Population Growth as Propaganda: The Greens and the Reds

This is an excellent article written by Gary North of LewRockwell.com on May 31, 2011 that I have shamelessly copied in its entirety. All credit goes to Gary North.

– Gerold

Population Growth as Propaganda: The Greens and the Reds

– by Gary North – LewRockwell.com

Beginning in the mid-1960s, a propaganda campaign has been waged against the West. Those favoring government control over the economy have used the fear of a population explosion to persuade voters to allow the governments of the world to interfere with their lives. The Greens have made predictions about famine. These predictions began in 1798 in An Essay on Population, written by T. Robert Malthus. The first edition was published anonymously. His bold prediction of inevitable poverty was dropped in later editions, but people remember the first edition.

We need to know how long this nonsense has been going on. We need to recognize it when we hear it or see it.

Concern over population growth escalated in the 1960s, especially after the counter-culture movement appeared around 1965. A major news magazine in the United States, U.S. News and World Report, announced in 1965: “The World’s Biggest Problem.” It asked: “How can the world feed all its people, at the rate the population is growing?” This article had been preceded by “World Choice: Limit Population or Face Famine.” Even National Review, then the most influential conservative intellectual magazine in the United States, got on the bandwagon in 1965.

In 1968, Dr. Paul Ehrlich’s best-selling book, The Population Bomb, was published. In it, Ehrlich, a Stanford University professor of biology, warned: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines — hundreds of millions of people are going to 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. . . .” A far better estimate of the threat of worldwide famine was made in 1969 by Harvard University nutritionist Jean Meyer, who predicted that “food may at some time (20 or 30 years from now) be removed altogether as a limiting factor in population.” Meyer’s viewpoint received very little publicity, although it was to prove correct within a decade.

The predicted famines did not occur in the 1970s or the 1980s. What did occur was a surplus of food. The apocalyptic critics in 1965 should have paid more attention to the statistics of food production. After 1950, worldwide grain production increased steadily. From 1950 through 1975, this increase was in the range of 25% to 40% per capita. In the less developed countries (excluding Communist China), the increase was in the 13% range. Between 1950 and 1980, the world’s supply of arable land grew by more than 20%, and it grew even faster in the less developed countries. From 1967 to 1977, the world’s irrigated acreage grew by more than 25%. The price of seed, fertilizer, pesticides, and farm equipment also dropped in this period, in some cases by as much as half. In the 1980′s, grain farmers all over the world suffered economic losses as a result of overproduction. While these trends may not be permanent, they did create a tremendous public relations problem for the heralded famine-predictors of the counter-culture era (1965-70).

What also occurred was a dramatic fall of birth rates in undeveloped nations: a contraceptive revolution. In 1979, Ehrlich referred back to his book and others like it that had prophesied rising birth rates in the 1970s: “But we were all dead wrong.” He still held that a crisis was coming: perhaps famine, or a pandemic, or nuclear war. In 1980, he made a $1,000 bet with University of Maryland economist Julian Simon over the future price of five metals — a bet on the limits to growth. Simon predicted that prices would be lower. He proved correct; Ehrlich paid off the bet in 1990. He could easily afford to pay off; in that same year, he was granted a $345,000 MacArthur Foundation Prize and half of the $240,000 Craford Prize, the ecologists’ version of the Nobel Prize. Simon was unknown to the general public. The media were overwhelmingly supportive of the apocalyptics. Rival viewpoints on the population question, despite the overwhelming evidence, received little attention from the major opinion-makers. The opinion-makers were strongly opposed to population growth because they were strongly pro-abortion. The apocalyptics seemed to provide scientific evidence for a looming catastrophe. This reinforced the legalization of abortion in 1973 (Roe v. Wade).

In 1942, Warren Thompson warned of the decline in the birth rate in Western Europe and its colonies, 1890-1940. “It is the most important demographic change of our time.” This decline in birth rates in the West has generally continued, although in the early 1990s, it was reversed in the United States. By the late 1980s, there was no Western European nation except Ireland with a birth rate anywhere near 2.1 children per family — the family replacement rate. Had Islamic birth rates been excluded, the birth rate figures would have been much lower in several nations. West Germany’s birth rate had fallen so low by the late 1970s that the German population will die out in the year 2500 if the same birth rate is maintained. (There will be plenty of Muslims, especially Turks, to replace them.) By the late 1980s, a new warning was being sounded: European life spans were lengthening, birth rates were dropping, and government retirement programs were facing a looming crisis: too many recipients, too few taxpaying workers. Yet the apocalyptics continue to warn of an impending explosion, a population bomb.

In 1980, a Presidential Commission reported to the President of the United States on the impending crises. Unlike most reports from Presidential commissions, this three-volume report received worldwide publicity. It was titled, Global 2000 Report to the President, but became known simply as Global 2000. It was a deeply political document. It was also a classic Malthusian document, meaning the 1798 Malthus, not the more mature Malthus. It warned on page 1:

If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically, and more vulnerable to disruption than the world we live in now. Serious stresses involving population, resources, and environment are clearly visible ahead. Despite greater material output, the world’s people will be poorer in many ways than they are today.

For hundreds of millions of the desperately poor, the outlook for food and other necessities of life will be no better. For many it will be worse. Barring revolutionary advances in technology, life for most people on earth will be more precarious in 2000 than it is now — unless the nations of the world act decisively to alter current trends.

Nothing like this happened. Two comments are relevant here. First, there has been no revolutionary technological development, for example, along the lines of nanotechnology, where molecule-sized mechanical assemblers put together atoms and molecules in order to produce organic as well as inorganic substances in almost limitless quantities. This development, if it comes, will at last force a drastic revision of the legacy of Malthus. It looks technologically feasible sometime before the year 2070, but it has not happened yet. Second, “the nations of the world” — read: national governments — poured tens of billions of dollars worth of aid into the third world in the 1980′s, but in the handful of isolated socialist economies of Africa, things nevertheless grew worse. Outside of these tiny socialist economies, which were also suffering from civil war, the predicted food crises did not take place.

This absence of crises was predicted by a group of scholars in a book published in 1984: The Resourceful Earth. This book received very little attention from the press. Its editors offered another scenario: “If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be less crowded (though more populated), less polluted, more stable ecologically, and less vulnerable to resource-supply disruption than the world we live in now. Stresses involving population, resources, and environment will be less in the future than now . . . The world’s people will be richer in most ways than they are today . . . The outlook for food and other necessities of life will be better . . . life for most people on earth will be less precarious economically than it is now.” This prediction came true for all but North Korea and Cuba.

The Malthusian apocalyptics in 1980 dismissed as irrelevant two centuries of economic and technological progress: 1780-1980. They also ignored earlier periods of population growth in European history. Economic historian Karl Helleiner writes:

The opinion, still widely held, that before the eighteenth century, Europe’s population, though subject to violent short-run fluctuations, remained stationary over long periods, or was growing only imperceptibly, is, I believe, no longer tenable. There is sufficient evidence to indicate that those oscillations were superimposed on clearly recognizable “long waves.” At least two periods of secular increase can be tolerably well identified in the demographic history of medieval and early modern Europe, the first extending from about the middle of the eleventh to the end of the thirteenth, the second from the middle of the fifteenth to the end of the sixteenth, century. . . . In this sense the demographic development of the eighteenth century was not unique. What was unprecedented about it was the fact that the secular upward movement started from a higher level, and that it was able to maintain, and for some time even increase, its momentum. Population growth in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, unlike that of previous epochs, was not terminated or reversed by catastrophe.

Something changed after 1750. The world experienced what Adam Smith taught in The Wealth of Nations (1776): economic freedom produces rapid, long-term growth.

Economic freedom is necessary but not sufficient to produce long-term population growth. A religious worldview favorable to large families must accompany economic liberty. Men must believe what David wrote so long ago: “As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate” (Ps. 127:4-5). The issue here is world dominion under God. This faith has faded rapidly in the humanist West. With falling birth rates among the populations of the industrialized world, rates of population growth are headed lower. When third-world nations industrialize, they almost certainly — a very dangerous phrase in demographics — will experience the same thing. (We must always add: unless people change their minds and then change their behavior.) It has already happened in Iran, whose birth rate is close to Germany’s: 1.4 children per woman.

The Malthusians always talk about the burden of more mouths to feed. They never talk about the economic benefits of more hands to work and more minds to think creatively beginning two decades later. They ignore the long-term capital returns from a 15-year or 20-year capital investment in morality and education. That is, they are present-oriented and therefore lower-class social theorists. Sadly, vocal Christian intellectuals in the late twentieth century joined the camp of the Malthusians.

Are many people facing famine today? If so, what is the proper solution? If not, why are so many Western intellectuals convinced that famine is imminent? How could a supposedly serious pair of scholars have written a book in 1967 titled, Famine-1975!? The famine never appeared. Instead, food prices fell. Per capita consumption of food rose. Yet the myth of looming food shortages continues to be believed. From 1798 until the present, Malthus’ predictions have been refuted by the facts, decade after decade. The West has experienced a growing population with increasing per capita consumption of food. Yet the myth still flourishes in the West. That starvation is possible in a major war is quite possible. The question is: If we avoid such a major war, is a famine inevitable? The apocalyptics’ answer: yes. This answer has been proven incorrect for over two centuries, but generation after generation of apocalyptics learn nothing from the evidence. Theirs is a religious worldview, impervious to the historical record.

In January, 1994, a nationally circulated newspaper insert magazine, Parade, ran a three-page interview with Mikhail Gorbachev, the deposed ruler of the Soviet Union (1991), who immediately became the head of an environmentalist organization called the Green Cross. This worn-out Communist war horse was proclaiming the statist party line. Collectivist that he was, his enemy was still the same: the American consumer, who has too much wealth.

If we’re going to protect the planet’s ecology, we’re going to need to find alternatives to the consumerist dream that is attracting the world. Otherwise, how will we conserve our resources, and how will we avoid setting people against each other when resources are depleted? . . .

America must be an example to the world. America should do what we have done — that is, to abandon any attempt to impose a certain model on other peoples. If we just say, “Xerox the American way and standard of living,” then we must answer the question, “What do we do about the fact that 260 million people in America use 40% of the world’s energy resources, and the 5 billion people in the rest of the world use what’s left?” America must be the teacher of democracy to the world, but not the advertiser of the consumer society. It is unrealistic for the rest of the world to reach the American living standard. The world can’t support that. Even now, only one third of the world’s population is provided for adequately. We should, therefore develop other models.

He called for “a new consciousness based on environmental justice.” There is no blueprint, but there must be action. A new evolution is upon us. “There is no clear answer, except that the old ideologies in our civilization must give way to the new challenges of our civilization. The growing environmental movement must be a vehicle for that.”

What is worth noting is that only a few weeks before, on November 28, 1993, the New York Times “Op Ed” page published an essay by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in which he proclaimed an almost identical thesis. The article was titled, “To Tame Savage Capitalism.” If any person was responsible for destroying the reputation of Soviet Communism in the West, it was he. His three-volume study, The Gulag Archipelago, chronicled the terrorism of Soviet Communism from Lenin to the 1960s, and he was generally believed by Western intellectuals, who had rejected similar reports for over half a century. He was exiled from the USSR in 1974. The critic of the Soviet Union has also been the critic of Western capitalism. He now joins hands — or at least propaganda efforts — with Mr. Gorbachev, the protegé of Mr. Andropov, the former head of the KGB, the Soviet secret police that Solzhenitsyn despised.

In his essay, Solzhenitsyn decried the spiritual vacuum in the former Soviet Union, a vacuum that capitalism cannot fill. This has been a continuing theme in his writings: the failure of secularism, East and West. The West is now in trouble. It now faces “environmental ruin” and “the global population explosion.” The third world constitutes four-fifths of mankind, and will soon constitute five-sixths. It is “drowning in poverty and misery,” and it will soon “step forward with an ever-growing list of demands to the advanced nations.” He, too, rejected the growth model of Western capitalism. “The time is urgently upon us to limit our wants.” He attacked the United States without naming it for having resisted the demands of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. He did not mention what these demands were: to reduce industrial carbon dioxide emissions by government edicts in order to reduce global warming.

There are four major problems here. First, there is no clear-cut scientific evidence of global warming. When the temperature changes of the world’s oceans are included in the analysis, there is no evidence of directional change, 1890 to 1990. The evidence that temperatures have increased comes from temperature measurements taken at sites in or near cities, where temperatures have increased. In any case, the increase in carbon dioxide emissions accelerated after World War II, but temperatures have not risen since then. Second, the major sources of carbon dioxide emissions are natural, most notably from termites, which contribute some 14 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, compared to mankind’s supposed output of five billion tons — in an atmosphere of five quadrillion tons. Mankind’s contribution is less than one millionth of the total atmosphere. Third, there is no evidence that global warming is a bad thing. Plant life grows much faster in a high carbon dioxide environment. Fourth, it would be bad economics to invest heavily in anti-global warming technologies today when far cheaper technical solutions are likely to appear long before the supposed problem gets worse. (As for atmospheric ozone, there was no increase or decrease, 1978 to 1991.)

In 1977, Ballantine Books, a popular paperback book company in the U.S., published The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age. The book began with this warning: “There is growing consensus among leading climatologists that the world is undergoing a cooling trend” (p. 5). But there was no temperature evidence for this frightening scenario, either.

Like Gorbachev, Solzhenitsyn repeated the oft-quoted statistic that the U.S. is a huge consumer of the world’s resources. Gorbachev used the 40% figure; Solzhenitsyn used 50%. Neither figure is accurate. The U.S. share of world output/consumption has fallen slowly but steadily as other nations have increased their output and hence their consumption of resources. In 1989, the U.S. share of world output was in the range of 26%. This information was available to the authors in 1993.

Solzhenitsyn complained: “When a conference of the alarmed peoples of the earth convenes in the face of unquestioned and imminent threat to the planet’s environment, a mighty power, one consuming not much less than half the earth’s currently available resources and emitting half its pollution, insists, because of its own present-day interests, on lowering the demands of a sensible international agreement, as though it did not itself live on the same earth. Then other leading countries shirk from fulfilling even these reduced demands. Thus, in the economic race, we are poisoning ourselves.” We must therefore “learn to limit firmly our desires and demands, to subordinate our interests to moral criteria,” or else “humankind” will “simply be torn apart, as the worst aspects of human nature bare their teeth.”

He recommended no economic blueprint. Solzhenitsyn has resisted offering an economic blueprint — which he sees as Western and hence unspiritual — throughout his career. But he is opposed to capitalism. He has long opposed industrial growth and the ideal of economic progress. He has cried out against the supposed depletion of economic resources. He warned years ago against imminent Malthusian disaster: “. . . in all cases the population will be overtaken by mass destruction in the first decades of the twenty-first century. . . .” He did predict in 1974 that the creative West would eventually “set about the necessary reconstruction.” But he offered no blueprint for this reconstruction, any more than Gorbachev did two decades later. Both men perceive capitalism as morally bankrupt despite — or perhaps because of — its enormous economic success. They damn it as immoral, but they propose nothing to replace it. This opens the door to the creation of a socialistic New World Order in the name of third world poverty, environmental ethics, and overcoming the population explosion. This means a larger, more powerful State with the international authority to bring sanctions against those nations and individuals who violate the new ethical order. The mild socialist (Solzhenitsyn) and the mild Communist (Gorbachev) are strongly opposed to the free market. In this, they are not alone.

Shortly before he died in 1989, Professor Arthur Selwyn Miller of George Washington University completed the manuscript of a book, The Secret Constitution and the Need for Constitutional Change. It had been financed by the Rockefeller Foundation. He argued that the United States is governed by two constitutions, one formal and the other secret. The U.S. has always had an elite form of government, he said; “tiny minorities” make the basic decisions.

This constitutional dualism is now leading to a constitutional crisis, he said. We must now restructure the U.S. Constitution in order to gain consistency between the two systems, he insisted. But how can this be done? “Extraordinary conditions demand extraordinary, even unique, remedies.” These remedies include the following: enforced stabilization of population; the restructuring of the economy; the elimination of the threat of nuclear war; the redefining of national security as protection against “environmental degradation throughout the world”; the equitable distribution of material resources. All of this will require the abandonment of Christianity.

The Biblical admonition that mankind should have dominion over everything that moves upon the earth (as well as matter that does not move, such as plants and minerals) must be replaced with a view that humanity has an inescapable “oneness” with nature and the natural world, and must act accordingly. Dominion under the tenets of Judeo-Christian theology has long been employed as a justification for relentless exploitation of the riches of the planet. This will have to be supplanted by an instruction, divine or otherwise, that humans must protect all of nature’s creatures, large and small.

The finite nature of the planet Earth and its natural resources must be recognized. There are limits to growth. Anyone who thinks that economic growth can continue indefinitely, says Professor Kenneth Boulding, is either a madman or an economist.

Miller called for a Planetary Constitutional Convention. “The world is spinning out of control. Chaos masquerades as order. There is a demonstrable destructive logic to human systems. Already the terrible reactions to crises, near and far, are appearing.” He listed crime, racism, famines, terrorism, and religious wars. “Population cannot be brought under control, peace cannot be assured, pollution is not controlled, and poverty is everywhere. These situations signify a societal nervous breakdown.”

The rhetoric continued to escalate. In 1991, the year before Earth Summit in Rio, the Trilateral Commission, headed by David Rockefeller, published a book through Oxford University Press: Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World’s Economy and the Earth’s Ecology. The authors end their book with this rhetorical warning: “The Earth Summit will likely be the last chance for the world, in this century at least, to seriously address and arrest the accelerating environmental threats to economic development, national security, and human survival. It will certainly be the last major chance for the present generation of leaders and decision-makers to fulfill their basic obligations to their peers, today’s youth, and future generations” (p. 128).

The question is this: Does this rhetoric reflect the magnitude of the crisis? In the past, it has not. What about today?

The greens have used the rhetoric of crisis to further their elitist political design. Their apocalyptic rhetoric of inescapable crisis begins with the idea of absolute limits to growth. There is no doubt that there are limits to growth. This is why there are prices. But to say that there are determinate limits to growth is very different from saying that any committee knows what and where these limits are, when they will call a halt to growth, and how society should operate after such limits are reached.

All talk about “spaceship earth” is specious and politically motivated. It invokes a military-bureaucratic metaphor — a spaceship — to describe the decentralized decision-making of men and the unplanned operations of nature. Echoing the socialist Barbara Ward, Mikhail Gorbachev used the now-commonplace imagery: Planet Earth and its crew.

The symbol of a spaceship necessarily invokes the image of a captain. Denying the biblical doctrine of a sovereign, transcendent God — the ultimate captain — the socialist must identify other candidates for captainship. One thing is sure: those officers in the control room must be limited in number. They constitute an elite. All rule is hierarchical: either top-down (Ex. 1: Pharaoh) or bottom-up (Ex. 18: Moses). But without a captain, the more that power is centralized, the greater the rewards for gaining absolute personal control, and the greater the risks of personal failure to do so. The worst will get on top.

In a world in which many prices fall — a world of expanding productivity, especially in agriculture — the economist must discuss relative prices, not absolute limits to growth. There are limits at the margin: I must give up this in order to obtain that. But most of these limits are temporary. At some price, they can be overcome. The question is: At what price? The other question is: Who pays it? Economist Jacqueline Kasun writes, “The doomsday literature of limits is shot through with the conceit of absolute capacity, which is alien to economics. . . . In the lifeboat, human beings are pure burdens, straining the capacity of the boat.”

The world is almost empty. Fly across any of it and look down. The population apocalyptics of today are like those late Renaissance-era Church scientists who refused to look into Galileo’s telescope. (Well, not quite, since there is no primary source evidence that this ever happened. But it makes a great story to add to the pre-Columbus flat-earth legend.) Sitting next to us on a cross-country flight, the population apocalyptics offer us the same challenge that Groucho Marx offered when caught in the act in a famous scene: “Are you going to believe me or your own eyes?” They will see it when they believe it. As yet, they do not believe it. But hardly anyone believes them any more.

The propaganda of “spaceship earth” escalated in the 1960s. An early example was The Population Explosion and Christian Responsibility, published in 1960. From 1965 on, book titles heralded an age of limits — not the traditional limits but absolute limits: Our Depleted Society, Too Many Americans, Famine-1975! America’s Decision: Who Will Survive? The Costs of Economic Growth, The Biological Time Bomb, The Limits to Growth (a best-seller), The No-Growth Society, The Overdeveloped Nations. In 1972, a Presidential commission headed by John D. Rockefeller III, a long-time promoter of zero population growth, was issued: Population and the American Future.

What was going on during the same period? By 1980, only about 2% of the world’s population was threatened with dangerous hunger. What about the incursion of the cities on agricultural land? Mythical. From 1950 to 1960, there was an increase of 9% in total arable land in the 87 countries studied, nations constituting 73% of the world’s total land area. There was an additional 6% rise in permanent, arable cropland worldwide, 1963 to 1977, a United Nations study concluded. By 1980 in the United States, under 4% of the nation’s total land area was used for urban purposes. In short, the rhetoric of imminent crisis was contradicted by the reality of per capita economic growth.

Consider the year 1971. The U.S. had increased crop production by 13% over 1970. Canada had harvested over 50% more wheat. India’s output was so great that it had a surplus of eight million tons of grain. India gave Bangladesh 10% of its surplus and averted a famine there. India’s food production outstripped its population growth after 1948. Even so, if they had slaughtered all of their non-productive sacred cows in 1971, India’s farmers could feed at least 1.2 billion extra people.

Overcrowding? In 1970, all the people on earth and their homes and local parks could have fit on 15% of the land area of the United States. If these four billion people had been willing to live in the same density of population that they accepted in New York City, the entire world’s population would have fit in the state of Montana. (But they would not have enjoyed the winters.) It would have been possible to fit everyone on earth inside the U.S. with the same density of population that prevailed in the state of New Jersey: 1,000 persons per square mile. It is worth noting that the politicians of New Jersey have named it the Garden State.

The twentieth-century West exported the means of increasing poor people’s lives. The food problem has been overcome repeatedly since the late eighteenth century. In many backward regions, birth rates remained high, death rates fell, and populations increased. But birth rates fall as wealth increases, people move to the cities, and families’ net economic costs of rearing young children rise. Human behavior changes. This was a universal demographic experience in the twentieth century.

Those environmental determinists who have recognized that people do change their reproductive behavior have shifted the argument from population growth to style of life. The slowdown is insufficient. More is needed — more of less. Less is more. “Small is beautiful,” announced Buddhist, non-theistic social theorist E. F. Schumacher, and secular humanists responded enthusiastically. Arnold Nash wrote: “The initial issue is the kind of life that we want to live on this earth as distinct from the number of people who are to live this life.” He warned about an overcrowded earth which will bring “overwhelming chaos through the entire world in our social life. . . .” We were told that overcrowding in cities produces rising crime. The whole world may well be headed in the direction of Calcutta, “where more than half a million people eat, sleep, live, and die with no home other than the streets. . . .”

After India began to remove more of its controls over the economy in the mid-1990s, economic growth began to overcome what was considered intractable poverty. It turned out that less really was more: less State, more wealth.

The problem with the city is not overcrowding as such; it is the widespread loss of faith that takes place in cities. The impersonality of the modern city raises the cost of policing crime; self-discipline becomes more important. The loss of faith produces evil consequences faster, since the costs of detection and policing are higher. But the problem is the loss of faith. It is the loss of faith and those communities that grow out of faith. Jane Jacobs’ criticisms of modern city planning were on target: the devastation of urban planning that destroys older neighborhoods. The medieval city was a covenantal association, based on common participation in the Lord’s Supper. The modern city is not.

The problem is not, as Nash and many other commentators have insisted, man’s growing control over nature. Nash brings this covenant lawsuit against dominion man: “What man has been doing in upsetting so violently the world’s natural ecology is simply a prolongation of what he has been doing from the very dawn of his history. He has been trying to change the world of nature.” Man is polluting the world. He is poisoning the atmosphere. “Mineral shortages will soon emerge.” And so on. Society and Environment: The Coming Collision announced the title of a 1972 collection of essays. The End of Nature warned Bill McKibben’s book title in 1989. Man the destroyer is destroying the natural world.

Step by step, the theology of the critics of economic growth has become more clear: radical humanism in an alliance with a new pantheism-animism. We are, in the words of Berit Kjos, Under the Spell of Mother Earth. The literature of eco-animism is large and growing. In June, 1992, the largest gathering of world leaders and media representatives since the founding of the United Nations Organization in 1945 met in Rio de Janeiro for the Earth Summit. Everything is moving toward a new Tower of Babel, all in the name of a common cause: to save the earth from man’s productivity.

But where has this productivity come from? The ethical cause-and-effect relationship announced by God in His law is the answer. The growth of mankind’s per capita productivity has come as a blessing from God in response to a growing willingness on the part of various societies to conform outwardly to His laws of private property and personal responsibility. Understand, this has not been merely a growth in productivity matching the increased numbers of men; it has been a system of increasing wealth per individual. The positive economic sanctions listed in Deuteronomy 28:1-14 have been experienced by the West for over two centuries. The power of our own hands has not produced this wealth (Deut. 8:17).

Society today suffers not from overpopulation but from overregulation. We suffer not from a growing scarcity of resources but from a growing scarcity of freedom. Freedom does not come at zero price. In this sense, it is not natural. It is the product of accurate economic thinking and moral self-restraint. When Malthus wrote of moral self-restraint he had in mind was sexual activity. The moral self-restraint we need today is political restraint.

The lure of Malthus’ incomparably inaccurate prediction regarding the overexpansion of human population in relation to food has blinded generations of pessimists and economic planners to the truth. What is the truth? This: economic liberty, when coupled with future-orientation of the part of many members of society, can and does lead to less hunger, less poverty, and more choices. Maximum economic growth is achieved when large numbers of people in a society voluntarily adopt the following worldview.

1. Faith that this world is not random, that it is governed by permanent moral principles (i.e., a non-Confucian, non-pragmatic ethic).

2. Commitment to serving consumers as the highest authority (i.e., few government regulations passed in order to favor producers: anti-mercantilism).

3. A political commitment to uphold predictable civil laws that defend private ownership (“Thou shalt not steal”).

4. A readiness to compete with all comers, i.e., open entry into the marketplace (anti-licensure, anti-bureaucracy).

5. Future orientation: optimistic people who are ready to invest (deferred consumption).

It is not the State’s job to create widespread future-orientation; it is also not the State’s job to subsidize the activities of others. The State’s jobs is to bring negative sanctions against those who commit public evil. It is to defend the rights of owners over their property-owners’ rights, not “property rights.”

The problem for underdeveloped nations is not that they have received too little economic aid from Western governments but far too much. They have adopted the false ideas of three or more generations of Western intellectuals who do not believe that individuals can and should regulate their own affairs, bear their own burdens, and reap their own rewards. Instead, the critics of freedom regard the State as a sovereign agent that possesses sufficient knowledge and sufficient creativity to produce wealth for all. What the State has done is to impoverish those who have few economic reserves to make up for the disastrous decisions of government economic planners.

The world does not need fewer people; it needs fewer bureaucrats.

Your comments are WELCOME!
If you like what you’ve read or not, please “Rate This” below.
Lengthy comments may time-out before you’re finished so consider doing them in a word doc first then copy and paste to “Leave a Reply” below.


About gerold

I have a bit of financial experience having invested in stocks in the 1960s & 70s, commodities in the 80s & commercial real estate in the 90s (I sold in 2005.) I am appalled at our rapidly deteriorating global condition so I've written articles for family, friends & colleagues since 2007; warning them and doing my best to explain what's happening, what we can expect in the future and what you can do to prepare and mitigate the worst of the economic, social, political and nuclear fallout. As a public service in 2010 I decided to create a blog accessible to a larger number of people because I believe that knowledge not shared is wasted.
This entry was posted in Propaganda and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s