Regardless of all the technological and agricultural improvements made since the end of the 18th century when Malthus wrote his essay on population, there are more people living in extreme poverty today than there were people (in total) living when his essay was published. This is consistent with what Malthus claimed: there is no way for human population centers to live within their means -- any increase in resources will inevitably lead to a rise in population until the available resources are again insufficient to maintain the population. The seemingly noble cause of ending world hunger, if doable even for a relatively short time, would ultimately lead to more poverty and hunger (barring some unknown hole in Malthus' theory). Is it ethical to help someone in need today if you are quite certain this will only cause more people to suffer later?

Comments

Yes, the fact you cite is consistent with what Malthus claimed. But many other facts are not. There is a strong negative correlation between countries' affluence and their fertility: The more affluent countries tend to have lower fertility, with many affluent countries having fertility rates well below what is needed to maintain their population (Italy's and Spain's are now at 1.28 children per woman, Japan's and Germany's at 1.39, versus 4.96 for Kenya -- find data for other countries e.g. in the CIA World Factbook on the web).

The negative correlation holds diachronically within countries as well: As countries become more affluent, their fertility rate drops. This phenomenon can be observed the world over, across continents and cultures. A good example is the Indian state of Kerala. It used to be among the poorer ones in terms of per capita income, but has had a very strong and effective commitment to the fulfillment of basic social and economic needs, including education for women. In the 1950's, Kerala had a fertility rate of 5.6 children per woman; it was down to 4.1 in 1971, and in 1993 it stood at 1.7 (well below the replacement level of 2.05!). The decline is substantially steeper than the one achieved in China with a very heavy-handed one-child-per-couple policy. It demonstrates conclusively that a dramatic and fully sufficient reduction in fertility can be achieved without coercion. And this even at rather low levels of economic sufficiency: Although Kerala has (because of its emphasis on nutrition, medical care, education, and consequently falling fertility) achieved better economic growth (ca. 6%) than the rest of India and now has higher per capita income than India as a whole, its per capita income is still only about US$700 per person per year (as compared to US$30,000 plus in the affluent countries).

So it's just factually incorrect that, as people can afford more children, they'll have more. In the real world, the exact opposite is true: Among those who have a lot of offspring, the very poor are greatly overrepresented -- because they fear that their survival in old age depends on having children who take care of them and because they fear that a substantial proportion of their offspring will not survive to adulthood.

Contrary to what you say, then, the best way to get fertility rates down without coercion and to reduce future human population numbers is to eradicate severe poverty.

Read another response by Thomas Pogge

Read another response about Environment, Ethics