E-Letter responses to:

special/news: Erik Stokstad Will Malthus Continue to Be Wrong? Science 2005; 309: 102 [Summary] [Full text] [PDF]

E-Letters: Submit a response to this article

Published E-Letter responses:

Humans Are the Resources

Natasha C.   (18 August 2006)

Confounding Malthus

Alan R Thatcher   (22 July 2005)

You asked the wrong question

David S Tseng   (22 July 2005)

Priorities

Thomas C. Ripley   (22 July 2005)

Malthus was right

Jeffrey P. Townsend   (12 July 2005)

Was Malthus "Wrong," or Simply Prophetic?

Seamus Decker   (6 July 2005)

Malthus: Not the Solution to Poverty and Disease

Theodore C. Okeahialam, Owerri, Nigeria   (6 July 2005)

Check out "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn

Uwe Schuerkamp   (6 July 2005)

Humans ARE the resources

Andy J. Canfield   (6 July 2005)

Humans Are the Resources 18 August 2006
Natasha C., environmentalist Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Humans Are the Resources	Unfortunately, we don't have the final word. If natural disasters plague our abilities to make food we will not be able to sustain the growing numbers of people in this world. Landscapes are changing, orthodox agriculture is killing us with pesticides and genetic engineering, criminality and neurosis is increasing in major cities—if we do not change our ways we will end up where we are heading.
Confounding Malthus 22 July 2005
Alan R Thatcher, veterinarian none Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Confounding Malthus	Population growth is not necessarily related to food supply -- witness the rapidly declining birth rates in the overfed developed world. Two preconditions are required to reduce population growth in developing countries: (1) A change in circumstances whereby children shift from being an economic asset to becoming an economic liability to the family. If there is sufficient income to be able to run a household without the necessity for extensive use of child labor, that family is much smaller. (2) Education of women (which is directly associated with the use of effective family planning). Whether these preconditions can be achieved for the majority of those currently living in abject poverty appears to be not a function of global economic performance but a matter of international politics.
You asked the wrong question 22 July 2005
David S Tseng, Aerospace Engineer Respond to this E-Letter: Re: You asked the wrong question	While your Malthus reference makes a catchy title, the real question is not whether human population will continue to be checked by birth control, famine, war, and disease, which it obviously is -- since we haven't had infinite growth in the last 200 years. The real question is: Will the human population of Earth reach an equilibrium, grow without bound, or shrink? And will it do so peacefully or violently? Daniel Quinn does have many interesting ideas in his novels, the most interesting of which, to me, is the idea, or meme if you will, that says: the more people that think about this question, the more likely that we will be able to solve the technical AND the human issues that surround it.
Priorities 22 July 2005
Thomas C. Ripley, Engineer - Retired Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Priorities	What a wonderful list of important questions. Now we need to allocate resources to the pursuit of their answers. But what questions should be emphasized? To determine allocations, we need to apply a decision-making methodology directed by the fundamental purpose of mankind's existence. May I suggest that this purpose be the pursuit of the answer to the same question, "what is the purpose of our existence?" To continue this pursuit, we need to exist as an intelligent species, be at the top of our game (healthy, happy, and productive), and to foster (stimulate and educate) the collective diversity of human intelligence now and for generations to come. With these priorities in mind, we can begin to determine the allocation of resources to the important scientific questions posed. What questions, when answered, ensure our continued existence in a healthy state so as to allow mankind to pursue its purpose of seeking its reason for being? I contend that scientific questions regarding sustainability of mankind such as the one in this article have priority.
Malthus was right 12 July 2005
Jeffrey P. Townsend, Assistant Professor University of Connecticut Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Malthus was right	Malthus' contention is commonly misrepresented, perhaps because few who talk about his ideas have actually read his ingenious pamphlet. His contention was not at all that population growth would be regulated by war, famine, and disease, but that misery (war, and starvation, and disease) would always exist due to the pressure of growing populations. Since the time of Malthus' pamphlet, they always have. Is there any doubt that population growth has contributed? Has not the growth of the high-consumption population of the United States created a need for oil that has inspired a disingenuous war we continue to fight in a foreign land? Has there ever been an era where there were not starving and malnourished in the world -- and aren't the places where the starvation and malnourishment the worst also the places where population growth is the highest? Have not emerging diseases, phenomena explicitly made more frequent and more devastating by population congestion, caused enormous misery to humans in recent times? Although I enjoyed the uplifting and hopeful tone of many of the 125 questions asked by Science, the humanist in me wonders if a more important question (to which we also don't know the answer)would be, What proportion of the current burgeoning African population will survive the tragic onslaught of AIDS? 2/3? 1/2? 1/3? ...And yet, the population, there, will continue to grow.
Was Malthus "Wrong," or Simply Prophetic? 6 July 2005
Seamus Decker, Postdoctoral Research Fellow McGill University Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Was Malthus "Wrong," or Simply Prophetic?	Stoksad ends his article by stating that "And in an age of global television and relentless advertising, what will happen to patterns of consumption? The world clearly can't support 10 billion people living like Americans do today," with the implication being that, we must face an inevitable reduction in our standards of living. A more accurate statement might be that "The world, with its existing infrastructure, technology, organizational practices, customs, natural ecologies, and economic systems, as they exist today, cannot support 10 billion people living like Americans do today." While the central premise of the author's statement, and the core of the article are clearly valid--you cannot get blood from a turnip--an important point is left unaddressed. Turnips may not naturally produce blood, but could not a turnip be used to "synthesize" blood? And if so, how much of which resources, at what cost, would need to be marshaled to make getting blood from a turnip economic? Could Adam Smith have predicted that schooners would one day be regarded as little more than quaint antique technology, and that the horse and carriage would become absolutely obsolete as a means of commerce? Could Arhennius have guessed that his realizations about greenhouse gases would not only become an issue of central concern for ecologists, economists, and politicians, but would be the center piece for numerous hypothesized models for terra-forming other planets? More than simply making the point that the future cannot be predicted, it is important to build on such thinking, not with apocalyptic, or millenarian philosophies, but with realistically hopeful planning. All too often, predictions of future problems fuel polemic and even radical movements, and it behooves researchers to avoid this as much as we want to avoid promoting complacency and thoughtlessness. The point is not to ignore potential problems, but to focus instead on solutions, and contingencies should various permutations of problems emerge. Rather than stating that "the world cannot support 10 billion people living the posh American lifestyle," perhaps it would be more interesting to ask "what would it take for the world to support 10 billion people living the posh American lifestyle?" As a scientist focused on more middle-range phenomena of development and behavior, I am unable to address this question myself, but it seems a worthwhile one for scholars such as the author to consider.
Malthus: Not the Solution to Poverty and Disease 6 July 2005
Theodore C. Okeahialam, Prof. of Pediatrics Imo State University, College of Medicine, Owerri, Nigeria Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Malthus: Not the Solution to Poverty and Disease	This is an interesting and thought-provoking paper, particularly for a pediatrician working in a developing country in Africa. The Malthusian concept, with emphasis on population control, has always been put forward by some experts as the panacea for solving the problems of poverty, disease, and retarded development of developing world countries. During the past five decades, the world has witnessed an increase in adoption of democratic principles, rapid scientific advances including communication, and, unfortunately, global, social, and economic inequalities. There are alternative and pragmatic policies that can extricate the people of developing world countries who are eking out a precarious existence from the dim environment of poverty and disease. The importance of agriculture, protection of ecosystems, and other factors mentioned in this paper cannot be overemphasized. However, degradation of ecosystems, global warming, and pollution in developing countries are contributed to a large extent by multinational companies of industrial countries. Examples include extensive logging in the Amazon, Madagascar, and Cameroon, etc., and crude oil pollution of sources of drinking water, fish breeding areas, and farmlands with indiscriminate gas flaring in the Niger Delta region. These impoverish further the indigenous people who are deprived of their normal occupations of fishing and farming. If the principles of justice and equity are followed, these industries can afford to be environment-friendly, improve the quality of life of the people, and still make a profit. The developed countries have important roles to play in poverty reduction in developing countries through debt relief, favorable trade concessions, and financial/logistic support for health, educational, and social programs to meet the Millenium Development Goals. At the same time, developing countries must have in place responsible, selfless democratic leadership with policial commitment, accountability, and good governance devoid of corruption to ensure effective social engineering and sustained economic development. Without these, no program, including population control, can have any meaningful change in the lives of the people. Incidentally, it is known that promotion of female education and female empowerment for employment in society limits the number of children in the average family. This subsequently improves child health and reduces child mortality. Will the forthcoming G8 meeting and the current Live 8 Concerts have a sustainable impact? Let us hope they will generate not just promises but action and change on the enormous social and economic problems--malaria, tuberculosis, and the pandemic HIV/AIDS--that along with poverty and hunger are decimating the population daily, especially among women and children in Africa. If Thomas Malthus had been living today, perhaps he would think and argue differently.
Check out "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn 6 July 2005
Uwe Schuerkamp, System Engineer Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Check out "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn	Like any species, the human species responds to improved food supply with growth. Stop increasing the food supply, and the growth will stop and go toward a stable, level population. No one goes into farming to produce less food, and an increase in food availability is always answered by an increase in population. We need to look at this on a global scale where this principle holds, obviously not on a local scale where we might be led to think the human species is not subject to the ABC's of ecology. Dan Quinn's excellent books "Ishmael" and "The Story of B" shed more light on these issues if you're interested.
Humans ARE the resources 6 July 2005
Andy J. Canfield, Software individual Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Humans ARE the resources	Malthus argued that the number of people would grow to outstrip the resources. Malthus was wrong. Fundamentally, the people ARE the resources. We have more oil today than in 1970 because humans invented the technology to extract it. We have fuel-efficient automobiles because human brains developed them. Even your article is an example of the joint effort. We can do it. People are not a liability; people are an asset. We will learn to maximize ourselves, for we are our resources.