry because the development of the 3rd world is going to save us. It isn't.
-
Malthus and resources
I doubt Malthus could have foreseen a complex, motor-vehicle-driven society in line with most of the modern industrialized world. Nor the sorts of "cheats" that have allowed us to increase our food production capacity at the expense of water resources and looming climate change.
Population is still a problem, and a nasty and worsening one. Malthus simply didn't envision the complexity of modern technological life, which has led to a set of conditions that make it increasingly likely that we'll see breakdowns based on resource troubles other than the food supply.
-
Look at Africa
HIV is rampant - at levels of 40-70% of some adult populations. This will leave a demographic hole where the only living people are children and old people and no one can do the work of employment.
Former food producers have for political reasons become basket cases (Zimbabwe) and now face famine.
"2nd world" states like the relatively wealthier North African/OPEC states pump money out of the ground and lavish it on non productive social welfare so that few people have jobs or job skills creating an infinitely large gap for future job growth. They're also growing in population faster than all other countries.
Some projections have the population of the African continent going from about 980 million today, to less than 750 million in 35 years.
-
No Slight-of-hand by Ferguson
I hate to pile on, since DF was there first, but I read Ferguson's essay and I found no hint that he was defending Malthus's values, only the truth of Malthus's assertion. I thought he was making fun of the view of contraception as a vice with his parenthetical about ordained Anglican ministers. The point he affirms is that there must be some "strong and constantly operating check on population." Even if I'm wrong, and Ferguson objects to contraception, there was no trickery or incoherence to his argument, which he make forthrightly; and if he is correct that Malthus defined contraception and abortion as vices, then Malthus was right.
Leonard, on the other hand, doesn't understand Malthus when he declares it too soon to tell whether humanity will survive its own ingenuity. Malthus's claim wasn't that we would all die, only that the natural rate of population growth will exceed the linear rate of increase in food production, and therefore will be limited by misery or what he called vice.
I wouldn't make such a point of this but for the repeated insults to Ferguson, which can only be justified by putting words in his mouth.
-
Not the first time Ferguson is wrong-headed
Niall Ferguson also asserts that American workers are more productive than European workers because Americans are more religious (i.e. church-going Christians) than Europeans. (cf. http://theplayethic.typepad.com/play_journal/2004/08/telegraph_opini.html)
Back when I took economics classes in college, the definition of "productivity" was amount of work produced per worker per unit of time. American employers have dropped "per unit of time" from the definition. They claim high productivity, but the reality is that they get more work out of employees by making them work longer hours, with all the resulting ills that entails: physical and mental exhaustion, lack of family time, low morale, etc.
If Niall Ferguson buys into this fraudulent claim that Americans are more productive than Europeans, then he's a crank and nothing else he says should be taken seriously.