Question

Writing in the 19th century, the British economist Thomas Malthus argued that the law of diminishing marginal returns implied eventual misery for humanity because, in the case of agriculture, there is a fixed amount of available land and additional labor would only yield ever smaller increases in food production. The inevitable result, as Malthus saw it, was that population growth would eventually drive average food consumption excessively downward.

We have not yet seen this outcome. Malthus never would have imagined that food production per capita would be more than 20 times what it was a century ago. Importantly, this outcome does not contradict the law of diminishing returns. What do you think accounted for this growth in agricultural output during this time, while still facing the inevitability of diminishing returns? (Consider how the production function has been affected during this time period.)

Answer 1

answer:

  for 200 years, economic experts says that, Malthus ignores the technological power, Which allow human beings to keep ahead of the population curve. Food production is not only depends upon the earth but also the on know how. Seed breeding, soil nutrient replenishment, irrigation, mechanization and more. And food supply can stay well ahead of population curve.

Advances in technology through water use, agricultural energy, manufacturing, desease control, transport,information management can keep production raising ahead of population.