An interesting topic of discussion has been on the agenda in recent years... The question that comes to mind is "Was Malthus right?" Could Malthus, who lived in the 17th century and was called a pessimistic economist and even said to be exaggerated in his ideas, actually just been a forward-thinking economist who was not understood in his time?
Thomas Malthus, in "An Essay on the Principle of Population" published in 1798, stated that "Humanity is condemned to a tendency for the population to grow geometrically while food production increases only arithmetically." This view, also known as the Malthusian crisis or the Malthusian ghost, is based on the idea that after a point the food supply will not be able to adapt to population growth, this will result in disease, famine, and war, and the only solution is to control population growth. This view of Malthus has been criticized in many respects. For example, issues such as his failure to provide evidence that the population increased geometrically and the food supply increased arithmetically, and his failure to predict the technology factor were emphasized. However, we can say that the most effective criticism came from the British historian and economist Cannan. According to Cannan, “a baby comes into the world with not only a mouth and a stomach, but also a pair of hands. This population growth will increase not only agricultural but also medium industrial production with an increase in manpower, thus increasing wealth. Similar to Cannan, economist Julian Simon, who wrote The Ultimate Resource in 1981, said, “Humans are not just more mouths to feed, but also productive and creative people who help find creative solutions to human problems, thus leaving us better off in the long run.” He criticized Malthus with the statement "They are minds." With all these criticisms, Malthus' theory took its place among the dusty shelves of economic history. However, this theory, which was forgotten and remained in the 17th century, has begun to be questioned again with today's developments. The main reason for this question was undoubtedly climate change.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to continue agricultural activities in a new world order where global temperatures increase and the climate changes as harmful gasses mix with the atmosphere. The incredible increase in population growth and the increase in carbon emissions are well above the world's sufficient capacity. Individuals living in countries most exposed to the negative effects of the climate, such
as Africa, migrate to areas where water and soil are fertile, food prices increase and access to food
becomes more and more difficult, bringing Malthus' theory to the agenda again. Many economists such as Weil and Wilde (2010) and Rahman (2018) state that Malthus' theory is valid today.
So, was Thomas Malthus right? This issue seems likely to be discussed for a long time.
