A criticism of neo-Malthusians

[Botnst]

This month: Population control

Since the beginning of time, one of the clearest markers of an enlightened society has been the moral status it attaches to human life. And outwardly, at least, twenty-first-century Western societies express an unprecedented degree of respect for human life.

For example, cultural and political institutions continually talk about the need to uphold human rights. The human rights narrative now shapes policymaking, both domestically and internationally. Many even argue that protecting human rights is a cross-border duty that should override the principle of national sovereignty. Our societies are also increasingly health-obsessed. The phenomenal growth in health expenditure in recent years shows just how much prosperous societies respect individual life today. Western societies will sometimes go to extraordinary lengths in their efforts to keep a premature baby alive or to prolong the life of elderly people or those who are chronically ill.

And yet, alongside the ethos of human rights and the development of heroic medicine, contemporary society appears estranged from its own humanity. To put it bluntly: it is difficult to celebrate human life in any meaningful way when people – or at least the growth of the number of people – are regarded as the source of the world’s problems. Alongside today’s respect for human life there is the increasingly popular idea that there is too much human life around, and that it is killing the planet.

The humanist impulse that once drove the development of the modern world has been replaced by a tendency to view humanity with suspicion, or even outright hostility. The vocabulary of our times – ‘human impact on the environment’; ‘ecological footprint’; ‘human consumption’ – invokes a sense of dread over the active exercise of human life. Apparently, there are too many of us doing too much living and breathing. In a world where humanity is portrayed as a threat to the environment and to the very survival of the planet, human activity – from birth to consumption to procreation – is regarded as a mixed blessing. Consequently, our concern with preserving and improving the quality of life of some people sits uneasily with an increasingly shrill demand to prevent people from being born in the first place.

Today, many green-leaning writers and activists argue that population control is the best solution to the problems we face. This belief that there are ‘too many people’ inhabiting the globe has reared its ugly head numerous times over the past 200 years. Since the times of Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), a catastrophic vision of population growth causing the collapse of society has formed an important part of the culturally pessimistic outlook. Back in the eighteenth century it was predicted that population growth would lead to famine, starvation and death. Today’s pessimists have raised the stakes further: they denounce population growth as a threat to biodiversity and to the very existence of the planet. Twenty-first-century Malthusians are not so much worried about an impending famine: they’re more concerned that people are producing and consuming too much food and other commodities.

more at: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3503

[Carleton Hughes]

I've got one word for youse all{catch hell for it shure as ****}EUGENICS.

[Mistress]

My neurons are having a party.

waste not want not.......

[peragro]

Good article.

A Neo-Malthusian is just an Ehrlichite in sheeps clothing.

I can understand the moniker of pessimism given to the acolytes of Malthus, but I think the author forgot to mention the unbridled arrogance and persistent narcissism found therein as well.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by peragro

Good article.

A Neo-Malthusian is just an Ehrlichite in sheeps clothing.

I can understand the moniker of pessimism given to the acolytes of Malthus, but I think the author forgot to mention the unbridled arrogance and persistent narcissism found therein as well.

Nice!

[peragro]

So would the correct noun be Gorite, Gorian, Algorite (which sounds somewhat mineral), or Algorian (which sounds very sinister - "The algorian virus was responsible for the death of half the worlds population..."?

[kip Foss]

The belief that, "twenty-first-century Western societies express an unprecedented degree of respect for human life", may be true but it applies to such a limited portion of the world's population, i.e., the Western societies, as not to be a realistic point of argument.

Certainly some western societies spare no expense to save a child who, by all reason, should have been left to die. Granted some survive to lead relatively normal lives while others go on to live what might be considered lives of misery for the next 50 years. Not to mention what these heroic efforts cost the society over these 50 years. Can you imagine how many ordinary children could be helped for the cost of saving one of these children?

All the while the Western societies are saving these children we paid no attention to the hundreds of millions of that have been maimed and slaughtered in the name of every imaginary cause around the world. The 'West' took no notice of every genocide from Armenia to Rwanda, from Tibet to Congo, from the 1947 partition of India and Pakistan to the Central African Republic, and, of course, the ever popular Dafar. Where is our charity and humanity?

I must say that when it comes to these types of countries we don't have much charity because, aside from Armenia, the rest of these people are, dare I say it, little brown and black guys from countries with no natural or strategic resources worth our while. While Bush Sr. was bombing the crap out of Iraq to try and rid the place of an American installed dictator waring tribes in Rwanda were cutting off the hands or killing millions of their own people. Where was America's effort to bring democracy to the unwashed?

Granted there are always the Christian do-gooders who do bring charity to some of these people, but, it comes at a price. Like bums living on the streets, before you get your free meal and a bed you must first listen to the ranting of some Christian hypocrite tell you that if you don't give up your god of 4,000 years and adopt their latter model you are destined to go to hell. I've got news for you Christians, these folks are already in hell and there is little you god can do to help them.

"Today, many green-leaning writers and activists argue that population control is the best solution to the problems we face". I can't help but think that if people in these third world countries, and many in some of our ghettos, would keep their pants buttoned and there legs together we might not have many of the problems we have today.

Look at the AIDS epidemic in Africa, starvation in the Sahal, the slums of Rio, India, Nigeria, and, yes, even America. When you have African Americans who have 4 kids by 4 different fathers by the time they are 20 you can't tell me that some sort of population control might be worth the effort.

The argument that over population might be one of the causes of Islamic terrorism can not be overlooked. Millions of young, unemployed Muslim males who have become disgruntled and militant because there are not enough jobs make easy fodder for radical Islamist teachers.

What is the answer? Who can say? Unfortunately we will not know until we are too far down the slippery slope to recover.

[peragro]

Originally Posted by kip Foss

The belief that, "twenty-first-century Western societies express an unprecedented degree of respect for human life", may be true but it applies to such a limited portion of the world's population, i.e., the Western societies, as not to be a realistic point of argument.

Certainly some western societies spare no expense to save a child who, by all reason, should have been left to die. Granted some survive to lead relatively normal lives while others go on to live what might be considered lives of misery for the next 50 years. Not to mention what these heroic efforts cost the society over these 50 years. Can you imagine how many ordinary children could be helped for the cost of saving one of these children?

All the while the Western societies are saving these children we paid no attention to the hundreds of millions of that have been maimed and slaughtered in the name of every imaginary cause around the world. The 'West' took no notice of every genocide from Armenia to Rwanda, from Tibet to Congo, from the 1947 partition of India and Pakistan to the Central African Republic, and, of course, the ever popular Dafar. Where is our charity and humanity?

I must say that when it comes to these types of countries we don't have much charity because, aside from Armenia, the rest of these people are, dare I say it, little brown and black guys from countries with no natural or strategic resources worth our while. While Bush Sr. was bombing the crap out of Iraq to try and rid the place of an American installed dictator waring tribes in Rwanda were cutting off the hands or killing millions of their own people. Where was America's effort to bring democracy to the unwashed?

Granted there are always the Christian do-gooders who do bring charity to some of these people, but, it comes at a price. Like bums living on the streets, before you get your free meal and a bed you must first listen to the ranting of some Christian hypocrite tell you that if you don't give up your god of 4,000 years and adopt their latter model you are destined to go to hell. I've got news for you Christians, these folks are already in hell and there is little you god can do to help them.

"Today, many green-leaning writers and activists argue that population control is the best solution to the problems we face". I can't help but think that if people in these third world countries, and many in some of our ghettos, would keep their pants buttoned and there legs together we might not have many of the problems we have today.

Look at the AIDS epidemic in Africa, starvation in the Sahal, the slums of Rio, India, Nigeria, and, yes, even America. When you have African Americans who have 4 kids by 4 different fathers by the time they are 20 you can't tell me that some sort of population control might be worth the effort.

The argument that over population might be one of the causes of Islamic terrorism can not be overlooked. Millions of young, unemployed Muslim males who have become disgruntled and militant because there are not enough jobs make easy fodder for radical Islamist teachers.

What is the answer? Who can say? Unfortunately we will not know until we are too far down the slippery slope to recover.

Many of your points were addressed in the original article. Regarding the "African Americans who have 4 kids by 4 different fathers by the time they are 20 ..." One could easily argue that rather than population control the social engineering policies of the last 40 years are more to blame for the demise of the American black family. BTW, where is Africa America?

[LaRondo]

Originally Posted by Mistress

My neurons are having a party.

Your avatar tells it all ... just between you and me, I had no clue whatsoever that I was a 'Neo-Malthusian' ...

Thanks, Bot!

[Botnst]

^^^ Look up Thomas Malthus.

[LaRondo]

Originally Posted by Botnst

^^^ Look up Thomas Malthus.

I am holding in my hand "On Population" T. R. Malthus, edited and introduced by Gertrude Himmelfarb .... the mother of , nonetheless but, William Kristol ....

[Gurkha]

Living in the west, one doesn't feel the impact of over population, all one needs is to visit India or China, get off the tourist track and see the reality, population control is strictly needed, China to an extent has controlled it, India lies in slumber, crooked politicians prefer over population, more fodder for them to get votes from by enticing them with cheap goods during election time and false hopes and promises, Malthusian or not, its a serious problem of epidemic proportions, everywhere you go here, there is people, mostly useless, kids on street, so India may have the second richest person and highest number of billionaires after US, it still negates all when you get so many mouth to feed, clothe and shelter.

[Skippy]

It seems to me that throughout much of human history, warfare has served as the basic means of population control.

[Gurkha]

Yep, a sad facet indeed but sometimes, its the necessity, the world also needs a reset button and so does humanity from time to time.

[Botnst]

Disease and infection have been a far more effective damper on population, with infections being the most consistent and effective killer. It is only within the past 100 years or so that the microbial origin of disease has resulted in aseptic techniques of hygiene -- dramatically lowering the rate of death due to infection. Look-up puerperal fever, for example. What better way to depress the growth rate than in killing-off women in their prime child-bearing years?

Wars, especially modern wars, tend to kill-off young men more than any other identifiable cohort. Not coincidentally, young men are just about the most expendable segment of society. In a generation the population adequately restores the male:female ration.

Killing-off a like number of fertile young women results in a dramatically reduced birth rate and multi-generational recovery. Also, killing-off young women upsets the male : female ratio in the reproductive years. Young men do not take kindly to life without young women. As with any other sexual organism, young men will risk their lives and the lives of others in the hope of bedding a fertile woman. This imbalance is one of the unintended consequences of the current Chinese experiment in population control: The ratio of young men : fertile women is wildly out of balance.

Guess what happens in an animal population when the ratio becomes unbalanced?

B