Saral Sarkar
This essay
was originally published in 1993. More than 30 years later, with more than 8
billion people living on the planet today and a projected world population of 9.7
billion in 2050, its importance has sharply increased. Some facts and figures
on the ground have of course changed since 1993, especially with regard to
India. But the basic lines of argument are still valid and the problem still
remains largely unsolved (although some progress was made, at least in parts of
the world).
The problem of population growth is not only a very
important topic, it is also a delicate, even an explosive one. In many leftist,
feminist and Third World solidarity circles it is almost impossible to mention
it as a serious problem. For many ecologists of the North it is a taboo-topic.
They are often afraid of raising this issue, afraid of being abused as
eco-imperialists.
That is understandable. As long as imperialist
institutions like the US government, Rockefeller Foundation, World Bank or
individual experts like Garrett Hardin1 and Maurice King2
(but also the rulers of the South) are the main protagonists of birth control,
the objects of their policies would naturally view every population policy with
suspicion. As long as the former think that the latter produce children like
rabbits or look at them as if they were weeds, the latter and their political
sympathizers will shout back. As long as population policies are implemented at
the cost of the health of women, women's groups will naturally reject them.
As a result of this situation, a genuine discussion
between the two sides – the ecologists of the North on the one side and the
leftists, feminists and Third World solidarity circles on the other – cannot
(and actually does not) take place. What takes place is usually merely polemics. But polemics is of no use. A sincere
discussion between the protagonists and opponents of population control is
necessary, because the problem is very serious, because a solution must be
found soon.
For a genuine discussion on this topic to be
possible, it is necessary to break two taboos. One has already been mentioned
above. Ecologists of the North must be allowed to raise the issue without being
abused as eco-imperialists. And leftists and others must be allowed to raise
the system question without being accused of not having learnt anything.
History has not come to an end.3 Capitalism, free market economy,
the present world economic order etc. must be allowed to be brought into the
discussion. The discussion must be freed from polemics. All of us, who are
concerned about the whole
situation – about ecology, hunger, poverty, exploitation,
oppression, war, peace and the fate of the future generations – must for once
forget our opponents, think the problem through, and ask ourselves what we
would do if we had to decide what is to be and can be done today.
Malthus: The Difference Between Problem and Policy
The thinking through must begin with
Malthus. We must differentiate between problem and policy. Population policy
can be so or so. The one policy can be rejected, the other accepted. But the
population problem is an objective state of affairs, which cannot be conjured
away. Mixing up the two in discussions creates only confusion.
The indignation against Malthus is justified.
According to him, the poor are themselves to be blamed for their poverty.
Without doubt, he was an apologist of the then still ruling class of landlords-
This class did not want any social change, and so also Malthus considered it
impossible to change society. But the question is whether, for this reason,
Malthus'es presentation of the problem is also wrong.
The harshest critics of Malthus have always been
the leftists4. Marx considered the essay of Malthus to be a “libel
on the human race”. Engels wrote in 1865: “Economic laws are not eternal laws
of nature but historic laws which arise and disappear.” He thought, “what is
tenable in the so-called Malthusian theory” is valid only for societies “based
on class rule and class exploitation”. That was no proper refutation. But
serious efforts were also made to refute one of the two laws of Malthus. Engels
and Lenin recognized that Malthus'es law regarding food production, namely that
it increases only in arithmetical progression, is actually based on the law of
diminishing returns. They declared that the progress of science and technology
is limitless and that this factor of production nullifies the law of
diminishing returns, which is otherwise valid, i.e. with regard to the factor
of production labour. Basing himself on this optimism, Fidel Castro said in the
early sixties:
“Nobody
who is conscious of what man can achieve with the help of science and
technology will want to set a limit to the number of people that can live on
the earth.”5
For a few decades after the death of
Marx, Engels and Lenin, Malthus indeed appeared to be refuted through the
factual developments. Thanks to science and technology, food production
increased by leaps and bounds. At least in the industrial societies there was
no hunger.
But science and technology have in the meantime
disappointed further expectations. F. E. Trainer (I suppose a leftist) quotes
scientists who ascertained in 1979 and 1980 that returns to technology were
generally falling.6 In 1934, Lester Brown wrote:
“The
response of crops to the use of additional fertilizer is now diminishing,
particularly in agriculturally advanced countries. During the fifties, the
application of another ton of fertilizer on average yielded 11.5 more tons of
grain. During the sixties, fertilizer grain response ratio was 8.3 to 1. By the
seventies it had fallen to 5.8.”7
So far as food production is
concerned, Trainer informs us, not only is the per capita production stagnating
for quite a few years, but in some branches also the absolute production.8
And the ecological and social havocs that
“modern” science and technology have caused (e.g. the green revolution,
chemical and radioactive poisoning) and are threatening to cause (genetic
engineering) have induced many people to demand a return to the traditional methods of cultivation, which yield less
harvest per hectare.
The other law of Malthus – population grows, if not controlled,
in geometrical progression – is more
difficult to refute. The only thing that his opponents can do in this respect
is to point at the fact that in industrial societies population has stopped
growing or is growing very slowly. But that is also no real refutation inasmuch
as the couples of these countries are using various means to control birth. An
average healthy German couple could, if it would not use any method of
contraception or abortion, produce 15 children in 30 years. Obviously, the two
laws of Malthus are natural laws.
The
Present-day Controversy: What Should Come First?
In the seventies and eighties, the
controversy has undergone a qualitative change. The problem is no longer only
that of poverty and hunger. Exactly the factors that in the past helped
overcome hunger – science, technology and industrialization – have presented us
with the global ecological crisis. Neo-Malthusian Paul Ehrlich wrote: “In the
long run, the progressive deterioration of our environment may cause more death
and misery than any conceivable food-population gap”.9
A few leftists (surely not the majority) have
conceded that the problem, as the neo-Malthusians describe it, does indeed
exist. One of them, Steve Weissman, wrote as early as in 1971:
“[...]
the neo-Malthusians quickly confound the answer given Reverend Malthus by the nineteenth century, and by most Marxists.
This time around, we can't simply wait for science and technology to get us out
of the hole. New miracle grains [...] But we now know the cost in environmental
destruction. [...] the green revolution might not even deliver the agricultural
goods.” 10
Also a few neo-Malthusians (here also
not the majority) have moved beyond Malthus. Ehrlich, e.g., wrote:
“The
battle to save our planet is not just a battle for population control and
environmental sanity, it is also a battle against exploitation, against war,
and against racism.”11
The two authors quoted here and their
intellectual kin differ mainly in their political approach, in their policy
priority. Ehrlich probably interpretes the term "exploitation" less
radically than Weissman. But the main question is still: What should come first?
Development and radical social change or stopping the population growth? It
looks almost like a vicious circle. Ehrlich wrote addressing the leftists: “Whatever
your cause, it's a lost cause unless we control population.”12 That
means, population growth must be stopped first. But Weissman as well as all
leftists who have realized that the earth cannot carry an unlimited number of
humans are of the opinion that population control cannot function at all under
the present-day social conditions (or it may function only if the ruling
classes use massive force). That means, they demand radical social change
first. Weissman wrote:
“[...]
it is capitalism which creates this irrationality and hastens the destruction
of the environment [...], and without destroying capitalism, neither green revolutions nor population control will
put food in the mouths of those who cannot afford to pay for it.”13
As to the problem of lowering the
birth rate, leftists can cite the example of Cuba in support of their argument.
In 1959, the year of the revolution, the birth rate in Cuba was 28 per 1000. In
1983, it was only 14.14 And the state did not have to take any
strong measures for that. But the problem is not as simple as that. In China,
where too revolutionary social changes had taken place, the state did have to
take strong measures for the same purpose.
Many critics express their abhorrence against
giving population control the priority in
inordinately exaggerated and defamatory terms like “genocide”, “depopulating”, “doing
away with the poor” etc. Why a policy which
only wants that couples should restrict the number of their children to two
should be tantamount to genocide, depopulating etc. is beyond the comprehension
of anybody with common sense. Or are we supposed to believe that the Han
leaders of China, who have been pursuing
a policy of one-child family for quite a few years now, are perpetrating
genocide against the Han people? In fact, genocide is a crime that not only
imperialist nations can commit. Even lesser nations, the populations of which
are growing fast, can commit something like genocide against weaker and less
numerous tribal peoples within their own territories. That can be witnessed
today in many parts of the Third World.
How Acute Is the Crisis? How Much Latitude Do We Still Have?
If an egalitarian and just social
order is the precondition for the acceptance
of a population control policy by the majorities of the peoples of the South,
then the question arises: how soon, if at all, we may expect such a social
order to come into being? In the seventies, especially after the victory of the
socialist revolution in South East Asia and Nicaragua, it appeared as though it
would not take too long. In the meantime, however, we have become wiser. But if
gradual changes are the only hope, then it could take a long time, and the
population would continue to grow in many countries.
At this point, several arguments against the need
for a population control policy come in. “Development is the best
contraceptive”, has been (und still is) the slogan of many leftists and average
politicians of the South since the world population Conference of Bucharest in
1974. This argument is also supported by the theory of demographic transition,
which states – on the basis of the demographic history of the industrialized European countries – that with
growing prosperity the birth rate falls, quasi automatically, and finally
equals the death rate at the end of the third and final phase of the
transition. But this theory was formulated
before humankind became aware of the limits to growth. All countries of the
South would never be able to reach the prosperity level of e.g. West Germany in
1972, the year in which it completed the third phase of the demographic
transition. Moreover, prosperity alone may not suffice. In Saudi Arabia – for
the last two decades one of the richest countries of the world – the birth rate
is still above 40.15
As a sort of supporting argument to the above,
leftists argue that the problem of hunger in the present-day world is no
problem at all, that there is enough food in the world, that it needs only to
be distributed properly. That is perfectly true. However, some questions
remain:
a) We are not only concerned with the
situation today. We must also ask: How long can the world food production keep
pace with a growing world population? The facts and figures quoted from the
works of Trainer and Brown do not give any ground for optimism in this regard.
b) The negative ecological effects of
intensive agriculture are well known. Is it permissible to intensify it still
further in order to produce more food for a growing population?
c) How can we expect that the peoples
of the food-surplus countries would work hard and invest their money in
agriculture in order finally to gift away their surplus to the poor peoples of
the South? There is hardly any internationalist spirit today among the
majorities of the peoples of the world. Even existing nations are breaking up
by reason of selfishness of the regions. We must not give up the ideal of
international solidarity. But it is a long-term goal. Moreover, viewed from any
angle – ecological, economic or political – at least so far as food is
concerned, the best policy today is self-sufficiency.
d) The food-surplus countries would surely
like to sell their surplus. But where will the poor countries of the South get
the foreign exchange from to pay for the continuously rising food imports?
An alternative line of argumentation
used against population control policies is based on calculations pertaining to
the maximum carrying capacity of the
earth. In 1982, it was asserted in a study of the FAO and UNFPA that there is
enough land in the Third World (without China) to feed 33 billion people –
however, only if every square metre of cultivable land and large quantities of
fertilizers and other chemicals are used for the production of a just
sufficient quantity of vegetarian food.16 But there is also a model
for the production of sufficient food for 15 biilion people with moderate use
of fertilizers and other chemicals. This model, it is asserted, permits an
ecologically careful handling of nature,17 It is generally assumed that the world population
will stabilize sometime between 2050 and
2100 at 11 to 14 billion. According to these models, therefore, there is not
only enough time and latitude for a long-term programme
of radical social change or revolution but also no reason at all for
panic.
I have some objections to and problems with this
line of argumentation:
a) If we in the Third World (without
China) want to produce enough food for 15 billion people with just a moderate
use of fertilizers and other chemicals because we do not want to damage the
environment, then agriculture must become more extensive. We would need more
cultivated land, but also more land for houses, roads, schools, offices,
factories etc. etc. Of course, there is still a lot of land in the world that
can be additionally brought under the plough. But we know that every year 6
million hectares cultivated land are being lost through soil erosion,
salination etc. If this trend continues, then about the same amount of land
will continue to be lost as can be made available every year for cuitivation.18
But let us suppose that with great effort and by
means of a proper mix of correct policies this trend can be stopped. Even then,
feeding 15 billion people by means of extensive agriculture would mean that a
very large portion of the still remaining forests (including the rain forests)
would be lost. Of course, the demands of the luxury industries could be
radically rejected. But even satisfying the other basic needs of 15 billion
people like firewood and building timber would lead to continuous destruction
of ever more forests. But, apart from the fact that we humans ourselves need a
certain proportion of land covered with forests, these forests are the habitats
of many other species (whom also we, by the way, need). Does the human species
have the right to conquer more "Lebensraum" (living space)?
b) Millions of people would in that
case have to migrate into areas which are still thinly populated. But these
areas belong to other groups of humans – to the Amerindians, Maoris, Aborigines
and other tribes, Should they be pushed out of their land? Should we wage war
against them?
c) What should the peoples of the
already densely populated countries – India, Bangladesh, Egypt, e.g. – do, if
the peoples and rulers of the thinly populated countries do not give them the
permission to immigrate? Of what use are then the above model calculations for
them?
d) Preconditions for producing enough
food for 15 billion people on the land of the Third World without China (if
that were at all possible, about which great doubts exist) are, according to
the opponents of all population control policies, a sound agricultural policy,
egalitarian economic development, a different development strategy etc. etc.
These and a few things more constitute, according to them, the social
conditions, only under which population
growth can slow down gradually. But the precondition for these preconditions is
radically changed power relations. That means, these “preconditions” are
actually not preconditions but goals for which we are politically
active. Such goals can be attained only at the end of a long struggle. If the
population continues to grow before we have reached the above goals, then the
ecological balance will be restored by nature itself – through hunger, war,
disease, epidemic etc. Do we want that?
e) One simply assumes that the world
population would stabilize at 11 to 14 billion. But how? Automatically? Neither
prosperity nor a just and egalitarian social order can by themselves cause the
number of children per couple to go down to two. They are only favourable
conditions.19 For the actual task of limiting the number of children
to two, the couples must consciously do something – either on their own
initiative or urged by the society. And this is population control. The only
question here is whether the couples are doing this voluntarily or under
compulsion.
Half-Truths And One-Sided, Dogmatic Approaches
Unfortunately, on both sides, most
participants in the quarrel (it has indeed been
a quarrel, not a discussion!) have till now mainly operated with half-truths
and one-sided explanations. In the seventies, the neo-Malthusians had only one
explanation for the ecological crisis: overpopulation. Ehrlich e.g. wrote:
“Too
many cars, too many factories, too much detergent, too much pesticide, multiplying
contrails, inadequate sewage treatment plants, too little water, too much
carbon dioxide – all can be traced easily to too many people.”20
Ehrlich, who conceded the existence
of exploitation, mentioned here neither
the per capita consumption of the rich North nor the capitalist system as a
cause of the ecological crisis. Since the late eighties, some of the
participants from the North have been mentioning the per capita consumption of the North but not capitalism.
And most protagonists of the other side continue
to blame the whole problem on over-consumption in the North, the capitalist
system, and imperialism. For instance, Ursula Pattberg, a German sympathizer of
the Third World, wrote in 1992:21
“I
am against a population policy because it is not the need of the moment. What
is needed is rather a different policy on resources. It is a matter of a
cultural revolution: a matter of distribution of land, air, water, food and
other things. If we can achieve a just distribution of these resources, then
the debate on population policy is superfluous.”
On the ecological crisis, she wrote:
“[…].
the causes of environmental destruction in Thailand [...] are quite clearly the
interests of capital. It is a matter of profit maximization and destruction of
nature for the sake of short-term profits.”
Then she reported:
“In
Thailand, there is a People's Forum in which several NGOs have joined up. In
their programme, the word 'birth planning' does not occur at all;
overpopulation is for them no subject for discussion.”
She quoted from the programme of
People's Forum:
“The
economically powerful countries will strengthen their efforts to control the
resources. They will use all ways and means including the international
organizations like the World Bank in order to maintain their good starting
position and to represent their interests. The countries of the Third World
have been instrumentalized in this process – ignoring the fact that they have a
right to their own development.”
Ursula Pattberg sums up: “What these
groups demand is the right to use their own resources.”
An
Alternative, Synthesizing Political Approach
Instead of rejecting every population
control policy and insisting on revolution first or development first, we
should come forward with an alternative proposal for a population policy. A
good and very necessary thing has fallen in the hands of bad people. We must
take it up as our cause and integrate it into our efforts to create an
egalitarian, just and ecological society. We must denounce the misuse of facts,
but we must not deny the facts themselves. We cannot e.g. deny that the growth
of India's population from 360 million in
1951 to 845 million in 1991 is a serious problem for India (if not also for the
world), that it has produced a very adverse impact on her environment in
addition to lowering the per capita availability of land, food, water and other
resources.
It is true, not the whole ecological crisis and not the whole hunger in
the world have been caused by the growth of population. But a big role of this
factor in the various crises of today and the future cannot be denied. It is
not wrong what the UNFPA writes in this regard:
“Population
is always part of the equation. For any given type of technology, for any given
level of consumption or waste, for any given level of poverty or inequality,
the more people there are, the greater is the impact on the environment.”22
We must only stress the other parts
of the equation too: the wrong technology,
the over-consumption of a minority (especially in the North), the wastage and,
last but not least, the bad socio-political system and the bad world economic
order (imperialism). Against politics with half-truths we must only practise
politics with the whole truth. We must e.g. stress that the number of cars and
car-kilometres is not growing the most where the population is growing, but
where the latter has become stabilized.
In this connection it is necessary to
differentiate between the global
problems and the local, regional and national problems. In the case of global
problems – general resource depletion, ozone depletion, global warming, and
pollution of the oceans, to mention only the best known ones – clearly, the
industrial societies are the main culprits. Their per capita consumption of
resources and emission of pollutants have grown enormously in the last four
decades. But India, e.g., is also partly responsible
for the global problems. Even if we assume that India's per capita rates of resource
consumption and pollution have not grown, there is no denying the fact that the
growth in the number of people consuming and polluting at constant rates makes
a great difference in absolute figures.
In case of local, regional or national problems such
as water famine, pollution of a river, toxic emissions of a chemical factory or
soil erosion through deforestation, one cannot say that for such problems in
Third World countries only or even mainly the industrial nations are
responsible. Of course, since today all the national economies are interwoven
and since multinational corporations are present everywhere, industrial nations
also contribute directly or indirectly to such problems . But the main authors
of such problems are the peoples of such countries and/or their ruling classes.
Of course, the unjust world economic order and
especially the debt crisis are creating a tremendous pressure. But at least so
far as the ecological misery is
concerned, it would have been there also without the effects of these two
factors, also without imperialism and exploitation – simply through the process
of economic development, from which, as we know, not only the rich have
profited but also the organized working class.
The alternative approach to the population problem
I am proposing here can be called an eco-socialist one. Parallel to our
criticism of imperialism and capitalism, and parallel to our demand that the
economies of the North must shrink, we must also demand and support an active
policy for stopping population growth – everywhere in the world where it is still
taking place. For, if only the economies of the North shrink, that would not
automatically lead to, e.g., the stopping of soil erosion in the South, Of
course, many things have to be done to solve the various problems of the South.
But stopping the population growth is one of the most important of such things. The peoples of the South should do that
in their own interest and before they can make a revolution.
The main reason for the failure or inadequacy of
the various hitherto implemented population control programmes are known. To be
sure, there are social, cultural and emotional reasons that made the acceptance
of such programmes difficult. But these difficulties were not insurmountable.
Insurmountable has been actually only the private economic rationality, the
fact that for the poor, children – in most cases only sons – are assets and the
only old-age security. It is insurmountable, because it is connected with the
instinct of self-preservation. Mahmood Mamdani's study of the Indian village
Manupur undertaken in the wake of the total failure of an intensive family
planning programme bears testimony to the strength of this private economic
rationality. Mamdani wrote:
“No
programme would have succeeded, because birth control contradicted the vital
interests of the majority of the villagers. To practise contraception would
have meant to wilfully court economic disaster.”23
For many farmers of Manupur, the
private economic rationality went beyond old-age security. Some saw in their
children cheap farm labourers who "worked like donkeys" for just
board and lodging. Hired labourers would have demanded more. Some saw in their
sons who could get Jobs elsewhere a source of prosperity, for the sons
respectfully remitted their surplus to the father. In both cases, the children
were exploited by the parents. This process could/can go on as long as it
was/is possible for the children to produce a surplus which the father
could/can appropriate. And this was possible in India in the period 1954 – 1972
covered by Mamdani. That was the period of rapid economic growth; it brought
prosperity to many. Sons of poor farmers could find Jobs in towns.
As we know, the period of steady development has
come to an end in most Third World countries. The ecological basis of the
economy of the future generations has been or is being ruined. Children are not
assets any more, at least not for all poor people. The street children of
Bombay or Rio can hardly remit any surplus to the parents. Nevertheless, even
if they do not produce any surplus for the parents, if they only survive, there
is still hope, in many cases unfounded, that they would look after their old
parents and at least give them two simple meals a day. That may seem in this
brutal, merciless world rational enough for poor people to want to produce five
or six children, so that at least two of them could be sons.
This inherent contradiction between private
economic rationality and common weal including that of the children and future
generations is the strongest argument for socialism. The alternative policy
proposal of eco-socialists should be based on this fact. The state should
guarantee (only) to the poor a minimum old-age security under the condition
that they limit the number of their offspring to two. There is reason to hope
that the strongest of all instincts, the instinct of self-preservation, would
motivate poor people to accept this offer. If another condition could be added
to it, namely that the woman claiming this guarantee must not have married
before the age of say twenty one, then these three things together would mean
quite a substantial contribution to women's liberation.
Whether the rulers of the South would accept this
proposal is at present only a matter for speculation, for no strong political
force has submitted it yet. In any case,
the probability that they, in their desperation,
would accept this proposal is greater than the probability that they would not
resist with arms and soldiers the efforts to make a revolution, the prospects
of success of which are in any case very bad today. In national-economic terms,
a guaranteed old-age security for the poor is much cheaper than everything else
that must be undertaken to feed, clothe, house, and educate a growing
population.
The health reasons for which many women's groups
oppose all hitherto practised population
control policies can be easily removed by calling upon men to use condoms or
get themselves sterilized. In patriarchy, men are responsible for everything,
so they should also bear the burden of
reducing the birth rate. The state can convincingly argue that vasectomy is
harmless and much easier and cheaper than any other method. It is very
important to differentiate between the absolute
necessity of population control and the pro and contra of particular means, methods, and
programmes thereof.
One particular position of many feminists and
leftists that does not convince must be mentioned here. "Children or no
children will be decided by us
alone", was the justified slogan of the German women's movement in the
1970s against the anti-abortion law. However, self-determination,
autonomy, freedom or reproductive choice – whatever one may call it21 –
cannot be extended to the question of number of children. As soon as a child is
born, the parents make demands on society. Along with the parents, society is
also responsible for providing most of the things that a child needs and would
need when it becomes a young person. Even
if the parents are prepared to work hard for the sake of their child, society
may not be able to provide for it milk, food, water, schooling, health care
etc. without depriving other children of these things. One often hears the
argument: women have always sought to limit births. That is true. But they have
not always sought to limit them to two. Even today, most Indian women would like
to have two sons and that may lead to five births.
I have heard from a female sociologist from
Zimbabwe that in her country a woman attains a good status in society only
after she has produced six children. In
respect of all other rights and freedoms of an individual, we agree that they
end at a point where they harm others, The same should apply to the right to
reproductive choice. In a society living on the brink of collapse, an
individual cannot have the freedom e.g. to consume as much water or emit as
much CO2 as he or she may decide. Similarly, one should not have the
freedom to decide the number of one' s
children. One may have the freedom to beget less than two children or none at
all, but one should not have the freedom to beget more than two. "Freedom
is the recognition of necessity", said Hegel. The science of ecology and
other sciences having to do with the question of the carrying capacity of the
earth have already dictated the necessity that couples limit the number of
their children to two, preferably, on average, less than two.
Today, in their political work, eco-socialists
can very well combine the two short-term necessities: the necessity to stop
population growth and the necessity of social security. They can reasonably
consider this as a part of their long-term struggle for radical social change.
If it becomes reality, a guaranteed old-age security for the poor would be the
beginning of a welfare state. And from there a transition to some kind of a
socialist society is at least conceivable, particularly in the poor countries
of the world suffering in the regime of capitalist market economy under the
heavy pressure of worsening economic and ecological crises. This approach would
at least in no way hinder any kind of struggle for socialism.
Some radical leftists may still be thinking that
growing poverty of a growing number of people may lead to a revolution. But
that is more likely to lead to poor people killing each other and the exploited
and oppressed trying to exploit and
oppress the other exploited and oppressed.
In fact, such things are already happening in the world. Instead of only
dreaming of such revolutions, it would be more concrete socialist politics, if
the leftists organize a massive campaign in favour of the measures proposed here.
It can be considered to be a campaign for ecology and socialism. If some
leftists think that today, just four years after the fall of the Berlin wall,
the idea of socialism is a chimera, they should still campaign for such
measures. After all, if implemented, they would at least mean a certain
transfer of resources from the rich to the poor. With such a limited purpose,
they have always supported the demands of the organized working class for
higher wages. In the countries of the North, leftists and others who solidarize
with the peoples of the South may demand that their states materially help the
South in this matter.
Notes and References
1. Garrett Hardin: “Lifeboat Ethics – The Case Against
Helping the Poor”; in Psychology Today; September 1974.
2. Maurice King proposed a sort of passive euthanasia. cf.
Maurice King: “Health Is A Sustainable State”; in The Lancet; (8716) 1990, 336:664–667
(I have found this reference in a German book.)
3. The reference here is to the assertion to the contrary
made by Francis Fukuyama. cf. Francis Fukuyama: “Das Ende der Geschichte”; in
Europäische Rundschau; 4/89; Wien. (Published originally in The National
Interest; Summer 1989.)
4. The following summary of the views of Marx, Engels and
Lenin on Malthus is based on quotations I have found in Ronald L. Meek (ed.):
Marx and Engels on the Population Bomb; Berkeley; The Ramparts Press; 1971.
5. Quoted in Hans Magnus
Enzensberger: “Zur Kritik der politischen Ökologie”; in Kursbuch 33 (1973); P. 17.
6. F. E.Trainer: Abandon Affluence!; London; Zed; 1985; P. 211.
7. Lester Brown: “Securing Food Supplies”; in Lester Brown et
al.: State of the World 1984; New York; 1984; P.179.
8. F. E. Trainer: (see note 6); P. 209-210.
9. Paul Ehrlich: quoted in Steve Weissman: “Foreword”; in
Ronald L. Meek (see note 4); P. XI.
10. Steve Weissman: ibid; P. XII.
11. Ehrlich: quoted in Steve Weissman (see note 9); P. XV.
12. Ehrlich: ibid.
13. Weissman: (see note 9); P. XIII.
14. cf. Lester Brown: “Stabilizing Population”; in Lester
Brown et al.(see note 7); P. 26.
15. cf. Donella and Dennis Meadows,
Jorgen Randers: Die neuen Grenzen des Wachstums; DVA; 1992; P. 54.
16. cf. Nafis Sadik: The State of World Population 1990;
UNFPA; New York; P, 7.
17. Gabriela Simon: “Wie viel ist
zuviel?”; in: blätter des iz3W; November 1991; P. 30.
18. Stiftung Entwicklung und Frieden:
Global Trends 1991; Bonn; 1991; P. 237-238.
19. The already mentioned cases of Saudi Arabia and China
prove this point.
20. Ehrlich: quoted in Barry Commoner: Making Peace With the
Planet; P. 143. (The photocopied sheets in my possession do not contain the
page stating place and year of publication.)
21. Ursula Pattberg: “Fallbeispiel
Thailand - verfehlte Ressourcenpolitik”; in Informationsbrief (Sonderdienst)
Weltwirtschaft & Entwicklung; 29.Juni 1992; P. 5-6.
22. Sadik (see note 16); P, 10.
23. Mahmood Mamdani: The Myth of Population Control; Monthly
Review Press; New York; 1972. P. 21.
24. cf. e.g. Betsy Hartmann: A Review of Reproductive Rights
and Wrongs – The Global Politics of Population Control and Contraceptive
Choice; Harper and Row; New York; 1987.
