Population Growth the Scapegoat? Rethinking the Neo-Malthusian Debate

In the last thirty years of the twentieth century we saw a resurrection of the writings of Matlhus. In their new guise we are told that instead of war, pestilence and famine, the earth has decreasing biodiversity, loss of species, loss of natural resources and water shortages, to name but a few, to look forward too. Population growth today, as it was two hundred years ago, is portrayed as Public Enemy number one. There is little doubt that the Neo-Malthusian argument has made an impact on policy, indeed, probably moreso than did its namesake. The newly clad argument shares much with its namesake, not least, its significant faults. The argument is two hundred years old, and the inaccuracies share that age. Malthus' predictions never reigned true because he made the fundamental error of not taking account of technical progress, or the ability of human ingenuity to adapt to change. This paper looks at the evolution of both sides of the population argument, and argues that this year's World Summit in Johannesburg should not fall foul to the dangerous generalisations invoked by the Neo-Malthusian school of thought. This paper is an attempt to lay the blame for environmental degradation not on the increasing population of the Third World, but on the consumption patterns and lifestyles of the First World. Affluence consumes energy and produces waste at a far higher rate than poverty. In looking at the environmental debate only an integrated approach, and not one that is concerned solely with ‘demonising’ population growth, can result in success.