The New Malthusians: The U.N. and the U.S. President

Thomas Malthus–HE WAS WRONG!

The new Malthusians are just as wrong as the originals were. Thomas Malthus announced that since food production increased arithmetically while human population increased geometrically, the only answer to general starvation was for government to limit population. The ‘green revolution’ in agricultural technology made a fool of him.

The U.N. and political leaders like our President are committed to a new Malthusian program: ‘Agenda 21’ described here. Absorbing this will clarify much current policy and many ‘green’ goals now waved about. For instance:

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class–involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning and suburban housing–are not sustainable.”

Earth Summit Secretary General Maurice Strong used those words to introduce Agenda 21. If you belong to the American middle class, you may wish to give some thought to where he–and our President–think we should be headed.

Seems to me, the ‘Progressives’ pushing this should call themselves ‘Regressives’ since they’re aimed at reversing 150 years of real progress in the interests of ‘sustainability’ which, though it sounds good, means nothing I can understand. The old Malthusians discounted technical progress; they were fools. The new ones seem to be following the same foolishness.

I don’t mind if some fellow Americans choose to make fools of themselves; that’s a cherished, Constitutional right. But I draw the line when they wish to force me to join them, as those using government to enforce over-the-top and scientifically unproven programs are doing.

These folk seem to be saying that, since the rich world tech won’t endure forever, we must revert to third world status rather than proceed to still better technology that can help improve third world life too. That’s the old Malthusian foolishness all over again. We haven’t made everybody rich yet, so let’s give up. Right.

Back in Biblical days (now very unfashionable) that would be called: “despair,” I think. And if recollection serves, it’s one of the Seven Deadly Sins. No U.S. leader with such a view could ever arise and announce: “It’s morning in America!” In times like ours though, we need such Reaganesque leadership; we don’t need and can’t afford leaders devoted to regression.

About Jack Curtis

Suspicious of government, doubtful of economics, fond of figure skating (but the off-ice part, not so much) Couple of degrees in government, a few medals in figure skating; just reading and suspicion for economics ...
This entry was posted in Environment, EPA, Future, Progressives, Science and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The New Malthusians: The U.N. and the U.S. President

  1. the unit says:

    But that’s where we are and where we are going. Including your latest post about going to the groundhogs. See twg and Waking Giant about Holdren, the Obama science czar, and his twenty or thirty year tenents for the future. It’s always about us that have to go…not Holdren who ain’t so young himself or Richard Lamm, who said old have a duty to die. Lamm now 77. What is the duty age?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s