The ideas of Malthus and Boserup have, like so many other theories, been the subject of debate and academic discussion... who got it right? Well, like all generalisations, it would be fair to say that they both got some things right, but that their models have to be viewed in the context of a more complex reality and also with the benefit of hindsight (Malthus was working in the 18th and 19th century, while Boserup presented her work in 1965). Given the recognition that such ideas are necessarily generalisations and thus simplifications of real-world conditions, it is entirely reasonable to expect some limitations in their accuracy when applied to specific examples. General applicability is one of the aims of theories and also one of their strengths... the basic ideas provide a starting point for understanding the real world and, as understanding progresses, complexity and specificity can be introduced to explain our observations and to make predictions, thus providing a platform from which to propose management strategies.
Debate about the relative virtues of apparently competing ideas is healthy and necessary in scientific learning. Theories should be contested and tested with rigour. However, some ideas, or elements of them, are plainly incontrovertible and common sense suggests how, where and when they are applicable. These elements should be acted upon. For example, the growth of populations to levels beyond the ability of specific environments to provide sufficient food may result in a population "check"... starkly put: poverty, malnutrition and possibly famine. Of course, we understand that the "open" nature of communities means that there would (hopefully) be intervention to prevent a human tragedy, but the basic idea still works at a sub-global level. It is also possible, even likely, that given the threat of diminishing food supplies; ways of increasing production may be developed. Irrigation, improved strains of crops and modified farming/cultivation techniques provide examples of this process at work around the world. Given this understanding (and considerable evidence to support these ideas), measures to manage population seem appropriate in areas where growth is likely to impact negatively on human welfare and efforts to improve sustainable production of food where methods are below optimum could be undertaken.
Management of population and production are certainly not new and it would be unfair to suggest that these are not already high on the agenda of organisations ranging from charities and NGOs to governments and international organisations. However, it might be very productive if some of the energy and intellect spent debating the theories were directed toward understanding how these ideas could be used to guide our management of production and population in environmentally sustainable and culturally sympathetic ways. This is not just an issue for LEDCs and areas where there is population pressure on specific environments. We understand that although local communities are not closed, the global community is! As such, the warnings of Malthus, even taking into account the ingenuity and innovation of humans referred to by Boserup, must be taken seriously. The local tragedies seen in, for example, sub-Saharan Africa and particularly the Horn of Africa are a stark insight to the potential suffering that results when environmental and socio-political factors combine to create a situation in which populations are no longer able to support themselves.
A holistic understanding, however flawed, of the world suggests that food production and population management cannot be successful without consideration of other factors. Technology, politics, economics, justice, religion, cultural perspectives and equality issues, among others, all play a part in the development of effective and sustainable human communities. They are what complicate management. They are what energy and effort should be applied to if issues about food supply and population are to be addressed with due consideration of the finite nature of some resources and the threats that waste production present for the balance of the environmental systems upon which humans also depend... energy use, pollution, climate, health, conflict management are all intimately linked with management of food production and the health and welfare of people globally.
How does humanity move forward in this respect? Let's take a lesson from both Boserup and Malthus... although they may not have placed great emphasis on it, their theories assume "closed" communities in which there is no movement of people or materials inward or outward. This simplifying assumption has been criticised widely. However, if we step away from our parochial perspectives for a moment and consider our lives at a global scale, both theories gain credibility... they clearly represent the threat that population growth could present and the need to innovate if a population:food crisis are to be avoided. Even if "necessity
is the mother of invention", it is clear that some communities are unable to innovate in the time available to avoid hardship. Perhaps the time lag between innovation globally and
need could be avoided by action at a global community level to moderate population growth... what would that take? Cooperation, less competitive resource acquisition, shared responsibility for humanity and the life support system of planet earth... long term planning rather than "short-termism" perpetuated by many political systems, individual awareness of the issues facing humanity rather than just individuals and small groups, tolerance and acceptance of a shared destiny? How can the privileged, predominantly "Western" communities begin to work alongside communities where suffering and poverty, frustration and, increasingly, vengeful attitudes are widespread?
Population and resource issues are intimately linked with other concerns at a global scale. Inequality in wealth, access and demand for resources, health and education, terrorism enacted by groups with no obvious alternative, "imperialism" perpetrated by powerful states in an effort to control the distribution of key resources to name but a few. Do governments have the power, capacity or the incentive to initiate action on a global scale to address the root causes of the concerns facing so many smaller groups of humanity? Historically there is no precedent for this... this would be humanity moving into new territory. There are parallel though smaller and simpler examples of effective international action to resolve urgent problems... One, the destruction of Ozone in the upper atmosphere might shine some light on effective mechanisms. After the initial discovery of the thinning of Ozone, its causes and prediction of the likely impact that this would have if repeated in the northern hemisphere, public opinion effectively launched intergovernmental action which legislated for the removal of cfc gasses from many unnecessary applications thus preventing further environmental damage and a human tragedy. Repetition of theoretical leadership and education, public demand and inter-governmental action in the context of managing human population, is however, fraught with cultural, political and religious pitfalls and potential conflicts. Overcoming many of these requires the development of real equality globally so that population management cannot be heralded as yet another means of the rich world subjugating the poor or the manifestation of Western paranoia about becoming over-run by peoples from the economic south, Islamist Maghreb and middle-east or the growing economic giants of the far east. Perhaps the spread of the "individual voice" through modern technology can begin to sing in unison, reflecting true humanitarian attitudes that transcend the doctrine or dogma of existing organisations. Perhaps such a voice will provide the incentive for governments across the political and wealth spectrum to cooperate and take actions that preserve the very life-support systems that are essential for civilised human survival.
DNo/Draft 2013
