In 1779, Thomas Malthus noted, “The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to
produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other
visit the human race.” Malthus described an apocalyptic vision of mankind
where population growth overshot resources, and humanity faced a worldwide
famine.
But Thomas Mathus was a man of his time, and during the 18th
and 19th century, this population-resource mismatch never occurred.
In fact, at the start of the 19th century, the human population of
Earth had barely reached 1 billion in number. The world experienced the
industrial revolution, and with the commensurate increase in human output, came
an increase in the human population.
By 1927, the world population had doubled to two billion.
Two world wars had curbed growth a bit, but not by much. The three billion
milestone had been reached by 1959, but it was only when we had added another
billion beings by 1974 that Malthus’s theories had been dusted off, and fear of
the Malthusian Catastrophe reached its peak.
And yet…
Here we are. On 11
July 1987 we reached 5 billion. On 12 October 1999 6 billion people roamed the
Earth. And on 31 October 2011, 7 billion human beings were alive at the same
time. Did Malthus make a critical error?
This has been argued many times over the years – from those
who pointed out that Malthus failed to provide evidence for any natural
tendency of a population to overwhelm its ability to provide for itself, to
those who argued that population levels determine agricultural methods and not
vice versa. This has amounted to a solid body of evidence for the aphorism that
‘necessity is the mother of invention.’ Even a 2002 study by the UN Food and
Agriculture Organisation indicated that world food production would be in
excess of the needs of the population by as soon as 2030.
But while resources
and population size might not be the problem Malthus envisaged, there is
another factor to population that Malthus did not consider, but which might
prove the greatest challenge of our time. Demographics.
Because along with a greater population, our technological
prowess has given us longer lives – also a significant contributor to
population growth. When humanity reached 4 billion people, only 231 million of
them were over 65, and 1.5 billion were under 15. When we reached 7 billion,
530 million were over 65, while 1.8 billion were under 15.
A side effect of our reduced mortality is not only a reduced
child mortality (resulting in fewer children), but also an increasingly aged
population. While our agricultural
resources might be enough to support the burgeoning human population, changing
demographics make it more difficult for the young to support the senior population.
In 2025, a mere 10 years from now, the senior population of
the United States is projected to be larger than the young, and when we examine
trends going forward, this neo-Malthusian catastrophe is awaiting all
countries. After all, as the population of the elderly rise, and the youth
population falls, there is increasing pressure on the pension and health
systems of all nations. Now already we are seeing alarming rises in the costs
of treating the so-called ‘lifestyle’ diseases, such as metabolic syndrome,
high blood pressure and heart disease.
Namibia is just starting on the journey towards this
problem. Currently, we’re a very young population, with 32% under 15, and only
4% over 65. But the United States moved from a similar demographic to their current
one in less than 75 years. Namibia might be late to the party, but we’ll
quickly catch up.
And then, in the words of the incomparable Bob Dylan, it is
time that we gather our people, as the waters around us have definitely grown –
we’d better start swimming or we’ll sink like a stone. Because the times are
definitely a-changin’.
No comments:
Post a Comment