Population Growth "Alarmism" as a Deep Political Control Device

[Mark Stapleton]

Call it idealism if you like, Mark. Feel free to exaggerate my position making it easier to defeat. But, I'm still wondering at the fact that this Malthusianistic Paradigm has been so deeply ingrained as to make it literally A FACT of life that most are unwilling to even question its validity.

If Malthus was right (which is the position you seem to have accepted) then one ends up in the world as we now know; a world of power mongers and peasants; a world in which GLOBAL solutions are suggested by many who believe that the problems are insurmountable; a world constantly engaged in several wars; a world full of conflict.

However, if Malthus was wrong (which is the position I accept) then one can envision possibilities beyond those to which we would otherwise be bound and by which we would be limited. Perhaps the overly simplistic solutions I offered as examples fail to solve the problem, but that's not the point. The point is that we are limited by the paradigms within which and from which we operate. Paradigms need to be questioned and rejected when appropriate.

So, I ask again, "Even if Malthus was right in 1798 about the world as it then existed, what if he is wrong about the world as it exists now in 2011?" After all, a whole lot has drastically changed regarding population control and food production. It is literally a different world--1798. So, I don't think my original idea is so far off the mark. And if we allow ourselves to begin by simply imagining a non-Malthusian solution may exist, we then at least have a chance to find alternative solutions that are realistic. However, if we remain married to a paradigm that is inadequate to the evidence, then we imprison our souls and shackle our minds.

I'm not even interested in whether Malthus was right or wrong.

I'm simply making the observation that human population is expanding at an unsustainable rate. It has more than doubled just in my lifetime. Some view a continuously expanding human population--matched by ingenious technological advances in medicine and food production--as some kind of dreamy utopian ideal. Advocates of this position seem to think we are the only life form on this planet. I see it as a disaster for life on the planet because it necessitates the destruction of habitat for other species.

One only has to look at the current extinction rates for other species, coupled with environmental degradation caused by overpopulation to realise that something is seriously wrong here.

I don't advocate any form of human population control, eugenics, soylent green or any other contrived restraints on population growth.

I just make the observation that, although humans are part of the carbon cycle of life that exists on this planet, we are still not really natural. We don't exist in harmony with nature, we destroy nature. Unlike other species, we don't appear to serve a useful role.