Malthusian Perspective 

After reading and discussing both perspectives of overpopulation, it makes it clear that this is a complex issue. I believe we are connected to our environment, which means we need to take responsibility for what we are doing to our surroundings. This includes living sustainably, where we have enough resources, whether for food, shelter, or clothing, while still leaving some in nature. Overpopulation strains our resources, but so do people who don't live sustainably. Many wealthy families who have a few people in their group consume and waste more resources than some poorer families who have more members. I can understand the Malthusian perspective of a threat to survival, but I think that one of human beings' best qualities is our adaptability. When we see a situation going badly, we find solutions, and we adjust because it will help us survive. I think the concerns for lack of resources are well founded, and overpopulation definitely contributes. But, I think the problem is more to do with how we interact with our environment- if we use what we need we should be fine, but since people over-consume it can become a problem. Ehrlich mentions that threats to the environment include "excessive consumption, pesticide use, disease, and the ecological limits that he thought constrained future food production" (Sabin 11). So, if we're worried about survival, we should focus more on studying diseases to eradicate them, stop wasting food, stop using pesticides, and stop using the monoculture crop method of growing food, since it makes plants susceptible to diseases and creates a capitalist market for feeding people. That in turn means that people, and in fact countries, can be chosen for whether or not they deserve food. Ehrlich himself believed this to be a solution- "Countries should be separated according to whether they 'can't be saved' (Haiti, Egypt, India), were 'walking wounded' (Libya, The Gambia), or 'should receive food' (Pakistan Tunisia)" (Sabin 25). Additionally, it hurts enterprise because food is grown by large corporations instead of smaller businesses, so people have less say of what's in their food and how it's produced.

This leads in to Simon's argument, "Whether population growth is too fast or too slow is a value judgement, not a scientific one" (Sabin 62). The value we put on resources, on the earth, and on people are what define how we're going to respond to these issues. If we focus on people as being intelligent and innovative, overpopulation shouldn't be a major concern, since people are smart enough to understand the best options and how to counter major issues. Rita James, Simon's amazing wife, discussed (transracial) adoption and immigration in her career, as well as was an advocate of women's rights, an important section of the overpopulation debate. Instead of the inhumane ideas Ehrlich proposed and other Malthusians thought was a viable option, Rita and Julian promoted advertising birth control, keeping it optional, as well as strategized government-run monetary incentives for having less children, because "even in family planning, he thought, people make 'rational decisions'" (Sabin 77). Simon also proved that statistic for overpopulation are not "straightforward and clear-cut" (Sabin 80), so there are many ways to stay adaptable to fixing overpopulation. So, overpopulation is a major issue, but there are ways to counter it humanely. Additionally, it's over-consumption and the way we treat the environment that caused these issues, so we should focus on them before trying to decide who gets to eat and why others deserve it more.

Work Cited

Sabin, Paul. The Bet: Paul Ehrlich, Julian Simon, and Our Gamble over Earth's Future. New Haven: Yale UP, 2013. Print.