1974 Redux?
1974 Redux?
The stock of Thomas Robert Malthus rises and falls with the real price of food. He was not the inventor of his theory of population, a point that Karl Marx threw at him among other criticisms, with such people as James Anderson and Benjamin Franklin preceding him with pretty much the entiretly of his theory. But his timing was much better, publishing the flawed first edition of his Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798, a year coming at the end of a decade of rising food prices coinciding with the chaos of the French Revolution, which Malthus also opposed. The main flaw in his essay was his argument that food production grows linearly while population grows exponentially. The theory of exponential growth applies to the populations from which food comes as much as it does to human populations, but those populations find their growth limited by the fixity of land, which leads to the relevance of the law of diminishing returns, a point made by Ricardo and which Malthus picked up on by the third edition of his book, switching to it then to justify his theory of human populations tending to press upon the means of subsistence. Ricardo relied on Malthus’s theory to underpin his depressing Iron Law of Wages.
Neo-Malthusianism expanded to include concern over natural resources beyond just food to such items as oil and energy more broadly as well as industrial metals. Thus the neo-Malthusian Limits to Growth, initially published in 1972 had a heyday of popularity in 1974 when not only was world population growth approaching its all time maximum rate but the world experienced simultaneous energy and food price shocks. The former was driven by the tripling of the price of oil following the Yom Kippur War in late 1973 and the Saudi oil export embargo on the US that happened then but that held even after the embargo was lifted as a broader production cut by OPEC was put in place. The latter followed poor harvests in 1972 and 1973 accompanied by large-scale purchases of corn in particular by the USSR to maintain meat production, which led to a tripling of the price of corn (maize) with other major grain crops also sharply rising in price. The upshot was sharply rising prices of both gasoline and food in the year 1974, the year that the stagflation of the 1970s took fully hold. Oil prices soared again at the end of the 1970s with the fall of the Shah of Iran, but then grain and thus food prices did not do so. But 1974 was a year of neo-Malthusian frenzy as both of these soared.
In the aftermath of having fallen very low during the pandemic, oil and grain prices had been rising since April 2020 and had accelerated with the more general outbreak of rising inflation since the beginning of 2021. But now the outbreak of war in Ukraine has led to a much sharper surge of oil and wheat prices as oil and wheat exports from Russia have been widely embargoed (although not totally), with it the world’s leading exporter of wheat and the second leading exporter of oil, and with wheat exports from Ukraine, the fifth largest source of it on world markets, due to disruption from the Russian invasion. Oil prices have quintupled since their April 2020 low and wheat prices have more than tripled, with both of them surging by something like 50% in the month since Russia invaded Ukraine. This is the first time since 1974 we have seen such a convergence of sharply rising oil and grain prices, although corn prices have not been up quite as sharply. Only the slowdown of world population growth has kept us so far from having an outburst of neo-Malthusianist sentiment, and indeed to the extent that pressure to enact policies to combat global warming are partly driven by neo-Malthusian attitudes, the sharp increase in gasoline prices has brought at least in the US a reaction against such policies at least with respect to oil, as politicians on both sides of the fence call for at least temporarily suspending gasoline taxes in order to combat inflation. Heck, elections are at stake.
Barkley Rosser
Dr. Rosser, you’ve hit on a few things that I have been trying to conceptualize. Social energy is the caloric intake a population must sustain to create the amount of work necessary to support said population. Economic/Work energy (I haven’t come up with a good label for this one yet) is the carbon combustion that must be sustained to power the machinery that runs the society. The two are inextricably linked. A semi-modern society with more than 250 population will need some type of machanical assistance. This used to be horses, oxen, etc. that tapped into the Social energy. The types are synergistic and fungible to a degree. Anywho, we are of a population size that the fungibility of energy is fixed, we only have so much land to create calories from. In my mind this is where Mathusian Principle falls down, food supply is highly dependent above a certain population threshold of an alternative energy input for the mechanical energy. We could have more of the population be involved in agriculture like it once was, and maybe that is the way. The second short sighting of Malthus was that food is linear. It is not. If we look at it as a sovereign non-linear supply of energy, the global trade starts to make more sense. Brazil is cutting down the Amazon to plant soybeans to sell to China, Russia, the US and others for silage. The global macro trade feeds into micro local deficiency, if that makes sense. These ebbs and flows on a local level are short term occurances over time that seem linear when you first look. But over time, as more topsoil is lost, rainforests are removed, the weather patterns change dramatically which alters crop yields. Land is finite, so I would posit that food is parabolic if we were to factor in landscape and climate changes, and I’d also say that population would also have to be parabolic if we think about it as energy. Mayer came much later than Malthus, so I would assume that Malthus knew nothing of the Law of Conservation of Energy.
I’m not really a fan of the Malthusian theory in practice. It is an interesting thought experiment that does have some basic truth that life as we know it is bound by what we can feed it.
Shorter version: 7 soon 10 billion people occupying land that can barely sustain 1?
“Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not yet completely sure about the universe.” –
From In and Out the Garbage Pail by Frederick Perls – quote attributed to Albert Einstein. This leads me to believe that the physical resources of Earth are finite while it still allows for the development of a human population only sustainable at a very low level of subsistence. Oh, what fun!
You know Ron
You mess around with trash, you end up in the trash. Go dust off a little bit . . .
Humans have been able to increase the production of both foodstuffs and energy enough to mostly keep up with the increase in population. Whether we will be able to do so indefinitely is very doubtful, and whether we will be able to do so and mitigate climate change effects is even more so. The problem is political of course. We could not even get our country united in fighting off a pandemic with lethal consequences.
I feel very sorry for the young right now.
My sentiments exactly.
I believe there are arguments that suggest increased efficiency of food production and energy have led to an increase of population. Then again, population growth seems stalled in areas of more “mature” societies economically speaking.
Mixed messages? Developed economies are more likely to have programs to support the elderly, like our Social Security and Medicare. Poorer countries not only need to have more children to provide for the elderly, but also to make up for higher mortality rates (especially at both tail ends of the age distribution). Available birth control makes it easier to even have a choice in the matter. In any case, survival rates must combine with birth rates to grow populations.