Answer to Question #284991 in Macroeconomics for kika

Question

The text defines the Malthusian trap as: “A point at which the world is no longer able to meet the food requirements of the population, and starvation becomes the primary check to population growth.” In other words, population will outpace food production.

Discuss whether you believe this trap has been avoided for the next 100 years. Consider government policies (like China’s one-child policy), the use of genetically engineered crops, social patterns of family size, and environmental factors.

Please answer in 200 words or more.

Answer 1

To put it another way, I believe we have dodged this trap for the next 100 years. Other issues, I feel, are more pressing than the population's insatiable appetite for food.

Let's start with official policies like China's one-child policy. After it was enacted in the 1980s, this policy significantly reduced the birth rate and fertility rate. Fertility rates are also decreasing as a result of family planning and contraception. According to sources, this "would result in a severe decrease in fertility rates to low levels, even below the "replacement rate" of 2.1 children per household, when combined with urbanization and other developments." In other words, while birth rates are still increasing, they are slowing down.

Malthus claimed that population would expand geometrically (1, 2, 4, 16, 32), whereas food production would only grow arithmetically, according to his theory (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). However, his argument failed to account for a wide range of elements and technology that have emerged in the modern world. Chemical fertilizers, irrigation, seed breeding, and many other facets of agriculture have all benefited from advances in technology and understanding. Crops that have been genetically modified to be more resistant to pests and severe conditions provide greater and more consistent harvests. For the time being, these and other growth technologies are maintaining food output ahead of population. This is also linked to family size social habits. We discovered that wealth and birth/fertility rates are inversely proportional. The lower the birth rate is, the more money a country earns. In fact, most of the issues surrounding hunger (along with population growth) have more to do with wealth and poverty than with a shortage of food.

While many would argue that Malthus' theories are no longer valid, it would be foolish to dismiss them entirely. Moving on to environmental concerns, it appears that, while many people dismiss or dismiss the Malthusian theory, many others do not deny that population expansion mixed with the practice of mindless consumption of the earth's resources is depleting them. Many people are more concerned that if the way things are done isn't entirely revolutionized in an eco-friendly way, this would cause major problems and ultimately be humanity's undoing (especially if left uncontrolled). I don't believe we'll run out of food for the population in the next 100 years. However, it would be prudent for the globe to begin moving toward more environmentally friendly methods of living and producing in order to avoid falling into the trap of indiscriminately depleting the world's resources.