Food production is as central an issue to human populations as there is, along with access to freshwater they are essentially the prerequisites to human life. In addition to food production, it is of course necessary in any monetarily-based society to pay for that food in one way or another, assuming you are not solely a subsistence farmer. The socioeconomic philosopher-giants Thomas Malthus, Adam Smith, and Karl Marx all have their own polarizing understandings of the influences of food production and food prices on human population and food prices on human population patterns and well-being. This essay will examine each man’s perspective individually and at times compare them with reference to sociological states like poverty for additional
…show more content…
Whereas Smith is quite economic in his thinking, Malthus is far more demographic. Malthus argues that the growth of a population will always outrun its ability to feed itself. Tangentially, he asserts that an increase in food production would lead to a geometric population boom that would then be plagued by an arithmetic agricultural boom and a resultant mass starvation would occur. In situations where food prices would decrease, the result would still be a negative one to Malthus. He contends that more money in the pockets of the poor influences them to have more children, only fast-forwarding the coming of the inevitable famine due to the unstable population growths. Malthus’ take on poverty is equally demographic in focus, he claims that poverty is caused by unchecked population growth. The only reason that humanity is not in constant states of perpetual famine is that forces like plague, infanticide, and delayed marriage all check population …show more content…
Walker and Adam Romero on the history of the agricultural developments of California. It would be amusing because, Malthus of course was always skeptical of the maximum increases agricultural yields could undergo; however, in California the massive increases would dwarf even the most absurd consideration of Malthus in the late 19th Century. Walker and Romero discuss the use of pesticides and other chemicals and the resultant agricultural booms in California along with the rise of the capitalism as an intrinsic aspect of the socioeconomic fabric of California. Whereas Malthus criticized the arithmetic increase in yields possible with agricultural growth in comparison to the geometric growths in population, Walker and Romero show the sheer immensity that yields could increase if a chemical war was waged and won on weak crops and pests. I could only see Malthus entirely reconsidering his theories of population growth if he could consider the leaps and bounds chemical agriculture could make; however, I suppose the new issue would be the ecological effects of that chemical agriculture and the potential long-term
Whereas Smith is quite economic in his thinking, Malthus is far more demographic. Malthus argues that the growth of a population will always outrun its ability to feed itself. Tangentially, he asserts that an increase in food production would lead to a geometric population boom that would then be plagued by an arithmetic agricultural boom and a resultant mass starvation would occur. In situations where food prices would decrease, the result would still be a negative one to Malthus. He contends that more money in the pockets of the poor influences them to have more children, only fast-forwarding the coming of the inevitable famine due to the unstable population growths. Malthus’ take on poverty is equally demographic in focus, he claims that poverty is caused by unchecked population growth. The only reason that humanity is not in constant states of perpetual famine is that forces like plague, infanticide, and delayed marriage all check population …show more content…
Walker and Adam Romero on the history of the agricultural developments of California. It would be amusing because, Malthus of course was always skeptical of the maximum increases agricultural yields could undergo; however, in California the massive increases would dwarf even the most absurd consideration of Malthus in the late 19th Century. Walker and Romero discuss the use of pesticides and other chemicals and the resultant agricultural booms in California along with the rise of the capitalism as an intrinsic aspect of the socioeconomic fabric of California. Whereas Malthus criticized the arithmetic increase in yields possible with agricultural growth in comparison to the geometric growths in population, Walker and Romero show the sheer immensity that yields could increase if a chemical war was waged and won on weak crops and pests. I could only see Malthus entirely reconsidering his theories of population growth if he could consider the leaps and bounds chemical agriculture could make; however, I suppose the new issue would be the ecological effects of that chemical agriculture and the potential long-term