Malthus and Population Growth

James Pinkerton (Commentary, Jan. 1) attacks as wrong Malthus’ position that “population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio.” Thus leading readers to believe an opposing argument will follow. Unfortunately, all he offered was that increased food production has been able to keep up, so far, and that Malthus also said that economic growth would improve the prospects of the populace, as if that was a contradiction of his main thesis.

In the short 200 years since Malthus, the population has exploded many times over, two-thirds of which don’t get enough to eat. But the real issue is quality of life, a concept men like Pinkerton force-filter through the prism of money. For them, an endlessly expanding population equals an ever growing market base. Modern archeology shows us that past civilizations ultimately perished because of the same disregard for sustainability in the face of unlimited population demand.

KARL JOHNSON

Studio City

*

While I am no adherent to Malthusian theory, Pinkerton fails to observe the inherent collision that is occurring between our environment and our immigration policy.

The current rate of close to a million immigrants a year, plus huge illegal immigration, will result in a national population estimated by some to reach nearly half a billion by 2050.

Despite any theory of growth, we will be unable to cope with traffic, pollution and possible food shortage unless we take some action to prevent this runaway growth.

BYRON SLATER

San Diego

*

U.S. Census Bureau figures indicate that the population of L.A./Orange/Riverside grew by nearly 1 million people between 1990 and 1996 (Jan. 1).

Yet if some environmental groups had their way, these people would have nowhere to live, work, shop or recreate. Over the 23 years I have called myself an environmentalist, I have seen the politics of some groups degenerate from objective opposition of irresponsible development to an emotional “hands off all our open space” policy. Some groups make vague references to redevelopment for our expanding population, yet they’d likely not support moving people from their homes to create denser development.

If environmental groups wish to preserve their credibility, they must begin to accept some open space losses.

KATHY KEANE

Long Beach