tgrub@watarts.UUCP (01/30/84)
Much of the politico-economic debate surrounding World resource
distribution has incorporated a scarcity premise. It is generally
assumed that a shortage of food in fact exists and that within
the current perimeters of global production, the increasing needs
of the equally increasing population cannot be met.
Population growth is examined as a chief factor contributing
to food shortages. Subsequently western medicine men proceed to
provide the "overly grown" populations with the "final solution":
birth controll. The assumption being that if the world was to slow
down the population growth than it would be possible to advance
technological methods of production to the point where the needs
of the reduced population can be met adequately.
A cosy theory providing a clearly internally consistent solution.
Howver, an examination of the historical roots of such a theory
puts it in grave jeapordy. The economics of scarcity were the
direct results of Mr. Malthus's seemingly mathematical formulation
of world resource economics.
Mr. Malthus pronounced that since human beings were multiplying at
geometrical rate than world population was also increasing
exponentially. Considering that world food production was only
increasing at an arithmetical rate (preseting a regular function)
he concluded that the number of mouths to be fed was increasing
faster than the number of hands there are to feed them. As such
a vast percentage of the world population would be doomed to death
by starvation. This would of course be an increasing percentage of
the population.
In the decades that followed Mr. Malthus's model was well respected
by liberal economic theory and has become a built-in assumption of
the representational models constructed by liberal economists.
In Mr. Malthus's formula he adds the relative population growth rate
(which is exponential or geometrical because a couple can produce any
number of children who will produce any number of children within
the lifetime of the first couple.. add infinitum) to the current
population and subtracts the death rate (WHICH HE PRESUMES TO BE A
REGULAR FUNCTION OR AN ARITHMETICALLY INCREASING RATE) to arrive at
an absolute population growth rate which is clearly exponential.
Mathematics has it that if a regular function is subtracted from
an exponential function the result will be an exponential function.
Now, Mr. Malthus was subtracting apples from oranges. Just as the
relative population growth rate is relative to the absolute increase
in population, so is the relative death rate relative to the same.
Which is to say that both the birth and death rates are constant
functions relative to the absolute population. As such if the
relative population growth rate is in fact exponential (which cannot
logically be disputed) then it adds to the absolute population
growth (in a theoratical isolation not existing in reality) exponentially
or as Mr. Malthus said, geometrically. If we multiply the death rate
by the theoratically exponential absolute population growth, the
result is inevitably an exponential death rate.
Now, if we substitute our necissarily exponential death rate for
Mr. Malthus's arithmetic or regular death rate we have a fromula
which subtracts one exponential from another. Any grade 11 student
who has attended one third of her/his math classes will indicate to
you that the result is necessarily a regular or arithmetic function.
Which is to say that the supposedly arithmetic growth of food resources
is entirely adequate for the the arithmetically growing population.
I will therefor conclude that an explanation of World food shortages
or starvation , which would not respect Mr. Mathus's claims of over
population, must be developed.mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/07/84)
============
Now, if we substitute our necissarily exponential death rate for
Mr. Malthus's arithmetic or regular death rate we have a fromula
which subtracts one exponential from another. Any grade 11 student
who has attended one third of her/his math classes will indicate to
you that the result is necessarily a regular or arithmetic function.
Which is to say that the supposedly arithmetic growth of food resources
is entirely adequate for the the arithmetically growing population.
============
I suggest you retake your grade 11 maths exams. The derivative of
an exponential is also an exponential.
Malthus must be right in the end, even if he was unable to foresee
the Green Revolution. An arithmetic increase in food supplies may
be growing faster than an exponential increase in population at some
point in time, but inevitably the exponential catches up in the end.
A further point to consider is that the increase in agricultural
productivity has been in good part due to the provision of non-solar
energy (in the form of fertilizers, fuel for farm machinery and so forth).
The resources to feed this energy into agriculture are rapidly running
down, so it is most unlikely that even an arithmetic increase in
food supply will continue for long. A drastic decrease is more likely
over the 50-150 year time span.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmtzrm@mit-eddie.UUCP (Zigurd R. Mednieks) (02/08/84)
Starvation isn't the only issue when deciding if the world is overpopulated. People pollute, destroy animal habitats, start wars when things get bad, use up irreplacable resources, and generally contribute to the wear and tear on the planet. The planet may be "resilien," as word think-tank types are fond of saying, but it may also snap back if we stretch it. Besides, who says we have the right to have wall too wall people? If morality has any uuse it is to tell us to stop a good long ways before we drown in our own feces. What good would a million Beethovens be if none of them had woods to walk iin to gather inspiration? I vote Republican. I do not belong to the Sierra Club. And I think Ralph Nader should be given an unsafe amount of speed and made to play Tempest. I alsso think that if we continue to breed, feed, rot, and excrete to the extent that we have, we won't need to nuke ourselves to destroy civilization. RWR in '84! -Zig