14.1.3: Who Is Correct?

 14.1.3: Who Is Correct? 

As you can see, both the New Malthusians and the Anti-Malthusians have looked at historical trends and projected them onto the future. The New Malthusians project continued world growth and are alarmed. The Anti-Malthusians project Stage 3 of the demographic transition onto the Least Industrialized Nations and are reassured. There is no question that the Least Industrialized Nations are in Stage 2 of the demographic transition. The question is, Will these nations enter Stage 3? After World War II, the West exported its hybrid seeds, herbicides, and techniques of public hygiene around the globe. Death rates plummeted in the Least Industrialized Nations as their food supply increased and health improved. Because their birth rates stayed high, their populations exploded. This alarmed demographers, just as it had Malthus 200 years earlier. Some predicted worldwide catastrophe if something were not done immediately to halt the population explosion. We can use the conflict perspective to understand what happened when this message reached the leaders of the industrialized world. They saw the exploding populations of the Least Industrialized Nations as a threat to the global balance of power they had so carefully worked out. With swollen populations, the poorer countries might demand a larger share of Earth’s resources. The leaders found the United Nations to be a willing tool, and they used it to spearhead efforts to reduce world population growth. The results have been remarkable. The annual growth of the Industrializing Nations has dropped by close to half (44 percent), from 2.5 percent a year in the 1960s to 1.4 percent today (Kaneda et al. 2019). The New Malthusians and Anti-Malthusians have greeted this news with incompatible interpretations. For the Anti-Malthusians, this slowing of growth is the signal they were waiting for: Stage 3 of the demographic transition has begun. First, the death rates in the Least Industrialized Nations fell; now, just as they predicted, birth rates are also falling. Did you notice, they would say if they looked at Figure 14.2, that it took 12 years to add the fifth billion to the world’s population—and also 12 years to add the sixth billion—and also 12 years to add the seventh billion? Despite millions upon millions of more women of childbearing age, population growth has leveled off. The New Malthusians reply that the growth is slower than it was, but a slower growth rate still spells catastrophe; it will just take longer for it to hit. 457 Then the Anti-Malthusians drop a bombshell, making the New Malthusians moan in disbelief. They say that our future will be the opposite of what the New Malthusians worry about: There are going to be too few children in the world, not too many. The world’s problem will not be a population explosion, but population shrinkage—populations getting smaller. Europe points to the future. If it weren’t for immigration from Africa, all the countries of Europe would fill more coffins than cradles (Kaneda et al. 2019). Population shrinkage has also reached Asia, with Japan’s population dropping by about 400,000 people a year (Kaneda et al. 2019). With their need for future workers and their dislike of immigrants, to say that Japan’s politicians are worried would be an understatement. Some Anti-Malthusians even predict a demographic free fall. As more nations enter Stage 4 of the demographic transition, the world’s population will peak and then begin to grow smaller. Two hundred years from now, they say, we will have a lot fewer people on Earth. Who is right? It simply is too early to tell. Like the proverbial pessimists who see the glass of water half-empty, the New Malthusians interpret changes in world population growth negatively. And like the eternal optimists who see the same glass half-full, the Anti-Malthusians view the figures positively. Sometime during our lifetimes, we should know the answer.