If you want to restrict population size, the vampire population could be a good starting point

(The title of this post resulted from my feeling like I can’t title a post as “Here are two links.”)

Here are  two (completely unrelated) links to things I like.

First is Eric Snider’s rejected New Moon screenplay.

Second, here’s what I think is a wonderfully-written response to modern Malthusians.

I can’t resist quoting a little of the second article (or, actually, the complete last half of it).  I even italicized and bolded a sentence I particularly liked.  Here’s the clip:

The first mistake Malthusians always make is to underestimate how society can change to embrace more and more people. They make the schoolboy scientific error of imagining that population is the only variable, the only thing that grows and grows, while everything else – including society, progress and discovery – stays roughly the same. That is why Malthus was wrong: he thought an overpopulated planet would run out of food because he could not foresee how the industrial revolution would massively transform society and have an historic impact on how we produce and transport food and many other things. Population is not the only variable – mankind’s vision, growth, his ability to rethink and tackle problems: they are variables, too.

The second mistake Malthusians always make is to imagine that resources are fixed, finite things that will inevitably run out. They don’t recognise that what we consider to be a resource changes over time, depending on how advanced society is. That is why the Christian Tertullian was wrong in 200 AD when he said ‘the resources are scarcely adequate for us’. Because back then pretty much the only resources were animals, plants and various metals. Tertullian could not imagine that, in the future, the oceans, oil and uranium would become resources, too. The nature of resources changes as society changes – what we consider to be a resource today might not be one in the future, because other, better, more easily-exploited resources will hopefully be discovered or created. Today’s cult of the finite, the discussion of the planet as a larder of scarce resources that human beings are using up, really speaks to finite thinking, to a lack of future-oriented imagination.

And the third and main mistake Malthusians always make is to underestimate the genius of mankind. Population scaremongering springs from a fundamentally warped view of human beings as simply consumers, simply the users of resources, simply the destroyers of things, as a kind of ‘plague’ on poor Mother Nature, when in fact human beings are first and foremost producers, the discoverers and creators of resources, the makers of things and the makers of history. Malthusians insultingly refer to newborn babies as ‘another mouth to feed’, when in the real world another human being is another mind that can think, another pair of hands that can work, and another person who has needs and desires that ought to be met.

We don’t merely use up finite resources; we create infinite ideas and possibilities. The 6.7billion people on Earth have not raped and destroyed this planet, we have humanised it. And given half a chance – given a serious commitment to overcoming poverty and to pursuing progress – we would humanise it even further. Just as you wouldn’t listen to that guy who wears a placard saying ‘The End of the World is Nigh’ if he walked up to you and said ‘this time it really is nigh’, so you shouldn’t listen to the always-wrong Malthusians. Instead, join spiked in opposing the population panickers.

You really should read the first half of the article, too, which includes such gems as this:

There is a reason Malthusians are always wrong. It isn’t because they’re stupid… well, it might be a little bit because they’re stupid. But more fundamentally it is because, while they present their views as fact-based and scientific, in reality they are driven by a deeply held misanthropy that continually overlooks mankind’s ability to overcome problems and create new worlds.

And one more:

The fact that the presentational arguments can change so fundamentally over time, while the core belief in ‘too many people’ remains the same, really shows that this is a prejudicial outlook in search of a social or scientific justification; it is prejudice looking around for the latest trendy ideas to clothe itself in.

More than just a mouth to feed

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Me thinking about stuff, Me? Opinionated?, Other people are funny. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to If you want to restrict population size, the vampire population could be a good starting point

  1. Kristina P. says:

    She must have a tummy full of turkey!

    And I have been reading Snider for over 10 years. I always thought I would marry him before I met Adam. 🙂

  2. Mrs. Organic says:

    Have you read his Twilight rejected screenplay? It’s even funnier.

    The Malthusian rebuttal was awesome. I love that he says they are always wrong about everything and then he backs it up.

  3. Megan says:

    Thank you for this!

  4. Jen says:

    I like this post. All of it. Very much.

  5. Pilcrow says:

    I also enjoy everything about this post. Thank you.

  6. Mikilani says:

    Hazel is a cutie-pie! 🙂 I really enjoyed the Malthusian article. It pulled me out of a post Black Friday funk. I need to remember to stay away from the mall on major shopping days – it always leaves me depressed!

  7. Hannah says:

    I do feel sorry for Malthusians in that they deny themselves one of the greatest pleasures in life: large crazy families.

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