THE NEW MALTHUSIANS

Throughout history, populations seen as too large, unwanted, or threatening have faced control measures presented as necessary or morally correct. This post explores how those in power have justified controlling populations, the evolution of these ideas from Malthus to modern billionaires, and how today’s elites might employ advanced technology to carry out similar policies in the name of sustainability and climate responsibility. 

The Malthusian Foundation of Population Control 

The notion of controlling population growth is deeply rooted in the theories of 18th-century economist Thomas Malthus. Malthus argued that population growth, if unchecked, would outstrip resources, leading to widespread famine and poverty. His views created a foundation for policies of restraint and control, influencing everything from immigration to public health interventions. 

For instance, Malthus's ideas inspired sterilization programs and restrictive policies in many Western countries during the 19th and 20th centuries, meant to curb populations among marginalized groups. While framed as a solution to poverty or social health, these measures often targeted minority communities, immigrants, and the poor.

Eugenics and Government-Enforced Control 

Eugenics, or the pseudo-scientific belief in controlling reproduction to "improve" human populations, became popular in the early 20th century, particularly in the U.S. and Europe. This movement advocated for sterilization and other restrictive measures, often aimed at people deemed "unfit." Countries like the United States, Canada, and parts of Scandinavia passed sterilization laws in the early 1900s, sterilizing tens of thousands of people against their will. 

One infamous case involved the United States’ Buck v. Bell Supreme Court decision in 1927, where the Court upheld Virginia’s sterilization law, with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., infamously stating, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." These policies served as a means for governments to exercise control over reproduction under the guise of public health and societal improvement.

Biotech and Pandemics as Modern Control Tools 

Today’s billionaires, particularly in the tech and biotech sectors, hold the resources and platforms to shape society on an unprecedented scale. One way they might do so is through biotechnology, where genetic modification, cloning, and other biotechnological innovations offer possibilities to control and manage populations. The potential to engineer viruses or restrict access to life-saving vaccines could be used as a form of soft power or selective culling, marketed as sustainability measures or protective action. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, some tech and biotech companies gained extraordinary influence over global health policy and response strategies, shaping public access to vaccines, enforcing lockdown policies, and controlling data on virus spread. If companies or governments chose to release a virus designed to target specific populations or to impose vaccinations and gene therapy selectively, this technology could become a tool for intentional population management.

Confronting the Truth: Curbing Consumption, Not Populations

Elites increasingly justify their decisions under the pretext of climate action and sustainability, with the argument that population growth threatens the planet's ecological balance. While sustainability is a genuine concern, the moral gray area emerges when these beliefs extend to controlling population size or behavior. Calls for reduced consumption and lower birth rates are becoming common, yet these solutions often place the burden of environmental responsibility on ordinary people, usually the southern countries, not the high-consumption lifestyles of the wealthy and the First World Countries.

For instance, population control could manifest as a limited child policy under the guise of environmental protection. Billionaire-funded think tanks, like those at the World Economic Forum, often emphasize population growth as a primary concern, suggesting that AI and biotechnology might be the best solutions to "save" the planet from overpopulation. This stance allows those in power to frame restrictive policies as altruistic, masking the true goal of retaining control over resources and societal direction.

A Cautionary Conclusion

History repeats itself. As wealthy tech billionaires influence policies aimed at addressing Global Warming and other environmental issues, some of them may start advocating for population reduction as a solution, bypassing the root cause: high consumption levels in the wealthiest societies, which are often supported by those very industries that are owned by those same wealthy individuals and families. Research shows that affluent countries, which house most of the world's billionaires, have a vastly disproportionate environmental impact compared to less wealthy nations, primarily due to high consumption and carbon footprints. 

But guess who will end up receiving such urgent and required world saving policies? You guessed it; The South. Instead of addressing these systemic issues - like consumer culture, excessive resource usage, and the environmental impact of luxury lifestyles - some elites might see population reduction (culling) as a more direct and easy solution. This approach is not unprecedented. Historical population control policies have often been justified under the guise of resource management or ecological stability. By framing population control as a necessary step for sustainability, wealthy influencers may shift the focus away from lifestyle and consumption changes that could impact their own economic interests. 

Just as Malthus justified population control in times of scarcity, today’s billionaires may frame their actions as beneficial, when in reality, they serve a narrow interest. 

Thanks for reading. Abrazos.

Diego Rojas