Thomas Malthus in his exposition “An Essay on the Principle of Population,” proclaimed that exponentially the human population increases whereas the production of food rises arithmetically thus little or no resources would be available for human survival if control of population growth was not in place. Surprisingly, in over two decades later the purported starvation predicted by Malthus holds almost no water, with that the population still grows and humans keep ahead with advanced technological methods to supply food and enhance human survival. The population principle is still wrong due to the numerous reasons looked into in subsequent paragraphs.
First off, Thomas Malthus was wrong in his presumption that with physical convenience women would give birth to as many kids as they can yet in the past forty years ago, children whom women give birth and the fertility rates have declined in a great deal from five to half of it.The prediction by the United Nations confirms that a population decrease will be evident in the coming years that in twenty eighteen the growth will be down by 0.1 percent. At the moment the reduction in the births has been observed in Russia and also Japan (Inglehart, and Wayne, 27).
Malthus forgot the fact that the human beings unlike other animals have a conscience thus possess the ability to tically think over the number children they bear critically. Thomas suggested suppressed birth system to ensure food security. The principle stated that nations with a large population are at risk of food insecurity while the ones with less population but over the years the argument has been proved otherwise whereby countries like the United States of America thrive despite a large number of people there.
In a nutshell, I solely believe that the solution to food crises is not to force individuals to control to give birth to few children but to implement technological measure to ensure production of more foodstuff.
Inglehart, Ronald, and Wayne E. Baker. “Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values.” American sociological review (2000): 19-51.