While Neo-Malthusian theories predicted overpopulation would lead to global famine, this did not occur due to increases in global food supply through technological advances and institutional innovations. However, relying solely on technology may not ensure food security for the future as environmental consequences increase. Overall population growth should not be seen as the primary cause of issues but addressed through improving standards of living, women's empowerment, and sustainable consumption. For these reasons, the Neo-Malthusian view may not apply today.

1. 1. Do you believe in the Neo-Malthusian argument? Why or why not?
As the world population gradually revitalized in the past decades, ideologies related to Malthusian
theory were revived, as it links that overpopulation may result in worldwide food shortage.
Nevertheless, as time passes, it is evident that the nightmarish events and global famine that
Neo-Malthusians anticipated did not occur. In fact, the global grain supply increased by nearly 250
percent between 1950 and 1984. Moreover, it enabled the agriculture sector to accommodate
demands and regulate the decreasing transpiration of global famine. Similarly, technological
advancements and institutional innovation are associated with the population growth that arose in
the 1960s, which aided economic expansion.
Due to the development and use of science and technology in the present world, the population
theory of Malthas has been criticized by various modern economists (Rahman, 2018). According to
Simon (1981), humans are intelligent animals who innovate their way out of scarcity through
greater efficiency, increased supply, or the development of substitutes. Human ingenuity, in other
words, is "the ultimate resource" that makes other resources more plentiful. Nevertheless, Smith
(2014) stated that technological innovation can no longer be relied upon to evince Malthus wrong
as we strive to feed 9-10 billion people by 2050. Unless we are prepared to accept a wide range of
significant, undesirable environmental consequences, technology alone cannot provide food
security in 2050.
Instead of assuming that an inclined birth rate correlates to "more mouths to feed," let us visualize
that it will equate to an "extra two hands and one additional brain" of the potential global asset.
Referring to Simon (1981), it can be elucidated that we should not worry about the arrival of people,
for they are the bearers of the human intelligence source. As technology is the outcome of applied
human intelligence, it assists us in pushing back the world's carrying capacity. Advances in
agricultural production have shown that the Malthusian nightmare can be averted. Modernized
technologies boosted harvest competence and effective storage practices by integrating
well-equipped facilities and machinery. However, let us be reminded that we should not be
over-reliant on the byproducts of technology to ensure a sustainable food system. Hence, if we
continue proving Malthus and its Neo-Malthusian advocates mistaken in their prophecies, food
demand will be further supervised by infusing behavioral consumption change, valuing traditional
knowledge, and other proficient approaches toward food security matters.
In line with this, Follett (2020) suggested that population growth can coincide with an increasing
abundance of natural resources and does not necessarily lead to scarcity and that birth rates are
declining dramatically across much of the world without coercion. Hartmann (1987) also argued
that the real antidote to the population problem lies not in aggressive population control programs
but the improvement of living standards, the position of women in society, and the quality of health
and family planning services. Furthermore, Collins (2002) laid the blame for environmental
degradation not on the multiplying population of the Third World but on the consumption patterns
and lifestyles of the First World.
Contraceptives and reproductive birth control can be considered feasible strategies to combat
overpopulation. Nonetheless, every family has the right to decide how many children they desire to
have without government meddling. As the Neo-Malthusian concept is troubled with population
growth, it tends to deny human rights by implementing repressive reproductive regulations. For
instance, the two-child policy in China drives families with more than two children to be penalized,
including exorbitant fines, job termination, detention, mandatory sterilization, or compulsory
abortion. Meanwhile, countering the overpopulation crisis should not involve oppressive
reproductive laws. Resolutions regarding population growth must address unequal wealth
distribution and the deficiency of public safety nets such as universal health care, education, and
gender equality programs. As well as this, overpopulation should not be the scapegoat for yielding
environmental detriments. The responsibility should be mainly recognized by those nations that

2. dominantly burn coal and other fossil fuels for economic power, and the interplay among political
and social variables must be acknowledged to identify the holistic causes of environmental
degradation.
Contemplating the presented scholarly findings, it can be concluded that Neo-Malthusian theory
may not be applicable nowadays. The ill-notion Neo-Malthusians adhere to may be a pessimistic
outlook that underestimates the capability of human ingenuity to innovate systematic tactics in
dealing with population growth, food security, and environmental disasters. As population
increment heightens human intelligence, it can generate progressive technological advancements
and modernization mechanisms. In addition, overpopulation is not solely accountable for vast
global societal controversies. Rather than authorizing dictatorial reproductive policies, solutions
must be primarily based on raising the most impoverished nations out of poverty via democratic
governance, access to voluntary birth control, women's education and economic empowerment,
and the like.
Even so, let us not wholly disregard the probable prediction of the Neo-Malthusian theory. Likewise,
if various administrations seek population control agendas, they must enclose more inclusive
growth, greener economic development, and does not mandate forceful ordinances. Moreover,
humanity must not only be dependent on technology to stabilize food security. On second thought,
food demand will require to be operated, particularly concerning food exhaustion and striving to
reduce food waste. As it is observable that we are reaching the apex of planetary boundaries due
to augmenting consumption levels, it is our obligation as inhabitants of the Earth to manage
resource scarcities by assimilating effectual and humanitarian-oriented propositions.

3. References
Collins, P. (2002). Population growth the scapegoat? Rethinking the Neo-Malthusian debate.
Energy & Environment, 13(3), 401–422. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43735423
Follett, C. (2020). Neo-Malthusianism and coercive population control in China and India:
Overpopulation concerns often result in coercion. Policy Analysis, 897. Retrieved from
https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/neo-malthusianism-coercive-population-control-china-i
ndia-overpopulation-concerns
Hartmann, B. (1987). Reproductive rights and wrongs: The global politics of population control and
contraceptive choice. New York, New York, us: HarperCollins Publishers.
Rahman, M. (2018). Validity of Malthusian Theory of Population in 20th Century in Terms of Using
Scientific Technology to the Economic Growth and Strength. International Journal of Tax
Economics and Management, 1(1), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.35935/tax/11.2113
Simon, J. (1981). The ultimate resource. Princeton, New Jersey, us: Princeton University Press.
Smith, P. (2014). Malthus is still wrong: we can feed a world of 9–10 billion, but only by reducing
food demand. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 74(3), 187–190.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0029665114001517