Food Race

American environmentalist author Daniel Quinn coined the term food race (by analogy to the Cold War's "nuclear arms race") to describe his concept of a perpetually escalating crisis of human overpopulation due to a growing human population and growing food production, which is fuelled by the latter. Quinn argues that as the worldwide human population increases, the typical international response is to produce and distribute more food to feed these greater numbers of people. However, assuming that population increases according to increased food availability, Quinn argues that this response only ends up leading to an even larger population and thus greater starvation in the end. Quinn's solution to the food race—to stop producing so much food—is not generally a common-sense or intuitive response; instead he claims he is counter-intuitive or "outside-the-box" thinking.^[1]

Russell Hopfenberg has written at least two papers attempting to prove Quinn's ideas, one paper with David Pimentel titled Human Population Numbers as a Function of Food Supply and Human Carrying Capacity is Determined by Food Availability.^[2] Hopfenberg has also made a narrated slide show titled World Food and Human Population Growth. Jason Godesky wrote a 2005 article titled The Opposite of Malthus, which attempts to ground Quinn's work in a more solid, scientific framework.^[3]

Basis[]

Quinn bases the food race on the premise that the total human population, like that of other animals, is influenced by food supply. Thus, larger populations are the result of more abundant food supplies, and intensification of food cultivation in response to population growth merely leads to still more population growth. Quinn compared this to the arms race in the Cold War. Like Garrett Hardin, Quinn believes any development to address food security will only lead to catastrophe.^{[citation needed]}

Comparison to Malthusian catastrophe[]

The similarities between this concept and a Malthusian catastrophe are obvious, but Quinn states there are certain key differences. The primary problem in a Malthusian catastrophe is a population growing faster than the growth in food supply. Quinn states that population is a function of food supply, and not merely some independent variable. Quinn considers that problem is not a scarcity of food, but, rather, overpopulation. Quinn characterizes the Malthusian problem as "how are we going to FEED all these people?", and characterizes "Quinnian problem" as "how are we going to stop PRODUCING all these people?"^[4]

Criticism[]

The idea that human population is tied to food supply is contentious, however. Many biologists^[who?] disagree with Quinn's assessment. While food supply certainly imposes an upper limit on population growth, they point out that culture, living standards, human intelligence, and free will can impose lower, secondary limits to population growth. Critics also point out that the most significant population growth is occurring in the developing world, where regional food production is lowest. Meanwhile, the First World, where food is most plentiful, is undergoing a decline in birth rates. Quinn has suggested this results from international food distribution, claiming that the farms of the First World fuel population growth elsewhere. United Nations projections that the world population will level off sometime in the near future also contradict Quinn's statements. In 1998 Daniel Quinn and Alan D. Thornhill then of the Society for Conservation Biology made a video exploring these topics titled Food Production And Population Growth.^{[citation needed]}

See also[]

• Ecofascism
• Malthusianism
• New tribalists
• Population growth

References[]

Further reading[]

• "A Cybernetic View of Biological Growth: The Maia Hypothesis" (PDF). Tony Stebbing. American Journal of Human Biology 23:826–830 (2011), Cambridge University Press, 2011.

External links[]

• Technology and the Other War, a speech by Daniel Quinn dealing with the food race concept.