The World Population Crisis

Avery, Dennis T. The Myth of Global Hunger. Taking Sides:

Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in World Politics .

Ed. John T. Rourke. Guilford: Dushkin, 1998. 559-63.

Gore, Al. The Rapid Growth of the Human Population.

Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in

World Politics . Ed. John T. Rourke. Guilford: Dushkin,

1998. 350-58.

Research and Technology: Plant Protection and Pesticides .

Sustainable Development Dimensions . 1996.

Sustainable Development Dept., Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations. 8 August 1999.

. 1-3.

Research and Technology: Post-Harvest Technology and Food

Quality. Sustainable Development Dimensions . Sustainable

Development Dept., Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations. 8 August 1999. . 1-6.

Rourke, John T. Is There a Global Population Crisis? Taking

Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in World

Politics . Ed. John T. Rourke. Guilford: Dushkin, 1998.

348-49.

Stundpia, Mapvydas. Thomas Malthus on Population and

Consequences on Economic Theory . 20 June 1998. 1-8.

Between the rise of modern man (roughly 200,000 years ago) and

the Second World War the global population reached two billion. Since

1945 the figure has tripled (Gore 351). This alarming rate of growth has

incited debate as to whether or not Earth will be able to sustain this

increased population. Many believe that this condition constitutes a

crisis, the end result of which may be a population Earth and its

resources cannot support. Proponents of this idea cite innovations in

technology, medicine and agriculture as causes for the population

explosion. Dennis Avery1, an opponent of this view, ironically

asserts that further advancements in science and technology will be able

to sustain the growing population. This debate is fueled by rising

tensions between nations and cultural organizations who have developed

contradictory policies on the increase of world population. The rising

population has produced a strain on the availability of crucial resources

such as food and water supplies and finite mineral deposits, which has

resulted in a threat to global security. Malthusian2 logic dictates that

population cannot grow unabated. Earth cannot continue to support this

population unless substantial measures are taken to curtail its growth

and to insure the long term stability of the human race.

Vice President Al Gore has correctly identified a problem with the

world s rising population. In his statement3 to the National Press Club on

October 1, 1994, Gore discusses Rwanda and Somalia: both countries

with large and growing populations, where violence and human suffering

have resulted from a lack of sufficient resources (specifically food) for

their populaces. While Gore acknowledges that no direct correlation

between growth and instability can be established, rapid, unsustainable

growth makes it more difficult for societies and nations to deal with the

kinds of political and economic and other problems that all nations have

to deal with (352). Gore would then reason that if a nation is unable and

unprepared to meet its challenges, then that nation has no realistic

security. Gore also addresses possible threats of population growth to the

environment4 (351). To further discuss the possible implications of rapid

population growth; it is important to fully understand Malthus economic

principles5 .

Malthus postulated, 1) population cannot increase without the

means of subsistence; 2) population invariably increases when the

means of subsistence are available; 3) the superior power of population

cannot be checked without producing misery or vice (Stundpia 2).

Gore s pessimistic view of the impact of population growth agrees with

the negative outcome predicted by Malthus third principle of growth.

Gore goes on to identify zero population growth, again echoing Malthus6,

as the primary goal of U.S. policy on global population. When Gore says

there is a need to sensibly stabilize global population one can safely

assume that zero growth is his premise (352). But Gore finds a problem

with the application of this policy.

Many religious organizations object with the use of birth control

measures. When Gore cites the [Catholic Church s] well-known

opposition to contraception he also points out the Church s powerful,

worldwide influence on its members (356). Considering the Catholic

Church s dominant presence in many Southern countries, and its

contrary position on population control methods, Gore suggests some

difficulty in applying a secular policy towards birth control. Of course

Catholicism is not the only religious ideology opposed to birth control

and abortion. Muslim Traditionalists, for example, find the idea of

abortion reprehensible. Regardless of moral objections to this practice,

abortion is part of the UN s population control policy. The UN. can only

apply7 its standards and policies to member nations. Thusly, one can

expect a large segment of the world s population to maintain its current

reproductive habits, based on either religious objection or failure of the

government to implement U.N. policy, or some combination thereof.

Gore s position also poses the problem of technological and

medicinal limitations. While the issue is overlooked by Vice-President

Gore, it is unreasonable to assume that technology and science will

continue to improve at its recent rate. Gore believes that the

unprecedented revolution in science and technology [is] still

accelerating (350), but there is no empirical data which supports this

claim insofar as it applies to Southern countries in general, or to

medical science specifically. To the contrary, a strong case could be made

that this technological revolution has largely overpassed these countries

and continues to do so.

If one examines history, one will find that the impact of science to

the life of man was virtually unchanged for thousand of years. In fact, it

has only been in the last few centuries that man has made noticeable

advances in the field of medicinal science. Furthermore, as Gore points

out, it was only after the Second World War that these scientific

advancements became implemented throughout the world (351). This

increased availability of modern health care is exactly the type of

increased means of subsistence that Malthus referred to in his second

principle of growth. Thusly, it was this rapid exposure to modern

medicine which led to the current population explosion8. Dennis Avery

refers to this boom as a onetime surge- due to modern medicine (361).

If this is indeed a onetime surge then we have no basis upon which to

judge possible outcomes; if it is not a onetime surge , the brevity of

possible outcomes is further distinguished. Consequently, proponents of

population control must acknowledge the possibility that this is a limited

phenomena, and opponents like Avery must come to realize that their

dependence on this assumption is inherently dangerous. To understand

the arguments against population control, and their flaws, one need only

re-examine the position of Dennis Avery.

Avery s position is far more optimistic than Gore s . To begin, Avery

denies the existence of a population crisis. He believes that the current

population boom is already slowing down to a natural rate (361). Avery

also contends that due to advances in agricultural technology, such as

drought resilient plant life, man will be able to produce ever increasing

crop yields. He would have readers believe that this abundance of food

would more than sustain even the most exaggerated predictions of

Earth s future populations (362). While pleasing, Avery s statements are

both misleading and erroneous.

If science and technology will be able to sustain a near infinite

human population in the future, one would assume that this assumption

was based, at least in part, on successes in the present. But in reality,

thousands of people die every year due to either malnutrition or

starvation. Gore cited Rwanda and Somalia as examples of regions where

a lack of sufficient food, water, or other necessary materials has led to

violence. This violence, over limited but desired commodities, leads to

thousands more deaths each year. But one can only attribute so much to

the failures of science. Government too has failures which result in death

and suffering. Avery devotes attention to poor government management

in Africa. Africa is a continent composed of countries that have few

opportunities9 at the level of governmental, agricultural, and

technological change Avery s position would require. China and India are

other examples of nations that have failed to develop satisfactory policies

towards their population growth. China s use of abortion as means of

population control, for instance, violates the U.S. s position on abortion.

Flaws can also be found in Avery s claim to salvation through technology.

Newly developed agricultural techniques and innovative methods of

protecting crops from pests and poor weather conditions are crucial to

Avery s argument. But history shows that these changes in agricultural

practices are not always for the better. In Southeast Asia, for instance,

changes in cultivation and the use of new varieties in rice production

have created a situation in which pests are much more difficult to

control (Research and Technology: Plant Protection and Pesticides 1). In

fact, the FAO s10 Plant Protection and Pesticides document explicitly

states changes of cultivars, crops and cultivation patterns, have often

created conditions more favorable to pests (ibid.). This statement alone

draws the validity of Avery s, and consequently other opponents of

population control, arguments in to question. The ability of Earth to

produce enough food to sustain the human population is essential for

the survival of the species. If the security of the human race s survival is

in question, one would find it difficult not to call it a crisis. Supposing

the world is able to produce the amount of sustenance necessary to

support its populace, one might wonder as to how this large quantity of

food would be stored until ready for consumption.

Avery neglects to mention the necessity of adequate storage in his

statement. As it is, too much of the world s food harvest is lost to

spoilage and infestations on its way to the consumer (Research and

Technology: Post-Harvest Technology and Food Quality 1). The FAO s

Post Harvest and Technology document challenges the capability of the

world to produce sufficient food to feed its population. If that food cannot

survive the post-harvest process without spoilage, then it does no good to

the population whose existence depends on it. The factors which

contribute to the deterioration of food cannot be done away with. They

include temperature, light, oxygen, moisture, and chemical compounds

within the food ( Research and Technology: Post-Harvest Technology and

Food Quality 4). Scientists are also not able to eliminate the effects of

deterioration, but rather they attempt to minimize them (Research and

Technology: Post-Harvest Technology and Food Quality 4). This natural

decay accounts for much of the world s difficulty to provide sustenance

for the people of Earth today. Avery assumes that future technology will

afford man the ability to defy nature, yet he offers no logical argument for

this belief.

Lastly, Avery correctly identified a problem with providing the

human race with enough food. Humans are selective. When nations rise

in monetary standing, their desire for meat and dairy products increases

in proportion to the individual s ability to purchase a higher quality of

food. These foods take two to five times as many farming resources per

calorie to produce than grains do. So when populations start eating more

meat and milk, they are effectively consuming [more] grain and

agricultural resources (Avery 362). For instance, China normally

contributes 10 million tons of corn to the international market (Avery

360). But in 1996 China, due to an increased demand11 for grain feed12,

instead imported 5 million tons of corn (ibid.). Who is to determine which

food products are grown and to which use grains are put? Surely not the

same inept governments Avery attributes human suffering to.

There are numerous reasons to doubt Avery s optimism. Perhaps

the most prolific is the stark reality of the United States, where

thousands suffer every year from hunger and malnutrition. If citizens of

developed countries currently suffer from insufficient nutritional

resources, then it is difficult to believe the future will provide enough

resources to care for an exponentially larger population.

The issue of world population is complex and fraught with differing

opinions. Evidence seems to promise a bleak future if serious measures

are not taken to curtail the current growth of the human population.

Vice-President Al Gore has offered an overview of this population crisis,

albeit characterized by political pandering. While his position may be in

question for political reasons, his accuracy is not. There is indeed a

problem with the uncontrollable growth of today s population. Dennis

Avery disagrees. He disagrees with Gore, the Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations, and with logical thought. His ideas

are paradigmatic of the general opposition to population control

measures. But these measures must be taken if the security of the

human race is to be insured. Perhaps science will offer a way to support

a population of 11 billion, and perhaps not. Governments must exercise

skepticism when making long-term policy decisions. Failure of the

world s nations to act responsibly and in disregard of groundless hopes

may result in a period of human suffering only hinted at by the Irish

Famine of the Nineteenth Century.