INTRO NOTE BY PATRICE GREANVILLE
![](https://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/overpopulation-nightmare.jpg)
Although multitudes like this conjure up the vision of a planet overrun by humans to stifling levels, the image is misleadingg. The planet is still not "crowded" in that sense, but its life-sustaining infrastructure is rapidly approaching the breaking point.
(a) Malthus lived in an era when humans had not yet developed food technology to a level commensurate with the feeding of billions. Malthus thought that, in general, animal populations, and certainly humans, had "natural limits" to their growth. In his view each species inhabited a semi-stable niche delimited by the balance of life and death, the latter, in the case of humans, dictated by the periodic occurrences of famines, pestilence and wars.
(b) Radicals correctly point out that all this talk about limiting or reducing human population could be some sort of a convenient and sinister project of the ruling class which can neither employ nor adequately feed a growing "surplus" population in the face of rapid advances in labor-saving automation. They suggest that deliberate population reduction will be implemented via compulsory vaccination campaigns, or via the release of bioweapons designed to attain such ends, including viral agents such as Covid-19. A smaller world population, they argue, is desired by the plutocrats because it is theoretically easier to manage and less likely to reach volatile levels conducive to revolutionary explosions in the near term.
(c) Radicals also point out that for the rich countries to forbid or sabotage population growth, or economic development guaranteeing higher consumption per capita in the poor world, is the height of hypocrisy given the developed world's own appalling track record of active destruction of the environment by criminal corporate operations (vide BP's poisoning of the Gulf of Mexico, as just one instance of a widely accepted business practice) in addition to extravagant if not obscene levels of median consumption—especially in nations such as the US. Furthermore, critics argue, every child born in America or Europe or any other developed nation represents an ecological footprint ranging from 12 to 16 times that of a child born in India or Africa, and such trends are both diverging and expanding.
We could suggest a leveling off of economic growth in developing nations and a freezing of development in rich countries, until the former catch up, but ideas such as these are chimeras in a world lacking peace and equity in political power, and in which one malignant superpower has almost singlehandedly destroyed the possibility of a rational and fair one-world government. People in the poor world are not in a mood to wait much longer, while the leaders of the developed world—the "West"—would hardly entertain such notions as they struggle to maintain their increasingly tenuous hold on power by keeping their home populations minimally satisfied.
Regardless of what the criminals and misleaders that run most of the world these days decide to do about global population, especially in the "West", something that all Western radicals can support, in fact, should support, is a steady-state economy. A point of agreement to launch this discussion is that growth in the GDP size of any nation does NOT signify income and well being gains for the whole population. In a highly class divided society, most of the gains facilitated by better productivity will be shoveled into the pockets of the already wealthy, with poorer sectors experiencing stationary or shrinking incomes. In other words, size of GDP alone means little; it is the type of distribution of the national pie—egalitarian or unequal— that explains whether the nation is better off as GDP grows or (as we have seen historically in cases like Brazil, for example) or worse off. That is, growing riches in the upper 1% have also meant increasing poverty in the lower sectors.
Second, and fundamental, continuing—infinite—economic growth, a mantra of capitalist politicians, corporate boardrooms, and economists, especially in the extractive industrial sector, implies a huge contradiction. You can't have infinite growth of any consumption variable (i.e., population) in a very finite planet. It's an impossibility. The idea that we can continue to increase human population indefinitely, with each person born anywhere on the planet, allocated, (as is his/her right) a fair amount of resources to live a decent and rewarding life, is therefore unrealistic and actually destructive, since as environmental tipping points are reached, a negative feedback accelerates the depletion of the remaining global assets. We all know that nature has a wonderful way of renewing its life-giving platforms, but this is severely nullified when androgenic assault literals punctures the biosphere.
But, what is steady state economics? For one thing, let's say it at the outset: a steady state economy does not signify stagnation. The economy can continue to modernize and become ever more efficient (which technically lightens the human footprint on the environment). And, equally important, the economy can have a much better distribution of its aggregate income, making everyone better off.
Capitalism has a way of accelerating and magnifying the gravity of these issues. A few years back, in an essay discussing these questions, I noted that,
• Capitalism is addicted to eternal and aggressive growth; this is a non-negotiable feature that defines it. You can make a man agree to many things, but you can't negotiate with him to stop breathing. That's a non-negotiable demand. Same with capitalism and growth. Constant growth is buried deep in the dynamic of capitalism and now in its mature executive sociology. It's not subject to negotiation. Yet —as anyone, except capitalist diehards and those influenced by them can see—eternal growth is impossible in a finite planet that is growing smaller all the time, especially against the backdrop of continually expanding human populations. Thus, a system like capitalism, that posits endless economic expansion as the key element in the road to "the good life"is insane, by definition.
• Capitalism, a highly hierarchical, inegalitarian system did not clash with the exploitative values of feudalism. Capitalism is grounded in unequal distribution of income. At the sociopolitical level, capitalist uprisings merely forced feudalism to amplify its privilege/exploitative sphere to embrace the rising class of rich merchants and bankers—the bourgeoisie. Given this value orientation, capitalism can be clearly perceived as inherently indifferent and even hostile to democracy. Not surprising, then, that capitalism simply thrives in right-wing dictatorships. Chomsky calls capitalist structures "tyrannies" and he's not exaggerating.
• As time goes by, the capitalist crisis can only worsen—the disappearance of jobs, environmental degradation, deeper recessions and inequality, antisocial production, etc.—grows in intensity and there is no possible cure within boundaries acceptable to the capitalist class. This crisis is a direct result of capitalism's core dynamic, and its social relations.
Regarding capitalism's GDP fetish, I argued that,
From Lou Dobbs to Alan Greenpan, to the regular business class teacher, the media "expert" trotted out to "explain the economy," the corporate executive, or politico on the stump, the mantra is always the same: the GDP is a good barometer of the nation's economy, and it better be growing. But this worship of the GDP [Gross Domestic Product] as a reliable yardstick for general social well-being, intimately connected to the growth obsession, is just one of the multiple ways in which bourgeois economics contributes to the miasma of false consciousness. The operating assumption is that there's a close correlation between constant economic growth and increases in the quality of life for all, although there are several enormous flies in this lovely ointment.
To begin with, a bigger GDP does not automatically mean a better life for the vast majority. The truth depends on how the national income is being distributed. Forget the fabled "trickle down" effect and "the lifting of all boats" economic rapture expected to take place when the superrich are allowed to get away with practically anything. Unadulterated poppycock. A smaller pie in which everyone gets a fair share is probably much better than a much larger pie in which 5% of the top take 90% of the pie. What's more, averages, so widely used in official statistics, lie.
The GDP is a rather obtuse, and severely biased yardstick. It takes no account of infamous externalities: mounting social inequality, widespread environmental pollution, damage to people's health as a result of industrial practices, or lethal threats to the planet itself. It's also stubbornly blind to the many realities that underscore the best things in life not only for us, but for every sentient creature on earth—like the pure oxygen that a beautiful tree quietly affords us, or the advantages, let alone wonderfulness, of clean rivers and oceans—while it computes as "gains" things that in actuality represent tragedy and loss. Thus a crackup on the highway resulting in a demolished car and someone's death or somebody's prolonged hospital stay, turns up on the capitalist ledgers as income generated for hospitals, doctors, nurses, drug companies, garages, funeral parlors, and car dealerships. Similarly, the GDP robotically celebrates any construction, whether it be of prisons or family homes. And following the same blind logic, it treats crime, divorce and other elements of social breakdown as economic gains. It's a measurement model in urgent need of revamping. (See P. Greanville, Understanding American Capitalism, The Greanville Post, Jul 8, 2011)
Lastly, it's worth pointing that due to their aversion to any redistribution of wealth, the ruling elites rely on constant growth to keep increasing their share of the pie while also managing to pacify the masses. In short, the worship of "economic growth" as an unquestioned good is not only misguided, it is inherently dishonest.
A number of enlightened groups have fought to make the goal of steady state economy a reality. CASSE (Center for the Advancement of a Steady State Economy) is one of them. This is their position statement. Please note that they emphasize the recommendations are for implementation in developed economies.
1) Economic growth, as defined in standard economics textbooks, is an increase in the production and consumption of goods and services, and;
2) Economic growth occurs when there is an increase in the multiplied product of population and per capita consumption, and;
3) The global economy grows as an integrated whole consisting of agricultural, extractive, manufacturing, and services sectors that require physical inputs and produce wastes, and;
4) Economic growth is often and generally indicated by increasing real gross domestic product (GDP) or real gross national product (GNP), and;
5) Economic growth has been a primary, perennial goal of many societies and most governments, and;
6) Based upon established principles of physics and ecology, there is a limit to economic growth, and;
7) There is increasing evidence that global economic growth is having negative effects on long-term ecological and economic welfare…
Therefore, we take the position that:
1) There is a fundamental conflict between economic growth and environmental protection (for example, biodiversity conservation, clean air and water, atmospheric stability), and;
2) There is a fundamental conflict between economic growth and the ecological services underpinning the human economy (for example, pollination, decomposition, climate regulation), and;
3) Technological progress has had many positive and negative ecological and economic effects and may not be depended on to reconcile the conflict between economic growth and long-term ecological and economic welfare, and;
4) Economic growth, as gauged by increasing GDP, is an increasingly dangerous and anachronistic goal, especially in wealthy nations with widespread affluence, and;
5) A steady state economy (that is, an economy with a relatively stable, mildly fluctuating product of population and per capita consumption) is a viable alternative to a growing economy and has become a more appropriate goal in large, wealthy economies, and;
6) The long-run sustainability of a steady state economy requires its establishment at a size small enough to avoid the breaching of reduced ecological and economic capacity during expected or unexpected supply shocks such as droughts and energy shortages, and;
7) A steady state economy does not preclude economic development, a dynamic, qualitative process in which different technologies may be employed and the relative prominence of economic sectors may evolve, and;
8) Upon establishing a steady state economy, it would be advisable for wealthy nations to assist other nations in moving from the goal of economic growth to the goal of a steady state economy, beginning with those nations currently enjoying high levels of per capita consumption, and;
9) For many nations with widespread poverty, increasing per capita consumption (or, alternatively, more equitable distributions of wealth) remains an appropriate goal.
—Patrice Greanville
MALTHUS REVISIT'D
by John Scales Avery
A new freely downloadable book
I would like to announce the publication of a book, which discusses the excessive weight that our total human population and economy has imposed on the global environment. The book may be freely downloaded and circulated from the following link:
http://eacpe.org/app/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Malthus-Revisited-by-John-Scales-Avery.pdf
Malthus' “Essay on The Principle of Population”
T.R. Malthus' “Essay on The Principle of Population”, the first edition of which was published in 1798, was one of the the first systematic studies of the problem of population in relation to resources. Earlier discussions of the problem had been published by Boterro in Italy, Robert Wallace in England, and Benjamin Franklin in America. However Malthus' {\em Essay} was the first to stress the fact that, in general, powerful checks operate continuously to keep human populations from increasing beyond their available food supply. In a later edition, published in 1803, he buttressed this assertion with carefully collected demographic and sociological data from many societies at various periods of their histories.
The publication of Malthus' “Essay” coincided with a wave of disillusionment which followed the optimism of the Enlightenment. The utopian societies predicted by the philosophers of the Enlightenment were compared with reign of terror in Robespierre's France and with the miseries of industrial workers in England; and the discrepancy required an explanation.
The optimism which preceded the French Revolution, and the disappointment which followed a few years later, closely paralleled the optimistic expectations of our own era, in the period after the Second World War, when it was thought that the transfer of technology to the less developed parts of the world would eliminate poverty, and the subsequent disappointment when poverty persisted. [These disappointing developments were not so much a failure of technology, per se, but of the highly unequal social relations obtaining in such societies, or the result of turmoil issuing from class struggles, maximized under capitalism.—Ed)
Science and technology developed rapidly in the second half of the twentieth century, but the benefits which they conferred were just as rapidly consumed by a global population which today is increasing at the rate of one billion people every fourteen years. Because of the close parallel between the optimism and disappointments of Malthus' time and those of our own, much light can be thrown on our present situation by rereading the debate between Malthus and his contemporaries.
Famine, disease and war
Malthus classified the checks to population growth as “preventative” and “positive”. Among the preventative checks, he mentioned late marriage, and what he called “vice”. This included birth control, of which he disapproved. If he had been living today, I think that Malthus would consider birth control to be the most humane method for preventing excessive growth of population.
Among the positive checks to population growth, are the three terrible Malthusian forces, famine, disease and war. Today, each of these has taken on new and terrifying dimensions, and in this book, a chapter is devoted to each.
Was Malthus wrong?
Many people maintain that because both our food supply and the global population of humans have grown so enormously, Malthus was wrong. However, I believe that we still must listen to the warning voice of Malthus. The fossil fuel era is ending, and with it, the possibility of Green Revolution agriculture.
Population growth, climate change and the end of the fossil fuel era may combine to produce a famine of completely unprecedented proportions by the middle of the present century. Children living today may witness a crash of both food supply and population.
The climate emergency
The threat of catastrophic climate change came to the attention of scientists after the time of Malthus. However, this existential threat to the future of human civilization is connected to Malthus' work by the fact that one of the driving forces behind climate change is population growth.
Our footprint on Nature's face has grown too large
At present, the total human economy is demanding more from the environment than the environment can regenerate. If we go on with business as usual, then within a decade it would take two Earths to regenerate the resources that we collectively demand. Most [capitalist/bourgeois] economists are focused on growth, but endless growth of anything physical on a finite planet is a logical impossibility. We need a new economic system, a new social contract, and a new and more considerate relationship with our global environment.
Other books and articles about global problems are on these links
http://eacpe.org/about-john-scales-avery/
https://wsimag.com/authors/716-john-scales-avery
I hope that you will circulate the links in this article to friends and contacts who might be interested.
—JSA
![](https://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/JohnAvery2.jpg)
![](https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS