I have heard socialists quote depletionists, and quote without criticism, that the "carrying capacity" of the earth is only 2 billion people-- and these same socialists never go to the next step and suggest what we should do with the 4 billion extras, or how much energy it is going to cost to cull the oversized herd of bipedalists we call humanity. dms
Population tends to decrease when literacy, health care and other social supports are provided. That has been the experience in Kerala. We need to think in terms of Kerala, rather than forced sterilization, etc. At any rate, these are separate questions that have little to do with each other. Socialists are opposed to any sort of repressive population control, no matter the tendency in the early 20th century for some to adapt to Progressive movement prejudices against poor people who tended to have large families.
However, we do know that there are *natural barriers* to unlimited population growth. The most dramatic of these is global warming which is a byproduct of energy consumption. If you are going to provide for the basics in heating, transportation, etc., you need to consume energy. Since solar and wind power are not practical except as auxiliaries and since atomic energy poses unacceptable risks, even under a planned economy, humanity must rely on carbon-based fuels. There is no "socialist" method for burning such fuels which emit greenhouse gases that warm the planet. That is why scientists have examined the question about how many people can live on the Earth. They are not "Malthusian" to pose that question. They are simply doing their duty as professionals.
Louis Proyect Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
