Racism and Population Control

I’ve recently been reading Thomas Malthus’s 1798 first edition of The Principle of Population because of its significance for Charles Darwin, which I mention in my draft book on evolutionary theology, Evolution and Grace. Darwin was reluctant at first to apply natural selection to humans, but in fact it was Malthus’s teaching in regard to humans that provided a key element in the formation of Darwin’s theory in regard to animals. The dynamics of population were not well understood in the days before widespread census data and mass communication, and thus Malthus was not only one of the few to consider the issue, but also perhaps the first to realize just how dramatically human population tends to expand.

Even if population may seem from day-to-day experience in the late eighteenth century to remain largely the same (apart from famines and significant migration events), argues Malthus, any perceptible stability of population is not a real, tangible principle, but rather the effect of a kind of environmental homeostasis. In fact, population tends toward exponential growth (the language of the day was “geometric” increase), but is held back by death-causing environmental factors, especially the limited food supply. This realization was an epiphany for Darwin: imagining animal populations in terms of great excess allowed him also to conceive of death as a means of “selecting” individuals who happen to be better suited for survival in the given conditions.

Reading Malthus’s book is both fascinating and difficult. It’s fascinating because in many ways he is correct; it is difficult because his ideas are thoroughly wrapped in the racism of imperial Britain. Such racism is written into the very ways in which he categorizes different types of peoples for considering factors of population growth; “barbarian” Scythians are held distinct from “civilized” Brits.

To be clear, “racism” in this context does not mean simply prejudice between the conceptual groups that distinguish white, black, Asian, etc.; to limit racism in such a way is artificial. The very same kind of pride and hatred are involved in the prejudice of English vs. Scythian, or even English vs. Irish, such that to understand this prejudice as anything less than racism is simply absurd. Moreover, it does no good to argue that white vs. black racism stands on a distinct level because of slavery. In fact, slavery is part of the history of many peoples; indigenous Mexicans were enslaved too. In many cases the English have treated the Irish as slaves, whether or not they were called such. One certainly must acknowledge the horrific degree of slavery endured by black people in the United States, a degree that far exceeds that of many other instances of slavery, and yet it remains a difference of degree rather than of kind. Thus one can still consider prejudice against the Romani people, for example, as a kind of racism, even though they qualify as “white.”

Back to the point, one would expect that evil principles generate nothing but false claims. One would expect to be able to dismiss Malthus outright because of his racist views. Yet the reality makes things much more complicated; since evil is parasitic on the good, his evil views do not altogether eliminate the seeds of truth within. This is precisely what makes some very problematic texts so alluring; people can become lost among the good points and begin to mistake the falsehoods for their legitimate peers.

It is indeed true, as data now shows quite clearly, that human population tends to grow exponentially. Malthus thought the population was oversized at his time; he would have a heart attack to learn just how ridiculously populous the earth is today.

From this true condition, however, proceeds a deeply flawed but still dangerous argument. Malthus points out that population growth leads to an increase in “vice” (e.g. war and infanticide) and “misery” (i.e. suffering, esp. famine), which serve to check the population growth. To his credit, he even recognizes that such events affect the poor, women, and the disenfranchised disproportionately, so that they end up suffering more. Accordingly, the logical solution is to institute population controls before such hardships occur, thus maximizing the comfort and enjoyment of the stable population.

Exactly how one seeks to control the population is a further question. Malthus’s main target was England’s “poor laws.” He felt that these, by attempting to mitigate poverty through a welfare system administered through the Church of England, served only to increase “vice and misery” by preventing the natural checks on population and the operation of the free market. In a short time, Malthus’s arguments also led to both negative eugenics (preventative means) and positive eugenics (murder of the unfit or undesirable) among certain groups. His ideas can be seen within China’s now-defunct one-child policy and within efforts to spread birth control in Africa.

Clearly Nazi-style eugenics is more evil than a policy of handing out condoms, and yet, from a Catholic perspective, all such attempts to curb population are evil inasmuch as they are contrary to human dignity. In fact, the evil of enforcing or even “strongly suggesting” birth control outweighs even the evil of voluntarily using it, because it undermines the person’s free responsibility for his or her own sexuality. Thus these attempts are evil not merely because they involve artificial birth control, but also (and all the more) because of the way in which they seek to control others. Hence even if a one-child policy were to enforce natural family planning, it would not for that reason become morally acceptable.

These problematic attempts to control population stem, moreover, from problematic motives that belie our best intentions. Malthus seems to care for the poor, but in the end, who but the poor will bear the burden of population controls? When Americans today insist that the population needs to be limited, whom do they have in mind but minorities and foreigners? Malthus’s doctrine becomes a “scientific” excuse for people to say, “You people should have fewer children; we’ve earned our right to have children.” The rich deserve to propagate; the poor only to perish.

In addition, Malthus’s voice still resonates with those who oppose governmental care for the poor (welfare). Malthus believed that giving money to the poor would only increase prices, encourage laziness, and ultimately do nothing but exacerbate the underlying shortage of resources. Much of his logic is extremely self-serving and self-contradictory. If indeed the extra money won’t help the poor to buy bread, then how can he claim that the poor will become lazier because of it? While it is true that widespread wealth-creation can lead to inflation, he does not account for the fact that this wealth has not been created but already exists in the hands of the rich. Inflation is not increased if, instead of one rich man buying a thousand loaves for a feast, a thousand poor men buy the same loaves just to survive. Yet Malthus does not want to consider any positive uses of welfare, because he is opposed to it in principle. He simply rejects beforehand any possibility that a well-managed welfare system might effect a more just distribution of the resources that already exist. So what does Malthus propose? If attempting to feed the poor is self-defeating, then their population must be allowed to simply die off and thus solve the problem “as nature intended,” as it were.

Malthus’s views are simply un-Christian and ultimately disgusting. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that the moral limitations on population controls make it difficult for Catholics to face the full and raw reality of the exploding human population. It is indeed astounding. Reason tells us that at some point the earth will become overpopulated. History tells us that we should be careful not to assert any sure knowledge of the earth’s limits; what seemed overpopulated 100 years ago has now proven to be far beneath the limit. Yet there must be a logical limit, and all we can really do is trust that God will take care of us.

In the meantime, there are important things that we can do here and now to better address the needs of those who are already suffering. In addition to environmental devastation due to pollution, habitat loss, and irresponsible development, the greater problems of overpopulation today stem not from limited supplies but rather from misdistribution; the USA is jam-packed with food that we waste at an astounding rate. Starvation in other countries has much to do with our own refusal to evenly distribute the wealth that we enjoy. If we spent only a portion on the poor of what we spend on the military, illegal drugs, or pornography, it would make a huge difference. In the end, who am I to deny the right of a poor woman in India to lovingly bear children? What stability or prosperity could possible make up for the loss of this most basic joy, the joy of being a parent?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.