Echoes of the Malthusian Debate at the Population Summit

Abstract

In 1793 Condorcet wrote to scientists about the important effect of wasteful consumption the need to improve energy efficiency and the usefulness of recycling. Malthusian notions of the natural laws of population continue to create scientific and literary controversy. Godwins reply to Malthus in 1820 suggests a sustainable population limit of 9000 million. The 1993 World Population Science Summit held in New Delhi set a potential limit of 10 billion in 2050. Condorcet and Godwin believed man to be capable of reasoning about future population growth and responsible for constructing scientific tables of mortality. Summit papers by Nathan Keyfitz and Kerstin Lindahl-Kiessling support an overlooked Malthusian belief that futurists would plan for the balance between future growth and natural resources. The Summit papers are environmental Malthusianism proposing that severe environmental damage will result if the consumption of poorer countries increases to the level of consumption in developed countries. The Summit papers also suggest that population increase is the key agent affecting local and regional environmental degradation. The number of migrants and refugees is expected to increase and to result in civil strife. Worldwide patterns are not described very well in the Summit papers. Natural scientific findings are disappointing. Individual fertility decisions have social consequences. Godwin and Hazlitt differ from Malthus in crediting political institutions as the cause of food shortages and overcrowding. Another Malthus critic George Ensor believed that fertility was controlled by intelligence and self-interest. Hazlitt Godwin and Ensor focused on the role of political institutions in affecting fertility decisions. The Summit papers neglect the role of political institutions but adhere to Condorcets ideal of a universal union of sciences concerned with fertility energy conservation and responsibility to future populations.