Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 13:52:46 -0800 (PST)
From: John Bellamy Foster <Jfoster@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>
Subject: established facts
To: ppn@csf.colorado.edu
Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19981124140401.2a778680@oregon.uoregon.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The Progressive Population Network appears to be inundated of late by views
that are anything but progressive and the importance of the list as a forum
for meaningful discussion of population issues seems therefore to be threatened.

I want to try to get things back on track by listing ten well-established,
incontrovertible facts that form the basis for any meaningful discussion of
population issues.

First, for those like myself who approach population questions primarily
from the standpoint of global ecological crisis it has to be admitted that
overpopulation, though a factor in this crisis, is a relatively minor one
compared to the two other sources of environmental impact (according to the
PAT formula): affluence and technology.  World economic output is increasing
much faster than population and contrary to the latter there is no
expectation that it will level off.  On top of this there has been a
technological shift in the last half century to the production of toxic and
radioactive "byproducts" that threaten the biosphere and the health of all
the species within it at levels that we are only just beginning to
understand.  Neither of these factors--affluence or anti-ecological
technology--can be attributed directly to population growth.

Second, there is no direct relationship between population growth and world
hunger, or between population growth and famine.  This has been established
in the work of Amartya Sen and in the various critiques of the agribusiness
system.

Third, population growth issues cannot be addressed in simple,
neo-Malthusian terms (which focus simply on narrowly conceived demographic
factors) but need to be viewed in terms of the theory of demographic
transition, which explains this in terms of social and economic relationships.

Fourth, the essential point here is that most of the third world is stuck
within what Barry Commoner called a demographic trap created by
colonialism/neocolonialism.  

Fifth, while the demographic transition theory has traditionally been
conceived in terms of economic development, this is now commonly broadened
to take account of social factors more generally.  For example, we know that
where women have greater rights and more control over their own bodies the
rate of population growth decreases.  We also know that some societies have
been able to bring population growth under control at relatively low levels
of economic development by emphasizing social redistribution, e.g. Cuba and
the state of Kerala in India. 

Sixth, the areas of the world that have the largest "ecological footprints"
and are having the most devastating effect on the environment are the rich
countries that have relatively low rates of population growth (much closer
to replacement level).

Seventh, classical Malthusianism (i.e. the ideas of Malthus himself) had
nothing to do with ecology.  Modern neo-Malthusianism arose in the 1940s in
the work of thinkers who came out of the eugenics tradition.  Malthus was
resurrected because his notion of population pressing on subsistence was
more a more effective ideology for justifying the control and displacement
of third world populations after the Holocaust than more traditional racist
ideologies.  Malthusianism thus came to be a key element in the ideology of
the Cold War and the Green Revolution.  It was also used to develop a
conservative approach to ecological crisis that downgraded social as opposed
to biological factors.

Eighth, neo-Malthusianism has always tended to favor "final solutions" to
population problems.  For example William Vogt wrote in his classic
neo-Malthusian tract, THE ROAD TO SURVIVAL (1948) that Chile's "greatest
asset, is its high death rate."  In an infamous passage entitled "The
Dangerous Doctor" he observed:

"The modern medical profession, still framing its ethics on the dubious
statements of an ignorant man [Hippocrates] who lived more than two thousand
years ago...continues to believe it has a duty to keep alive as many people
as possible.  In many parts of the world doctors apply their intelligence to
one aspect of man's welfare--survival--and deny their moral right to apply
it to the problem as a whole.  Through medical care and improved sanitation
they are responsible for more millions living more years in increasing
misery.  Their refusal to consider their responsibility in these matters
does not seem to them to compromise their intellectual integrity....They set
the stage for disaster; then, like Pilate, they wash their hands of the
consequences."

Ninth, neo-Malthusianism generally (there are exceptions) is associated with
the peculiar "morality" of scientific racism.  It denies the principle that
justice is indivisible for all of humanity and is either explicitly or
implicitly based on the notion that some people are more dispensable than
others.  In the words of Garrett Hardin, a popular neo-Malthusian thinker
any attempt to help the poor would result in a situation in which: "the less
provident and less able will multiply at the expense of the abler and the
more provident, bringing eventual ruin upon all who share in the commons."
The world of civilization and culture is thus reduced to a Hobbesian
struggle of all against all (or of race against race) in which there is no
room for morality properly conceived, and where "lifeboat ethics" or the
principles of Malthus' "mighty feast" apply.

Tenth, by definition a PROGRESSIVE approach to population--as opposed to a
reactionary one--recognizes all of the above and rejects the so-called
"morality" of the "final solution."  This means that population
stabilization can only occur within the context of democratic social
planning which recognizes the values of human freedom and equality.

I suggest that those who are unwilling or unable (for whatever reason) to
acknowledge these elementary truths should seek out lists of a more
neo-Malthusian character (I am sure there are plenty of those).  Or if they
cannot find anything quite to their liking, they should create their own
Regressive Population Network, where all the misanthropists of the world can
unite.  

John Bellamy Foster