Malthusian Vs. Boserup Future
One area of my AS Geographical study that particularly captured my attention was the conflict between Geographical theories and the use of such theoretical assumptions to aid in both our future development and our present understanding of sustainability. I've been particularly enthused by the juxtaposing Malthusian and Boserup theories about our future.
Side note #1: explanation time for the "non-Geographically-obsessed" i.e. a definition of those two words that keep popping up with capital letters.
A Malthusian Future:
The Malthusian theory suggests that, as population grows at an arithmetic rate and food production at a numerical rate, we will, quite frankly, eventually run out of food. Inevitably, in the Malthusian future, population growth will overtake that of food production, leaving us with too little food to sustainably support the world population.
A Boserup Future:
The Boserup theory suggests that despite the differing growth rates of population and food production, we as humans possess both the knowledge and the resources to both sustain and maintain an accessible supply of food, be it in the form of GM (Genetically-Engineered) crops, different forms of food (scientists are presently producing liquid food, taking the constituents of dietry requirements down to a molecular level - see the National Geographic feature from early 2014), or using land space more creatively (for instance, building tall greenhouses).
What intrigued me the most about their conflict was how urgently relevant it is - what with the world population having almost trebled in the last 50 years. Isn't that amazing? Crazy. It was strikinginly contextualised in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth where he explains that the population had grown by such an astonishing rate within his lifetime, progressing from 2 billion to nearly 8 billion.
The (arguably) ambigiously suggested assumption of both theories that present food levels (acknowledging that they were suggested in the 20th and 18th centuries) are satisfactory and evenly distributed was also interesting, given the obvious abundance of food in some areas as well as the disturbing lack in others.
Personally, I believe both are of equal importance.
I think that a Malthusian future is inevitable and may indeed be where we are heading. However, I also believe that the Boserup theory is applicable to our future; the difference between our future existing as one theory or the other lies in our willingness to act. I initially drafted the preceding sentence with the word 'ability', but then that would lead indefinitely to both the Boserup and Malthusian future - we may possess the knowledge, skills and resources to manage food production, but without the willingness to act upon such possessions, we will reach a Malthusian future anyway.
I think success in a lot of things regarding our future and the like all come down to the fundamental foundation of our willingness to act upon them. In fact, everything comes down to the possession of will; it's what Al Gore stresses in his campaign to combat Climate Change, it's essential to accomplishing any goals, it is, in most cases, the source of success.
So, I think rather that we may be looking at a Boserup-Malthusian future presently, but as to which theory we indeed attain, our willingness to act is where we should look for sustainability and success.
Although there remain obstacles, such as The Big Name - Climate Change, the fact that what may be accessible and effective in one country or region may not be so in another, and that perhaps present areas of drastic imbalance between food production/access and population should be approached as a stepping stone for tackling our future.
In the end, what we are willing to work towards is the limit to what we are able to achieve.
So, what will it be?
A Malthusian catastrophe?
Or a Boserup triumph?
C
[Written during holiday: 01/08/2014]
No comments:
Post a Comment