Pros And Cons Of Being A Neo-Malthusian

In 1798, Thomas Malthus theorized that population growth was an impending danger that if not properly checked would result in an unfavorable outcome for human society. The main idea behind his theory was that the accelerated growth of the human population is unsustainable and that we are set to eventually outpace our ability to produce food, leading to a major catastrophe. Two hundred years later, Thomas Malthus’ theory fortunately has not come to fruition, however, it is still a major topic of discussion. Two opposing schools of thought have emerged from this discussion - the “Neo-Malthusians”, who are in agreement with the ideas of Thomas Malthus and advocate for population control. Then there are the “Anti-Malthusians”, who believe that constant advances in technology will continue to bolster agricultural production as well as the standard of living. Both Lester R. Brown and Ray Percival represent these two differing …show more content…
I would have considered myself an advocate for population control and resource management regulations set by governments to reduce our current strain on the earth's environment and resources. After reading both articles, I still maintain this stance, however I still believe that both Brown and Percival have made perfectly valid arguments to the discussion. I agree with Percival that poor government is to blame in some instances of poor economic stability, however, I also feel that Percival is perhaps too optimistic about the “ingenuity of man”. Sure, we’ve made great advancements in technology over the years, which accounts for greater food production, a higher standard of living, and low mortality rates, but many of the resources that we rely on are finite. The continuous exploitation and consumption of these finite resources will lead to the depletion of these resources, damage to the environment and could potentially drastically change our way of life as we know