Malthusian Cassandras

Purblind Arrogance and Invincible Ignorance

Malthusian despair grips the Western world in a vicious vice.  It is a puzzling phenomenon if one considers that the economic theories of Thomas Malthus were discredited centuries ago.  But the puzzlement exists only if one also believes in a false, objective rationalism, ignoring the blind foolishness attenuating the human heart.  Did not the prophet say, "the heart is deceitful above all things and is desperately sick; who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)

We are sonorously told by modern sages that over-population threatens the continued existence of the planet.  Assuming that the world is one vast fixed, zero-sum game, our oh-so-wise cassandras insist that more mouths to feed means less food for everyone.  If one eats more, everyone else is condemned to eat less.  If a country expends more energy, there is less energy for every other nation. 

The latest voice is the respected and revered Royal Society.  Its purblind stupidity belies its reputation.
  But its "official", don't you know.  And we are sure that The Guardian gets thrills from contemplating the terrible plight in which we poor humans find ourselves.  Horror fascinates, after all.  Besides warning the world of impending doom like a brazen klaxon does give one a sense of moral self-righteousness and elitist raison d'etre. Someone has to be smart enough to sound the siren, after all.


As we review the Royal Society's latest stupidity, let's be mindful that from the time of Malthus onward, such ignorant speculations of the coming destruction of the planet and of humankind as we know it have always been a pre-occupation of elites and the relatively wealthy.  Scratch the scrofula and underneath you will discover a paternalistic disdain of others--particularly those peoples who are living in relative poverty.  The rumoured extinction of the British snob is greatly exaggerated, it would seem.

World population needs to be stabilised quickly and high consumption in rich countries rapidly reduced to avoid "a downward spiral of economic and environmental ills", warns a major report from the Royal Society.

Contraception must be offered to all women who want it and consumption cut to reduce inequality, says the study published on Thursday, which was chaired by Nobel prize-winning biologist Sir John Sulston.  The assessment of humanity's prospects in the next 100 years, which has taken 21 months to complete, argues strongly that to achieve long and healthy lives for all 9 billion people expected to be living in 2050, the twin issues of population and consumption must be pushed to the top of political and economic agendas. Both issues have been largely ignored by politicians and played down by environment and development groups for 20 years, the report says.

Before we turn to the needs of poorer, developing nations, let's pause to inquire how reducing consumption in the developed countries could possibly help poorer countries?  After all, if the West stops consuming all those goods and services, the markets for export in poorer countries collapse, consigning them to continuing poverty and degradation.  Only if you have swallowed discredited Malthusian theories could you seriously make such an argument.  It represents a modern equivalent of the Flat Earth Society. 

But the sheer number of people on earth is not as important as their inequality and how much they consume, said Jules Pretty, one of the working group of 22 who produced the report. "In material terms it will be necessary for most developed countries to abstain from certain sorts of consumption, such as CO2. You do not need to be consuming so much to have a long and healthy life. We cannot conceive of a world that is going to be as unequal as it is now. We must bring the 1.3 billion people living on less than a $1.25 a day out of absolute poverty. It's critical to slow population growth in those countries which cannot keep up with services."

Last time we checked the elements of carbon and oxygen were pretty plentiful.  And CO2 is the life-gas, the greenest gas of all.  The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the better the growth of all plants and trees.  But beside that, note the attendant sub-theme: population growth must be controlled in poor countries.  The more people you have, the less everyone gets.  Economics is the art of distributing a fixed, finite pie.  Therefore, the less mouths, the better for all.  And it's your mouths, over there, that must be shut down.  (We in the West are a dying civilization.  We appear to be in terminal population decline.  Demographically, it is impossible now to reverse the declining population growth unless there is a rapid change of mind towards childbearing and raising large families.  We want the rest of the world to follow our ignoble example.)
    

Most of the global population growth in the next century will come from the 48 least developed countries, of which 32 are in Africa, said Ekliya Zulu, one of the authors and president of the Union for African Population studies. "Taking Africa alone, the population will increase by 2 billion this century. If we fail and fertility levels do not go down to 2.1, (from 4.7 now) the population [there] may reach 5.3 billion. When we slow down population growth we empower women and provide more money for least developed countries to invest in education. The majority of women want fewer children. The demand to reduce fertility is there", he said.

Get this, slower population growth means more money for less developed countries.  How on earth does that causality work?  We have no idea, unless . . . unless the economic theory which is a step-child of Malthus's ideas is coming into play.  And the step child is socialism. You guessed it.  Limited resources.  Need to be fairly distributed ("from each, according to his ability, to each according to his need"). The State must so regulate and thus re-distribute. 

The authors declined to put a figure on sustainable population, saying it depended on lifestyle choices and consumption. But they warned that without urgent action humanity would be in deep trouble. "The pressure on a finite planet will make us radically change human activity", said Pretty.

"The planet has sufficient resources to sustain 9 billion, but we can only ensure a sustainable future for all if we address grossly unequal levels of consumption. Fairly redistributing the lion's share of the earth's resources consumed by the richest 10% would bring development so that infant mortality rates are reduced, many more people are educated and women are empowered to determine their family size – all of which will bring down birth rates", said an Oxfam spokeswoman.

There we have it.

Malthusianism is discredited.  Socialism is discredited.  But the purblind foolishness of Unbelief keeps clinging to these exploded nostrums because it has nothing else.  These "experts" insist on playing god.  Their own arrogance demands it.  Their foolish speculations stroke their arrogant egos, as they tell themselves they are making  a real contribution towards being the Saviour of the human race.  Yet what they have advocated will bring unimaginable suffering and degradation to millions.  But that's ok.  They, themselves, at least will be protected.  Their moral superiority knows no bounds. 

The heart is deceitful above all things and is desperately sick; who can know it?