Alex Molina.9/18/13 Pd.1 I do believe that Thomas Malthus's hypothesis could still come true today. I think this because, the video shows us with facts and diagrams about how we humans use way more resources than we should for agriculture. For example, according to the video we dedicate 40% of the earth's available land and 70% of earths drinkable water withdraws to agriculture. Not to mention, agriculture has doubled the flows of nitrogen and phosphorus on the world and created much biodiversity loss. The worlds population is increasing at a rate that would reach 90 billion people by 2040 which would be too many people to handle for the amount of food that we can produce. So if we don't figure out something to slow down the population growth, Malthus's theory may come true quicker than we can afford it to.
I think it is possible for Malthus' thesis to come true. According to Johnathan Foley, due to our growing population and developing countries, we will soon need to produce at least twice the amount of food we do now. Agriculture already takes up 40% of Earth's land surface, and is still growing. Between a growing population and a need for agricultural space, while preserving the environment, we will run out of room. So, unless we find a new, efficient way to mass produce food at the same quantity as agriculture, it is very possible we will not have enough resources, and the world will end up in famine.
I believe that Malthus' hypothesis could still come true today. The hypothesis states that over time, as population grows at its natural rate, it outgrows food production. This would prove to be problematic as there would be food shortages and world wide famine, along with a rapid increase in price of food. This effect was avoided before due to the industrial revolution and new farming practices. However, today, our population's consumption is starting to reach our food production levels again, which poses a threat. As you can see in "The Other Inconvenient Truth", we are using 40% of all of Earth's land solely for agriculture. Also, this is most of the arable land on Earth we can actually use for agriculture. This means that even if we tried to farm more places on Earth, it would most likely prove ineffective. A massive 70% of all of Earth's freshwater is used for irrigation for agriculture. Due to depletion from this, we also need access to more fresh water. Today, we are sustainable, but if our population continues to grow at the rate it is projected to, we will run out of available resources to produce more food, along with food itself. We can expand our farmlands to more regions, such as north western parts of South America, however serious ecological issues will emerge from this. Some already have, such as the increase of phosphorous and nitrogen emissions in our world, along with biodiversity loss as we destroy habitats from our practices. Also, we are depleting waterways such as the Colorado River and Aral Sea as shown in the video. So, food production is almost reaching its maximum efficiency in terms of places we can farm, because we are running out the necessary resources of arable land and water. So, if the population does keep growing at its expected rate, and we do not increase the efficiency of what we use today, we will have no access to further forms of food and resources, resulting in a worldwide shortage of food, resulting in a worldwide famine, which has the potential to be the greatest disaster humankind ever has or will see.
Tyler Gross9/18/13 Pd.1I believe that it is very possible for Thomas Malthus' hypothesis to come true today. Jonathan Foley illustrates this possibility when he explains that the population will reach nine billion by 2040. Foley explains that this figure means that we will have to produce at least twice the amount of food than we do presently to support this growing population. Along with the growing population, the amount of land used for agriculture is increasing. Agriculture has already consumed forty percent of Earth's arable land, as well as 2,800 cubic kilometers of water each year. With factors like an ever-increasing population and a seemingly never-ending need for more agricultural land, it seems that we will eventually run out of enough food to feed the planet. Thomas Malthus' thesis is supported by these facts, and it appears that unless we find a new way to produce food without consuming the Earth's natural resources, we will eventually run out of enough resources to sustain the seven billion people that inhabit our planet.
I think it is possible for Malthus's hypothesis could come true. for example in the country rondolia back in 1975 there was a road made. Now if you jump further in time this road expanded across the majority of the country in 2001. If you think about it if a road can expand that much in that period of time you might begin to ask ''Can our population increase like that?''. Well the answer is yes. If our population keeps increasing the way it is now we may end up reaching our carrying capacity. And if so happens then then Thomas Malthus's hypothesis came true because we wouldn't be able to provide food and resources and the ability to support people. And if we don't find away to slow down the population growth we will be unable to support people and with our economy the way it is now we wouldn't be able to handle it.
I believe that Malthus's hypothesis could come true in this day of age. We have used most of our resources and we aren't replacing them for the future. Also at the rate of how population is increasing a solution must be made. By 2040 the population estimates to be 90 billion we must be prepared to feed that amount or change our reproductive ways. 40% of the planet is arable land soon that will also be a factor against us since we might not have land for food. In the end, as a whole we must come up with a solution so that our planet and us a kind can continue on earth peacefully.
If the world made no improvements to agriculture and population continued increasing at its staggering rate then Malthus's thesis may come true. The reality is that humans are the most resilient creature on Earth and almost always find a solution to their problems. In fact many solutions have already been discovered they just have not been implemented into mainstream agriculture. In the video shared at the end of Foley's talk, about eight different things were listed as possible solutions to improved agriculture. Some exmples were drip irrigation and water recycling. As these new ideas are implemented they will only continue to be improved on and increase efficiency and yield of agriculture. Also based on the demographic transition model countires' populations will eventually level off or even decline some. This coupled with the improvements that are almost guaranteed to come will prevent Malthus's thesis from becoming a reality.
There is a chance that Malthus' thesis may come true but there is a really slight chance of it. Even though the population is increasing exponentially and food production is increasing arithmetically, it is highly improbable that Malthus' thesis will come true. Towards the end of the video Foley shares ideas that can be used to increase the food production, making it efficient. Some of these ideas are better tillage practices, water recycling and new crop varieties. Foley also talks about the idea of "Terraculture",the collaboration of the ideas and technologies of the Green Revolution and other agricultural technologies to make agriculture efficient. Also, individual countries are trying to control their population by establishing laws like the one child policy in China. Also, as it is predicted that by the year 2100 the world population will level off to 9 billion people. All these facts tied together with the new technologies and ideas, it is pretty much assured that Malthus' thesis will not come true.
The probability of Malthus's thesis coming true is probable if there aren't advancements in agricultural technology for the ever growing population. In 'The other inconvenient truth', Jonathan Foley provided some insight on the increasing percentage of land and water being used just for agriculture. Since the population doubles from it's previous amount, that means that agriculture will need to do the same; maybe even triple the amount. If solutions like Terraculture (combining innovative ideas and technology) can reduce the amount of green house gas emissions, decline of land and water, and hunger before the population reaches 9 billion in 2040, then Malthus's thesis can be disproven. Until then, the possibility of world hunger is likely.
I believe that the idea of Malthus's thesis happening in the future is true. I can infer this because throughout the video, "The other inconvenient truth", the speaker, Jonathan Foley, gave information that showed what we as humans are doing wrong. For example, agriculture is the world's largest use of freshwater. This is because most farmers use a flooding technique. However, if those same farmers used a more water-saving technique, such as "Capture and reuse of runoff", it would save water as this technique would use the excess water from the flooding technique to water the plants. However, if ideas such as this do not become common to everyone, then Malthus' theory would probably become reality in a few decades.
Even with some different agricultural methods, Foley makes it clear that humans are running out of resources and fast. It is not sprawling suburbs and metropolises that are taking over natural ecosystems, it's agriculture. Over 40% of the planet's land has been cleared for farming and cattle raising in order to keep up with the high consumption rate of the booming world population. Not only do the agricultural lands destroy natural resources, such as the Colorado River or the Aral Sea for irrigation or the tropical rainforests, they also are on of the biggest contributors to carbon dioxide emitters, further harming the environment. If predictions are right that at the rate at which humans are multiplying, we may need to triple the amount that we already have, then the planet Earth is in a very serious situation. According to Foley's argument, Malthus's thesis is quickly approaching with few other options left. It would take global cooperation to try and at least prevent the problem if not work on solving it. Malthus is almost already correct. Many countries are already past carrying capacity and keep consuming and reproducing anyways. The problem is already here and it's now getting to the point that we cannot find ways around the consequences anymore. Malthus is unfortunately very correct.
In the day of Thomas Malthus, his prediction sounded very logical, and made sense. There was no evidence of the population growth leveling out, and this was a major contributor to why it would not happen in the present. The video "Another inconvenient truth discussed the problems of present day agriculture, and how many of our resources were devoted to the purpose of growing food. While this video was shocking, I believe the speaker's plan to change global agriculture can work. The speaker talked about some of the low corn yields in eastern Europe, and I think this could be the solution. If we improve our technologies, and use greener alternatives to fertilizers, we could get much higher yields everywhere. This, i believe, could solve the problem.
Thomas Malthus's hypothesis can absolutely come true today because he believed the perfectibility of society will always be out of reach which is true because no matter how many solutions man comes up with, the world will never truly be perfected. Jonathan Foley shows how agriculture and land use may be a bigger culprit in the global environment and could even grow larger as we look to feed over 9 billion people in the future. Malthus argues that the growing population will always be greater than the food supply available and that a rapidly growing population is inevitable and there will never be enough agricultural resources to obtain the population. If advancements were to be made then Malthus's hypothesis could be disproven but it will never be enough to reach a "perfect society" which Malthus argues against.
Based on the statistics and evidence illuminated in Jonathan Foley's presentation, Thomas Malthus's hypothesis that as population growth continues to increase exponentially faster than food supply, poverty and starvation is not only a complete possibility but is inevitable. Foley presents that the land amount used for agriculture is 60 times more than that used for cities and suburbs. In order to divert enough water to irrigate this amount of croplands, the fundamental layout of natural resources such as the Colorado River and The Aral Sea becomes warped and eventually leads to it's depletion. At this rate of which the demand for agriculture increases alongside the growing population that is expected to reach at least 9 billion people, agriculture production has to double or even triple in size in order to satisfy the influx of population. There are Neo Malthusian theories that globally, the Earth can comfortably account for and sustain a maximum population of 5 billion people. As of today we have already surpassed that estimate by 2 billion with the expectation of about 2 billion more. Unless Foley's equitable "Terraculture" idea takes off at a global standpoint and agriculture sustainability becomes feasible, we simply cannot efficiently produce as fast as we are consuming as a planet. Without effective means of maximizing the potential of agricultural production and checks on the climbing population, Malthus's theory on starvation is inescapable.