Abstract: Overpopulation has been an ever-growing concern of the 20th century. However, it’s not a unique problem, the roots of which were previously exposed by Thomas Robert Malthus in the late 18th century.
The world has hinged on Malthus’ theory for decades, only to be challenged subtly by Pope Francis. Does he have a point strong enough to negate long-held beliefs?
Did you know that those belonging to the early 1900s would have scarcely heard of the term ‘overpopulation?’ When we say this word, we’re referring to a situation where the earth’s resources cannot keep up with the demands of the existing population.
Experts believe that the world’s headcount has been a concern since the 1970s. Each year that follows only aggravates the problem. By that definition, it is natural to want a solution that tempers this seemingly unsustainable issue.
The world found its consolation in Thomas Malthus’ theory. He was an economist and philosopher of the late 18th century. In a shocking contrast to Malthusianism, Pope Francis addressed a conference in Rome this May.
This article will break the suspense on the Pope’s statement as we first walk through overpopulation, Malthusianism, and the current solutions to the problem.
Overpopulation: The Mother of All Societal Problems?
Let’s begin with the scribe himself – Thomas Malthus argued that every society grows until a point where the available food supply is affected. Gradually, the scenario becomes so dire that the fallout takes the form of disease, famines, wars, and natural calamities. (1 )
Malthus’ beliefs countered the existing notions of his time. Certain philosophers anticipated a utopian ideal for future generations. These were the proponents of societal improvement to an extent where every citizen would enjoy the abundance of nature’s bounties. Given the poor living conditions of England at the time, Malthus wanted to snap the idealists back to reality.
He stated that while the human population grows geometrically, food production increases arithmetically. In other words, humans would reproduce up till a saturation point where the food supply cannot keep up. To manage such an unsustainable outcome, a famine, war, or disease outbreak would become inevitable. (2 )
Dismal as this theory may seem, the world has been compelled to believe Malthus’ ideas since every generation has experienced the said maladies. Moreover, these have generally occurred at a time when population growth seemed at its pinnacle. Let’s consider the sad example of the Spanish flu that wiped out nearly one-third of the global population.
It was not until the mid-1900s that overpopulation was truly seen as the mother of all societal problems. Individuals on a mass scale were drawn towards methods of curbing population growth. Even school textbooks openly discussed this problem with young, impressionable minds.
Possible Solutions for Population Control
In the late 1960s, a Stanford researcher, Anne H. Ehrlich, collaborated with professor Paul R. Ehrlich to publish a book called ‘The Population Bomb.’ It is this co-authored book that instilled a worldwide fear of overpopulation.
There were dire predictions made in the book, including an increase in death rate in the 1970s and 80s. This would mainly happen due to mass starvation, as there were too many people cramped into tight spaces, occupying too much of the Earth. The public repression was so strong that it led to an anti-population-growth crusade.
Severe criticisms were also made as many believed that placing the burden on the growing population instead of total consumption was a fallacy. In any case, the years that followed saw an uptick in measures for population control, even on an individual level. The following three methods became popular, and they continue to be so to this day.
Abortion
It is no coincidence that the late 1960s became a revolutionary period in terms of abortion laws. The US Supreme Court recognized every citizen’s right to privacy and choice, coming to a landmark decision with the Roe v. Wade case. 1973 became the year when every mother had a legal right to abortion, provided the baby in utero was within the point of viability.
Today, the legality extends to limited US states, including Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Vermont, among others. The Supreme Court may have overturned Roe v. Wade, but state laws govern the outcome. In 14 states, abortion is completely banned, with some exceptions. In others, the ban depends on the fetus’ gestational age.
What do people have to say about this? In a 2023 Pew Research Center survey, 62% believed that abortion should be legal in most cases. Another 36% voted that it should be illegal in most cases. Is this method still being used to plan families? Yes, the numbers have been the highest in a decade, as observed in 2023.
Contraception
The need for family planning and its education has been pressed upon since the time of the ‘Population Bomb.’ The Planned Parenthood website even calls this practice basic preventative healthcare.
Women have had access to different kinds of birth control, such as condoms, pills, and intrauterine devices. Are these effective? In real-world scenarios, condoms are found to be 85% effective, whereas the pill or IUDs maybe 99% in comparison.
So, it appears that the answer to overpopulation has been known all along since IUDs and pills have been available since the 1960s. Perhaps, but there were surprises no one had anticipated. For instance – a copper-based IUD can be implanted in the cervical canal for up to 10 years. This means women could decide when to have the IUD removed should they desire to have a baby.
All seems well in theory, but in practice, thousands have been injured at the time of removal. This has essentially been the case with the Paragard IUD, produced by CooperSurgical and Teva Pharmaceuticals. As per TorHoerman Law, injuries have taken the form of organ perforation, infection, infertility, and more.
It is believed that the device has a manufacturing defect that causes it to break and migrate. Victims have filed a Paragard lawsuit against the manufacturers for their injuries as well as failure to warn. Since the device has not been recalled, it is still available across the US. This begs the question regarding the dangers women must face to contribute to population control.
Abstinence
The third way to avoid high birth rates is sexual abstinence. This is undoubtedly 100% effective. It may work for GenZers who find the prospect of children unappealing in a messed-up world. The only problem is whether this is practical.
Many who do not wish to have children still wish to get married and share love. A marriage that cannot be consummated for fear of procreation is not a marriage at all, right? This will only work for those who are single, by chance or choice, and do not wish to engage in sexual activities otherwise.
The Folks Who Call Malthusianism a Myth
There are folks or ‘conspiracy theorists’ who believe that overpopulation is a dark agenda, not a sad reality. Sitting on the other side of the pew, these advocates believe that Malthusiasnism and eugenics are closely related.
The utopian ideals held during Malthus’ time were overstated in the sense that modernism has only degenerated the world. However, this does not mean one must leap to the other extreme. The conspiracy theorists claim that the answer to ending human misery does not lie with ending the human race itself.
Moreover, the two main assumptions on which Malthusianism is based cannot be proven. There is no evidence that humans will always reproduce at the same rate. Plus, the food supply may keep pace with the growing population. (3)
If we are to look closer, these folks do have a point. Countries worldwide are facing a crisis where their population is at risk of extinction in the near future. For instance – Greece is currently under a severe population collapse. Besides a surge in deaths due to heart disease and blood clots, the country sees exceptionally low birth rates.
Apart from Greece, Japan’s fertility rates are at an all-time low, especially due to rising childcare costs. (4) When the situation has reached such a dire position, one is forced to think if population control is necessary. Plus, who gets the authority to decide whether one group of people is more valuable and worthy of life than the other? As for reproductive rights, does the right to choice override someone’s right to life?
These are some thought-provoking questions that must be answered. In the case of the three solutions discussed for population growth, the first seems cruel, the second seems risky, and the third seems impractical.
Furthermore, women in developing countries do not even have access to contraceptives. In cultures where male children are preferred or proof of fertility is needed, a woman is further discouraged from using birth control. (5)
All in all, there is no single factor that can give us a one-dimensional answer. Overpopulation, myth or not, is a complex issue that may need more than Malthusianism to unravel it.
The Pope’s Food-for-Thought and Slightly Controversial Answer
Pope Francis took his stand at the fourth edition of the States General of Natality in May 2024. He was primarily there to address the rapidly falling birth rates. The Pope made a somewhat shocking statement, blaming consumerism, selfishness, and individualism as the root causes of world hunger and other maladies.
To him, “it does not matter how many of us are here, but rather what kind of world we’re building.” Pope Francis further went on to state that the hope of any nation is its birth rate that will keep the species alive.
Without children, it is natural for a country to lose the desire for the future. Italy was inevitably a part of the discussion as the Pope renamed ‘The Old Continent’ as ‘The Elderly Continent.’ With incredibly low birth rates, this country is losing its hope in tomorrow.
Let’s take a moment to examine the Pope’s claims. Does the world suffer from greed? Yes, some believe corporate greed is to blame for the high prices of products and services. Statista confirmed in a survey that consumers across the US spent nearly $150 each month on impulse purchases.
To add to that, 2.5% of the population is suffering from hoarding tendencies. Be it age, a scare for rainy days, or any other reason, consumerism, and materialism are on the rise. If this continues, the world will soon run out of resources. The Pope does seem to have a strong point. The world may have enough for everyone’s needs, but it can never keep up with anyone’s greed.
In closing, we would like to touch upon the Pope’s proposed solutions, at the social and institutional levels. For the former, his suggestion involves breaking free of unhealthy lifestyles and habits. Society must enforce intergenerational solidarity and a culture of generosity.
Unless we are willing to renounce the superfluous, it is difficult to have any genuine hope for the future. As for the institutions, effective policies are needed by all governments that work towards the common good of all, especially the younger generations.
After such changes are in place, one can legitimately compare the Pope’s statement against that of Thomas Malthus. There is always a price to pay; it’s time to decide which side is worth it.
References
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10364818/
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/213076824.pdf
https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2024/04/10/the-socioeconomics-of-japanese-birth-decline/
Deepika is a budding content writer who enjoys writing in varied niches. In her leisure, she savors a good classic or expresses her creativity through fine arts.