EU Logo
Mining Conflict in Cordillera del Cóndor | Acción Ecológica, Ecuador
Manta-Manaos Mega-project | Acción Ecológica, Ecuador
Campania Waste Crisis | A Sud, Italy
High Speed Train Conflict (TAV) | A SUD, Italy
Local Governance and Environment Investments | CSE, India
Participatory Forest Management | CSE, India
Nautical Tourism Impacts | SUNCE, Croatia
Djerdap National Park and Local Communities | Endemit, Serbia
Deforestation and REDD Measures in the Amazon | REBRAF, Brazil
Forestry and Communities in Cameroon | CeD-FOE, Cameroon
Environmental Justice / Ecological Debt in Belgium | VODO, Belgium (Flanders)
Aid, Social Metabolism and Social Conflict in India | IFF-UKL, Austria
temp-thumb
temp-thumb
temp-thumb
temp-thumb
temp-thumb
temp-thumb
temp-thumb
temp-thumb
temp-thumb
temp-thumb
temp-thumb
temp-thumb

6. Carrying Capacity and Neo-Malthusianism


Many ecological economists have emphasized the pressure of population on resources. Has humankind exceeded its carrying capacity? This is defined in ecology as the maximum population of a given species, such as frogs in a lake, which can be supported sustainably in a given territory without spoiling its resource base.

However, the large differences internal to the human species in the exosomatic use of energy and materials mean that the first question that arises is; a maximum population at what level of consumption? Second, human technologies change at a quick pace. Boserup’s thesis (1965) of endogenous technical change according to which preindustrial agricultural systems had changed in response to increases in population density, has long since turned the tables on the Malthusian argument. Third, the territories occupied by humans are not ‘given.’ Other species are pushed into corners or into oblivion (as the index HANPP implies). Internal to the human species, territoriality is politically constructed through State migration policies. Fourth, international trade, which is similar to horizontal transport in ecology, but which humans can consciously regulate, may imply ecologically unequal exchange, though if one territory lacks a very necessary item which is abundantly present in another territory, then Liebig’s law of the minimum would recommend exchange. Then the joint carrying capacity of all territories would be larger than the sum of the carrying capacities of all autarchic territories. This links up with the proposals of non-governmental organizations for fair and ecological trade.

Because of the shortcomings of ‘carrying capacity’ as an index of (un)sustainability for humans, the formula I=PAT has been proposed by Paul Ehrlich, where I is environmental impact, P is population, A is affluence per capita, and T stands for the environmental effects of technology. Efforts in the late 1990s were made to operationalize I=PAT. True, popultion remains one important variable. True also, neo-Malthusian population policies in the twentieth century caused many forced sterilizations and large-scale female infanticide in some countries, and they threatened small surviving ethnic groups. However, in the late nineteenth century, another neo-Malthusian movement in Europe and America (as shown by Francis Ronsin and other authors) opposed Malthus’ view that poverty was due to overpopulation rather than social inequality, and fought successfully for limiting births by allowing women to exercise their reproductive rights, sometimes also appealing to ecological arguments of population pressure on resources. Human demography is self-conscious or reflective. Though it also follows Verhulst’s curve, it is different from the ecology of a population of frogs in a lake.

1. Origins

2. Scope

3. Disputes on Value Standards

4. Environmental Indexes of (Un)sustainability

5. The ‘Dematerialization’ of Consumption?

6. Carrying Capacity and Neo-Malthusianism

7. Final Remarks on Transdisciplinarity

References