– A.F. Polomoshnov –
Abstract
The article analyses the dehumanizing nature of the ideology of neo-Malthusianism. It is established that modern Malthusianism differs from classical or original Malthusianism only in scale and in the way it justifies the need to reduce the “excess” population of the planet. Contemporary neo-Malthusians advocate for softer, democratic yet effective measures in the form of global policies for controlling (more precisely, reducing) birth rates. In the West, a network of organizations has long been established to promote non-traditional families, contraception, abortion and childlessness.
An important element of Malthusianism is the concept of the “golden billion,” as a chosen portion of humanity. Neo-Malthusianism advocates for the dominance of the golden billion through the following measures: (1) exploitation of cheap natural resources and labour in underdeveloped countries; (2) implementation of international financial and credit policies, through which underdeveloped countries are maintained in a state of underdevelopment and ever-growing debt slavery to the golden billion; (3) using underdeveloped countries to address issues arising in the economies of the golden billion countries.
The author argues that neo-Malthusianism is an extremely anti-humanitarian ideology and a program of activity for the modern global financial oligarchy, seeking total control over the world and its resources. This ideology surpasses even notorious German fascism in its potential harshness. Essentially, it is a form of modern global Anglo-Saxon fascism, only thinly veiled by a pretense of addressing global issues and supposedly “global” interests of humanity.
Keywords: global issues, neo-Malthusianism, population explosion, demographic policy, “golden billion,” market economy, liberalism.
Openly anti-humanistic ideologies in the modern world are not particularly novel. They are, in fact, a repetition under contemporary conditions of long-known ideologies of nihilism, social-Darwinism, racism, fascism and Malthusianism — ideologies that have been repeatedly debunked in theory and discredited in practice. Like their historical predecessors, modern anti-humanistic ideologies, despite their negative content, cannot avoid using a certain humanistic disguise, presenting themselves as a form of “humanism.”
In today’s discourse, three forms of anti-humanistic ideologies are most relevant: 1. neo-Malthusianism combined with the “golden billion” concept; 2. neoliberalism; and 3. neo-fascist ideologies.
Let’s examine the modern neo-Malthusian concept. “Neo-Malthusians” include figures like Michael Postan, Carlo Cipolla and many members of the Club of Rome. Neo-Malthusianism aligns with classical Malthusianism on key points, asserting that population growth significantly outpaces the production of essential resources. From this, they argue the historical necessity of periodically reducing the “excess” population through wars, epidemics, famine, etc. Modern Malthusianism differs from its classical form only in the scale and method used to justify the need to reduce “excess” population. Neo-Malthusians, children of an age of global problems, think on a planetary scale. Whereas Malthus considered surplus population issues within a single country, neo-Malthusians consider the entire planet. They base their arguments on two seemingly evident facts. The first fact is the massive demographic explosion of the 20th century.
The explosive population growth of the 20th century is especially striking when compared with growth rates in earlier times. Specialists estimate that the Earth’s population in the 1st century AD was about 200 million people. By the early 18th century, it had tripled to 600 million, and by the early 20th century, it had reached approximately 1.5 billion. This set a trend of accelerating population growth. But in the 20th century, we see a true “demographic explosion.” Over just one century, the planet’s population quadrupled to 6 billion. In the 21st century, growth has slowed somewhat: if annual growth rates were over 2% in the 1970s, they fell to 1.1% by the 2010s. However, overall population growth remains explosive, with the global population increasing by about 1 billion every decade since 1960. From 1970 to 1980 alone, the increase was a record 1.5 billion people. This rate of absolute growth has yet to decrease. The continuation of “explosive” annual population growth in the 21st century, despite a decline in relative indicators (such as the birth-to-death ratio and annual growth rate), is due to the inertia of the 20th-century demographic explosion, i.e., the immense number of people currently on the planet. For instance, annual population growth in the 1970s was 1.8%, or 68 million people. In the 1990s, the growth rate fell below 1.7%, but in absolute terms, this meant 96 million people. Thus, the explosive absolute increase in population, like a rebound wave of the 20th-century demographic explosion, continues in the 21st century. Its scale is still impressive, with about 1 billion people added every decade.
According to specialists, although humanity passed the peak of the demographic explosion in the 1970s and 1980s, the decline in relative growth rates, which began in the late 20th century, will only reduce absolute population growth and stabilize it near zero by the mid-21st century. Various projections estimate the population at that point to be between 9 and 12 billion, which is considered the planet’s carrying capacity.
The second “fact,” according to Malthusians, is that the planet’s resources are extremely limited and unable to support such a large demographic load. The scientific foundation for this second “fact” has been developed in a number of reports by the famous Club of Rome, starting with one of its earliest reports, The Limits to Growth (Donella Meadows, 1972). Incidentally, modern history has shown the flaws in Meadows’ calculations. The limits he defined have long since been crossed, yet the promised collapse did not occur. Still, this does not negate the fundamental thesis that planetary resources are indeed limited. However, alternative solutions exist to this problem, aside from the radical population reduction proposed by neo-Malthusians. Options include renewable resource use, significant conservation and rational resource utilization, closed-loop waste-free technologies and, ultimately, the development of new, virtually limitless resources.
Neo-Malthusians, however, see only one solution: a significant reduction in the global population. They fail to recognize that this artificial and extremely harsh measure would not, in principle, resolve the issue of resource depletion. The remaining humanity would simply last a bit longer, but eventually, all terrestrial resources would be exhausted.
All neo-Malthusian arguments about excess population and the need for reduction rest on the falsehood of the second fact. In reality, the scientific and technological advances of our time far outpace population growth, and modern production can provide the necessary resources for the entire world’s population. The resource depletion problem also has fundamental scientific and technological solutions, rather than the primitive reduction of population.
Since neo-Malthusians see only one solution, technical questions arise concerning its implementation: 1. How many people must be reduced and within what timeframe? 2. What methods should be used to reduce the “excess” population? 3. Which specific groups in today’s population should undergo drastic reduction?
The dubious task of large-scale population reduction, along with all its technical aspects, aligns neo-Malthusianism with the most radical anti-humanistic ideologies, such as neo-fascism. According to various neo-Malthusian calculations, the optimal global population — one that could theoretically resolve all global issues — is estimated at around 1-2 billion people. This means that the remaining 6-7 billion are deemed superfluous, unnecessary and subject to reduction. Calculations by rational scientists who are not ideologically invested in Malthusianism suggest that Earth can support a population of around 9 billion. The numbers clearly do not align.
What methods do neo-Malthusians propose for reducing excess population? Here, they have far surpassed Malthus, who advocated, among other measures, for self-restraint in reproduction among the poor. On the other hand, neo-Malthusians, disguising themselves as “humanitarians,” formally reject harsh measures like wars, epidemics and famine, as these “technologies” would directly align them with neo-fascism. Modern neo-Malthusians propose softer, democratic yet effective measures in the form of global policies for population control (more precisely, birth rate reduction). In the West, a network of organizations promoting non-traditional families, contraception, abortion and childlessness has long been established. For example, Western organizations like the “Society for Constructive Birth Control and Racial Progress,” founded by Marie Stopes, the “American Birth Control League,” founded by Margaret Sanger, and the Family Planning Association, founded by Shizue Kato, are all very active and successful.
Non-traditional families (homosexuality, lesbianism, etc.) are even legally recognized in many Western countries. In some developed Western nations, political measures are observed that further worsen demographic situations: legalization of drug use, promotion and legalization of homosexuality, lesbianism, and other forms of sexual deviations, family planning education programs aimed at lowering birth rates, widespread media promotion of low-reproductive demographic norms, and so forth. These demographic deviations are presented as expressions of democracy, but in reality, they lead to the destruction of the demographic potential of these countries. Today, countries like the Netherlands, France, Sweden, and several other “highly developed” and “highly democratic” Western European nations lead these negative processes.
These countries have most actively and zealously begun reducing their own populations first. However, their main goal is to reduce the population of underdeveloped countries. While neo-Malthusians have not yet devised or openly discussed “formally humane” methods for this reduction, they exert powerful propaganda pressure on underdeveloped nations and indirectly pressure their political elites.
The most contentious question that neo-Malthusians avoid explicitly addressing is which specific groups of the world population should be gradually but radically reduced. However, the concept of the “golden billion,” closely tied to neo-Malthusianism, provides an answer: only this elite group is deemed worthy of remaining on the planet after a technological, peaceful reduction of excess population. Let’s examine this concept. “The concept of the ‘golden billion’ arose from the dilemma of limited resources and unlimited needs. Leading economists identified this issue in the first half of the 20th century. Consequently, according to this view, it’s necessary to restrain the economic ambitions of developing countries to avoid ‘wasteful’ resource consumption, as defined by developed economies.” [2, p. 3]
In selecting the population of Western developed countries as the deserving future beneficiaries in a world free from excess population and global issues, it’s worth noting that the primary factor behind global problems—such as environmental pollution or resource depletion—is actually the “golden billion,” not the underdeveloped countries. “This billion, residing in the ‘first world,’ consumes 75% of resources and generates 75% of waste. The remaining four billion consume and dispose of three times less, meaning that the average environmental impact of a poor individual is ten times lower than that of a Western resident. So, who is truly overpopulating the Earth? When it comes to greenhouse gases, the contribution of one American equals that of 1,450 Indians, so India, with its 600 million people, contributes as little as 2% of the US impact — an insignificant figure.” [3]
S.G. Kara-Murza states, “The term ‘golden billion’ emerged as a synthesis of two major ideas in modern Western culture, appearing in various forms — from quasi-scientific to strictly ideological and even mystical, religious. One idea is the vision of a ‘Golden Age’ of progress and prosperity. The other is the pessimistic acknowledgement of Earth’s limited resources and the impossibility of extending this prosperity to the entire world population.” [3] Who, then, constitutes the “golden billion”? Naturally, it includes the populations of highly developed Western countries and Japan.
The division of the modern world into two major parts — the “golden billion,” considered worthy of a bright future, and the rest of the world, deemed unworthy — is highly anti-humanistic. “While publicly professing adherence to human rights and other democratic values, the so-called humanist followers from developed countries exclude entire nations from social progress, labelling them as forever backward and urging them to accept this fate.” [2, p. 3]
A sense of superiority over underdeveloped nations is actively instilled in the populations of the “golden billion.” “A double standard is intentionally embedded in Western culture: humanity is demonstratively divided into two sub-types — the chosen and the subordinate… Western society is now ideologically prepared for any actions, however destructive, against the ‘hungry hordes’ that might threaten the well-being of the ‘golden billion.'” [3]
The “golden billion” concept not only defines its composition but, more importantly, shapes its attitude toward the rest of the world. We see a gradual shift from a model of Western “democratic” global dominance to one of rigid, top-down control over the world.
The model of global dominance holds that “The role of countries within the ‘golden billion’ is to set the development strategy for the global economy. The role assigned to countries outside this billion is to serve as a resource base, a supplier of cheap labour and a target for the promotion of Western ‘values.'” [2, p. 3]
The essence of “golden billion” dominance consists of several main policy areas: 1. exploitation of cheap natural resources and labour from backward countries; 2. international financial and credit policies that keep these countries in a state of perpetual debt to the “golden billion”; and 3. using these nations to solve economic issues arising within “golden billion” countries. “Modern globalization has introduced little new; it has simply reinforced the colonial system of unfair resource distribution, benefiting developed countries. Global markets make it nearly impossible for developing economies to escape debt and compete effectively with developed economies. Existing institutions like the IMF, WTO and EBRD not only maintain elements of unequal exchange but can also change the rules as needed (adjusting currency rates, introducing tariffs, etc.). This structure places developing countries in a permanently disadvantaged position.” [2, p. 2]
In the 21st century, the “golden billion” is shifting from global dominance to a model of strict global regulation. This model differs from the previous one in that it openly denies the sovereignty of backward countries and promotes the creation of a world government intended to establish a standardized world order for the benefit of the “golden billion.” “In the 1990s, a new theory of ‘internationalization and interdependence’ emerged, aiming to create a global centre for centralized distribution of capital, goods, labour, and ultimately resources, where an ‘iron guard’ of international forces from transnational corporations (TNCs) will establish ‘world order and stability.'”
The ultimate goal: to keep Earth’s natural resources under the control of the world’s industrial and financial elite. [3]
The “golden billion” concept, an extension of neo-Malthusianism, advances neo-Malthusianism through its rigid global dominance model over today’s world. It proposes a set of measures for significant population reduction in underdeveloped countries outside the “golden billion.” “The populations of these ‘frozen’ countries, locked in poverty, degrade and offer no functional value to the ‘first world’ while creating global social issues. This population should be reduced using a comprehensive system of new social technologies.” [3]
The “golden billion” has discarded the masks of democracy and liberalism, openly claiming its right to control the world’s resources. Their plans include reducing the population of “surplus” countries. “The agenda now includes artificially reducing populations in Asia, Africa and the USSR. UN documents (committees on population and raw materials) divide the global population into primary (supplied with resources, 1 billion), semi-primary (around 1 billion) and auxiliary populations, which are unprofitable in terms of industrialization and fail to justify the resources invested in them for production or survival.” [4] So far, neither the shadow world government nor TNCs and financial oligarchs have openly disclosed their methods for reducing “excess” population, although it’s clear that this goal is on their agenda, and they are intensively working on effective population reduction technologies. COVID-19 may even represent a test of one such method. The goal of reducing the world population, which implies eliminating approximately six billion people, places modern neo-Malthusians at the forefront of global neo-fascists, far surpassing them in scale of anti-humanism, thinly veiled under the guise of solving global problems.
Global problems, in fact, have another solution — one that is neither misanthropic nor as brutal as those proposed by neo-Malthusians and the “golden billion”: “…complete subjugation of Earth as a resource for the ‘first world’; division of humanity into two subspecies — conquerors and conquered — in a perpetual war. The ‘golden billion’ would be an elite international race with distinct morals and rights from the ‘defeated’; the reproduction of the ‘defeated’ would be controlled for the ‘universal good’ (in reality, it would quickly decline). The behaviour of the ‘defeated’ would be regulated by the harshest measures, beyond good and evil.” [3]
S. Kara-Murza offers an alternative: “The world is outgrowing industrialism with its predatory approach to nature and humanity, moving toward ‘post-industrialism’ with restored human solidarity, integrating sustainable, resource-conserving practices with the latest science and ethics.” [3] Many contemporary scientists and humanist thinkers agree. G.P. Menchikov reasonably argues that “Brutal (neo-Malthusian, fascist, social-nationalist, neo-terrorist) or natural solutions are not viable; this is shown by human history.” [5]
Indeed, if the “golden billion,” through a shadow world government, actually resorts to strict forceful methods of mass extermination, “reducing” the “excess” population, naturally, this population will not sit idly by. In the resulting global conflict between the golden billion and the rest of the world, any outcome is possible, including the self-destruction of all civilization and even life on Earth. A victory for the globalists and the fulfilment of the cherished dream of the golden billion is the most fantastical or utopian outcome of this global confrontation. Even if the dream of the utopian neo-Malthusian globalists is realized, it would not result in universal prosperity but in the rapid degradation of the “victorious” society, which would again begin dividing into an “elite” worthy of life and prosperity and an “excess” poor population marked for another “reduction.” Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin, in his tale “The Wild Landowner,” long ago described the hypothetical consequences of the disappearance of the working classes for the so-called elite.
Moreover, in today’s world, the very concept of the “golden billion” is becoming blurred. The population of developed Western countries, which forms the core of the golden billion, is rapidly becoming poorer. The middle class, which formed the foundation of Western societies, is shrinking. Social welfare systems and state support for citizens are also degrading and shrinking in Western countries. “While Russia and Eastern Europe were discussing their ‘integration’ into the ‘golden billion,’ the world’s ruling elites formed a completely new conceptual consensus for the future. At its core is the idea of dismantling the system of social guarantees for the ‘golden billion,’ bringing the populations of developed countries almost down to the level of the ‘third world.'” [1] This erosion of the social core of the “golden billion” is driven by the process of job reduction generated by scientific and technological development. As a result, a significant part of the population in the golden billion countries becomes unnecessary, joining the ranks of social outcasts.
Modern post-industrial production, based on automation and intellectual technologies, does not require a large workforce. “As the post-industrial transition nears completion, unemployment risks reaching 60% of the labour force. Essentially, only 10%-15% will be employed in production — either in their own businesses or as employees or partners. The rest will find roles in the service sector and government jobs. Unemployment will reach 40%.” [1]
The sharp reduction in employment in highly developed countries naturally leads to cuts in their social systems, as social support for the unemployed loses its purpose. “The disappearance of the need to reproduce a skilled labour force and responsible work environments requires removing the reproductive component from labour costs. Free education becomes unnecessary; it becomes a private matter and an opportunity for profit. In the USA and Russia, education is already commercialized, and in Europe, there are preparations to end public education and introduce commercial…”
The need for lifelong rewards for responsible work for the good of society and the employer also disappears — along with social security in old age. This security is planned to be reduced to cover only current consumption expenses — food and modest housing, but not to prolong life. This is already happening in Russia, the reform is in full swing in the USA, and Germany is just starting, though not without protests from those Germans who want to live longer.
It’s clear that such reforms will lead to a sharp decrease in life expectancy and an increase in the mortality of the elderly. The authors of these policies evidently consider this an economically viable factor (the ethical side is, of course, ignored): the elderly do not contribute to production and are thus viewed as redundant dependents. [1]
In assessing modern neo-Malthusianism and the associated “golden billion” concept, we can note, first, its utopian nature. “The concept of the ‘golden billion,’ which proposes the artificial creation of a new ‘chosen people’ from humanity, is a utopia. This utopia emerged in response to the current general crisis of industrialism and industrial civilization. Its philosophical basis is a pessimistic individualism, the breaking of communal bonds of human solidarity, a rejection of the ethics of religious brotherhood and collective salvation.
“Those who consider themselves part of the ‘golden billion’ increasingly feel as though they are in a besieged fortress, threatened by a rapidly growing horde of hungry, discontented poor. The ‘golden billion’ utopia, which is fundamentally unachievable, nonetheless breeds growing aggression — first in ideology and culture, then in political and military spheres. Signs of a new, global fascist ideology are already apparent, which could drive the most destructive actions.” [3]
Secondly, neo-Malthusianism is an extremely anti-humanitarian ideology and a program of action for the modern global financial oligarchy, which seeks total control over the entire world and its resources, far surpassing in potential harshness even notorious German fascism. It is, in fact, modern global Anglo-Saxon fascism, thinly veiled by a pretence of addressing global problems and supposedly “global” interests of humanity.
Andrey Fedorovich Polomoshnov is a Doctor of Philosophy, Professor at the Department of Economics, Philosophy and Social Sciences at the Don State Agrarian University.
Citation: Polomoshnov, A.F. “Neomalthusianstvo i budushchee chelovechestva” [Neo-Malthusianism and the Future of Humanity]. Vestnik Donskogo Gosudarstvennogo Agrarnogo Universiteta, no. 1-2 (39) (2021): 51-58.
Notes
- Gil’bo, E. Konets zolotogo milliarda [Elektronnyi resurs] / E. Gil’bo. – URL: http://www.analysisclub.ru/index.php?page=social&art=1857
- Gretskaia, O.S. Kontseptsiia «zolotogo milliarda» v mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniiakh [Text] / O.S. Gretskaia // Sibirskii torgovo-ekonomicheskii zhurnal. – 2008. – № 7. – S.1-4.
- Kara-Murza, S.G. Kontseptsiia «zolotogo milliarda» i novyi mirovoi poriadok [Elektronnyi resurs] / S.G. Kara-Murza. – M., 1999. – URL: http://filosof.historic.ru/books/item/f00/s00/z0000698/index.shtml
- Kuz’mich, A. Rossiia i rynok (V svete sovetskogo i mezhdunarodnogo prava) [Text] / A. Kuz’mich // Voskresen’e. – 1990. – № 4
- Men’chikov, G.P. Gumanizm klassicheskii, neklassicheskii i neoklassicheskii [Elektronnyi resurs] / G.P. Men’chikov // Vestnik KazGUKI. – 2012. – № 1. – URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/gumanizm-klassicheskiy-neklassicheskiy-i-neoklassicheskiy (data obrashcheniia: 02.12.2020).