Imagine a world where destitution imbues the globe. In reality, the Earth is not far from that. Currently, the abundance of natural resources coexists with profligacy, which inevitably will block viable solutions to global subsistence and the abolishment of extreme poverty. Resources were not always in danger of depletion. However, starting in the 1950s, something unfathomable transpired: a doubling of the world’s population from 3 billion to the current 7.4 billion. It took humans all the way to 1800 CE to reach one billion. In just a little over two centuries, six billion more people were added to the planet, making humans go from another species of large apes to global ubiquity. However, this ascendency did not occur problem-free. With the population increase, indigence followed. Thus came the question begging to be asked: can Earth possibly sustain this many people?

Sustainability is on the premise that everyone has the ability to survive. Hence, those living in extreme poverty are a violation to sustainability. Extreme poverty was first recognized by the United Nations in 1995 as a condition in which people struggle to subsist[1]. Quantitatively, the abjectly poor survive on $1.25 or less per diem. In Sierra Leone, the 17th poorest country in the world, the average salary of a person is 90¢ a day. When the subject of extreme poverty was first broached, people disregarded its gravity, assuming there will always be poor people. While this is partially true, being poor and being extremely poor is radically different. The difference, in sum, is one is capable of surviving and the other is not. The lack of sufficient monetary support forces the abjectly poor to relinquish one of the basic human needs such as food, sanitation, or shelter.

There is no deficiency of basic human needs in the more developed countries (MDC). Extreme poverty appears to be preposterously unfeasible as even the homeless can scrape up more than $1.25 each day. Yet, in the less developed countries (LDC), poverty is pervasive. In Somalia, the term homelessness is obsolete because nearly every citizen lacks a proper shelter. Current data informs us that approximately 12% of the world’s total population lives in extreme poverty, which equates to more than 8 million people that cannot afford basic needs. However, it is imperative to note that 85% of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty just 200 years prior. Countries such as Canada, Russia, and even the present-day superpower China were impoverished. The reduction of extreme poverty presents a sliver of hope and is fundamentally due to two factors: populations and resources.

Demographers claim there is a direct correlation between population and poverty. With the population increasing at an alarming rate, more and more people became obsessed with prognosticating population. The first prediction occurred in 1798 when Thomas Malthus published his findings on the correlation between population and food supply. Malthus, an English cleric and economic scholar, was influential in the fields of political economy and demography. During his time, subsistence farming[2], the main farming system, was very labor-intensive and inefficient. Watching this unproductive method pursue, Malthusian viewed the increase in population as a threat to human existence, which became known as the Malthusian theory.

The Malthusian theory is based on the different growth rates between the food supply and the population. Malthus believed the food production increases at an arithmetic rate, i.e. 1,2,3, whereas the population increased at a geometric rate, i.e.1,2,4,8 and so on. Eventually, the geometric rate of population growth will outgrow the food supply rate to the extent of an unsustainable population called the Malthusian Crisis. If the Malthusian Crisis did occur, mass starvation would be omnipresent. The global population would plunge drastically until there is enough food for everyone again. However, the mass starvation is just a means of resetting the population growth rate. Eventually, the Malthusian Crisis would resurge and the tragic cycle repeats.

However, Malthus missed two critical points. First, Malthus did not account for the industrial revolution, which catalyzed the production rate of agriculture well beyond the population growth rate. New technology advancements allowed people to mass-produce goods. Machines replaced people and thus increasing efficiency. The efficiency was further intensified with the help of fertilizers and pesticides. Consequently, as the output of food supply greatly surpassed the population growth rate, farming evolved from a sustainability mean to a business. Malthus also did not factor in the population increase as an incentive on the economy. More people translate to more demand and more workers, which entails an increase in the agriculture supply rate.

Due to Malthus’s miscalculations, the Malthusian crisis has failed to materialize. He has been heavily criticized for his inability to foresee the Industrial Revolution and its effects on the economy. However, the possibility of a Malthusian crisis cannot be overlooked. There is a definite supply and land limitation. Without proper spending, it is just a matter of time before the Earth runs out of resources and fails to provide for humankind. For such reasons, researchers from the United Nations still firmly believe in the Mathusian Crisis. Once we experience the crisis, there is little to nothing we can do to prevent the devastating consequences.

Malthus is not alone for theorists who have ventured into the prognostication of global population. In 1965, Boserup emerged with her theory of agriculture intensification. In her first published book The Conditions of Agricultural Growth, she delineates distinct patterns reflecting primitive agriculture to population. Differently Malthus, she regarded population increase as a fundamental drive for agricultural production. With more people, more labor is available for agricultural use. Consequently, she arrived at the conclusion that the population is likely to grow ad infinitum. Although true to a certain extent, her theory exhibits a paucity of natural impediments, which will eventually limit the population under a certain amount. These impediments are known as preventative and positive checks.

Preventative checks are artificial hindrances such as postponement of marriage, reproduction, or increased cost of food. One such example is the China’s “one-child policy” rule. Under this policy, families were castigated and punished financially if they had more than one child. Fines were imposed for additional children and the families who had only one child were given an incentive. However, this is an extreme case due to China’s soaring population at the time. In many instances, resetting the population growth requires only moderate preventative checks. When the world requires more significant moderations, it knows to rely on positive checks.

Positive checks are such bigger scale events as famine, war, or disease. Many current positive checks are natural disasters. A country’s growth rate can experience drastic reductions without the population itself seriously plummeting. In Journal of Asian Studies, Theodore Bestor, a researcher at Cambridge University, explored the effects of the 9.1 magnitude Japan Earthquake. In addition to the casualties, the earthquake also absorbed most of the resources of Japan. As chaos ensued, production of crops, manufacturing of goods, and economic developments were under temporary suspension. This transitory halt was enough to stunt the growth rate of Japan.

In addition to its ability for retrenchment, perhaps, the more noteworthy impact of these capricious positive checks is their unpredictability. This, for better or for worse, limits humans’ influence on population growth, making the human population impossible to foresee. However, that did not prevent Hans Roslings, a preeminent statistician, shared his views on the population projections. Roslings served as a District Medical Officer in the LDC Mozambique while pursuing his Ph.D. in medicine. There, he was exposed to the harsh conditions of the impoverished and began researching potential solutions. Learning from both Malthus and Boserup, Roslings made sure to factor in both economic and geographic potentials of countries.

Roslings graphed each country’s wealth with its corresponding population and illustrated his findings on his most recent publication: Ten Reasons We’re Wrong About the World. As a result, he concluded that only Asia and Africa will see a population increase. This prediction became the groundwork for city planning for many civil engineers. However, over 5 billion people reside in Asia and Africa already. They do not lack human labour and an increase in population will only put pressure on a staggering economy. This is where resources come into play. The only feasible way to sustain more people is to reduce the resource usage. Since the impoverished are already consuming very little resources, the sacrifice must come for the opulent.

Retrenchment can be seen in everyday life; recycling papers reduce the number of trees used. A noteworthy example of retrenchment from the opulent is the Earth Day. Earth Day dates back to 1970 as a political complaint regarding the lack of due respect for the environment. Almost 50 years later, more than 4 billion people took action on this international event. The deeds range from small things such as planting a tree to such large-scale phenomena as cutting the entire country's electricity for an hour. From a moot complaint to one of the largest international events, Earth Day has waned the effects of climate change drastically. Thus, this exemplifies how one small action can potentially alter the whole world.

According to NASA, on 2016’s Earth Day, Finland, Iceland, Denmark, and Sweden all ceased electricity consumption from 9:00 am to 10:00 am. It is challenging to collaborate in a city, let alone a whole country, so it is expected that these countries are the better environmental-friendly countries in the world[3]. The termination of electricity not only saved energy, but encouraged more physical contact between people. Based on their average consumption of electricity per day, it is estimated that the 4 countries combined saved 60,000 J, which translates to almost a quarter year's electricity usage of the LDC Bangladesh. It is fascinating what the MDC’s can achieve in just one hour.

For the 2017 Earth Day, the United Nations (UN) went on a 1 billion expedition to make electricity more accessible for the LDC's in Africa. They installed proper transmission lines across 13 countries, including Somalia, Sierra Leone, and Bangladesh. Now, instead of trying to dangerously reconduct the electricity from a wealthier country to theirs, they have affordable and attainable electricity right beside them.  At first, the expedition received much opprobrium as the resources could have been utilized to mitigate the conflict in Syria. However, the mission resulted in a great economic success, as the 13 countries' economy is growing at a faster rate than ever. In particular, Bangladesh, with the help of the UN, has managed to flourish and climb out of the category of LDC's. Ergo, a modest amount of economic incentives from the opulent can directly and radically ameliorate the conditions of the LDC’s.

With the advent of modern technology, the use of electricity became a global staple. The water dams, wind turbines, and solar panels produced ample energy for all humankind. At the prospect of worry-free, electricity pervaded the globe. Nowadays, electricity can be seen everywhere; in machinery, houses, portable devices, etc. However, electricity is dilatorily converting from a basic necessity to a luxury. As prices increase, the haves will still manage to lavishly exploit energy and eradicate darkness in their own abodes. The extra $100 bill for electricity, although undesirable, seems trivial to them. Yet, the same $100 bill will have enough impact to devolve the unfortunate families in the LDC back to using candles as a primary light source.

In 2016, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development reported that the rich consume almost 95% of all produced electricity, leaving only 5% for the LDC’s to portion among themselves. The Demographic Republic of the Congo, for instance, consumes about 900,000,000 kWh per year, which is around 0.004% of world’s consumption of electricity. This disparity occludes a plausible solution to extreme poverty. Being under the incentive of reducing electricity cost for LDC’s, the rich must reduce their consumption. The cutback does not need to be detrimental to their extravagant spending. If Asia[4], consumption of 70% of world’s electricity, were to reduce their usage by 5%, it would lower the cost of electricity in China by nearly 50 million. The 5% reduction alone can transpire into 4 years worth of electricity in Africa.

The sea of lights paints a misleading picture of electricity’s dominance. In the evening, it seems as if electricity is the only energy consumption. However, in reality, over 80% of all global energy usage is fossil fuel. Fossil fuel usage is more problematic due to the inability to replenish this limited resource. Unlike electricity, fossil fuel cannot be manufactured. The natural process for creating oil may take up to millions of years and we have yet to find a suitable substitution for the long hiatus. Without fossil fuel, the gas for cars, the coal for trains, and the energy for factories will all be defunct. Ironically, the ones who are performing the profligacy are the ones who depend on these activities.

Fossil fuel reduction can only occur in the MDC’s as the LDC’s are simply too poor to afford any appliances that expend a noticeable amount of fuel. A comparable example is transportation. Most people living in the LDC rely on walking or biking as a main source of transportation. There is a scarcity of automobile use on account of high expenses and underdeveloped infrastructures. In the MDC’s, most people’s common transportation is the automobile or public transit, which runs on fossil fuel. Cement manufacturing also utilizes plenty of fossil fuel. As cities become more and more developed, the use of cement also raised. However, LDCs have barely any proper roads, let alone cemented roads. Ergo, the reduction must be from the developed countries.

The limited resources and human population determine the sustainability of Earth. Although the population is in a constant state of fluctuation, the general trend is always a larger population than ever before. The accrescent population will challenge Earth’s carrying capacity to its limit, but it is still possible for 11 billion people to survive on this planet together. With moderate consumption from the MDCs, resources can be better spread among all countries, which can lead to the eradication of extreme poverty. However, the possibility is proportional to the opulence’s willingness to reduce their consumption to a level that can be shared among 11 billion people. I tend to not subscribe to an optimistic view, but I also believe the world is much better than we think.  

[1] To have insufficient food, potable water, shelter, sanitation, health, and education.
[2] farming to produce for only one family
[3] According to the 2016 Environmental Productions Inc report
[4] Mainly China, Japan, and India