“Neo-Malthusian”? Or just cognizant of planetary limits?

If, like Population Connection and its 40,000 members, you are concerned about the devastating impacts the huge and growing human enterprise is having on our planet, you may have been accused of “Malthusianism” or “neo-Malthusianism.” Here’s why it’s time to put that term to rest.

What is meant by neo-Malthusianism?

“Malthusian” is a term derived from the English cleric and economist Thomas Malthus, who theorized in the late 18^th century that population growth would eventually outstrip food production, leading to hardship and catastrophe.

“Neo-Malthusian” is usually used to imply a contemporary iteration of Malthusian beliefs. Both terms are mostly used in a derogatory way — Malthus is nowadays largely viewed in a negative light due to his (unsurprisingly) outdated, classist views. Progressive population organizations like Population Connection never claimed any inspiration from or association with Malthus, but many population concern skeptics seem to nevertheless believe we are part of some kind of problematic cult based on a 200-year-old text.

For example, in their Atlantic article, “The Malthusians Are Back,” Alex Trembath and Vijaya Ramachandran argue,

“In recent years, many climate advocates have emphasized human population itself — as opposed to related factors such as consumption and technology — as the driving force behind environmental destruction. This is, at bottom, a very old idea that can be traced back to the 18th-century cleric Thomas Malthus. It is also analytically unsound and morally objectionable. Critics of overpopulation down through the ages have had a nasty habit of treating people less as individuals with value and agency than as sentient locusts.”

Media articles critical of population concern almost always link this back to Malthus, but worries about our numbers outstripping available resources were most likely prevalent at local scales throughout human history, and for good reason. In his book Collapse, historian and author Jared Diamond lays out several examples of societies that did not survive due to population pressure and resource demand exceeding the environment’s carrying capacity. Rapa Nui, or Easter Island, is probably the most well-known example.

Mass starvation averted, ergo no limits to growth?

Those who contemptuously throw around the “Malthusian” label invariably go on to point out how wrong both Malthus and Paul Ehrlich (ZPG co-founder and author of the controversial 1968 best-seller The Population Bomb) were in their predictions of mass starvation. Ehrlich, for example, dramatically proclaimed,

“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate…”

Hundreds of millions of people did not starve to death in the 70s, thanks to the Green Revolution, which Ehrlich claims he could not foresee at the time of writing. Overpopulation deniers like to use this fact as “proof” that there are no limits to growth.

In the conservative magazine National Review, for example, Jonathan Nicastro scathingly criticizes the renowned and beloved primatologist and conservationist Dr. Jane Goodall for saying that “we cannot hide away from human population growth,” because “it underlies so many of the other problems.” He writes, “Apparently unaware of Paul Ehrlich’s humiliation after population growth failed to precipitate global famine, Jane Goodall decided to torpedo her own reputation in a similarly Malthusian manner.”

It is interesting that there are people on both ends of the political spectrum who believe that human ingenuity and technology will enable population and consumption to increase indefinitely. This belief ignores the devastating toll continued growth has had on our environment. Sure, we were able to prevent mass starvation by ramping up food production, but at what cost? In environmental terms, modern agriculture is the most destructive aspect of humanity.

The widely ignored dark side of the Green Revolution

We use as much as half of all habitable land just for agriculture. Our modern food system is responsible for up to a third of global greenhouse gas emissions, is a leading cause of pollution and water shortages, and is the primary driver of habitat and biodiversity loss.

Dismissal of population growth concerns requires a very narrow, anthropocentric, and myopic lens. Sustainability is not just about our ability to increase food production in step with population growth. It’s about creating and preserving a healthy, bountiful environment for humanity and other species, and for future generations of both.

At current population and consumption levels, we are consuming natural resources almost twice as fast as the Earth can regenerate them, and humanity has already breached six of nine critical planetary boundaries. Even progress towards reducing hunger and malnutrition has stalled, and in some areas, actually reversed in recent years, while soil degradation due to intensive agriculture and climate change is increasingly hampering our ability to ramp up food production.

The architect of the Green Revolution himself, Norman Borlaug, did not believe scientific advances would enable infinite growth. In his 1970 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, he warned,

“The Green Revolution has won a temporary success in man’s war against hunger and deprivation; it has given man a breathing space. If fully implemented, the revolution can provide sufficient food for sustenance during the next three decades. But the frightening power of human reproduction must also be curbed; otherwise, the success of the Green Revolution will be ephemeral only.”

An approach rooted in science and human rights

The quip widely attributed to Kenneth Boulding, that “anyone who believes in indefinite growth in anything physical, on a physically finite planet is either mad — or an economist,” still holds true. Dismissing the laws of physics for some cornucopian, techno-optimist fantasy may be appealing, but it certainly won’t help solve the polycrisis.

We must of course pursue all other solutions too, including slashing overconsumption in wealthy nations, developing more sustainable economic systems, and scaling up renewable energy technology. But the sooner we stabilize our global population at a more sustainable level, the better our chances of achieving a decent quality of life for all on a healthy planet.

And no, we do not “hate people,” nor do we treat them “less as individuals with value and agency than as sentient locusts,” as Trembath and Vijaya derisively claimed. The wonderful thing about pursuing population stabilization is that the best way to achieve it is by increasing agency, namely by empowering women everywhere to take charge of their bodies and lives. Removing barriers to girls’ education and voluntary family planning is not only the most effective method for lowering fertility rates — it is also morally essential in its own right. These solutions are very far from those proposed by Malthus, who made vague calls for “moral restraint,” while admitting that he did not believe this would be effective. Thank goodness for modern contraception and the women’s rights movement!

Malthus’ musings are just no longer relevant — it’s time to stop exhuming him when referring to the simple recognition of our planet’s limits.