(or “The Overpopulation Myth; Last Refuge of The Social Darwinist”)
Many who seem to like to consider themselves academics and members of the “intellectual vanguard” (“Vanguard of the Intellectuals” Lenin’s answer to the dilemma created by the lack of an “Industialised proleteriate” in the post revolution U.S.S.R and Marxist ideology), seem unable to differentiate between “Self and State”. This misidentification leads them to jump to disastrous conclusions especially (of-course), when considering whether or not to intervene (either diplomatically or otherwise), in the business of other nations and peoples. Driven to act by the historical momentum of forces they fail to appreciate one finds them leaping for the “quick fix” solution like a drowning man clutching at straws. One now infamous “gom-jabbar” (Frank Herbert “spur to action”), of this kind is the fabled Malthusian “J-curve”, which identifies the point as the human population of the planet increases (concomitant with the ability of man to exploit The Earth’s non-renewable -esp.” fossil”-, fuel and agricultural -“monocultural”-, resources), whereby it will become impossible to produce sufficient food for the swollen masses which (Malthus argues), will result in a more or less immediate decline in the numbers of people on the planet (due to famine, natural disaster and conflict over diminishing resources) . Clearly (however), whilst it is necessary to be aware of the threat that the continued rise in the current population represents to not only the human species but also every other species on the planet it is ridiculous to attempt to address this problem using a political paradigm based on the; national, regional, religious or ethnic interests of the past. Utilising redundant notions of intervention which rely solely on the "public" philanthropy of those already guilty of the exploitation and misappropriation of the resources they wish to redistribute leads only to greater corruption and increased suffering for those already most disenfranchised, often creating internal conflict and fuelling international confrontation.
The result of the kind of “social-engineering” that this kind of misidentification and utilitarian philosophy leads to can be clearly seen in Modern China where neo-communist expediency has clashed with ancient cultural practices and prejudices. The “one-child legislation" spawned by the Year Zero type approach of the ruling Communist elite has produced a regime under which the young (and not-so-young now), male population of China have suffered a fundamental breach of their human rights over which the rest of The World rings it’s hands (and washes them), with self-congratulatory “liberal” sanctimony.
Even the cry,“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime!” (Chinese proverb), when used by "The Developed World" to describe it's problems with those "less equal" simply rings with the condescending imperialist (and mostly paternalistic), tones of the past. In cases other than genuine national emergency wouldn’t it be better simply to “get our crap out of their river” completely?
In recent years the U.N has investigated the question of whether or not it will be possible to feed The World’s growing population and concluded that “organic" means (whereby emphasis is put on the locality, sustainability and employment profile of the agricultural base), are indeed more than sufficient for our needs.
It is the myopic conceit of the “civilised” imperialist (and his patriarchy), that the “benighted savages” are not deemed capable of self-determination or self-sufficiency (witness the “groundnut debacle" in Kenya in the 50’s and 60’s).