5-18-16
Reading 65
1. According to Malthus, at what rate does human population increase?At what rate can the earth’s food supplies be increased?
Malthus states in his essay that animals are impelled by an instinct to increase their species, and this instinct is interrupted by no doubts about providing for their offspring. He continues by saying that where there is liberty, the power of increase is exerted, and abundant effects are repressed by the necessity of room and nourishment. In humans, on the other hand, it is more complicated, because man has a drive to populate equally as powerful as animal, but human must ask themselves if they are able to provide and support for their offspring. If they cannot adhere to their responsibility, the human race will increase beyond the mean of subsistence. The earth’s food supplies can be increased in proportion to the population inhabiting it.
2. Malthus published his essay in 1798; in the two centuries since then, has his dire prediction come to pass? Why or why not?
Malthus’s prediction on the planet’s food supply has come to pass, but it has only passed in part. Malthus was correct and incorrect with is production, and I believe this can be attributed to the unforeseeable improvement in technology. Although he was correct in his ideals regarding the increase of population affecting the sustainability of a population, modern technology curbs what in the 1700s would lead to catastrophic population decrease. For example, modern technology allows metal plows, trains/ships/planes for long distance food transportation, and enables more efficient and effective crop growth and manufacturing. The only problem with this model is that it doesn’t take into account countries that don’t have access to these updated technologies. In these countries and areas that use traditional means to harvest food, an increase in population can in fact lead to dire shortages of food.
3. Following Malthus’s thinking, what should be the cornerstone of the world’s program to protect the environment? Do you agree with his position or not?
According to Malthus’s thinking, the cornerstone of the world’s program to protect the environment should involve population control and the assurance that the growth of the planet is in proportion to its sustainability. Malthus believed that two thousand years from his time, the difference between the number of people on the plant and the amount of resources available would be incalculably different. I believe that the ethicality behind the necessity of population control is morally ambiguous; how can one people have the authority over another to tell them whether or not they can reproduce? But, I also believe that, specifically in countries without access to the kind of technology that would easily enable mass production of food, Malthus was right in thinking this kind of population control would help prevent widespread food shortages.
Reading 68
1. Why, according to this reading, is simply holding the line on population increase not enough?
According to the reading, simply holding the line on population increase is not enough to ensure sustainability on the planet because we have already crossed the line of overpopulation. The current global increase rate is around 220,000 a day, and only about 20 percent of the world population is currently living a generally adequate standard of living. In only 100 years, the human population has grown fourfold, and simply staying at the point we are currently at is already depleting our shared resources.
2. What about the fact that humans share the Earth with millions of other life forms? In facing up to the problem of population increase, what responsibility do we have for other species?
Human beings have a responsibility to not destroy the planet that we inhabit with other living creatures. We have co-evolved with these other animals on Earth, and conservation of biodiversity needs to be considered when taking sustainability into hand. The human species has exploited much of the land we cohabit with millions of other species, and many have argued that our species will be the most successful into attempting to confront and resolve the problems that we have created.
3. All in all, do you agree with Smail that we must find a way to reduce global population? Why or why not?
Yes, in my opinion, we must find a way to reduce global population. The planet’s resources are being depleted at an alarming rate, and the era of plentiful clean water, fossil fuel energy, and abundant food supply is coming to a close. To try and eliminate the terrible life style most of the third world countries currently experience and prevent the current middle class areas from falling to a line of inadequate living, some form of population control needs to be implemented.
Reading 65
1. According to Malthus, at what rate does human population increase?At what rate can the earth’s food supplies be increased?
Malthus states in his essay that animals are impelled by an instinct to increase their species, and this instinct is interrupted by no doubts about providing for their offspring. He continues by saying that where there is liberty, the power of increase is exerted, and abundant effects are repressed by the necessity of room and nourishment. In humans, on the other hand, it is more complicated, because man has a drive to populate equally as powerful as animal, but human must ask themselves if they are able to provide and support for their offspring. If they cannot adhere to their responsibility, the human race will increase beyond the mean of subsistence. The earth’s food supplies can be increased in proportion to the population inhabiting it.
2. Malthus published his essay in 1798; in the two centuries since then, has his dire prediction come to pass? Why or why not?
Malthus’s prediction on the planet’s food supply has come to pass, but it has only passed in part. Malthus was correct and incorrect with is production, and I believe this can be attributed to the unforeseeable improvement in technology. Although he was correct in his ideals regarding the increase of population affecting the sustainability of a population, modern technology curbs what in the 1700s would lead to catastrophic population decrease. For example, modern technology allows metal plows, trains/ships/planes for long distance food transportation, and enables more efficient and effective crop growth and manufacturing. The only problem with this model is that it doesn’t take into account countries that don’t have access to these updated technologies. In these countries and areas that use traditional means to harvest food, an increase in population can in fact lead to dire shortages of food.
3. Following Malthus’s thinking, what should be the cornerstone of the world’s program to protect the environment? Do you agree with his position or not?
According to Malthus’s thinking, the cornerstone of the world’s program to protect the environment should involve population control and the assurance that the growth of the planet is in proportion to its sustainability. Malthus believed that two thousand years from his time, the difference between the number of people on the plant and the amount of resources available would be incalculably different. I believe that the ethicality behind the necessity of population control is morally ambiguous; how can one people have the authority over another to tell them whether or not they can reproduce? But, I also believe that, specifically in countries without access to the kind of technology that would easily enable mass production of food, Malthus was right in thinking this kind of population control would help prevent widespread food shortages.
Reading 68
1. Why, according to this reading, is simply holding the line on population increase not enough?
According to the reading, simply holding the line on population increase is not enough to ensure sustainability on the planet because we have already crossed the line of overpopulation. The current global increase rate is around 220,000 a day, and only about 20 percent of the world population is currently living a generally adequate standard of living. In only 100 years, the human population has grown fourfold, and simply staying at the point we are currently at is already depleting our shared resources.
2. What about the fact that humans share the Earth with millions of other life forms? In facing up to the problem of population increase, what responsibility do we have for other species?
Human beings have a responsibility to not destroy the planet that we inhabit with other living creatures. We have co-evolved with these other animals on Earth, and conservation of biodiversity needs to be considered when taking sustainability into hand. The human species has exploited much of the land we cohabit with millions of other species, and many have argued that our species will be the most successful into attempting to confront and resolve the problems that we have created.
3. All in all, do you agree with Smail that we must find a way to reduce global population? Why or why not?
Yes, in my opinion, we must find a way to reduce global population. The planet’s resources are being depleted at an alarming rate, and the era of plentiful clean water, fossil fuel energy, and abundant food supply is coming to a close. To try and eliminate the terrible life style most of the third world countries currently experience and prevent the current middle class areas from falling to a line of inadequate living, some form of population control needs to be implemented.