The Malthusian Theory of Population Definition
The Malthusian Theory of Population is a theory of exponential population growth and arithmetic food supply growth. Thomas Robert Malthus, an English cleric, and scholar, published this theory in his 1798 writings, An Essay on the Principle of Population.
Malthus believed that through preventative checks and positive checks, the population would be controlled to balance the food supply with the population level. These checks would lead to the Malthusian catastrophe.
Malthusian Theory of Population Explained
1. Population and Food Supply
Thomas Malthus theorized that populations grew in geometric progression. A geometric progression is a sequence of numbers where each term after the first is found by multiplying the previous one by a fixed, non-zero number called the common ratio. For example, in the sequence 2, 10, 50, 250, 1250, the common ratio is 5.
Additionally, he stated that food production increases in arithmetic progression. An arithmetic progression is a sequence of numbers such that the difference between the consecutive terms is constant. For example, in series 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, the common difference of 3. He derived this conclusion due to the Law of Diminishing Returns.
From this, we can conclude that populations will grow faster than the supply of food. This exponential population growth will lead to a shortage of food.
2. Population Control
Malthus then argued that because there will be a higher population than the availability of food, many people will die from the shortage of food. He theorized that this correction would take place in the form of Positive Checks (or Natural Checks) and Preventative Checks. These checks would lead to the Malthusian catastrophe, which would bring the population level back to a ‘sustainable level.’
A. Positive Checks or Natural Checks
He believed that natural forces would correct the imbalance between food supply and population growth in the form of natural disasters such as floods and earthquakes and human-made actions such as wars and famines.
B. Preventative Checks
To correct the imbalance, Malthus also suggested using preventative measures to control the growth of the population. These measures include family planning, late marriages, and celibacy.
Malthusian Trap
The Malthusian Trap (or “Malthusian Population Trap”) is the idea that higher levels of food production created by more advanced agricultural techniques create higher population levels, which then lead to food shortages because the higher population needs to live on land that would have previously used to grow crops.
Even as technological advancement would normally lead to per capita income gains, theorizes Malthus, these gains are not achieved because in practice the advancement also creates population growth. Once the population exceeds what food supplies can support, this supposedly creates a Malthusian crisis with widespread famine as well as rampant disease. This ends up decreasing the population to earlier levels.
The reality, however, has been that population growth has not itself created the crisis that Malthus predicted. We will discuss the ways in which the Malthusian Trap has been disproven in the following section.
Criticisms of the Malthusian Theory of Population
1. Population Growth
The gloom and doom forecasts put forward by Malthus have not played out. In Western Europe, populations have grown (not at the rate Malthus predicted) and food production has also risen because of technological advancements.
2. Food Production
Thanks to many technological advancements, food production has dramatically increased over the past century. Often, the food production rate has grown higher than the population growth rate. For example, during the 1930s in the US, 25% of the population worked in the agricultural sector while the total GDP was less than $100 billion. Today, less than 2% of the population works in the agricultural sector, while the total GDP is over $14 trillion.
3. Global Trade
The limited availability of land at the time was the basis for Malthus’ theory on food production constraints. However, thanks to globalization, we can trade goods and services for food, which increases the amount of food a country can consume.
4. Calculations
Malthus did not provide calculations for the geometric growth of populations and the arithmetic growth of food. Since then, experts have pointed out that the growth rates are not consistent with Malthus’ predictions.
The Malthusian theory is fast becoming the Malthusian Prophesy which does not have to be proved by maths but illustrated by evidence.
Perhaps the discrepancies in Malthus’ theory suggest there are other parameters beside food production capacity, such as: global testosterone levels; population density; Maslow’s hierarchical needs; or ???
Malthus’ projections, while largely true, failed to apply the long term effects of inconsistent waste management and lax public health structure.
If we preposition that the wars that happened didn’t happen (especialy the second world war) his theory would be quite true. The population fall due to the great wars was such great and all the science and medical human experiments had such a high toll of deaths that if all the people lost were still alive and all would have reproduced then the food production would be unable to cope even with all the advancement made.
Hogwash. 75 million people worldwide died over the course of the entire war as a result of the war. Many more people than that die every single year of other causes. The wars were a minor blip in population trends.
He was a doomsayers as is the media circus going on. Yes there will be fatalities…but not like China or Iran. .00007 of the Canadian population have it as reported as of today.
Watch the Michael Moore produced movie “Planet of the Humans” and see what is being done to reveal greed, myths, and fallacies. Moore has angered his base who are seeking to “cancel” him due to his exposure of truths in this film. Millions have watched it in the less than 2 weeks that it has been out. Check it out and see what you think.
Totalmente de acuerdo…. además de que el ser humano se ha vuelto soberbio, y no respeta las leyes de la naturaleza.
El planeta lleva décadas dando señales de agotamiento. Solo ha tenido que dar fuerza a un diminuto virus para poner en jaque a la humanidad.
Good thinking and analysis, Patty. However, I’d think occurrences as distinct between developed and developing nations. For example, the average in most African states is way below 20%, or could this be explained by precautionary measures driven by fear such as temporal lock downs? Or is there grand misreporting?
Sam C, Could It be because of lack of facilities to test suspected patients and under reporting both by health authorities and and by symptomatic patients to medical centres.
I heard about this theory back in the 1960s.as time has gone by I have come see it as more credible.
You find it more credible, even though it’s underlying premise of exponential population growth has been proven wrong, and it’s premise of arithmetical food production has also been proven wrong. How can an idea where the two key precepts are demonstrably wrong be credible? Answer, it can’t. The Malthusian model is deeply flawed and demonstrably flawed.
You are focused on two aspects of the whole theory. Do.you factor in the variable of purposeful intervention as a means to curb that growth? If food met the demands, we wouldn’t have starvation globally.
yo are you a college student cause im a freshman doing this work its not fun any tips
Another key prediction of Malthus’ was that an increase in food production/standards of living, would lead to an increase in birth rates, which would result in food shortage/lowering standards of living.
And yet, it is in the more developed wealthier countries where birth rates are lowest, and in poorer countries where they are highest.
Also world starvation could be improved so much by better food distribution. The food is there, it is just not distributed based on need.
The exponential model has not been proven inarguably wrong, but even if you prefer the logistic growth model in reference to the world population, there is obviously a lack of availability in resources, considering the starvation rate alone is almost 10% of said population. Even if it has plateaued, the current population is utterly unsustainable, which proves that even if the Malthusian theory’s pointing towards a limitless growth until a catastrophe occurs is incorrect, his theory clearly isn’t “incredible”. Flawed, yes, but then again so is your argument.
And, as yet more time will come to pass, we may well have ignored it’s importance and relevance for too long and the Malthusian prophecies may be proven to be accurate after all.
It’s reassuring to read these. Messages to validate my social science studies in the 1960s
We Indians of 130 crores observing complete lockdown of one month & overcome all virus . Do not panic & we all human race shall prevail. Have faith on yourself . Observe discipline . We all humans shall prevail
In Bangladesh, with 170 million people in a land of 144 thousand square kilometers — 12 thousand per square kilometer, this virus can create inferno. Luckily, till date we have only 5 deaths and 44 confirmed cases but we have thousands of people who very recently returned from abroad especially Italy are roaming about carelessly mostly in the village. The whole country is in a panic. There is an unofficial lock-down for 10 days until 4 April which may be extended. We didn’t know what’s going to happen next month.
In India, in certain places, they lack even drinking water. India now has 1.4 billion –with a b– people and projected to surpass China which now has 1.5 billion.
The deserts are increasing around the world and more people have no enough food to eat or home to live. Globalization may have helped a little to India and China but not to the workers, in the industrialized world, who lost their jobs to India and China.
What is the motivation of The Virus to grow ? Why it is there ? Is it because of “Natural selection ” ? Should we live and let live ? Who will win ?
It is growing and the human being is gettng killed . One fine day this virus will not have any human being to grow and will then die .
The world population growth has slowed down across the spectrum. It has more to do with, rising women’s education and falling infant mortality. Present world population is about 7.8 billion. It’s predicted to rise to 9.7 billion in 2064 and then come down to 8.8 billion, losing about a billion by the end of this century.(source: The Lancet, July 2020).
These are the principal findings.
a. By 2100, projected fertility rates in 183 of 195 countries will not be high enough to maintain current populations without liberal immigration policies.
b. Dramatic declines in working age-populations are predicted in countries such as India and China, which will hamper economic growth and lead to shifts in global powers.
c. Liberal immigration policies could help maintain population size and economic growth even as fertility falls.
In today’s world, countries that have higher population will be benefited if they impart skill and education to their people.
Predictors and soothsayers like Malthus are very good and leaned people. The problem is, their analysis is based on the past trend ending in the present. It is impossible to factor in future human innovations which are inherently episodic and unpredictable. Let us see how the Lancet predictions work.
Just yesterday reading about the world’s population. Fast-growing population esp in Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, where women have average of 7 kids each! Poor and hungry, they multiply fast, but they don’t use as many resources as rich and nourished developed countries. So basically the US with the average just under 2 kids per a woman still consume much more resources per capita than people in Africa. The solution? Other than drastically reducing population world-wide maybe developed countries must cut back on their use of resources?! The data shows that in 2021 we need 1.7 planets Earth to sustain the consumerist population and this number will grow every year.
I am so glad to see these discussions..I am not a great scholar..just an ordinary person….but the other day I googled (of course) theories on population growth and disease…and came upon The Malthusian theory and saw the interest in it..and thought perhaps there are some seeds of truth in the paragraph about disease.
I studied Malthus’s theory back in the mid 1970, it has always stuck in my mind with regard to the world situation and catastrophes since then. We have had many wars, diseases and famine over the years, plus birth control, they have all helped to control the world population.
The modern world seems to have been building up to a real disaster for quite sometime, we have HIV, SARS, Ebola and in Africa TB is rife. Is this recent pandemic teaching us a number of things we need to re-think?
I spend approximately 6 months each year in Africa and if this virus gets hold in some of their townships it will be devastation.
Perhaps now is the time we need to think about:-
1. We have to show more respect to the world and her resources.
2. If we want to interact with other people of the world, ( I know it sounds boring) then we must ALL have an acceptable behaviour that does not endanger others.
3. As we interact more with each other, perhaps the World Health Org must take a more proactive part in policing the worlds local customs and actions and monitor more closely.
This has happened in the past, from the bubonic plague to Spanish Flue and as mentioned above more recent diseases, so it is nothing new.
Regarding Malthus’s theory, i think it’s a little to sharp in its condemnation of the world and its people, but, perhaps it is a theory we should all keep reminding ourselves of.
The theory is not real and Thomas Malthus has created confusion and left, the super powers are using his theory to create wars and artificial diseases
The most dangerous virus on the planet ‘s future sustainability s Man.. depopulation and the new mindset of production/consumption will save this planet. Maybe we should stop producing new stuff and recycling old ones.
Great idea Trudy.
I agree to that point.
At least the environment And earth would be restored.
The populations in US hit the hardest with this virus are: nursing homes, prisons, and VA hospitals. It surely would help our administration’ s budget to cull these populations.
Thomas Robert Malthus had two failings. He failed to understand the vast resources the Earth has and the undreamed of technology to develop those resources. What Malthus did understand was no matter how vast the resources and how advanced the technology, those resources are still finite.
“we can trade goods and services for food, which increases the amount of food a country can consume.”
What happens when we run out of rain forest to cut down? Or pump aquifer dry that are needed for irrigation? What about quality of life? Will the American dream become like life in Manila with a population density 119,600 per sq mile?
The old adage of “The bigger they are, the harder they fall.” applies to population as well. I doubt Malthus ever envisioned a population of 8 billion people and growing or the size crash that will follow. Remember we can only kick the can down the road only so long. Even the road is finite and has a end.
George Kirk and I don’t know where you are from but in Africa and Nigeria this theory is so real. If you doubt, then make your research or come see for yourself.
even today May 2020 the scarcity of food is affecting pricing and the impact is in the negative and unemployment would bring more hunger.
Thus is reality not theory.
for real we need to share resources but you have not considered transportation and the knockdown of economy. this makes Malthusian theory a realistic one even though not predicted in the 21century.
the earth is calling for adaptation and mitigating standards for it’s recovery
What I’ve yet to see here is this: Much of what we think of as technological improvements in food production is predicted on the fossil fuel endowment which we’re burning our way through and heating up the climate world wide. Nothing and I emphasize NOTHING exists on the horizon or any reasonable time span to replace that fossil fuel endowment afore mentioned here.
Malthus’s theory emphasised ‘food’ as the ‘limiting factor’ ie nature would ensure that population levels be ‘controlled’ by the levels of food supplies & availability. But for ‘food’ read water, medicines, vaccines, hospital beds, health care professionals, hygiene—-when population levels increase uncontrolled, but the above ‘limiting factors’ do not ———enter Malthus!
Malthus and most people who discuss him don’t seem to understand how biological organisms ebb and flow in relationship to their food supply. Google “snow shoe fox and hare graphs” to see the classic graph of the relationship between predator and it’s prey.
When the population of hares decline due to predation, the decline in snow shoe foxes isn’t due to starvation. It’s due to a number of biological factors though actual starvation is probably minor. Off the top of my head, I can only think of one species that overruns it’s food supply leading to massive death by starvation and that is locusts.
Here is an incredibly informative conversation about the connection to population growth and the food supply. It feature author Daniel Quinn (Ishmael, The Story of B, etal) and Dr. Alan Thornhill, PhD. It’s the most informative lesson I’ve ever had on human population dynamics.
The video production is dated but the content is stellar. Enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAqWUxCjisE
If you go deep in reading and grinding in brain what Malthus have proposed all are perfectly coming to be correct…
Thomas Malthus observed that birth rates were higher than death rates. Why did he believe this would cause an issue?
Thomas Malthus thought our population would increase by a lot. He believed we would not have enough food or resources if our population kept growing. However, technological advances have advanced food and resource production so his theory is no longer relevant.
Please consider places like Haiti, Bangladesh and India. Even with modern ag methods, the populations have increased 4 to 5 times since mid-20th century. Yet malnourishment increases, and ag lands grow degraded and less productive.
Are you crazy? We are now using more if our natural resources than we can replace, it is a given that we can no longer provide enough safe drinking water for the current population, and i feel most of this debate revolves around our inability to grow up and take responsibility for our reproduction of the species. I thank religion for this neurotic thinking
The death rate has always been 100% and is one of the few things unlikely to change until we destroy the aging gene
Can someone please tell me why Africa is at the receiving end of the Malthusian theory of population?
i think he brought out the theory because of low food supply at that time that caused A.P of food supply.
I believe with time we will all agree that what Malthus is say is true.
I learned about population growth and Malthus around the late 1950s. I also read Erhlich’s Population Bomb and Carson’s Silent Spring during that period. Since then, I have seen 60+ years of those combined statistical events repeatedly prove themselves in mini-niches and thus fully accept the overall outcome and shape of the 3 phase Growth Curve (exponential-like growth; plateau; death phase) as inevitable. It doesn’t have to be that way since Man has learned how to husband their resources during farming and agriculture. But the ability of Man to husband his own numbers is cut off at the knees due to his unwillingness to regulate his own procreation rates in various ethnic and cultural groups worldwide as well as his non-recognition of the physical limitations of his own environment through the blindness of organized religion, demon-ization of science, education, knowledge and intelligence, politicization against coherence of mutual interests, and proliferation of global autocracy as economic and governing power becomes ever-more intertwined and concentrated in the hands of fewer elites, psychopaths, and criminals. When viewing everything through a filter of economic theory, only the most avaricious picture can emerge. Economics has no self-regulating feedback in actual practice. The rich can and will get richer because wealth gives them ever-greater means to acquire and secure more wealth and influence. Without a check and balance mechanism, no system can ever be self-regulating and successful for all.
Mathus’ arguments, just like Ehrlich’s, were describing the elements that will cause our species to eventually decline and fall. But their only mistake, if there was one, is to try and put a hard numerical timeline onto a general process that actually has huge numbers of variables and is inherently chaotic in its Butterfly Effect outcomes when framed in a one-world global picture. If we look at different population niches throughout the world, we see Malthus’ imprint on each. But each is at a different phase in its own unique growth curve. Civil wars, disease, famine and droughts in various areas and countries and collapsed and failed states without effective governments around the world, parasitic autocracies bleeding their respective populations dry of economic and social advancements, are but a news headline away on any day.
No, Malthus had it much more right than this naysayer has when it comes to crystal ball gazing and futurism. Economics, as taught and practiced by ideologues in capitalistic and laissez-faire societies, is a formula for a more rapid decline than would otherwise be likely. And it also blinds and undercuts any potential efforts to work as a single species across all boundaries and divisions to control and balance our numbers to the raw resources we need to survive in balance with the other world processes and cycles. Man is his own worse enemy.
Google Ehrlichs predictions if you want a good laugh. I’m not sre which of the doomsayers predicted that there would be mass starvation in India 30 years ago, but India is now the world’s largest exporter of rice, supplying over 40% of the world’s rice.
The “End of the World Club” has been around for 2,000 years, and they will still be here in another 2,000 years.
1.If growth of population is not controlled with right earnest and allowed to growth then what will be the scenario in the earth?
2.It would be horrible/ terrible.
3.So,need of the hour is to give stress on control.
As the population increase the resources will also increas as necessity is the mother of invention,when evr there is huge population the human will do more effort to meet its need
Kindly help me answer this question: Demonstrate the relevance of the Malthusian theory of population in today’s management of the environment.
Malthus, like every other misanthropic leftist, who forecast doom for mankind, Carson, Ehrlich, Gore has been WRONG! The Wuhan China virus will not change that. Man has NO effect on the planet. The burning, glowing orb, filled with Hydrogen and Helium, in the sky determines climate. Malthus, and his ilk, traffic in fear, gloom and misery to bring about the destruction of free markets, sovereignty and America.
We could say that population growth contributes to climate change due to increased carbon pollution and climate change may significantly impact food production therefore negating tech advances and proving Malthus was correct.
The Malthusian theory i think is better but is so difficult to reduce population through protected sexual intercourse as we know now day are the world of globalization, so there is no meaning of being in relationship or getting marriage without getting a baby in my side
We’ve reached Peak Oil, and Coal? Coal only counts as our savior if we develop a means of utilizing it without the particle polution that it produces. I see proposed theories that suggest the conversion of CO2 in a sort of recycling into ethanol. But there’s still the thermal problem that threatens to up end the whole affair. Atomic energy has promise but not as long as we build plants on fault lines and then do the herd mentality thing if, “It” hits the fan and run screaming for the exit. There are safe forms of nuclear reactors that work safely and can’t go China Syndrome on us like the disaster in Russia. This will all be moot if terrorists use Nukes in an effort to get their 72 virgins in paradise.
Malthusian theory of population was based on a comparative analysis between the growth of population and food production of a particular region. The growth of population continues as per geometric ratio, while the foodstuff/ resources increase arithmetically. Malthus suggests that the population of the particular region must be checked, or else nature, itself, will check it.
it is flawed because it only focused on food availability as its basis but, yes the environment is the main supporter of population but food and other resources; note not only food is linked to human survival even if it greatlyy impacts our lives, but doom of population will come from the environment being a more hazardous place to live in as the water will be unsafe due to pollution, land pollution, chemical hazards, some places will accumulate hazardous gases. then populations will be leveled
Its only use is to justify the continued export of food to Britain during the Irish and Indian famines, thereby excusing the British of any responsibility in the deaths of tens of millions.
Nowadays when the use of the poor as cheap labour is decreasing in its appeal, this age old Malthusian nonsense is revived, to the interest of the exploiters once again, to justify their inaction or even active participation in the elimination of “useless” people we are about to see. And make no mistake, when your use as labor and consumer depletes, the masters of this society won’t shed a bit of their obscene profits to help you. Not only distant third world people suffer, you will, too. So stand on the right side and debunk this nonsense.
I love the theory population growth rate let’s say china (one child policy) now ain’t they looking for better places say agriculture production in some places. Why population growth is hitting the limit thus need to increase food production
Thanks
While it is true that Malthus’s theory was somewhat simplistic, i.e. population growth is exponential, while resources and food are linear, one only needs to look at the current state of affairs on this planet. Climate change and man’s inability to curtail its growing threat to the entire planet have really supported his initial premise from 1798 when such issues didn’t exist. This planet, before the end of this century, will basically become uninhabitable because of catastrophic environmental degradation, which will include destruction of the rain forests, loss of the major glacial formations which provide water to large numbers of the global population, excessive heat and rising oceanic levels, widespread wars and global migration to escape horrific conditions and tyrannical governments, pollution of the land, sea, and atmosphere on levels that will be incompatible with life for every living thing on this planet. In short, it will be Armageddon on a scale only seen with previous mass extinctions that have occurred many times in this planets 4.5 billion year history. The bottom-line is that you cannot violate the laws of nature indefinitely and think you can fool “Mother Nature”. She doesn’t care!!! Human beings are so presumptuous to think that they are somehow “significant” in this universe. Unique, perhaps, but not significant. Our species is nothing more that a speck of fly excrement on the wall of time who have accomplished what no other species who has come before them has done. But in the end, we will become extinct just like the other 98% of all previous species have have done. The good news is that in millions or perhaps tens of millions of years into the distant future the planet will have a rebirth as it has done so many times before and Earth will go on for a few more billion years. Our brief involvement in the planets glorious history will be relegated to a very, very brief time frame with a small asterisk.