If you think the earth is dying because poor people are having too many babies, that's about three logical steps away from ecofascism.

  • GlacialTurtle [none/use name]
    ·
    4 years ago

    Malthusianism is a basic scientific reality and is why evolution by natural selection happens in the first place

    No it's not. In literally no field is malthusianism remotely taken seriously.

      • GlacialTurtle [none/use name]
        ·
        4 years ago

        The most basic realities of evolution by natural selection are malthusian in the sense that leftists are referring to it here:

        No they are not. You have no fucking clue what malthusian is or means. You are literally not grasping the conversation actually being had.

        That there is a carrying capacity and an exponential rate of population increase and that these eventually butt heads. Both of these are dynamic, but their fundamental properties of increase (if carrying capacity even does increase at a given time) makes their meeting inevitable.

        Skipping over the very important part there of the social system by which we produce and then distribute that produce and the means by which the products are made both of which are significant factors in the carrying capacity of a given system as they relate to the efficiency by which parts of the system are transformed into means for others to live.

        This also applies to the entire field of ecology. When humans clear-cut a forest, they have reduced its marginal carrying capacity massively and the ecosystem is massively disrupted - through death. We could point out that rewilding will restore the carrying capacity, but it doesn’t change the fact that a given amount of the previous population, already at or near carrying capacity, will now die.

        That's not what malthusian or mathulsianism is. You are substituting a specific discussion on the means by which we produce how we live and the how the results are distributed for a much more general topic about total abstract carrying capacity (which is also variable according to both those factors I just mentioned).

        The real battle is with context and marginal action. The fact that these concepts validly undergird entire fields of biology does not mean you can draw simplistic, dehumanizing conclusions about current circumstances.

        The real battle is a specific social system which arranges society in such a fashion that it obscures our relationship to nature, encourages means of producing and distributing goods that are inefficient and whose benefits are most significantly accrued to a small group who burn and waste significantly more than most of the population.

          • GlacialTurtle [none/use name]
            ·
            4 years ago

            Yes, they are, and I explained why here and elsewhere.

            No, you reduced malthusianism to a banal statement about total carrying capacity. That's not malthusianism.

            Overall, you’re missing opportunities to provide displacing knowledge. If these basic underpinnings of biology aren’t malthusian and I’ve stated why they are, what’s wrong with my narrative? If I’m not discussing “malthusian” like leftists are, then in what sense are leftists (unlike all of the ones I see here) talking about? What is “the conversation” that I’m missing?

            Jerkoff motion

            Yes, it is. It’s how malthusian thought entered and remained in biological sciences and it’s how leftists here keep referring to it in incredibly simplistic ways

            No.

            Yes, it is. It’s how malthusian thought entered and remained in biological sciences and it’s how leftists here keep referring to it in incredibly simplistic ways. I see no teardowns of eco-fascists in this thread, just dismissals of the concept that population growth matters and focusing exclusively on the fact that we can increase carrying capacity through changes in consumption and the organization of production - what amounts to a statement that carrying capacity could be higher so we don’t need to worry about it re: population.

            Because it's the correct take. Malthus was wrong on population growth. Fundamentally wrong. Populations stabilise as their material conditions improve. A number of countries now have declining populations. Even as populations declined, poverty rates stayed the same or got worse. Malthus' claim was that poverty as it already existed was an outcome of population growth, which was and remains wrong. He displaced understanding the social system and how it produces poverty by claiming it as a natural outcome of factors not related to how society was organised. You're attempting to do the same in fixating the discussion on population growth. Even worse when population growth i.e. having large numbers of children is in fact an outcome of poverty. Reducing poverty reduces the tendency for population growth.

            I don’t understand how I can be substituting that discussion when I’m making a top-level comment responding to several narratives being used in this thread. Maybe that “specific discussion” is just the one that you’d rather be having?

            You didn't respond to anything. You did a "well ackshually" and reduced malthusianism to something it isn't. And are now denying you did that.

                  • GlacialTurtle [none/use name]
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 years ago

                    No. Malthusianism was never just "total carrying capacity exists". You are and remain wrong. The answer to population increase is getting rid of the causes of poverty. Malthus was wrong on practically everything.

                    Edit:

                    One reason for the hatred that Cobbett and working class radicals directed against Malthus had to do with the fact that Malthus’ influence was so pervasive that it was not simply confined to middle-class reformers like John Stuart Mill, but even extended into the ranks of working-class thinkers and activists such as Francis Place. For Place, who adopted the Malthusian wages fund theory, birth control became a kind of substitute for class organization—though this was conceived by Place as being not in the interests of capital, but, in his misguided way, in the interests of the working class. The Malthusian ideology thus served from the first to disorganize the working-class opposition to capital.

                    It was because of this ideological service for the prevailing interests that, as Schumpeter said, “the teaching of Malthus’ Essay became firmly entrenched in the system of economic orthodoxy of the time in spite of the fact that it should have been, and in a sense was, recognized as fundamentally untenable or worthless by 1803 and that further reasons for so considering it were speedily forthcoming.” With the acknowledgement of moral restraint as a factor Malthus did not so much improve his theory, as Schumpeter further noted, as carry out an “orderly retreat with the artillery lost.”

                    More and more it was recognized that, as Marx stated, “overpopulation is…a historically determined relation, in no way determined by abstract numbers or by the absolute limit of the productivity of the necessaries of life, but by the limits posited rather by specific conditions of production…. How small do the numbers which meant overpopulation for the Athenians appear to us!” For Marx, it was “the historic laws of the movement of population, which are indeed the history of the nature of humanity, the natural laws, but natural laws of humanity only at a specific historic development” which were relevant. In contrast, “Malthusian man, abstracted from historically determined man, exists only in his brain.” As Paul Burkett has shown, Marx’s own political-economic analysis was to point to an inverse relation between workers’ wages and living conditions, on the one hand, and population growth, on the other—underscoring the kinds of relations that are now associated with demographic transition theory.

                    [...]

                    Darwin’s claim to have derived inspiration from Malthus’ Essay on Population in developing the crucial notion of the “struggle for existence,” which was to underlie his theory of natural selection, was not missed by contemporary social theorists. For Marx it was significant that Darwin had himself (unknowingly) refuted Malthus by means of natural history. Thus in Theories of Surplus Value Marx wrote: “In his splendid work, Darwin did not realise that by discovering the ‘geometrical’ progression in the animal and plant kingdom, he overthrew Malthus’s theory. Malthus’s theory is based on the fact that he set Wallace’s geometrical progression of man against the chimerical ‘arithmetical’ progression of animals and plants.” A year later Marx wrote in a letter to Engels:

                    As regards Darwin, whom I have looked at again, it amuses me that he says he applies the “Malthusian” theory also to plants and animals, as if Malthus’s whole point did not consist in the fact that his theory is applied not to plants and animals but only to human beings—in geometrical progression—as opposed to plants and animals. It is remarkable that Darwin recognises among brutes and plants his English society with its division of labour, competition, opening up of new markets, “inventions” and Malthusian “struggle for existence.” It is Hobbes’ bellum omnium contra omnes.

                    Marx himself did not dispute the general accuracy of Darwin’s theory of natural selection, but clearly relished the irony of Darwin’s discovery of bourgeois society “among brutes and plants.” What was illegitimate from a Marxist standpoint was the attempt, as Engels wrote in the Dialectics of Nature, “to transfer these theories back again from natural history to the history of society…as eternal natural laws of society.”

                    This, however, is exactly what happened with the advent of the broad group of eclectic “theories” that we commonly classify as “social Darwinist”—but which had little in fact to do with Darwinism. These theories drew directly on Malthus, Harriet Martineau, Herbert Spencer, and various nineteenth-century racist thinkers (whose views were anathemas to Darwinism properly understood). In the United States the leading academic social Darwinist was William Graham Sumner who argued that, “The millionaires are a product of natural selection.” This was simply Malthus, refurbished with the help of the Darwinian-Spencerian lexicon, and used to justify race and class inequality. Needless to say, this view was extremely attractive to the likes of such robber barons as John D. Rockefeller, James J. Hill and Andrew Carnegie. Rockefeller told a Sunday school class that “the growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest…merely the working out of a law of nature and a law of God.” Internationally social Darwinism was used to justify the imperialist policy of mass violence and annihilation succinctly summed by Kurtz in Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness—“exterminate all the brutes.”3 This resurrection of Malthus as an ecologist was an attempt to give ecology a conservative, pro-capitalist rather than revolutionary character, and required that Malthus’ actual argument be ignored. This was the same Malthus who had made a point of emphasizing that his argument did not have to do with the eventual overstocking of the earth with inhabitants but rather with the constant pressure of population on food supply (true throughout history); who had avoided the term “overpopulation” which made no sense within his strict equilibrium model; who was adamantly opposed to the use of contraceptives; who was the principal advocate within classical economics of the idea that the earth or soil was a “gift of nature to man” who in contrast to James Anderson in his own day had made no mention of the degradation of the soil; who subscribed to the view (enunciated by David Ricardo) that the powers of the soil were “indestructible” and who said that the peasantry should be “swept from the soil.” In spite (or in ignorance) of all of this Malthus was gradually converted, in neo-Malthusian thought, into an “ecological” thinker—the fountainhead of all wisdom in relation to the earth.

                    [...]

                    Malthus, we are frequently told, emphasized the scarcity of resources on earth and the limitations of human carrying capacity throughout his argument. Yet this flies in the face of the arguments of the real Malthus who wrote in his Essay on Population that “raw materials” in contrast to food “are in great plenty” and “a demand…will not fail to create them in as great a quantity as they are wanted.” Malthus, in contrast to Marx, had failed to take note of Lucretius’ materialist maxim “nil posse creari de nihilo,” out of nothing, nothing can be created. Nor did Malthus escape the pre-Darwinian notion that the capacity of organic life to change and “improve” was extremely limited. As Loren Eisely observed: “It is perhaps worth noting, since the biological observations of Malthus are little commented upon, that he recognized like so many others, the effects of selective breeding in altering the appearance of plants and animals, but regarded such alterations of form as occurring within admittedly ill-defined limits.”

                    There can be little doubt that the real aim of this neo-Malthusian resurrection of Malthus, then, was to resurrect what was after all the chief thrust of the Malthusian ideology from the outset: that all of the crucial problems of bourgeois society and indeed of the world could be traced to overprocreation on the part of the poor, and that attempts to aid the poor directly would, given their innate tendency to vice and misery, only make things worse. As Hardin put it in his essay, “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor,” any attempt to open up international granaries to the world population or to relax immigration restrictions in the rich countries would only create a situation where: “The less provident and less able will multiply at the expense of the abler and more provident, bringing eventual ruin upon all who share in the commons.” Charity for the poor would not help the poor, he argued, but would only hurt the rich.

                    https://monthlyreview.org/1998/12/01/malthus-essay-on-population-at-age-200/

                    There's your displacing knowledge, fucking moron.

                      • GlacialTurtle [none/use name]
                        ·
                        4 years ago

                        Never said that was was malthusianism was, lol.

                        That's exactly what you did from the beginning. You don't read your own posts.

                        I remain 100% correct. Since there is no communication happening here, this will be my last response in this chain. Solidarity forever.

                        You're a dipshit and faux civility shit is tiresome.

        • thefunkycomitatus [he/him,they/them]
          ·
          4 years ago

          You are substituting a specific discussion on the means by which we produce how we live and the how the results are distributed for a much more general topic about total abstract carrying capacity (which is also variable according to both those factors I just mentioned).

          Yeah I feel like this convo is people agreeing phlogiston isn't real then one person saying it's kinda real because combustion is essentially phlogiston if you squint just right because they both involve fuel.