A Study on Comparison between Malthus' Demographic and Zobrist's Opinion in 'Inferno'

By Shin Na-ra

The main subject of this study is common and differing points regarding the demographic problem and the solutions suggested by Malthus in “An Essay on the Principle of Population” and by Zobrist in the movie “Inferno,” and what modern society should do as a solution to this matter.

Malthus’ essay on population states that population increases geometrically, and food arithmetically. He thought the population would be in danger due to food shortage (1798). His policy was to let infectious diseases run rampant, and abolish the Elizabethan Poor Law (1601). He considered human charity to be a decent, but social vice. To raise the death rate, a policy of promoting death should be placed over establishing any other reasonable policy.

The genius biologist Zobrist, in the movie “Inferno” insists that the population of the world should be killed by means of a virus. He says in a public lecture that the population has increased more in the last 200 years than in the entirety of human history, and will increase geometrically from now on, leading to the destruction of the environment and the co-destruction of humans.

Zobrist suggests that in such a situation half of the population should be killed for the remaining half’s survival. So, he makes a fatal virus and plans to kill half the population.

The common and differing points between Malthus and Zobrist are as follows. Both are fully conscious of the point that the population increases geometrically. However, their difference is that Malthus, a theorist, thinks the poor should die, while Zobrist, a doer, spreads a virus at firsthand and thinks a majority of uncertain people, half of the whole population, should die. He also intends to die. Thus, Zobrist looks more active, but brings much greater tragedy to humans.

I will also suggest a solution to the demographic problem. To begin with, we should prevent our environment from being destroyed and control global warming as our most urgent acts.

There are two main culprits in environmental destruction: the first is the increase of population; the second is increased emission of carbon dioxide incurred by the increase of energy consumption from economic growth. Statistics about emissions of carbon dioxide report that environmentalists’ maximum aim of not exceeding the critical point of 450ppm of carbon dioxide is necessary for the survival of the earth.

On top of that, we have to choose between a “Less abundant but environmentally friendly economy,” and “The destruction of the earth incurred by economic growth.” John Putnam once said that the ideas of efficiency and sufficiency can solve both.

A) Enhancement of eco-efficiency: this can help us to use much less energy, materials and land than now, and produce more commodities and services that entertain us; in that way, we can reduce our ecological footprint or ecological backpack remarkably.

B) Sufficiency strategy: In cases of those who have already reached a certain level of affluence, it is certain that accumulating material wealth contributes increasingly less to a good life. We can live a better life without increasing the supply of commodities

by adjusting our way of thinking

.

In the case of Korea, it is necessary to build a policy for the prevention of a global warming. It is true that the increase of population and industrialization of the population have bad effects on the environment and, in the end, threaten the earth. Thus, international society suggests various environmental policies to protect the earth.

However, many countries have their own diverse applications of environmental policy. For example, advanced countries have policies to reduce carbon dioxide by controlling industrialization, while developing countries are still hurrying their industrialization.

Among the environmental policies of each country, those of Korea also try to promote good environmental policy, including such initiatives as Green Growth for All, Forming Green Energy Town and Emission Trading Schemes among others.