Are We Too Many or Too Greedy?
Whoever takes the bother to read the first page of the Bible sees that in the biblical narrative God blesses the newly created family: “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.” (Gen. 1:28)
The same blessing and commandment had been given by God to the animals he created the previous day, with the exception of the words “subdue it,” which is considered by those who interpret the Holy Writ as a commandment God gave the man alone because the man was in the eyes of the Lord the master of creation.
It is probably worth saying that in the Christian lecture the words “subdue it” do not refer to the brutal exploitation of nature, but rather to its spiritual accomplishment.
And it would seem that the divine commandment was kept by the human race, and no problem was in sight with the increase in numbers of the population of the planet. It is true that the population of the planet never spawned to such a high rate in the past.
By the beginning of the 18th century, however, there was a man, reverend (sic!) Thomas Robert Malthus, who first voiced concern that the population of the planet could reach such high numbers, that it can not be sustainable by the food supplies the planet is capable to offer.
Malthus wrote a book in 1798, An Essay on the Principle of Population, in which he described that the population of the planet was growing exponentially, whereas the growth of food supply, arithmetically.
Some surveys say that the population of the planet in 1790 was of roughly 9 million people. The question that cannot be avoided is how did Malthus foresaw this exponential growth of the population? How could he have forecast the explosion of the population when by his age it was of mere 0.77 percent of the population of the world nowadays.
Anyway, Malthus did foresee the exponential growth of the population, and spoke of an unbalance of the ratio between the population growth and food supply growth.
He said that since the ratio is unbalanced something must be done about it. He proposed a very strict control of births, by means of dissuading families to have many children, by employing abstinence or contraceptive measures.
The postponement of marriage, sexual abstinence, and even the proliferation of vision about sexual life which do not resutl in child births.
However, if such measures do not produce the expected outcome, “positive checks” are to be applied, in the words of the reverend Malthus, so that the “ceiling” (demographic catastrophe) may not be reached.
He boldly proposes that diseases, wars, famines be used in order to keep the population of the world at a sustainable level.
His theory asserts the increase of mortality and the reducing of life expectancy, which is by far the most inhuman sociologic theory possible, because the people who exceed Malthus’s predictions must actually die, one way or another. They must be sacrificed in order for the rest to live.
In ancient religions, it was customary for the priests to appease the anger of their gods by sacrificing some of the people in the nations in order for the others to live.
It is said that before the conquistadores arrived to the New World the Aztec priests sacrificed more than 10,000 prisoners of war in one day in order to make the gods rain upon their crops.
What Malthus proposes here as a means to save the future of mankind is no different than the practice of human sacrifice for the sake of the rest of the people.
This kind of genocidal theories fuel the conspiracy theories who consider that the disasters of humanity in the last two centuries could have been inspired by such theories.
It is obvious that Malthus has a Darwinian mind, alluding to the fact that those who must die are the misfits. “Survival of the fittest,” the Darwinian motto reads.
Under the circumstances, it is safe to assume that when he was thinking of such madness, Malthus had in mind those who must disappear from the face of the Earth.
All those who cannot protect themselves are exposed to this kind of extinction. Destitute people, people coming from destitute countries, or destitute continents all are expendable for the greater “good,” the survival of those who can adapt.
Malthus’s thinking would have remained no more than a sorrowful form of human mind degeneration, if his theory did not appear in another work, commissioned and published by the famous Club of Rome in 1972.
The Club of Rome is considered a think tank composed by illustrious personalities, former bureaucrats of the UN, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, economists, scientists and businessmen around the world.
Limits to Growth echoes to some point the “predictions” of Malthus, and employs some “scientific” means to analyze the behavior models that would lead to either the reaching of Malthus’s “ceiling” or to a point where the balance between population and resources is equaled.
In 2004, the same Club released a new edition of the book, Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update, in which it was necessary to correct some “scientific predictions” in the original edition, such as the one that the oil resources would be depleted by 1992.
Though the members of the Club of Rome cannot speak out loud of killing people by means of famine or wars, as their predecessor Malthus did, the idea is mainly the same. The human behavior must be conducted in such ways that the ratio between population and resources be kept at a sustainable balance.
The book was heavily criticized by many intellectuals since the beginning, in 1972, but one cannot help noticing that the ideology of Malthus is still alive in the minds of many.
There is a famous “work of art” called Georgia’s Guidestones, in Elbert County, Georgia. The message in this very strange artifact is written in eight languages, and contains some sort of “ten commandments.”
The monument was erected in June 1979, by an unknown person who went under the pseudonym R.C. Christian. There is a hypothesis that it was a tribute to Christian Rosenkreuz, founder of the esoteric movement of Rosicrucianism.
The eight modern languages are: English, Spanish, Swahili, Hindi, Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese and Russian. Would that be a “prophecy” about those who will survive?
The first two commandments say: “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature,” and “Guide reproduction wisely – improving fitness and diversity.”
It is true that no official adherence to these criminal allegations has been claimed, but the mere thought of allowing such abomination to exist is rather controversial.
Is this figure, 500,000,000 another Malthusian-like prediction or is it just some expression of some politically inspired art?
There is one thing even the editors of the Limits to Growth admitted: No one can actually estimate the resources of the planet. If so, why plan to kill billions?
Romania is a country in Eastern Europe, who was called between the two World Wars the “bread basket of Europe.”
The most recent estimates are that Romania can feed under normal conditions 80 million people. The country has about 18 million people, many of which are destitute, and the food on the table of Romanians is mainly imported from other countries.
If we take the Romanian case as referential and admit that the situation can be replicated in many parts of the world (especially in the ex-Communist countries or in Latin America), is it safe to say that the problem does not lay with the overpopulation but merely with a catastrophic way of managing the God-given resources.
European economy is hyper planned, kind of how Limits to Growth exposes, in the way that some bureaucrats in Brussels decide which part of Europe should produce food, and in what amount.
Each country is told what to do, and how much to produce in order to keep the balance of continental economy.
Thus, many times one can see in different countries tones of milk being poured from tanks into gutters because they exceed the plan set by Brussels.
There are times when orchards were plucked out of the ground because the country was not supposed to produce this or that sort of fruit.
There are countries who were forced to renounce the agricultural production in different fields because their were told so by the bureaucrats. Chickens are being told how many eggs to lay, cows how many liters of milk to produce, ships are being told how many lambs to bear, and so on.
Under this circumstances, when the countries are banned from producing food, how can the Club of Rome speaks of possible ceiling?
On the other hand, there are people who pay $3,000 per night for a hotel room, and people who have place to live. There are people who eat in most expensive restaurants and pay thousands of dollars for something that could be bought for a few pennies, while many people go hungry, and even die on the empty stomach.
Therefore, the question is: Is it really about overpopulation or is it about controlling the resources, so that few have access to the most of them, while the many have to rationalize the leftovers?
Is Malthusianism a humanitarian solution to a global problem or is it a deceitful means to make sure the pressure the many are placing on the few, as the hunger becomes more and more unbearable, is kept under control?
Translating this dilemma into a theological field, the question becomes paradoxical and unthinkable for the believer: Was God wrong to bless his children to increase in numbers? How come this original blessing became a mortal curse? Is it because of God or because we no longer tolerate the presence of our neighbor in the world?
Many people actually believe there is a problem with the growing of the population, and even embrace the proposition of Malthusianism or the milder ones of the Club of Rome. They actually believe world will sink unless something is done.
Let’s assume they are right, and that some people must die so that others may live. Who wants to go first?11