"NeoMalthusians" and "cornucopians" are the labels given to different schools of thought about the impact of population growth on economic development and environmental quality. Write an essay in which you contrast the positions taken by these two schools on the demographic future of the human species. Based on the available evidence on current population and resource trends, which school of
thought do you find more convincing? Why?
What will be an ideal response?
Global environmental issues engage the competing perspectives of optimistic
cornucopians and pessimistic neo-Malthusians. Cornucopians adhere to the belief
that if free markets and free trade prevail, ecological imbalances that threaten
humanity will eventually be corrected. For them, prices are the key adjustment
mechanism that ultimately produces the greatest good for the greatest number of
people. Neo-Malthusians, on the other hand, have a lot in common with economic
mercantilism, which argues that free markets fail to prevent excessive resource
exploitation and that, accordingly, intervention by governing institutions is necessary.
This latter perspective rejects the belief that the free market will always maximize
social welfare.
You might also like to view...
Why do winning candidates claim a mandate even though political scientists generally discredit the mandate theory of elections?
a. Politicians think that political scientists do not understand how things actually work. b. Voters do not necessarily prefer all of the winning candidate's issue positions. c. Winning candidates want to justify their policy proposals by claiming that the public supports them. d. Winning candidates are not well versed in the political science literature.
According to Micah L. Sifry, campaigns at all levels of American politics tend to focus on mobilizing
a. likely voters. b. political independents. c. voters who do not normally vote. d. highly ideological voters.