Stop Having Kids Is Malthusian & Our Only Focus Is Overpopulation Refuted

Thomas Malthus was an 18th century English economist who believed that exponential human population growth would far outpace food supply. He believed that population growth was geometric, meaning that it doubles at a much faster rate than food supply which is arithmetic and steady. 

His theories had some sway during his lifetime, but he didn’t foresee the advancement of technology and the ever-growing use of fossil fuels. Humans now grow enough food to feed a population of close to 11 billion. Most critics of Malthus state that it is not an issue of a finite food or resource supply but an issue of distribution. What many critics of Malthus and overpopulation fail to mention is that without the industrial revolution and the use of fossil fuels, we would never be able to feed nearly 8 billion people. The majority of people are consuming at increasing and alarming rates. Our current rate of producing enough food to feed 11 billion humans already causes irreparable harm to the environment. Considering how many humans are starving everyday (829 million, or almost 10% of the global population) and are dying from malnutrition (over 400,000 per year as of 2019); it’s incomprehensible to think that an exponentially increasing and destructive population will be able to provide a decent quality of life for every member of the humans species. 

Basically, the more humans on the planet, the more fossil fuels we will use, causing even more damage with future generations being left to deal with the consequences of our destructive and pollutive actions. This is why we encourage everyone to boycott procreation and focus on improving the quality of life for those who already exist, because reducing consumption to the level needed to have any sort of meaningful impact is very unlikely.  

The food supply system we’ve created causes irreparable harm to the planet. While we have the technology to grow food now, what will happen when we can no longer grow nutritious food as a result of our technologically advanced, yet extremely harmful agricultural practices? These practices range from monocropping, pesticide and insecticide usage, genetically modifying plants and seeds, and eating domesticated animals. When it comes to distribution, many critics completely disregard the exploitation of land, water, human, and animal life in other countries to feed people like themselves- those living in the global north. Currently, 82% of the world’s starving children live in countries where food is inefficiently fed to domesticated animals, who are then killed and eaten by those in the global north. The Amazon rainforest is being cleared as we speak for soy to be grown- not to feed humans, but to feed animals like cows and pigs who will be eaten by humans across the planet. The ocean floor is being trawled every day, killing at least 2 trillion aquatic animals a year. Fishing gear accounts for up to 70% of macroplastics in the oceans, and we dump the estimated equivalent of two dump truck’s worth of plastic every minute into the ocean. 

As a result of industrialization, we have sacrificed precious resources and ecosystems that are needed to maintain a functioning and healthy food supply for a growing human population. 

That being said, while we recognize the disastrous implications of humanity’s current environmental crises regarding food production and pollution, we are not ‘Malthusian.’ Malthus was never against procreation and he didn’t view creating more humans as inherently unethical; Malthus was against too much procreation as he believed it will lead to a food supply shortage. He was wrong about food supply shortages based on population, since the US alone wastes 30%-40% of its entire food supply each year. This shows that there is more than enough food to go around, but our capitalistic society is causing shortages to the people who are hungry. The global north is taking more than it needs from the rest of the world, causing malnutrition, starvation and death of the very people our critics claim to care about and speak for. From our research, he never advocated for any type of population control and he did not target any specific groups of humans based off race or any other traits. Unlike the SHK movement, Malthus considered abortion and birth control to be immoral. Malthus likened humans to procreating like rabbits. Unlike rabbits, humans have awareness of the consequences of their procreative actions and can make conscious decisions in relation to procreation. We are not ‘Malthusian’ but we understand his concerns and realize he came from a place of compassion.  

Overpopulation is not our main focus at SHK, it is just another example of why all humans should boycott procreation. During our outreach events, even when we  do not have any signs displayed related to overpopulation (which is the majority of the time), some folks immediately accuse us of Malthusianism or say “overpopulation isn’t real” as if those are the only two reasons why someone should opt out of the procreation cycle. There are instances where this has led to accusations of racism, eco fascism, or eugenics, things we have never and will never believe in. 

Overpopulation is viewed by many as a ratio of humans to resources, and results when there are not enough resources for humans to survive or lead a decent quality of life. As mentioned above, in the process of producing more than enough food to feed every human on Earth, we are depleting the resources needed to create that food that sustains our existence, and yet still people are dying of hunger. This doesn’t take into account the depletion of other resources to sustain the global north’s  modern-day consumption. So when you look at all of these other factors, it becomes evident that we do have a problem of consistently and appropriately feeding every human currently alive. 

A common argument brought up against overpopulation is the fact you can squeeze 8 billion humans into a place the size of Texas. That 8 billion people could live harmoniously crammed into such a tight space is unthinkable- not to mention the disastrous effects on the other creatures that share the space. We already fail to live harmoniously long-term when we have plenty of space as it is. Where would we fit hospitals, grocery stores, workplaces, garbage dumps, etc? It’s a nonsensical argument, not rooted in any sort of logic, reality, or consideration for the welfare of humans and other animals. 

One of the best ways to ensure that more people have a greater chance of having a more decent quality of life is to bring less humans into existence by not having kids. One quick browse on our website and social media will show that our main focus is not overpopulation, but rather prioritizing already existing life.

References:

https://www.rts.com/resources/guides/food-waste-america/

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/07/where-did-the-trash-in-the-great-pacific-garbage-patch-come-from.html

https://www.seaspiracy.org/facts

https://usa.oceana.org/our-campaigns/plastic/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/06/dumped-fishing-gear-is-biggest-plastic-polluter-in-ocean-finds-report

https://www.forksoverknives.com/wellness/animal-agriculture-hunger-and-how-to-feed-a-growing-global-population-part-one-of-two/

https://malwarwickonbooks.com/global-north-and-global-south/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip4apz7Vqgo

https://foodaidfoundation.org/world-hunger-statistics-2020/

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-number-of-deaths-by-cause

https://www.coursehero.com/study-guides/boundless-sociology/population-growth/

https://www.britannica.com/science/population-biology-and-anthropology/Malthus-and-his-successors