Lesson video

Hello, geographers! My name is Mrs. Griffiths.

And today's lesson, we're going to be looking at the relationship between population and resources, thinking about what might be the impact of a growing population on the availability of resources, such as water, energy, and food, and thinking about whether we take a pessimistic or an optimistic view of that relationship.

Shall we get started? Okay, so our outcome for today is as follows, I can explain the causes of the growing demand for resources and different theories about the relationship between population and resources.

So we have two things there.

I can explain the causes of the growing demand for resources, and I can explain different theories about the relationship between population and resources.

So this is our work for today, and I hope you can say this by the end of the lesson.

Okay, so keywords we have today.

Industrialization, where a mainly agricultural society changes and begins to depend more on manufacturing industries.

Affluence, the wealth of individuals or societies which rises with industrialization and the creation of a middle class.

Urbanisation, a rise in the proportion of people living in urban areas.

Malthus, Thomas Malthus, born 1766, took a pessimistic view of the link between population growth and resources.

Boserup, Ester Boserup, born 1910, had an optimistic view of the link between population growth and agriculture.

So those are our keywords or key terms, which we're gonna be coming back to across this lesson.

Okay, how is the lesson structured? We've got two key questions.

The first one is, why is there a growing demand for resources? The second is, will population growth mean resources run out? Let's have a look at that first one then, why is there a growing demand for resources? So the United Nations, or UN, predicts that the global population will continue to grow until the 2080s.

Take a look at this graph.

So we've got changes in the total population in billions over time, and the purple section of the graph is a prediction.

The UN predicts that population at a global scale will peak at 10.

29 billion in the mid-2080s.

Remember, this is a prediction.

Until then, a growing population will place growing demands on the natural world to supply it with resources, such as food, energy, and water.

And here's the breakdown of change over time by region or by continent here.

So we can see our changing and growing population is broken down into Europe, North America, South America, Asia, Africa, and on the top of the graph there, Oceania.

And the time period we're looking at is from 1800 all the way to 2100.

These populations are based on the UN has information about both life expectancy and fertility rate.

The growth in the size of populations around the world has been uneven over time.

We can see this.

And this is also true for the UN's predictions about population change up to 2100.

So there's an imbalance there, isn't there? Take a look at that graph and how differently the global population is distributed between the different continents.

Quick check for you here.

If we take a closer look at that graph, which continent has the largest population today? Which continent has the largest population today? I'm gonna add a line there so that we can estimate where we are within that timescale, time period.

Pause the video now, take a look at the graph, and then press play when you want to check your answer.

And if you said Asia, you're absolutely right.

So that is the continent with the largest population today, and that's that sort of aqua-green colour on the graph.

Which two continents are predicted to see the largest growth in population during the 21st century? So that's the century in which we're in.

Which two continents are predicted to see the largest growth in population during the 21st century? Again, pause the video, press play when you want to check your answer.

And if you said Asia and Africa, you were absolutely right.

Yeah, so Africa's that purple area that sits above the aqua-green area.

And these are the two continents with the largest growth in population, as shown on that graph.

We can see that Africa's population is still accelerating at this point if you look at the rate of change, whereas Asia's population, while it's doubled since 1975, the rate of increase has begun to slow.

So there's a bit of a difference between those two continents, but those are the two populations that are gonna see the largest increase within this century.

Food production, of course, must keep pace with the growth in population.

Now, industrialization is the transition from a mainly agricultural society to one that depends on manufacturing industries.

And here we can see pictured a clothing factory, an enormous factory that employs hundreds of workers on the Indonesian island of Java.

The ongoing industrialization of low-income countries, or LICs, and the newly emerging economies, the NEEs, is increasing the demand for energy and water resources.

For example, in Indonesia, here we can see in the image, and Nigeria, these are both NEEs, so newly emerging economies, factories manufacture goods for export as well as for sale locally.

The world is getting richer, and with greater affluence, a person's energy use increases.

If you look at the map we have on this slide, it's a map of energy use per person in 2023.

The scale is kilowatt-hours.

And we can see it's a choropleth map that uses depth of colour to show the number of kilowatt-hours used per person.

It's got quite a clear pattern, hasn't it, in terms of how much energy is being used per person around the world.

Which of the following statements does this map support? So we've got A, B, and C.

Have a read through the answers.

This is a check of your understanding, so I'd like you to discuss this with the person next to you and then press play again when you know the answer.

And if you said B, this map shows that high-income countries have a higher energy use per person, you'd be absolutely right.

Can we identify which countries use most per person using the scale on the map? Well, the USA and Canada, and countries in Western Europe along with the Middle East and Oceania, use most, that's where the color's darkest, along with China and Japan.

These are mostly high-income countries.

Countries like Nigeria and Indonesia are unlikely to see changes in energy use per person as they industrialise.

Is this true based on what we've heard? Remember, I'm gonna ask you to explain why in a moment, so have a think.

And if you said false, no, that's not true.

Countries like Nigeria and Indonesia are likely to see changes in energy use as they industrialise.

Explain your answer.

Yes, well, greater affluence will mean a country's population can afford to use more energy on average.

So rather than being unlikely, they are likely to see changes in energy use per person.

Well done if that's what you said.

People around the world have different experiences of everyday chores.

So let's think about some of the reasons behind that energy use per person and those changes with rising affluence.

I'm gonna show you two short videos that compare the experience of two families with different incomes washing their clothes.

Firstly, we have a family in Myanmar, represented by this woman who is washing her clothes.

And secondly, we have a man in India washing his clothes.

Compare the experience of these people by discussing it with the person next to you.

What do you think? I can see that one is pretty backbreaking work, whereas the other looks quite an efficient and technological solution to a daily chore, doesn't it? Rising affluence has created a new class of consumers in middle-income countries.

And remember, most people around the world live in middle-income countries.

So there's a new middle class that can afford to buy expensive electrical appliances for the home, and this means that this global demand for electrical appliances, like washing machines, is growing.

In fact, industry experts believe that the global market for washing machines was worth about $100 billion dollars in 2021, but it's set to be 150 billion in 2026.

Our diet also changes with rising affluence.

As countries grow richer, they consume a larger amount of animal protein, so meat and dairy specifically per person.

This is at a cost to the planet, and producing these types of foods uses a lot of land, meaning that there are concerns about how we feed a richer world.

Instead, if the global population switched to a plant-based diet, we could reduce the land used for farming perhaps by 75%.

And if you don't fancy that, even just switching some of that beef and dairy to chicken, fish, and other sources of protein can help.

Urbanisation, where a rising population, proportion, sorry, of a population lives in towns and cities, is also increasing the demand for resources.

And we've got a couple of photo clues here, haven't we, about why the process of urbanisation actually has the impact of increasing the demand for resources.

So let's have a look at that.

For example, food and water needs to be transported further to supply an urban population.

And we've got those banks of fridges and freezers holding all the food that we might want to buy in a supermarket.

But also, rubbish and other waste has to be removed, and often you see this, don't you, in cities where you've got overflowing bins and things.

All that rubbish has to be taken out of the city as well.

And this has an impact on our demand for resources.

All of this adds, as I say, to the city's overall energy use and its ecological footprint.

So, with rising affluence, check for you here, if more people worldwide can afford to buy a washing machine, what could this mean? Have a read through those answers and tell me which one is correct.

And if you said A, this could mean an increase in the demand for water and electricity overall, you're absolutely right.

Another check.

Which of the following are reasons why urbanisation leads to an increase in the demand for resources? Which of the following are reasons, plural, bit of a clue there, why urbanisation leads to an increase in the demand for resources? Pause the video, discuss it with your partner now.

Okay, and we had two correct answers here.

So rubbish and other waste has to be taken away.

That's one reason.

Also, food and water needs to be transported into the city.

So all these transport, all this transportation that needs to take place requires energy, so that's why we have a high demand for resources with a more urbanised population.

Congratulations if you're keeping up with this.

Well done.

So, a practise task for you then.

Working with a partner, identify the odd one out in each row.

I want you to justify your answers by talking about the growing demand for resources.

So you've got A, row A, and we need to consider with 10 billion, 20th century, population peak, and 21st century, which one of those might be the odd one out? And then you're gonna need to justify why.

My second question for you asks you to explain in your own words why the global demand for resources is growing.

I have a hint for you that there are four possible reasons, but I want you to discuss at least two.

So grab a pen or a pencil now, and let's have a go at answering these questions in your own word, words, sorry.

I think the first question might be something that you can beneficially discuss with a partner.

Okay, how did you get on then? With this first one, we had to spot the odd one out in each row.

Now, with A, the odd one out is 20th century.

Now, why might that be? Your justification could include, well, the UN projects that the global population will peak in the 21st century, not the 20th, at 10.

29 billion.

So that's why the 20th century was the odd one out.

Secondly, if we look at B, of those four terms, we thought rising affluence was the odd one out, and why? Well, rising affluence is causing a growth in the demand for resources such as food, energy, and water.

For example, in the home.

So those are types of resources, and rising affluence is the cause.

Thirdly, we've got industrialization, rising affluence, and urbanisation.

How are they linked but population growth being different? Your justification could include both urbanisation and industrialization are associated with rising affluence.

Together, they're driving global demand for resources per person.

However, population growth is different.

It simply means more mouths to feed.

So it's not about per person; it's about the fact that there are more people.

So that's why that one is the odd one out.

Well done, you.

I'm sure you're following all this along well.

Then we had to explain in our own words why the global demand for resources is growing, coming up with two of the four reasons that we've covered in this video so far.

Okay, your answer might include, as the world's population continues to grow, so does the overall demand for resources, such as food.

It's the more mouths to feed argument.

Further, we've got the ongoing industrialization of countries such as Indonesia and Nigeria is resulting in greater urbanisation and rising affluence, meaning people can afford to consume more resources.

For example, more families in these middle-income countries, you might have emerging economies, can afford to buy appliances, such as a washing machine, and this leads to greater demand for energy and water, but arguably less backbreaking work.

Okay, so second part of the lesson, will population growth mean resources run out? In the 18th century in England, Reverend Thomas Malthus suggested that population increases geometrically, so in a pattern such as one, two, four, by doubling within each generation.

However, he thought that this would create a problem if food production increased arithmetically, so one, two, three, as shown in this graph.

So here we've got a blue line representing population growth over time as Malthus saw it.

And then we have the red line, which is food production, which you'll notice isn't increasing at anything like as speedy a rate.

Now, what was the result of this? The result was that eventually, Malthus believed, population would increase to a size that would result in a catastrophe or check on the population, such as a famine.

And here we can see the dashed line falling away from the original blue line, demonstrating perhaps how a population check might occur as people are affected by a famine.

So this is kind of a bleak view of the relationship between population and resources.

Malthus thought that preventative measures could be taken to avoid such disasters, such as later marriage to reduce the rate of population increase.

Such preventative action would be needed to return to this balance between food produced and mouths to feed.

So he was really arguing for that proactive role of the government.

The idea that natural resources limit population growth has been adopted by many other people since Malthus, so remember, he was writing an awfully long time ago, including business leaders and scientists within a group of thinkers called the Club of Rome, who took that Malthusian view.

So in the 1970s, the Club of Rome suggested that oil would limit the size of the world's population because it was a non-renewable resource, and they predicted that Malthusian catastrophe.

They saw this non-renewable resource as a key to the success of both industry and agriculture and therefore something that would eventually limit growth.

Now then, check for you.

True or false? Malthus thought population growth would eventually create huge problems for people, as resources would eventually run out.

Is that true or false? And remember, I'm going to ask you to explain why.

That's absolutely true.

That was his view.

Why? Well, he saw population growth as something that would lead to catastrophe, such as a famine, predicting that food production would fall behind the growth of population.

By contrast, let's look at a different view, a different theory of this relationship between population and resources.

So writing in the 1960s, a Danish economist, Ester Boserup, took a different view to Malthus.

She suggested that as population increases, food production also increases to meet the need, stating that "necessity is the mother of invention." So Boserup took an optimistic view.

If we have a look at the theory based on this graph, we've got the same growth of population, which is fairly rapid.

We've got perhaps a more gentle curve in terms of an increase in food production, but then a step change in the way food production changes over time.

So population drives agriculture, agricultural innovations, step by step, so that food production keeps pace with the population, according to Boserup.

Boserup saw population growth as a driver for human innovation in agriculture.

For example, new technology, improved farming methods.

And her ideas were based on the studies of farming in developing countries, such as Bangladesh, which was a low-income country at the time.

Of course, the World Bank classes Bangladesh as a middle-income country today.

So population drives agricultural innovations.

What might these be? Well, since the creation of new high-yielding varieties of crops in the Green Revolution of the 1960s, a series of technological leaps have enabled harvests to continue to grow.

Today, enough food is produced to feed the global population.

So what were those innovations? So hi-tech agricultural innovations in recent decades, so after the high-yielding varieties of seeds associated with the Green Revolution in the 1960s, what has happened since? Well, artificial fertilisers have been produced.

We've seen advanced irrigation techniques and, more recently, genetically modified crops, or GM crops.

So the Boserupian view, if you like, is that hi-tech agriculture enables our success.

True or false then? Boserup's optimistic view of the link between population growth and the growth in food production has been proven wrong.

Is that true or false? And remember, I'm gonna ask you why in a moment.

Well, that's false.

And why is that false? Well, the answer we have is that the creation of high-yielding variety of crops in the 1960s is an example of a technological innovation that supports Boserup's optimistic view.

You might have had instead the fact that the invention of GM crops decades later also demonstrates people's ability to innovate to increase food production and meet the needs of the global population.

If you had that, well done.

Okay, so this is the graph of the UN's predictions about the growth in the global population.

It suggests the most likely scenario of population growth, as I said before, based on fertility rates and life expectancy.

It was published in 2024.

Now, the UN regularly updates its predictions, and each time it updates these predictions, the debate about the relationship between population growth and the world's resources and that balance between the two begins again.

Now, do you take a Malthusian view of this, or do you agree with Boserupian ideas on that relationship between population and resources? Have a think about that.

Well, we've got a couple of examples of what people's views are.

So Sofia takes a pessimistic view.

She says that more people consume more resources, highlighting that prediction about a growing population right up until the mid-2080s.

And she says, "How many more billion people can the Earth sustain?" However, Jacob has a more optimistic or we might call a Boserupian view of that relationship between growing population and resources.

He's highlighting the point at which the population is predicted to plateau and then decline, and saying, "As population growth slows, well, human innovation will ensure enough resources for all." Which of those two views do you agree with? Okay, practise task for you then.

Discuss the following statement with a partner, "As the global population continues to grow, resources will eventually run out." What do you think? And secondly, sort the following news headlines into evidence in support of Malthus, on the one hand, or in support of Boserup, on the other hand.

And we have five different headlines which I'd like you to read through carefully and think about whether they're taking that pessimistic, that Malthusian view of the relationship between population and resources, eventually that we're gonna run out, or whether those headlines are actually telling us something that is perhaps more in support of Boserup's idea that necessity will be the engine of invention.

Grab a pen or pencil.

You've got a discussion task, but then I'd like you to sort out those headlines under those two headings for me.

Okay, how'd you get on? This first question asks us to discuss the following statement with a partner, "As the global population continues to grow, resources will eventually run out." So in your discussion, you might have thought, "Yes, that's true, I'm gonna back that statement." For example, with rising affluence, the typical diet people prefer changes.

We saw that people are eating more beef and dairy.

And so we might not have enough land to feed the growing global population in future.

However, you might have come up with an argument against this statement, and here's one for you.

The UN has predicted that the global population will, in fact, peak in the late 20th century and then decline, meaning less pressure on resources.

And that's a counter to that argument I gave you.

If you had something like that, brilliant, well done.

Let's have a look at how we got on with question two.

So we had to sort those news headlines under headings in support of Malthus, in support of Boserup's ideas.

So in support of Malthus, "The rich eat more beef: How global meat production tripled in 50 years." So if rich people are eating more beef, are we gonna run out of natural resources of the land to graze the cattle and produce the food for them? "Cape Town almost ran out of water." That's an interesting news headline, isn't it? But it hints at the idea that we might be running out of resources with the growth of population, either locally, regionally, or globally.

However, we had some headlines that were more in support of Boserup's arguments.

So the "UK use of renewable energy overtakes fossil fuels for the first time." This was a good news headline if you were concerned about fossil fuels limiting our growth, as perhaps the Club of Rome were in the 1970s, because of course, renewable energy renews itself, it isn't going to run out.

Secondly, we had "The Green Revolution: How high-yielding varieties of crops fed the world." So a news story there looking back at the 1960s and the huge step change that took place in agriculture, really supporting what Boserup said that people would innovate to respond to a growing population.

And then lastly, "Drought-resistant GM crops are designed to beat climate change." So if we can design genetically modified crops or hybrids that are drought-resistant and can cope in areas of the world with a drier climate and a hotter climate in years to come, then perhaps we can produce enough food for our growing population.

Well done for sorting those out.

They weren't straightforward, were they? You had to really read those headlines carefully.

Okay, so let's just recap what we've covered in this lesson.

The world's population is growing, and the UN predicts it will continue to grow until the late 21st century.

Population growth, rising affluence, industrialization, and urbanisation are all causes of global and regional increases in the demand for resources, such as food, energy, and water.

So we've been looking at those four different causes, haven't we, of growing demand for resources.

And then lastly, the theories of Malthus and Boserup can help us to understand the relationship between population growth and our use of resources.

And we've seen how their views contrast, but it's really interesting to review both of them and think about what evidence is there to support one or the other.

Well, we've covered a huge amount, and thank you for all your concentration and your engagement with this lesson.

I look forward to seeing you again soon.