Neo-Malthusianism -- split from the CC

[Dean]

The neo-Malthusian belief that the earth is overpopulated is shared by virtually every political current in the West, including many on the so-called left.

This is completely untrue. Most political standards totally ignore the issue of overpopulation, while those who do take stances on population growth are either rhetorically indifferent to this issue, or outright against it. It is only among some of the far leftist groups and charitable organizations that overpopulation is given any relevence (outside of the racist circles who don't like growth rates of certain ethnicities).

I have never seen a prominent politician talk of population growth as negative. Whenever I ahve brought the issue up as a problem, people have usually not understood why I thought of it as such. I have seen Republican politicians speak of vamping up the growth rate, I'm assuming to combat the disparity between racial populations or some other sinister goal.

As for population growth, it is certainly a problem, and I think it is totally anti-humanist to think of it in any other sense. We have an unsustainable economic organization and a political climate where those with the weakest economies and the volatile political climates have the highest population and growth rates. This stance (and I hope similar stances held by others) doesn't say that "too many people continue to live today" but "too many people are on earth today." We don't want anyone to die for the sake of economic sustainability, but at the same time we do indeed want to do what we can to discourage the uneven and unintended population growth rates that exist today. Our interest is in maintainign a healthy, sustainable economy for all people, and the population growth rate is a problem for this goal.

Maybe this ought to be split to theory or economics. But I wanted to make it absolutely clear that a stance against high population growth is in no way bad for humanity.

[Vanguard1917]

This is completely untrue. Most political standards totally ignore the issue of overpopulation, while those who do take stances on population growth are either rhetorically indifferent to this issue, or outright against it. It is only among some of the far leftist groups and charitable organizations that overpopulation is given any relevence (outside of the racist circles who don't like growth rates of certain ethnicities).

Which 'far leftists' groups are you referring to?

Most political strands do not ignore 'the issue of overpopulation'. In reality, outside of maybe a few groups on the old Marxist left, everyone seems to agree that population growth is a problem to be solved. Although some groups who consider themselves leftwing have recently decided to tail-end neo-Malthusian politics due to their own political disorientation, concerns over population growth have traditionally been the preserve of the right, not the left. Those on the radical left, people like Marx, Engels and Lenin, and indeed communists all over the world, always vehemently condemned Malthusian ideas as reactionary and anti-human.



We have an unsustainable economic organization and a political climate where those with the weakest economies and the volatile political climates have the highest population and growth rates. This stance (and I hope similar stances held by others) doesn't say that "too many people continue to live today" but "too many people are on earth today." We don't want anyone to die for the sake of economic sustainability, but at the same time we do indeed want to do what we can to discourage the uneven and unintended population growth rates that exist today. Our interest is in maintainign a healthy, sustainable economy for all people, and the population growth rate is a problem for this goal.



The problem is not and never has been the number of people. The problem is and always has been the social system of economic production which cannot provide the goods for the world's population. That's why leftists recognise that it's utterly reactionary to shift the blame onto the world's masses for the world's economic problems (as you are doing) and away from capitalism.

[Dean]

Which 'far leftists' groups are you referring to?
I don't have a list.


Most political strands do not ignore 'the issue of overpopulation'. In reality, outside of maybe a few groups on the old Marxist left, everyone seems to agree that population growth is a problem to be solved. Although some groups who consider themselves leftwing have recently decided to tail-end neo-Malthusian politics due to their own political disorientation, concerns over population growth have traditionally been the preserve of the right, not the left. Those on the radical left, people like Marx, Engels and Lenin, and indeed communists all over the world, always vehemently condemned Malthusian ideas as reactionary and anti-human.
I'm not very familiar with Malthus. I can't comment on his ideas specifically, and neither defend nor critique him. Repeating "leftists oppose Malthus" is ridiculous and irrelevant here.


The problem is not and never has been the number of people. The problem is and always has been the social system of economic production which cannot provide the goods for the world's population. That's why leftists recognise that it's utterly reactionary to shift the blame onto the world's masses for the world's economic problems (as you are doing) and away from capitalism.
Finally, the meat of your argument. Unfortunately, this is also disingenuous: I am not "blaming the masses." I am simply stating that population growth and density is unbalanced and volatile in our current economic system, and any system meant as a solution needs to address that problem.

[Vanguard1917]

I don't have a list.

If you can't name any examples, why make the claim?



I'm not very familiar with Malthus. I can't comment on his ideas specifically, and neither defend nor critique him. Repeating "leftists oppose Malthus" is ridiculous and irrelevant here.



Malthusian ideas are in summary those which see the growth of the human population as a problem. For Malthusians, more people means more problems; all problems - whether economic, social or ecological - are made worse by adding more people to the equation.

As radical leftists have historically understood, this is a highly flawed and reactionary logic which must be strongly opposed by progressives.



Unfortunately, this is also disingenuous: I am not "blaming the masses."


You're saying that current economic problems are, at least partly, the product of there being too many people on earth. As i said, this line of reasoning shifts blame for economic problems away from the capitalist system, and towards the masses themselves.



I am simply stating that population growth and density is unbalanced and volatile in our current economic system


What do you mean by this? Give examples. And then explain why population reduction is the answer.

[Dean]

If you can't name any examples, why make the claim?
I speak from memory. Generally, I expect other posters to take my word. If you don't want to, fine.




Malthusian ideas are in summary those which see the growth of the human population as a problem. For Malthusians, more people means more problems; all problems - whether economic, social or ecological - are made worse by adding more people to the equation.I never said that.


As radical leftists have historically understood, this is a highly flawed and reactionary logic which must be strongly opposed by progressives.I don't see how it is reactionary, but what you cite is flawed.


You're saying that current economic problems are, at least partly, the product of there being too many people on earth.That, and density.


As i said, this line of reasoning shifts blame for economic problems away from the capitalist system, and towards the masses themselves.So, if I said "X company hired too many employees to pay" you would say that I am blaming the employee for lack of payment? I don't see where blame factors in here.


What do you mean by this? Give examples. And then explain why population reduction is the answer.I never said we should reduce populations. I said we should have policies which discourage population growth, specifically where it is a problem.

[Vanguard1917]

I speak from memory. Generally, I expect other posters to take my word. If you don't want to, fine.


In other words, you don't have any examples to give. That's no way to back up your arguments, is it? Your word is obviously unreliable if it means you basically making things up.



I don't see how it is reactionary


You don't see why it's reactionary to blame human existence for the problems of the capitalist system?



So, if I said "X company hired too many employees to pay" you would say that I am blaming the employee for lack of payment? I don't see where blame factors in here.



Instead of exposing capitalism's utter inability to guarantee the welfare and wellbeing of the world's masses, what you're doing is simply saying that society's problems can be alleviated by keeping population growth in check. Instead of demanding a better, more advanced social system which can provide for an ever-growing human population, you're taking the Malthusian route of calling for a reduced human presence.



I never said we should reduce populations. I said we should have policies which discourage population growth


Those two sentences contradict one another. Surely you don't want 'policies which discourage population growth' to increase the population?



specifically where it is a problem


I ask you again: in what way is population reduction ('policies which discourage population growth') going to solve or alleviate the economic problems of capitalism for the benefit of humanity?

[Dean]

In other words, you don't have any examples to give. That's no way to back up your arguments, is it? Your word is obviously unreliable if it means you basically making things up.
If you think so. I am not making it up in any case.




You don't see why it's reactionary to blame human existence for the problems of the capitalist system?
I don't see why you think I am doing that. I am more specifically concerned with human consumption, which is relevent to the topic, though I'm not against it.



Instead of exposing capitalism's utter inability to guarantee the welfare and wellbeing of the world's masses, what you're doing is simply saying that society's problems can be alleviated by keeping population growth in check. Instead of demanding a better, more advanced social system which can provide for an ever-growing human population, you're taking the Malthusian route of calling for a reduced human presence.
These are not mutually exclusive. In creatign a socialist economy, you don't "just" overthrow capitalism. This would be like saying, "Instead of exposing the weakness of capitalism, you are suggesting that we set up collectives! As if the people are to blame for capitalism's faults!" It's ridiculous and irrelevent.


Those two sentences contradict one another. Surely you don't want 'policies which discourage population growth' to increase the population?
Slowing an increase has nothing to do with actively lessening the number of something. I have no interest in killing anyone, of course. Recognizing that people eat too much of X doesn't mean we want them to vomit the product up. No, we would instead suggest that further consumption be limited. You are confusing what is a humanist restructuring of social standards with mass murder, which is quite ridiculous to say the least.


I ask you again: in what way is population reduction ('policies which discourage population growth')
Do you not yet realize the difference between the two? Let's have a lesson in math.

Tommy's mom has packed for his lunch three apples. He doesn't much care for apples. He consumes the apples, then when he gets home he asks his mother to limit the number of apples that he has for lunch.
What can his mother do to solve this problem?
1. Pack only 1 or two apples tomorrow and in the future.
2. Have tommy pack the meal himself.
3. Induce vomiting in tommy.

Now, I am suggesting that it is a problem (three apples. He doesn't much care for apples) and a solution (1). Your inference amounts to a rejection of the basic premise (that the number of apples eaten should be limited in the future) and your suggestion that I would like to reduce the current population amounts to a support for (3).

Does this make sense yet?


going to solve or alleviate the economic problems of capitalism for the benefit of humanity?
I'm assumign you mean the limitation of population growth, though you have said otherwise. We are currently experiencing uncontrolled, unbalanced and exponential rise in population around the world. I would like to see less of this, because production for these populations has been stilted an unequal under our system, and for a fledgling socialist system such an unbalanced economic and social organization would prove hard to manage. A stable population would be easy to produce for, and in addition to this would be more well supplied in a capitalist system than what we currently experience. In other words, it would be better before and after revolution.

[Zurdito]

Humanity produces enough for 3000 calories a day for each person. Argentina alone produces enough to feed the whole of Latin America. And this under a capialist mode of production where the majority of resources aren't even dedicated to meeting basic needs!

Asfar as I can see there is no over-population. A workers-runsystem would need to establish an acceptable growth rate based on ability to produce, however, this is not the pressing questiont oday, rather, as V1917 says, the pressing question is why, despite our capabilities to do so, the current system does not provide everyone on the planet with a dignified life.

To talk about over-population in such a context is certainly making apologies for the system and misdirecting people's criticisms.

[Vanguard1917]

If you think so. I am not making it up in any case.

The problem is that you made a claim (that 'far leftist' groups highlight population growth as a problem, in your attempt to present 'overpopulation' as a legitimate leftwing concern) without being able to provide a single example.



We are currently experiencing uncontrolled, unbalanced and exponential rise in population around the world. I would like to see less of this, because production for these populations has been stilted an unequal under our system, and for a fledgling socialist system such an unbalanced economic and social organization would prove hard to manage.


These are claims you are making without making any effort whatsoever to back them up. The reason why millions of people live in poverty has - contrary to what various rightwingers, environmentalists and yourself like to claim - nothing at all to do with 'overpopulation'. Poverty today has everything to do with the current, flawed system of economic production: i.e. capitalism. As Zurdito has pointed out above, there is no absolute inability to meet the needs of the world's population. Your argument that there are objectively too many mouths to feed simply does not stand up to scrutiny.*



A stable population would be easy to produce for, and in addition to this would be more well supplied in a capitalist system than what we currently experience. In other words, it would be better before and after revolution.


Socialism is not about trying to contain population growth. Socialism doesn't blame the masses for their poverty and it doesn't view humanity as the problem. For example, when we as socialists see poverty and hunger in the developing world, we don't turn around and say "oh, it's because they overbreed". We say that the poverty and hunger is being caused by the contradictions inherent in the capitalist system - capitalism's utter inability to bring about necessary development worldwide. Likewise, when we see rising unemployment for young people in parts of Britain, we don't tell working class parents to have less kids. We say that unemployment is a feature of the capitalist system and that it's a disgrace that the economy cannot provide work for all. When public services stop functioning properly and neo-Malthusians begin blaming immigration, we expose lack of investment, development, etc.

The point is, it's the system that's the problem. The very fact that it's incapable of providing the best for all is itself evidence of this.


* A key problem with the Malthusian line of reasoning is the idea that humans are merely consumers of the earth's resources. The earth's resources are seen as pretty much fixed, with the only variable being human individuals. In other words, according to the Malthusian account, more people = more pressure on resources. This formulation ignores the fact that people don't just have stomachs to feed and backs to clothe - they also have hands with which to create and brains with which to innovate. In other words, people are not merely consumers, but also producers.

[Dean]

The problem is that you made a claim (that 'far leftist' groups highlight population growth as a problem, in your attempt to present 'overpopulation' as a legitimate leftwing concern) without being able to provide a single example.
I don't have examples of leftist groups, but I am aware that many charities ans scientists regard it as an issue. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#External_links)

Also, Greg Graffin, a leftist (of no particular color, unfortunately) describes it a as a problem:

Parched, cracked mouths, empty swollen guts
Sun baked pavement encroaches on us
Haves and have nots together at last
Brutally engaged in mortal combat

10 in 2010
10 in 2010

What kind of God orchestrates such a thing? 10 in 2010! 10 in 2010!
Ten billion people all suffering 10 in 2010! 10 in 2010!
Truth is not an issue just hungry mouths to feed 10 in 2010! 10 in 2010!
Forget what you want, scrounge the things you need 10 in 2010! 10 in 2010!

10 in 2010
10 in 2010...

Happy and content it can't happen to you 10 in 2010! 10 in 2010!
Fifteen years we'll think of a solution 10 in 2010! 10 in 2010!
It won't just appear in one day 10 in 2010! 10 in 2010!
For 10 in 2010 we're well on our way 10 in 2010! 10 in 2010!

10 in 2010
10 in 2010

Like piercing ear darts, I heard the news today
10 billion people...coming your way




These are claims you are making without making any effort whatsoever to back them up. The reason why millions of people live in poverty has - contrary to what various rightwingers, environmentalists and yourself like to claim - nothing at all to do with 'overpopulation'. Poverty today has everything to do with the current, flawed system of economic production: i.e. capitalism. As Zurdito has pointed out above, there is no absolute inability to meet the needs of the world's population. Your argument that there are objectively too many mouths to feed simply does not stand up to scrutiny.*
I am not in any way sayign that a large population creates poverty. I am saying that a destitute population with unsteady rates of quantitative change faces serious economic problems. In addition to the problems faced in distribution of basic goods under our current system, a rapidly increasing, undeveloped population is critically disadvantaged in regards to economic reorganization and class consciousness, among other things.


Socialism is not about trying to contain population growth. Socialism doesn't blame the masses for their poverty and it doesn't view humanity as the problem. For example, when we as socialists see poverty and hunger in the developing world, we don't turn around and say "oh, it's because they overbreed". We say that the poverty and hunger is being caused by the contradictions inherent in the capitalist system - capitalism's utter inability to bring about necessary development worldwide. Likewise, when we see rising unemployment for young people in parts of Britain, we don't tell working class parents to have less kids. We say that unemployment is a feature of the capitalist system and that it's a disgrace that the economy cannot provide work for all. When public services stop functioning properly and neo-Malthusians begin blaming immigration, we expose lack of investment, development, etc.[quote]
1. I have never said that the masses "are to blame" or that population density, growth or measure are generative forces in regards to disparities between the classes.
2. I have never used the term "breed" to refer to the population growth of a people, nor dismissively cited reproduction as generative of poverty or hunger.
3. I have never implied, stated or indicated that immigration generates poverty or hunger, nor that it is a problem, nor that it has to do with the failure of public services.
4. I have never implied that anything but capitalism is to blame for any of these problems.

Please stop talking about these issues in this context. It is incredibly hard to take your posts seriously when you time and time again make these errors.

[quote]The point is, it's the system that's the problem. The very fact that it's incapable of providing the best for all is itself evidence of this.
I never said the system is not to blame. Zurdito is totally correct that the economic forces we have access to can easily supply food to the world's population.


* A key problem with the Malthusian line of reasoning is the idea that humans are merely consumers of the earth's resources. The earth's resources are seen as pretty much fixed, with the only variable being human individuals. In other words, according to the Malthusian account, more people = more pressure on resources. This formulation ignores the fact that people don't just have stomachs to feed and backs to clothe - they also have hands with which to create and brains with which to innovate. In other words, people are not merely consumers, but also producers.
And in regards to the products we need, humans are the primary producers. The only static forces are material resources. This is another problem with your line of reasoning, though - the orientation that humans should have towards the earth.

I am of the opinion that animals should be given dignity by humans, but let's let that argument go to the wayside for now. I want to talk purely of huan interests, since you and many others talk about these issues in that context.

From a standpoint placing human interests above all others, it is rational to utilize the resources that nature has to offer while maintaining biodiversity, a consistent surplus of available resources, and a healthy surplus of untouched / minimally disturbed environments. Overpopulation in specific regions puts strain on environments, speeds up the consumption of specific regional resources, and can eliminate species.

Biodiversity is important for the sake of scientific advancement, which relies on a wide range of unique objects of study. For instance, the rain forest has been a critical scientific resource for the advancement of medicene. Some organisms whose genetic and biological character are useful for the advancement of medical science face extinction. This extinction could set back scientific innovation in those very specific fields immensely. Simply put, biodiversity is important for all fields of biological science, and specifically for medicene.

For similar scientific benefit is the presence of untouched or minimally disturbed environment. This may be lacking in good specifically related to medicene, but it is quite relevent to the biological sciences in general. Consistent surplus and supply of resources seems obvious. The energy crisis is an obvious example where overuse and undiversified technology has limited the usefulness of a resource, specifically oil, for humans.


Humanity produces enough for 3000 calories a day for each person. Argentina alone produces enough to feed the whole of Latin America. And this under a capialist mode of production where the majority of resources aren't even dedicated to meeting basic needs!

Asfar as I can see there is no over-population. A workers-runsystem would need to establish an acceptable growth rate based on ability to produce, however, this is not the pressing questiont oday, rather, as V1917 says, the pressing question is why, despite our capabilities to do so, the current system does not provide everyone on the planet with a dignified life.

To talk about over-population in such a context is certainly making apologies for the system and misdirecting people's criticisms.
We do produce enough, and our energies are used inefficiently under a capitalist system. But there is no clear reason why a socialist system would need a positive growth rate. Socialism does not have an interest in increasingly good efficiency or increasingly powerful economy. It is interested primarily and solely with human needs and requirements, and it is only from a capitalist orientation that ever increasing production, consumption or possession holds any value. At times, such interests will be relevent, but they do not in any way characterize any fundamental values of socialism. Like population growth rates, such considerations are irrelevent until they are applied to specific economic realities. Within a new socialist society, population growth as well as the rest will be very important.

The pressing question is hardly why the capitalist mode of production has failed us. This is obvious, and we all know it. The questions which we need to answer here are what economic concerns are relevent in a new socialist environment, since that is the issue we can't seem to grasp at here.

I find it really strange that you both are saying that I am making excuses for capitalism. I guess this has to do with a failure to contextualize these issues outside of cause and effect or blame. I don't really care about blame. I want solutions. The capitalist method has failed, and now I want solutions for humanity.

I have never characterized this concern as if it were about the application of blame. You two need to get out the mentality that every discussion needs to be framed as if X or Y is the problem and we blame Z. I am saying (and please read the anecdote in my last post for an explanation) that the problem is economic disparity, the solution is more rational economic distribution and a relevent issue to consider in that context is the population growth rate, density and mass in underdeveloped nations, among destitute populations and otherwise where it poses a burden for socialist or otherwise equitable economic development.

[Vanguard1917]

Also, Greg Graffin, a leftist


That's a singer and a part-time lecturer, according to Wikipedia. The fact that you are finding it so difficult to name me a single organisation on the 'far-left' should indicate to you that complaining about population growth is not standard practice in the communist tradition.



I don't have examples of leftist groups, but I am aware that many charities ans scientists regard it as an issue.


Various charities do indeed go on about population growth. Most of them are neo-Malthusian organisations who go to the developing world to lecture black and brown people to have less children.

But even they are forced to conceal their true agenda (i.e. reducing population growth) by arguing that their actions are motivated by things like 'women's rights', 'environmental protection', etc. The reason for that is that it has become very difficult to claim that there's a relationship (positive or negative) between population growth and economic stability... simply due to severe lack of evidence.



1. I have never said that the masses "are to blame" or that population density, growth or measure are generative forces in regards to disparities between the classes.
2. I have never used the term "breed" to refer to the population growth of a people, nor dismissively cited reproduction as generative of poverty or hunger.



You have explicitly said that a high population growth rate is a cause of economic problems. I don't know why you are so inconsistent in your arguments.



But there is no clear reason why a socialist system would need a positive growth rate. Socialism does not have an interest in increasingly good efficiency or increasingly powerful economy.


Then our definitions of socialism basically have very little in common. From the perspective of Marxism, socialism is first and foremost interested in radically transforming the efficiency and output of our productive capabilities, in order to create the material basis for a classless, stateless society.

Reducing growth, limiting productive output, decreasing mass consumption... Begs the question: What's the point of a revolution if we're going to be worse off than we already are? Surely a socialist transformation of society should make us better off... at least in the long-term?

[Dean]

That's a singer and a part-time lecturer, according to Wikipedia. The fact that you are finding it so difficult to name me a single organisation on the 'far-left' should indicate to you that complaining about population growth is not standard practice in the communist tradition.
Concerns over the character of a post-revolutionary society are "complaints" now. I suspect that socialists don't talk about overpopulation for two reasons - one, racists like to talk about the issue in terms of immigration or foreign nations and ethnicities. Two, it is important to frame economic crises as crises in a capitalist market. Lots of charities talk about overpopulation because it is not partitularly critical of the previaling economic order, but it does relate to the issue of poverty; socialists need to compensate for this misrepresentation.



Various charities do indeed go on about population growth. Most of them are neo-Malthusian organisations who go to the developing world to lecture black and brown people to have less children.
So the Catholic diocese has an ideology based upon the ideas of Malthus? Really? That's pretty weird. Though I enjoy your in-depth analysis of the work of charities.


But even they are forced to conceal their true agenda (i.e. reducing population growth) by arguing that their actions are motivated by things like 'women's rights', 'environmental protection', etc. The reason for that is that it has become very difficult to claim that there's a relationship (positive or negative) between population growth and economic stability... simply due to severe lack of evidence.
What?! You think people who do charity work for the environment and womens' rights have a secret motive to reduce the population?




You have explicitly said that a high population growth rate is a cause of economic problems. I don't know why you are so inconsistent in your arguments.
Please give me a quote of mine. I can't rely on your interpretation of my words, since it has been extremely inconsistent with my statements.


Then our definitions of socialism basically have very little in common. From the perspective of Marxism, socialism is first and foremost interested in radically transforming the efficiency and output of our productive capabilities, in order to create the material basis for a classless, stateless society.
Socialism is specifically interested in the creation of classless, stateless society. Whatever economic reorganization is involved in that is geared toward humanist interests goes along with that, but specifically increasing production is in no way intrinsic to these fundamental values.


Reducing growth, limiting productive output, decreasing mass consumption... Begs the question: What's the point of a revolution if we're going to be worse off than we already are? Surely a socialist transformation of society should make us better off... at least in the long-term?
Are you listening? Do you understand the difference between support - or lack of support - for a policy and support for opposing activity are different?

I don't know why I have to explain this to you. Here:
X economic organization produces 10 cars in a year. The society has no use (even regarding surplus value) for more than 10 cars in a year. Therefore, car production should not increase. This does not mean that we should produce less cars.

Also:
By supporting egalitarian economic rights, Tim's political ideology suggests that all workers should have access to cars. However, he doesn't really concern himself with the issue of automobile production, and he has no fundamental opinion on the increase or decrease of car production as it is today. Such questions are irrelevent to the basic premises he builds his ideology upon.

Is there enough evidence to say that Tim supports greater or lesser production of automobiles?

I'm not trying to be an asshole, but I am seriously confused about how you arrive at some of your conclusions about my statements.

[Vanguard1917]

I suspect that socialists don't talk about overpopulation for two reasons - one, racists like to talk about the issue in terms of immigration or foreign nations and ethnicities. Two, it is important to frame economic crises as crises in a capitalist market. Lots of charities talk about overpopulation because it is not partitularly critical of the previaling economic order, but it does relate to the issue of poverty; socialists need to compensate for this misrepresentation.



It's not that socialists 'don't talk about' population growth. Socialists, from Marx to Engels to Lenin, have talked about population growth fairly extensively in fact. They have talked about it in order to refute reactionary Malthusian claims that increased human existence is a problem.



What?! You think people who do charity work for the environment and womens' rights have a secret motive to reduce the population?


No, what i said is that population control charities use issues like women's rights and environmentalism as a means to win support for their agendas because they are no longer able to convince governments that there's a relationship between population growth and economic wellbeing.



Please give me a quote of mine. I can't rely on your interpretation of my words, since it has been extremely inconsistent with my statements.



Sure:





You're saying that current economic problems are, at least partly, the product of there being too many people on earth.


That, and density.




Socialism is specifically interested in the creation of classless, stateless society. Whatever economic reorganization is involved in that is geared toward humanist interests goes along with that, but specifically increasing production is in no way intrinsic to these fundamental values.



From the perspective of Marxism, developing the productive forces is fundamental to communism.



Are you listening? Do you understand the difference between support - or lack of support - for a policy and support for opposing activity are different?



:confused:

In your previous post you argued that socialism does not 'need a positive growth rate' and that 'it is only from a capitalist orientation' that increasing production and consumption become necessary. I honestly don't know what's confusing you.

[Zurdito]

I don't know why I have to explain this to you. Here:
X economic organization produces 10 cars in a year. The society has no use (even regarding surplus value) for more than 10 cars in a year. Therefore, car production should not increase. This does not mean that we should produce less cars.

but in what field does this situation exist? if capitalism was able to meet the demands of society as a whole then we wouldn't need a revolution. scarcity in terms of the whole of society is a necessarry confition for the production of a product to be profitable.

[JimmyJazz]

I have spent a lot of time on non-revolutionary progressive websites, and the amount of people on them who buy into the Malthusian lie, and the extent to which they each do, is shocking. Lurk on Common Dreams or Democratic Underground for a while to see what I mean. Discussions about global warming basically always turn into discussions on overpopulation, but discussions on things like world food prices also do quite often. I guess in a way it makes sense, because if you're an informed progressive you do worry about things like food shortages, but if you fall short of being anti-capitalist then scaling back the world population is really the only answer. Everyone who doesn't produce an effective demand on the world market should simply stop reproducing--problem solved! :rolleyes::( Ceasing to treat the most basic means of human sustenance as a commodity is simply out of the question. It really is depressing how entrenched capitalist thinking is in even the most progressive circles.

[Dean]

It's not that socialists 'don't talk about' population growth. Socialists, from Marx to Engels to Lenin, have talked about population growth fairly extensively in fact. They have talked about it in order to refute reactionary Malthusian claims that increased human existence is a problem.
It's really funny that whenever a thinker is quoted by Marx, we have 100 experts right here on RevLeft.




No, what i said is that population control charities use issues like women's rights and environmentalism as a means to win support for their agendas because they are no longer able to convince governments that there's a relationship between population growth and economic wellbeing.
So their ultimate goal is still reduction of population when they are doing womens' rights and environmental work?




From the perspective of Marxism, developing the productive forces is fundamental to communism.


In your previous post you argued that socialism does not 'need a positive growth rate' and that 'it is only from a capitalist orientation' that increasing production and consumption become necessary. I honestly don't know what's confusing you.

Listen to what I am saying. Developing economic production is not intrinsic to communism or socialism. It clearly is relevant under certain conditions, but increase of output is not related to any fundamental values of socialism. It is amazing to me that the primary conflict here is your inability to understand what I am saying and basic premises for the discussion.


but in what field does this situation exist? if capitalism was able to meet the demands of society as a whole then we wouldn't need a revolution. scarcity in terms of the whole of society is a necessarry confition for the production of a product to be profitable.
That's not accurate, but this is besides the point. The point is that increase of production holds no inalienable value. Only in certain conditions, such as where a society does not produce enough medical goods, does it become relevant. The goal of a socialist society is, in part, to provide for its members - in many ways this means increasing production. In other ways it is indifferent to the issue, and in still others it means limitations.

[Vanguard1917]

It's really funny that whenever a thinker is quoted by Marx, we have 100 experts right here on RevLeft.


I don't know what that means. Marxists did not criticise the Malthusian viewpoint for the fun of it; they did so because of its highly reactionary content. It's a viewpoint which is antithetical to progressive politics in every major way.


So their ultimate goal is still reduction of population when they are doing womens' rights and environmental work?

Their work is population control. They merely use women's rights and environmental arguments to justify that work.



Listen to what I am saying. Developing economic production is not intrinsic to communism or socialism.


Of course it is, from the Marxist, materialist conception of socialism. For Marxists, the central historical justification for socialism is its ability to establish a higher mode of production. The reason that capitalism is seen by Marxists as a historically limited mode of production is that it restrains the further development of the productive forces of society.

[Dean]

I don't know what that means. Marxists did not criticise the Malthusian viewpoint for the fun of it; they did so because of its highly reactionary content. It's a viewpoint which is antithetical to progressive politics in every major way.
My problem is that you don't brign much to the table here. You are attacking those who suggest that we thin or blame the population. Fine, but that's not me. This talk of Malthus is largely irrelevent in that case.


Their work is population control. They merely use women's rights and environmental arguments to justify that work.
That is absolutely ridiculous, and you know it.


Of course it is, from the Marxist, materialist conception of socialism. For Marxists, the central historical justification for socialism is its ability to establish a higher mode of production. The reason that capitalism is seen by Marxists as a historically limited mode of production is that it restrains the further development of the productive forces of society.
This can be seen as true, but not with a purely economic concept of marxism. Increased production is not the fundamental character of communism, and it is in fact not a value which can be derived from communist orientation without specific economic conditions as a standard. Since there are cases where production should not be expanded, increases in production are not a core value of communism, but a useful tool in economic reorganization.

Only production as a fluid, psychological concept can be seen as a basic communist value. Production as it relates specifically to the creation and allocation of resources and commodities can be characterized communistically, but not quantified communistically. That is, communism ideologically defines the actual mode and orientation of commodity-production. But communism has no real standards for the quantity of that production besides some basic standards which are not found in the fundamental values of communism, but in their application in consideration of human needs, real economic structure, etc.

Production being held for and by the working class is a communist standard.

Production increasing has nothing to do with the core values of communism.


I hope that makes sense, and I'm sorry for being condescending before.

[Vanguard1917]

My problem is that you don't brign much to the table here. You are attacking those who suggest that we thin or blame the population. Fine, but that's not me. This talk of Malthus is largely irrelevent in that case.



It's not irrelevant because your position is a Malthusian one. You see a growing population as a cause of capitalism's economic problems.



That is absolutely ridiculous, and you know it.


Why? What's ridiculous about it?



Production being held for and by the working class is a communist standard.

Production increasing has nothing to do with the core values of communism.

But it does; raising productivity is central to communism from the Marxist viewpoint. For Marxism, as i pointed out above, the key historical justification for socialism is its ability to bring about a higher mode of production. I suggest you do some reading on what Marxism is before we keep going around in circles.

As to population growth itself, socialist writer John Molyneux wrote a quite good article on it a couple of months ago, explaining the Marxist approach to it and also dispelling some of the Malthusian myths surrounding it. I think it would be a fairly good place to start for you. http://johnmolyneux.blogspot.com/2008/07/is-world-overpopulated.html

[Cult of Reason]

Humanity produces enough for 3000 calories a day for each person. Argentina alone produces enough to feed the whole of Latin America. And this under a capialist mode of production where the majority of resources aren't even dedicated to meeting basic needs!

Asfar as I can see there is no over-population. A workers-runsystem would need to establish an acceptable growth rate based on ability to produce, however, this is not the pressing questiont oday, rather, as V1917 says, the pressing question is why, despite our capabilities to do so, the current system does not provide everyone on the planet with a dignified life.

To talk about over-population in such a context is certainly making apologies for the system and misdirecting people's criticisms.

Let us assume, for a moment, that population growth can be continued indefinitely, and sustainably, in terms of the food needed to feed the population. Even with that assumption, it becomes clear how short-sighted such a point of view is.

Yes, the Earth probably could support a few more people on a level of bare subsistence for a while (assuming potable water remains abundant), but I would not describe that as a "dignified life". What about housing? Refridgeration? Computers? The internet? Consumer goods? Sewer systems? Transportation? All of those require things that you have ignored, not least minerals, and their availability is absolutely finite, at least until we mine asteroids or do some other sci-fi thing.

Currently, most of the world does not live what I would describe as a dignified life. Some areas, such as China, are extracting, and importing, increasing mineral resources which increase the standards of living of the populace. Most minerals have seen their prices see large increases in the last decade. However, there is only so much iron, aluminium and copper to go around, and only so much remaining to be extracted. Yes, some of the demand can be (is) met by recycled materials (several tens of percentage points for all three materials IIRC), but in order to be recycled, materials must be scrapped first. Increasing the population reduces the amount of available, and extractable, minerals per person and that will effect standards of living. Either the newly extracted material improves the living standards of the current population, or it has to be applied to meet the needs of the extra population due to increase.

As such, if you want to see Communism worldwide, then population growth must be stopped. An abundance of goods and services needs an abundance of materials, and that only exists so long as the population is below a particular level (such that the per capita mass of the most scarce essential material remains above the per capita level of use). Above that level, you effectively have scarcity and then Communism is scuppered.

(I would like to note here that I do not believe that world Communism is presently possible due to the apallingly low level of productive fores in certain parts of the world, including mineral availability. It is possible in a few areas, though.)

Incidentally, were you aware that modern food production is absolutely dependent upon certain finite non-renewable mineral resources (that is, they are dispersed so that their entropy increases so much that they cannot practicably be reused...)? Those mineral resources are phosphate rock and potash ((di)-potassium-oxide), both of which have no substitute. Increases in population reduce the time we have to develop agricultural methods that can provide the needed nutrition to the population without those minerals, and increase the strain on those new methods.

For phosphate rock, at 2006 levels of extraction (which we would want to increase in any case to provide better quality nutrition to people (more meat, for example) even if population was static), we have 127 years left before our reserves are gone, and 352 for our reserve base (reserve base - reserves = stuff that is currently not economic to extract with current prices and technology: i.e. it is more expensive and difficult to extract). It is estimated that more was extracted in 2007 than 2006, and that is probably the trend.

For potash, at 2006 levels of extraction, we have 285 year left before our reserves are gone, and 619 for the reserve base. It is estimated that more was extracted in 2007 than 2006, and that is probably the trend.

My source is the United States Geological Survey's book of Mineral Commodities Summaries for 2008. These are numbers for the entire world.

[Vanguard1917]

Yes, the Earth probably could support a few more people on a level of bare subsistence for a while (assuming potable water remains abundant), but I would not describe that as a "dignified life". What about housing? Refridgeration? Computers? The internet? Consumer goods? Sewer systems? Transportation? All of those require things that you have ignored, not least minerals, and their availability is absolutely finite, at least until we mine asteroids or do some other sci-fi thing.

Resources may be mathematically finite, but our productive capabilities as human producers aren't. If you look at history, you see humanity using the application of its ingenuity to discover increasingly efficient ways to use the earth's resources in order to raise its productivity. You seem to be committing the standard Malthusian error of viewing human resourcefulness as fixed and static - which means that you inevitably see an increased human presence on earth as a negative, since more people simply means more consumers from your POV. As i pointed out above, however, humanity produces and innovates as well as consumes. We cannot set limits in advance to the human productive potential.



As such, if you want to see Communism worldwide, then population growth must be stopped. An abundance of goods and services needs an abundance of materials

What evidence do you have of an absolute lack of materials to produce an abundance? Remember, capitalism isn't holding back the development of the means of production because of an objective lack of materials. It's holding it back because it can't raise the productivity of labour, as capitalist relations of production become a fetter on further progress.

[Cult of Reason]

Resources may be mathematically finite, but our productive capabilities as human producers aren't. If you look at history, you see humanity using the application of its ingenuity to discover increasingly efficient ways to use the earth's resources in order to raise its productivity. You seem to be committing the standard Malthusian error of viewing human resourcefulness as fixed and static - which means that you inevitably see an increased human presence on earth as a negative, since more people simply means more consumers from your POV. As i pointed out above, however, humanity produces and innovates as well as consumes. We cannot set limits in advance to the human productive potential.


Humans are not producers, but processers. There needs to be a certain amount of raw material if there is to be a certain amount of precessed product. Yes, new materials are being developed as we "speak", but how fast and what effect do those materials have? Off the top of my head, I can think of two types of material that are "emerging": carbon fibre (derived primarily from mined graphite, if I am not mistaken, and currently expensive to process (though hopefully cheaper methods will come); however there is much less graphite available in the world than there is iron, so it is carbon fibre probably will not be used as a bulk material unless coal can be used to make it, and that would require competition with coal burning, just as production from graphite competes with graphite's use as a refractory, as a source of carbon in steels, as a lubricant etc.) and new plastics that come up every once in a while (petroleum, which also has many other uses and might become increasingly scarce in the future). Of course, even if there were lots and lots of new materials being developed quickly and making very fast and large contributions to production, if there were fewer people there would be more for the people there, especially since human labour now has an almost insignificant effect on production due to mechanisation and now, increasingly, automation.

Obviously, though, even if I am right and population growth is more significant than the emergence of new materials, the rulers will just distribute the materials unequally, as now, but that isn't what we want, is it?

BTW, more humans does mean more consumers, in effect because, in advanced societies at least, humans are almost irrelevant to production. The overwhelimg majority of the energy input (work) into production is machine labour. The humans are just controllers or maintainers of the machines and researchers into new machines and methods, and of course consumers. There are exceptions, such as the textile industry, where cheap labour from the "Third World" is still cheaper than automation.


What evidence do you have of an absolute lack of materials to produce an abundance? Remember, capitalism isn't holding back the development of the means of production because of an objective lack of materials. It's holding it back because it can't raise the productivity of labour, as capitalist relations of production become a fetter on further progress.

I am aware of how supply & demand and capitalism fetter productive forces, but that only happens in places where productive forces have reached a point where they can produce more than is needed. In the Central African Republic, to take an extreme example, those sorts of productive forces do not exist, in general.

As for what evidence I have for an absolute lack of materials to provide an abundance for the whole world, I do not know. I have some statistics, but I am still working with them (working out what levels of production are necessary is rather tedious, unfortunately). I can tell you the obvious, though: materials are distributed geographically in a very unequal way. North America comes first place, and then the Americas in general. Based on what I am seeing, though, I believe it to be the case that there are not enough materials in the world to provide a USA level standard of living worldwide assuming that there remain no large reserves to be discovered. I will probably be able to get back to you in a few weeks.

Incidentally, Africa is not as rich in resources as some make out: South Africa is. There are a few other large reserves dotted about the continent. Of course, it plausible that there are large resources in Africa yet to be discovered, but unfortunately my data only deals with stuff people know about.

[Zurdito]

BTW, more humans does mean more consumers, in effect because, in advanced societies at least, humans are almost irrelevant to production.


I'm quite surprised that someone calling themselves an H+ technocrat woul write this. it's in th most scientifically advanced, least manufacturing societies that the greatest scientific advances are made which allow for production to be stepped up.

Human labour is the result of all value, this si the root of marxism. Human beings, by consciously planning the improvement of machines, can simultaneouslyy work less, and create more. It is a self nurturing circle of course as each improvement leads to new imrpovements and better material conditions to make those improvements (i.e. less time spent on manual labour means more time free to be educated and posses ever greater scientific knowledge and ability in order to find new ways to improve existing technology).

[La Comédie Noire]

As technology becomes more prevalent in a society its population shrinks. This means the bulk of the human population is in the less technologically advanced societies. However, the more technologically advanced a society is the more it consumes.

So it stands to reason the problem of resource depletion is not population growth but mismanagement of the resources themselves. Let's just put it this way, there are too many people for the capitalist system to handle.

[Vanguard1917]

There needs to be a certain amount of raw material if there is to be a certain amount of precessed product.


But we can't talk of raw materials as though they're a fixed, pre-given quantity which exist outside of human society. The earth's resources aquire meaning through human society, specifically its level of economic and technological development. For example, for the majority of societies throughout history, uranium and bauxite weren't considered resources. They became resources at a certain stage of historical and technological development. On the other hand, coal, which was considered a highly valuable resource in the past, is less and less considered as such today. The oceans were seens as an obstacle by early human societies; today, as a result of historical development, they're seen less as a problem and more as a resource.

In short, there's a fluid relationship between human beings and resources - not a fixed relationships as the Malthusians argue. As Marx pointed out, problems like poverty and hunger are caused by the way society is organised, not by the limits of nature.



BTW, more humans does mean more consumers, in effect because, in advanced societies at least, humans are almost irrelevant to production.


Since humanity builds, works, innovates and advances the machinery used in production, human beings are surely central to the process of production? Humanity will oversee further technological and economic progress - machines don't have lives of their own.

[Cult of Reason]

I'm quite surprised that someone calling themselves an H+ technocrat woul write this. it's in th most scientifically advanced, least manufacturing societies that the greatest scientific advances are made which allow for production to be stepped up.

Human labour is the result of all value, this si the root of marxism. Human beings, by consciously planning the improvement of machines, can simultaneouslyy work less, and create more. It is a self nurturing circle of course as each improvement leads to new imrpovements and better material conditions to make those improvements (i.e. less time spent on manual labour means more time free to be educated and posses ever greater scientific knowledge and ability in order to find new ways to improve existing technology).

I don't know what you mean by value (is it relevant?), but the humans themselves create very little in comparison to the machines. The number of humans that there are has a negligible effect on the volume of production: to affect that more machines, or better machines, must be built. If the population is higher, then more machines must be built to produce for them, if there are sufficient raw materials to process. Yes, humans can redesign or improve the machines, maintain them etc., but that is really not part of the productive process per se. It is feasible, and already done in some cases, to automate most manufacturing to a high level, such that human involvement decreases further still.

You seem to be implying, though, that an increase in population would necessarily increase the productive forces. Why? This is no longer the 19th century: doubling the number of workers will not double steel production, only doubling the machines, or their speed or work time, will, constrained by the availability of suitable raw material. In addition, since it is likely that only the most easily accessed resources are extracted first, an increase population would, if anything, increase the average work time*. Also, a doubling of the population will not necessarily result in an advance of technology that will double the efficiency of resource usage. In fact, I believe the effect would be less.

*This principle also applies to renewable energy. The first wind farms are built in the best places. If you want to double wind power production then, assuming it is possible, you will have to more than double the number of wind turbines (assuming all wind turbines are created equal), and so you have to more than double the amount of work done (by humans) maintaining them etc.. The same applies to solar power, in a similar way. You cannot say, either, that their efficiencies could just be doubled by research, since there are physical limits on their efficiencies in ideal conditions. Since energy is fundamental to all production, this cannot be avoided.


As technology becomes more prevalent in a society its population shrinks. This means the bulk of the human population is in the less technologically advanced societies. However, the more technologically advanced a society is the more it consumes.

So it stands to reason the problem of resource depletion is not population growth but mismanagement of the resources themselves. Let's just put it this way, there are too many people for the capitalist system to handle.

It is not necessarily so that technological advancement increases resource consumption (and if it is, we are fucked). I think that a good amount of the consumption per capita in the west is useless and spurred on by consumerism. The rest is in order to fulfil various desires, for example for entertainment, that add up to the standard of living/quality of life/what have you. Then you multiply that by the population to get the total.

Let us not forget to note this: the capitalist economy greatly mismanages our resources, but population is still a factor, even for a Communist system.


But we can't talk of raw materials as though they're a fixed, pre-given quantity which exist outside of human society.

But they ARE. The original endowment of any material is very little affected by human action. Human action can only use, or squander, it.


The earth's resources aquire meaning through human society, specifically its level of economic and technological development. For example, for the majority of societies throughout history, uranium and bauxite weren't considered resources. They became resources at a certain stage of historical and technological development. On the other hand, coal, which was considered a highly valuable resource in the past, is less and less considered as such today. The oceans were seens as an obstacle by early human societies; today, as a result of historical development, they're seen less as a problem and more as a resource.

In short, there's a fluid relationship between human beings and resources - not a fixed relationships as the Malthusians argue. As Marx pointed out, problems like poverty and hunger are caused by the way society is organised, not by the limits of nature.

In the history of human society, it is in general the case that the easiest materials to use, such as copper (which was found native), were used first. Less work, less energy, had to be expended to get a use from them. The next one, iron, was more difficult as it needed the expense of more energy just to get it in its native form from the ores (the entropy of discovered iron (ore) was higher than that of the (native) copper), which required one of the earliest uses of extraneous energy: fire. Aluminium, from bauxite, has a much higher entropy still, requiring electrolysis to form metal. New materials are generally initially more expensive, in energy terms, to produce than older ones, and can remain so for a very long time, if not forever. Hence energy use will increase if population increases, unless we somehow get a wonder material that can be produced at low energy cost, has a large reserve of raw material and is useful. As I explained above, increasing energy usage overall with increasing population, even if per capita energy use remains constant, will increase per capita work required.

Also, with regards to what Marx said or said not, what qualifies him to be a useful source on this? He was not an engineer or (natural) scientist, so what does he know of natural limits? In addition, the world population in 1900 was about a quarter of what it is today, and 15% of the 10 billion or so predicted by 2050 (thankfully that is projected to be near the peak before a population decline). What was not a problem then is not necessarily easy to deal with now.

(I would like to point out that I have not been arguing that increasing population will cause hunger (though that may well be the case)).

Increases in the population will, at the very least, increase the per capita labour needed to sustain the society and, further, if no new wonder materials arrive on the scene, reduce the amont of material available per person, so possibly constraining standard of living (if per capita mass of the scarcest resources reaches below what you could call the "abundance level"). This is not even taking environmental concerns into account, such as water tables (increased desalination requiares more energy which requires... etc..), aquatic populations (most of our seafood is not farmed, and it would probably be infeasible to farm most of it) and so on.

[Vanguard1917]

I don't know what you mean by value (is it relevant?), but the humans themselves create very little in comparison to the machines. The number of humans that there are has a negligible effect on the volume of production: to affect that more machines, or better machines, must be built. If the population is higher, then more machines must be built to produce for them, if there are sufficient raw materials to process. Yes, humans can redesign or improve the machines, maintain them etc., but that is really not part of the productive process per se. It is feasible, and already done in some cases, to automate most manufacturing to a high level, such that human involvement decreases further still.

Who builds the machines? Do they have a life of their own? Obviously not. At the source of every production process is human labour power.

You're right in your suggestion that an increased labour input does not necessarily mean increased output in production. This is a result of industrialisation: industrialised production means that the size of a society's population has less of an impact on its economic power than it did in the (agricultural) societies of the past. Indeed, this is something which the Malthusians ignore in their attempts to argue that population size is a key variable in a society's economic dynamism.

With technological development, humanity is far less restrained by its own 'nature', as well as by its environment, in terms of the scope of its productive capabilities. That's why it makes even less sense to talk in advance about natural limitations today than it ever has made before.



In the history of human society, it is in general the case that the easiest materials to use, such as copper (which was found native), were used first. Less work, less energy, had to be expended to get a use from them. The next one, iron, was more difficult as it needed the expense of more energy just to get it in its native form from the ores (the entropy of discovered iron (ore) was higher than that of the (native) copper), which required one of the earliest uses of extraneous energy: fire. Aluminium, from bauxite, has a much higher entropy still, requiring electrolysis to form metal. New materials are generally initially more expensive, in energy terms, to produce than older ones, and can remain so for a very long time, if not forever.


But the ability to use a material like aluminium was dependent upon a certain level of technological development, which was itself dependent on a certain historical stage of economic progress. In other words, the earth's resources have no meaning for us (in terms of economic production) if seperated from the context of historical development. How are you able to predict in advance what the limitations of a future communist society will be?

Remember, predictions about catastrophic consequences of population growth have been around for a very long time. And they have always proved to be utterly wrong. Malthus, for example, predicted in the 19th century that food production would be unable to keep pace with the growth of the human population, which would result in mass starvation, war and pestilence. We now know, of course, that he was very wrong; food production has far outstripped population growth. Malthus grossly underestimated and failed to anticipate the advances that were taking place in economic productive technology, especially in agriculture.

More recently, the famous neo-Malthusian Paul Ehrlich has been predicting for decades that resources will outstrip population and that humanity will face the consequences (including famine in the US, key minerals facing depletion and whole countries like England being wiped off the map by the year 2000). Needless to say, Ehrlich has invariably been proven wrong in his predictions - as have all Malthusians to date.

[Cult of Reason]

Who builds the machines? Do they have a life of their own? Obviously not. At the source of every production process is human labour power.

What is relevant is, if we had to build new machines, how they would be produced, NOT how the current machines were produced, or what produced what produced them and so on down the line, as that is irrelevant to the challenges of today. It is likely that if a new machine was built, the vast majority of the work put into producing that machine would be done by other machines, with a very small amount of interaction done by humans overseeing the process. The amount of human involvement would be small even if the machine was finally assembled by a human.

Even if we take the extreme case where a large group of humans were necessary to smelt the ore, then forge the parts and then assemble the machine, their contribution would quickly be made negligible by the productive power of the machine itself, assuming the machine's purpose is that of mass production rather than some specialist use.


You're right in your suggestion that an increased labour input does not necessarily mean increased output in production. This is a result of industrialisation: industrialised production means that the size of a society's population has less of an impact on its economic power than it did in the (agricultural) societies of the past. Indeed, this is something which the Malthusians ignore in their attempts to argue that population size is a key variable in a society's economic dynamism.

Quite: an increase in population in most areas on Earth (with some exceptions such as the Sakha Republic, in Russia, perhaps*) now has no benefits whatsoever for those already living, and carries with it risks (perhaps technology will not find a panacea, or not fast enough?) and, as I explained earlier, an almost certain increase in per capita necessary labour and a decrease in raw materials per capita (which is bad if you want to have an abundance of goods and services) assuming no new wonder material.

*Underpopulation is a problem, just as overpopulation is.


With technological development, humanity is far less restrained by its own 'nature', as well as by its environment, in terms of the scope of its productive capabilities. That's why it makes even less sense to talk in advance about natural limitations today than it ever has made before.

It makes no sense to assume that in the future there will be great technological progress that will drastically reduce natural limits and that, therefore, there is no problem with an ever increasing population. For me it is reasonable to regard that as an unacceptable risk to take, a risk with no rewards. This is especially so when the most obvious recent technological advances have not reduced natural limits but have instead increased consumption of resources (the personal computer is an example of this. It should be noted, though, that I am by no means against these advances, I am actually in favour since they increase standards of living/quality of life).


But the ability to use a material like aluminium was dependent upon a certain level of technological development, which was itself dependent on a certain historical stage of economic progress. In other words, the earth's resources have no meaning for us (in terms of economic production) if seperated from the context of historical development. How are you able to predict in advance what the limitations of a future communist society will be?

How are you able to predict that, in the end, there will be no limitations, that they will all be pushed aside? More importantly, how are you able to predict that the limitations can be pushed aside before human population reaches them? That is wishful thinking of the highest order.


Remember, predictions about catastrophic consequences of population growth have been around for a very long time. And they have always proved to be utterly wrong. Malthus, for example, predicted in the 19th century that food production would be unable to keep pace with the growth of the human population, which would result in mass starvation, war and pestilence. We now know, of course, that he was very wrong; food production has far outstripped population growth. Malthus grossly underestimated and failed to anticipate the advances that were taking place in economic productive technology, especially in agriculture.


My argument does not concern itself with food production at the moment, but with standard of living, which is much more complex, and has many more limits. To be honest I am much much less worried about food production than I am about other things (happily enough many researchers see agriculture as a priority), I am less worried about the capacity of the Earth to support life than its capacity to support life that is worth living.

[apathy maybe]

I read this discussion with interest, and have only one thing to say.

Vanguard1917 once more ignores what people are saying, ignores reality and proceeds to make grand claims that can't be supported by the facts. I won't contribute to the discussion because both Dean and Cult of Reason have sufficiently argued my opinion (in various parts of their posts, I don't agree with everything they posted).

There is no infinite amount of resources, and to think that there is, and to think that unlimited infinite production can take place, is a capitalist way of thinking. (Indeed, capitalism, as an economic theory, requires and assumes that there is an unlimited amount of resources.)

Oh, actually, one more thing. To claim that more humans is a good thing is just crazy from most (non-crazy) perspectives. Finally, the best way, to reduce population growth is to increase standards of living.

[Vanguard1917]

What is relevant is, if we had to build new machines, how they would be produced, NOT how the current machines were produced, or what produced what produced them and so on down the line, as that is irrelevant to the challenges of today. It is likely that if a new machine was built, the vast majority of the work put into producing that machine would be done by other machines, with a very small amount of interaction done by humans overseeing the process. The amount of human involvement would be small even if the machine was finally assembled by a human.


Even if we do imagine such a future scenario, aren't humans still at the source of the production process in the sense that they're ultimately responsible for the machinery existing?

Also, why should we deduce from the fact of production becoming less labour intensive that we need to reduce population growth? The fact that we can step up production in such a way, with ever decreasing restraints in terms of labour time...



Quite: an increase in population in most areas on Earth (with some exceptions such as the Sakha Republic, in Russia, perhaps*) now has no benefits whatsoever for those already living, and carries with it risks (perhaps technology will not find a panacea, or not fast enough?) and, as I explained earlier, an almost certain increase in per capita necessary labour


But above you argued that technological progress is allowing us to produce more with less labour power, and that this advance is likely to continue. If this is the case, with the productivity of labour rising as a result of technological advances in production, why would an increase in population necessarily result in an increase of 'necessary labour'... if technological progress is increasingly allowing us to produce more with less labour input?



It makes no sense to assume that in the future there will be great technological progress that will drastically reduce natural limits


Why not? That's the story of mankind. Such progress is taking place even under the restraints of capitalist society. Under communism, where the human potential is unfettered, how can we put limits in advance to what kind of technological advances will take place?



This is especially so when the most obvious recent technological advances have not reduced natural limits but have instead increased consumption of resources (the personal computer is an example of this. It should be noted, though, that I am by no means against these advances, I am actually in favour since they increase standards of living/quality of life).



The personal computer has reduced natural limits. It has reduced natural limits in terms of our ability store and manipulate data, to process information, and, via the internet, to communicate worldwide. More vitally, some of the technological advances which have allowed personal computers to exist have also brought about advances in other spheres, e.g. robotics.

As is usually the case, an advance in one area has a tendency to bring about previously unforseeable advances in other areas.



How are you able to predict that, in the end, there will be no limitations, that they will all be pushed aside?


I am not able to say that there will be no limitations on our productive capabilities. What i am able to say is that, with technological, economic and social progress, the natural restrainst facing humanity have a tendency to decrease.



My argument does not concern itself with food production at the moment, but with standard of living, which is much more complex, and has many more limits. To be honest I am much much less worried about food production than I am about other things (happily enough many researchers see agriculture as a priority), I am less worried about the capacity of the Earth to support life than its capacity to support life that is worth living.


The point is, thinkers have been making such predictions for around 200 years. Malthusian thinking has played a fairly prevalent role in bourgeois economics almost from the start. It has been argued over and over again that a rise in population will lead to a rise in poverty. But the predictions have always proved to be wrong. Today, with 6.7 billion people on earth, people are on average living longer and healthier lives than ever before in human history. In parts of the world where development is taking place, literally millions of people are being rescued from absolute poverty every year. Poverty no doubt continues to dominate our existence, but where it exists it does so for very social reasons, the limits thrown up by capitalism, not due to any absolute inability to raise living standards.

By arguing, with no evidence, that poverty is being caused by the very existence of the masses themselves, rather than by the limitations of the present social system, Malthusianism has always been mere apologism for capitalism.

[Vanguard1917]

There is no infinite amount of resources, and to think that there is, and to think that unlimited infinite production can take place, is a capitalist way of thinking.

Nope. On the contrary, bourgeois political economy takes scarcity as its starting point, and constructs its defence of the market system from that perspective.

Bourgeois economists have long been telling Marxists that communism is unviable due to supposedly objective limits to productivity. It's those on the left who always used to oppose the traditionally rightwing idea that there are pre-given natural limits to human progress, whether economic, social or cultural.

[Lynx]

Until and unless humans die off in very large numbers, it is safe to assume that the Earth is capable of supporting them. Past predictions of calamity have been mistaken.

Continued scarcity even if perceived is not economically conducive for communism.

Edit: I think he meant infinite growth is an assumption of capitalists?

[Dean]

Not to worry Lynx, RedStar2000 agrees with us



I dismiss with contempt the notion that if we all "became vegans" then we could "feed more people" -- this planet groans under the weight of more than six billion people now and, by 2050, perhaps ten billion.

If you want to "do something for the planet",don't make babies!

Source (http://rs2kpapers.awardspace.com/theory7f45.html?subaction=showfull&id=1144798240&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

It's good to know that the more rational members here support our position, though it has become fashionable to speak of "endless progress" as if this capitalist shithole is anything to be pleased with (a sentiment people like Vanguard1917 are known to support).

I've actually found his papers quite refreshing. They are an humanist alternative to the sterile pseudo-Marxist, pro-business and anti-human mentality which has become woefully common here:

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://rs2kpapers.awardspace.com/index-2.html) - recommend reading for all of you.

Also, if anyone has links for the rest of his works, I would love to read them (some of the links don't work there, specifically "Communists Against Religion" which I was dying to read).

[Vanguard1917]

Redstar2000 was not a Marxist, as he demonstrated frequently. His defence of neo-Malthusian politics is just another example of a clear anti-Marxist position.



It's good to know that the more rational members here support our position, though it has become fashionable to speak of "endless progress" as if this capitalist shithole is anything to be pleased with (a sentiment people like Vanguard1917 are known to support).

Of course i support endless progress. I - along with Marx, Engels and Lenin, as well as with all other Marxists who have ever lived - oppose capitalism for the number one reason that it holds back material progress.

And the fact that you equate 'endless progress' with capitalism shows that you lack even a most basic knowledge of what you're talking about. But what else is new, eh?

[ComradeOm]

It's good to know that the more rational members here support our position, though it has become fashionable to speak of "endless progress" as if this capitalist shithole is anything to be pleased with (a sentiment people like Vanguard1917 are known to support)Its generally a sign that productive debate has ended when people start accusing each other of not being Marxists but its hard to let this one slide without noting that the first passages of the Manifesto itself are essentially an ode to the bourgeoisie and their achievements in the name of 'progress'

Redstar was/is an excellent polemicist but (perhaps because of this) he played extremely hard and fast with the facts. I doubt it would disturb him in the least to know that every prior prediction regarding overpopulation has turned out to be completely false. Every time a crisis has been proclaimed technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution) has made it a non-issue. Call it progress


(Indeed, capitalism, as an economic theory, requires and assumes that there is an unlimited amount of resources.)Huh? The principle of scarcity (ie, limited resources vs unlimited wants) is central to capitalist economics. Its that fundamental rule that underpins the concept of 'supply and demand'