Ratikanta Panda
Thomas Robert Malthus in his essay on ‘Principle of Population’ argued that unquenchable urge to reproduce will be permanent; and that while resources will continue to grow in arithmetic progression, population shall grow in geometric progression. There are claims and counter-claims to the hypothesis he propounded in 1798.
Also Read
However, there has been yawning differences between the need of the population for resources and the actual resources available. This difference is not at macro level. There might be enough grains in India to feed the entire population, yet people die of hunger and diseases caused by malnutrition. The inequality and inequitable distribution of resources accentuate the outcome of the hypothesis framed by Malthusian economists.
It is often said that resources are mere cultural appraisals. Essentially, people can create resources out of thin air. Wind energy was used to produce electricity in 1888 though wind was always there. Similarly, Marco Polo unveiled petroleum in the 13th Century, yet the preponderance of petroleum became prevalent in recent times. The availability of resources which are said to be cultural appraisals to all within the human race is at best scanty and equitable distribution dubious. Both opulence and abject poverty are there for display. For example, there are countries like Iceland and Norway, which have per capita electric consumption of more than 2 KwH and there are Chad, Somalia, Burundi and other sub-Saharan African countries that have per capita electric consumption at 10 watts. So, if electric consumption is the sole basis of existence, then a person in Iceland consumes 5,777 times of this than a person in Chad.
The inequality is not only across different nations. Within a single-nation state, the differences could be more pronounced. In India, top 1 per cent of the population owns 77 per cent of wealth of the country.
Can a forced demographic transition as that of China be the panacea? No. One problem is inequality and inequitable distribution of resources, which make one individual to consume thousand times more than the individual with lowest availability of choice in economic ladder. Second is the kind of polity such a forced demographic transition necessitates. A human being will abhor what is forced on him. He will intrinsically harmonise his choices with the choice of nature in the long run. So, the polity of China is not scalable.
Hence, any solution around the problems of population should be addressed directly. Do we have enough resources to sustain this 7.5 billion population in which every individual shall live to her fullest potential? This can be addressed at macro level and at an individual level. Earth Overshoot Day calculated by Global Footprint Network fell on August 22 this year which essentially means, we have exhausted our resources for this year in less than 9 months. This year, the Day was observed three weeks later due to the lull in economic activity. Our macro consumption should be less than 70 per cent in order to sustain the humanity as a whole for a longer term.
Do we ever care to ask about the carrying capacity of Earth pertaining to humans, i.e., how many people this Earth can sustain? With this extend of macro level consumption, Earth can sustain only 70 per cent of the current population. However, if the inequality and inequitable distributions are addressed, then Earth can sustain 9 to 10 billion population, says Harvard University Sociologist Edward O. Wilson. Food and freshwater can quench the animal needs of the population, but what about the aesthetic and spiritual needs of such bourgeoning population?
The solution clearly lies in the trusteeship model of Mahatma Gandhi, where the haves possess the wealth for the downtrodden, marginalised and vulnerable population. “Rivers do not drink their waters themselves, nor do trees eat their fruit, nor do the clouds eat the grains raised by them. The wealth of the noble is used solely for the benefit of others.” If we as a race use the trusteeship theory in its entirety, then we can truly fulfil the maxim from Taittiriya Upanishad, “From Joy we have come, in Joy we live and have our being, and in that sacred Joy we will one day melt again”.
The writer is an Officer on Special Duty, Government of Odisha.
