On Phenomenology of Neo-Malthusianism Primarily in the Aspect of Birth Rate Control

On the Objectives of the Study

Neo-Malthusian approaches have reappeared as a result of the dramatic growth of the world’s population after World War II and the overall increasing stress for the environment. Phenomenological description of the current manifestation of neo-Malthusianism is the main objective of this study. Since neo-Malthusianism is reflected in various areas of theoretical thinking and practical actions, this study needs to be multidisciplinary. The main part of the study involves medical topics intertwined with societal issues. The study also touches on environmental topics. The aim of the study is to describe the dialectics of the Malthusian idea changing in time and in its practical implications.

On the Terminology of Birth Control

The term contraception appears in its wider and narrow sense. Contraception in the wider sense includes all procedures for preventing unwanted pregnancy without the need for outright abstinence. This notion of contraception includes contraception in its narrow sense, i.e. preventing conception as such, which means preventing fertilization of the egg, and anti-nidation, which means preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Antigestation, i.e. procedures aimed at removing an already implanted egg from the uterus, such as curettage or administration of antigestational drugs, is also associated with contraception. Postcoital contraception referred to as interception, which includes antinidation, as well as anti-gestation procedures, should also be mentioned to make the list complete [1]. As regards contraception and anticonception, the two terms are synonymous, although preventing conception as such is the core of anticonception, i.e. contraception in its narrow sense.

Two Key Concepts of Natural Exchange of Populations over a Long Period of Time

According to the first concept, the divine order in the ideas of theologists of the 17th and the 18th century maintains balance through the numbers and existential sources of all species living on the planet Earth, including the man. Historical demography since the 1960s has followed the same idea, claiming that traditional human populations, similarly to animal populations are “homeostatic”, adjusting to the conditions of their environment. The current historical demography considers the development of traditional societies to be a self-regulating system, in which biological reproduction is ensured under all circumstances at a level not exceeding the population’s economic capabilities or tolerability for the environment. Birth rate is a crucial factor for this approach. The second, much more pessimistic concept views death rate as the main regulating factor. The answers to this concept were sought long before Malthus, in the ancient population studies and practice or in contemplation of overpopulation by certain Christian thinkers during the renaissance era. Theorists looked for ways of solving overpopulation already then. Population growth and economy were thought to develop independently of each other, without any association. However, the population reduction mechanism with epidemics, wars, famine and social catastrophes was triggered with the onset of overpopulation after the population density exceeded the economic and environmental threshold [2].

On the Characteristics of Malthusian Pessimism

The proclamation of Thomas R. Malthus was objectively a major turning point long before the modern demography was institutionalized as a science. The author of the “Essay on the Principle of Population as it Affects the Future Improvement of Society” published in London in 1798 ceased to be anonymous in 1803. Let’s try to characterize Malthusian pessimism at this point: The man is not controlled purely by reason. It is primarily the merciless law of nature, i.e. the instinct of self-preservation and reproduction, that will always promptly disturb any type of the so-called ideal social arrangement based on equity. The world would remain entirely static without the force of reproduction, which creates population surplus and thus imposes the pressure of natural selection on the man and forces the man to be active and innovative. As a believer and a priest, Malthus stated that the God created the ruthless tendency of the human population to grow for moral reasons, to save the man from idleness. The constant merciless threat of poverty and death from starvation helps in teaching people the virtues, i.e. hard work and moral conduct. Malthus solved the problem of theodicy (how the almighty God can tolerate the evil in the world) in an original manner: the evil motivates the humanity to fight for the good.

The purpose of the evil in the world is to stimulate activity, rather than to spread despair and hopelessness. The population pressure greatly stimulates progress, yet progress is limited by the extent of natural resources, as shown in the axiom of declining soil productivity. The conflict arising from the natural disbalance between two forces – population growth on one side and limited food production on the planet Earth on the other side – prevents the establishment of an ideal society. Therefore, humans cannot achieve a higher social level and instead keep oscillating near the minimum level of living. When population surplus as the executor of the selection pressure hits the ceiling of availability of natural resources, population surplus fueled by anarchy of sexuality especially among the poor begins to grow autonomously. This autonomously growing population surplus no longer serves any positive function in the society and paralyses it instead. Poverty cannot be eliminated and generates further poverty. Repressive restrictions are therefore needed to prevent the development of societal paralysis, which promotes poverty in the society and devastates natural resources.

Repressive restrictions need to stop the autonomous growth of population surplus, which does not serve any positive function in the society. These restrictions thwarting the autonomous growth of population surplus without any positive societal function can be divided into voluntary and compulsory restrictions. Voluntary preventive restrictions arise from the ability to forecast trends and may appear in two different forms: as moral restrictions (postponing or avoiding marriage, voluntary sexual abstinence), and immoral restrictions (contraception, abortions). T. R. Malthus stressed out moral preventive voluntary restrictions and thus proposed, for example, that parishes should support education teaching people the understanding that expanding the human kind is not the purpose of their lives, as the Creator aimed to populate the Earth, but the aim was to populate the Earth with wise, righteous and happy people, rather than with suffering, depraved and miserable people. Destructive restrictions, such as wars, famine and catastrophes follow where preventive restrictions fail [3-5].

a) The movement promoting the control of birth rate using contraception applied with medically adequate means during the 19th century was labelled as neo-Malthusianism. The paradox is that the movement strived to limit birth rate using the means rejected T. R. Malthus. However, neo-Malthusianism was in agreement with T. R. Malthus in the notion that the control of birth rate needs to focus on the social classes with the greatest population growth.
b) The political implications of the paradoxical name of the movement suggesting successors of T. R. Malthus were that the working class approached the movement with certain distrust, although for example the explicit promotion of contraception, such as cervical caps and coitus interruptus, is associated with the work of the political activist Francis Place (1771-1843), who was initially a worker. While neo-Malthusianism stressed out mainly the control of birth rate, this limited objective was in fact part of much wider politically emancipating efforts during the 19th century, including expanding the right to vote, fight for women’s rights and freedom of speech. Despite all of its proclamation, which may have even seemed cynical at first, neo-Malthusianism was characterized by significant social empathy and great reforming enthusiasm. Neo-Malthusianism was therefore also referred to as social neo-Malthusianism. Neo-Malthusians were not blind to human suffering.
c) Women played a major role in the neo-Malthusian movement, for example Margaret Sanger (1879-1966). Extensive activities of Margaret Sanger in the promotion of contraception, family planning and women’s rights included participation in the development of oral contraceptives. In the 1950s, Margaret Sanger was the president of the International Planned Parenthood Federation and cooperated with the team of the American gynecologist Gregory Pincus in the development of oral contraceptives. A clinical trial of oral contraceptives was initiated in Puerto Rico in 1956 [6]. This is also one of the manifestations of neo-Malthusianism, although after World War II, i.e. during an era described in the subsequent chapter.
d) Some representatives of neo-Malthusianism claimed the need for differential fertility not only with regard to social classes, but also from the perspective of eugenics. Therefore, the significantly antinatalist rhetoric of neo-Malthusians aimed at population growth in “socially inferior groups and classes”, as well as population growth among mentally defective persons and persons burdened with hereditary diseases. This eugenic aspect, highly problematic from the perspective of the tragic events of the 20th century, was a frequent, albeit not decisive part of neo-Malthusian efforts. However, perhaps any attempt to control birth rate carries a certain risk of veering towards the strategy of eugenic differential fertility; this needs to be considered and this dangerous boundary is not to be crossed.
e) The second paradox of the neo-Malthusianism is that the movement was haunted by misunderstanding manifested in judicial disputes and scandals throughout its rather tumultuous existence, yet from the modern perspective, it started in the first half of the 19th century as a socially useful and generally supportable activity from the viewpoint of all social classes.
Healthcare workers aimed to eliminate criminal abortions and high morbidity and mortality rate among mothers due to their previous abortions by methodical application of contraception. The question of this attempt being pronatalist or antinatalist is of no great significance. This pragmatic and restrained character of neo-Malthusianism also suffered by the fact that additional streams used the medical basis of the movement as their starting point. This was, for example, the case of anarchists, who wanted to use contraception for their vision of free love and destruction of the traditional family as a bourgeois anachronism. Perhaps any movement striving to control birth rate with contraception risks to be abused by hedonist anarchism.
f) Naturally, neo-Malthusianism had its intended and unintended consequences. While the movement declared itself to be a strongly antinatalist stream, its activities – by understandable paradox – were a mixture of antinatalist and generally rationalizing consequences when it comes to birth rate. The topic of contraception has been historically associated with extramarital sexuality, criminal abortions and sexually transmitted diseases. The promotion of contraception placed neo-Malthusianism in a suspicious domain due to the impression that the movement essentially assisted with deeper intrenchment of these social problems. However, it gradually became clear that this was not the case. The systematic effort to control birth rate with contraception and thus prevent criminal abortions and generally protect women’s health at least partially disrupted the pathological social milieu and supported the strength of the marital commitment as such and consequently also the ability of families to rationally adjust to the general social trends.
g) The demographic development in Great Britain at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century can be mentioned as an example. As Zdeněk Pavlík wrote in connection with the British population development: “The entire 19th century is influenced by strong neo-Malthusian propaganda associated with the names of Ch. Bradlaugh and A. Besant. While the English population development could have been influenced by the immediate effects of this propaganda, the material conditions the population faced were decisive in limiting the number of children in families. Most of the factors generally seen as the causes of decreasing birth rate can indeed be identified during this period. Child labour is gradually abolished and compulsory schooling is extended to ten years of age in 1880 and to fourteen years of age in 1900. Higher levels of education open to women and a great number of women with a certain level of education do not marry at all; the number of people living in towns or cities rises swiftly and restriction of birth rate spreads promptly in these urban environments”. This study is of the opinion that the British society was undergoing generally positive rationalizing process in the last decades of the 20th century, creating conditions for rational family planning and decline in birth rate; rationalizing consequences of the inner reforming and socially empathic spirit of neo- Malthusianism helped in the development in the society rather than the neo-Malthusian antinatalist propaganda as such.
h) This is why the reactions of certain states to neo- Malthusianism were rather superficial, based simply on proclamation instead of a deeper analysis or the specific consequences of this clearly polymorphic movement [7], which consequently affected mainly rational family planning, regardless or its overall antinatalist effect. For example, the official attitude to neo-Malthusianism in France after World War I tended to be overtly hostile. However, it is necessary to stress out that while the loss suffered by France during World War I had a paralyzing depopulation effect on the French society, the birth rate in France began to decline already in the 18th century. This may be the reason for the strongly pronatalist French population policy and it is hardly surprising that the pronatalist character intensified between the two world wars.

Malthusianism, Neo-Malthusianism and Environmentalism

Modern environmentalism built on the ideological foundations of Malthusianism and neo-Malthusianism, assuming elements of pessimism and catastrophism arising from the fatal link between the growth of population and limited natural resources. However, the moral ethos of environmentalism gradually deviated from the Malthusian and neo-Malthusian pessimism and created a new type of optimistic engagement in the society, which strived to transform the traditional antagonisms between all biological and all civilizational into new synthesis. The topic of permeation of Malthusianism or neo-Malthusianism in the modern environmentalism is a great topic addressed only briefly in this study. Firstly, it is important to mention the globally renowned book The Limits to Growth, which was a response to the concerns of the so-called Club of Rome, an international group of entrepreneurs, politicians and scientists, regarding the topic of the uncontrolled growth of the world’s population, the consequences of this growth for the environment and its resources, and on management of the global economy to make it permanently sustainable within the physical limits of the planet Earth.

When quoting the first summarizing conclusion of this book, one cannot but notice its clearly Malthusian or neo-Malthusian character: “Should the current trend of growth of the world’s population, industrialization, pollution, food production and depletion of natural resources continue, the limits to growth will be achieved on this planet within the next hundred years. This will most probably lead to sudden and uncontrollable decline in population and industrial capacity”. Twenty years later, i.e. in 1991, the authors of The Limits to Growth reviewed the validity of their conclusion, arriving at the opinion that the limits to growth have been exceeded in a number of aspects. However, the formulation of the conclusions differs from The Limits to Growth slightly, as they focus primarily on the environment. Therefore, they literally copied Malthusianism and neo-Malthusianism by stressing the link between demography and economic growth, yet at the same time moved away from the Malthusian and neo-Malthusian demographic alarmism step by step.

The updated first summarizing conclusion reads: “The usage of vital natural resources and production of many types of pollutants by humans have already exceeded the physically sustainable limit. If the flow of material and energy is not limited significantly, the upcoming decades will see uncontrolled decline in food production, energy usage and industrial production per person”. The waning of demographic alarmism within environmentalism may have also been caused by the global demographic transition. Until 1970, death rate declined faster than birth rate, but since 1970 birth rate has been declining somewhat faster than death rate. While the growth of the global population remains exponential, the rate of the growth will be reduced. Therefore, the topic of population only appeared in the second summarizing conclusion: “This decline is not unavoidable. To changes are needed to avoid this. Firstly, it is comprehensive review of policies and practices leading to permanent growth of material consumption and population. Secondly, it is prompt and drastic increase in the effectiveness and material and energy usage” [8].

Catastrophism is only one of the alternatives for environmentalism. While Malthusian pessimism is not one-sided either, it only offers one alternative – population oscillating near the minimum level of living, provided that drastic measures are applied with regard to population and that the humankind essentially annuls the biblical ideas of the sanctity of multiplication of humanity. However, exceeding the limits is more optimistic than realistic, as it is in Malthusianism. T. R. Malthus would ask about the metaphysical and ethical reservoir giving rise to the option of permanently sustainable development, which is higher than the poor and miserable level dedicated to humans. Where does the optimistic vision of exceeding the limits draw its confidence and belief that exceeding the limits to growth does not necessarily lead to collapse?

Let’s therefore try to define – although within a limited space – the metaphysical and ethical reservoir that gives rise to the optimism of the current environmentalism.

Auguste Comte, the founder of positivism, considered the society to be an organic unit subject to historical principles. Herbert Spencer elaborated on this idea, including demographic topics. Spencer believed that the human society is similar to a biological organism and therefore is subject to self-regulation. Spencer’s approach consequentially opposes the Malthusian and neo-Malthusian catastrophism, claiming that self-regulation in the sense of reducing birth rate, especially in higher social classes, prevents catastrophes from unfolding as a demographic solution to absolute overpopulation. At the same time, Spencer rides the same wave with neo-Malthusianism: changes in birth rate and death rate are a dynamic factor continuously modulating demographic growth to ensure that it never grows into autonomous escalation. Spencer is of the opinion that the more complicated an organism is, the more energy it is forced to dedicate to its self-preservation and the less energy remains for multiplication. “Each kind multiplies until it reaches a threshold, where death rate from all causes matches birth rate. If death rate is reduced by eliminating or mitigating some of these causes, the number of new beings will naturally grow until death rate and birth rate are in balance again”.

This study uses the term rational in the attempt to describe the approach of neo-Malthusianism to family planning regardless of any antinatalist effect. Perhaps the definition of rationality by Herbert Spencer best describes the rationality of neo-Malthusianism. Spencer states: “The rational commandment is: live for yourself and for others”. The unusual bipolarity that does not state what being is and how being is, instead refers to the unity of the world and an organism is typical for all organicist approaches. Spencer’s rationalism and therefore neo-Malthusian rationalism is based on the dialectics of the key term of balance or homeostasis of the natural environment in the intertwined structure of natural and social sciences: “Because if biology is related to sociology indirectly as result of certain parallelism of the studied groups of phenomena, it relates to sociology directly by studying living conditions of a being whose characteristics are the source and stimulus of social development. A human being is at the same time the final problem for biology and the starting impulse for sociology” [9]. If a society can be perceived as a certain kind of a biological organism, it must be subject to the laws of evolution, which Charles Darwin strived to study and describe. On the one hand, Darwin applied directly Malthus’ assumptions of multiplication of species in geometric progression.

On the other hand, he weakened the Malthusian catastrophism with the principle of continuous effect of natural selection against the background of summation of minor positive deviations in evolution and their transfer to the subsequent generation through the principle of material heredity. Darwin’s theories of natural and sexual selection [10,11] significantly contributed to the decisive impact of evolutionism and anti-creationism during the last decades of the 19th century in natural and social sciences alike. For the sake of understanding the roots of ecology as a strictly scientific field, it is worth mentioning, for example, the geographic school, which was influenced greatly by evolutionism of the 19th century. “In the science of the environment, the part focusing on the impact of the geographic environment called anthropogeography was elaborated on in the greatest detail. Its application was completed by the German ethnographer, geographer and a professor at the Leipzig university, Friedrich Ratzel (1844-1904). Ratzel considered anthropogeography to be a special branch of biogeography, i.e. the science of the spread of beings throughout the world and any associated issues”.

This is where the term biocenosis or ecosystem appeared. Similar to any other large movement, modern environmentalism also has its prehistoric era, its history, topology of the prehistoric era and topology of history. All these stages defined in time and space can be studied from the perspective of growing historical optimism at the expense of the Malthusian pessimism forming the foundations of environmentalism. Rachel Carson in her work entitled Silent Spring pointed to the grave problem of chemization of the environment and proposed possible solutions. From the outer perspective, the work seems to be alarmist and catastrophist in line with the Malthusian approach. However, complete departure from Malthusianism is declared beneath the surface. As regards the logical sequence of contemplations presented by Rachel Carson in her work, the following idea is crucial: “The entire process of spraying is essentially a vicious circle. As soon as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) was released for civilian use, the chase to identify increasingly poisonous substances began. Insects triumphantly demonstrating Darwin’s principle of survival of the fittest develop and only superior individuals immune to any new pesticide survive”. However, what can change the practice of predominantly industrial humanity to halt on the path of chemization, given that the humanity cannot be anything but industrial?

While Malthusianism is clueless when faced with this dilemma, Carson outlines a path subsequently followed by environmentalism, aiming at environmental biocentrism. This is something different from hylozoism in the sense of the ancient Greek philosophy, where everything is living, including minerals. Environmentalist biocentrism seems to be a kind of traditional anthropocentrism referring to nature. According to environmentalist biocentrism, nature has the moral qualities the humanity lacks. Nature has such inherent moral qualities that one can learn from nature and thus eliminate traditional antagonisms arising from the traditional anthropocentrism. The traditional human morality is to be absorbed by the adopted morality of nature. Environmentalist biocentrism is the source of environmentalist optimism, and this means that it not only surpassed Malthusianism, but also disassociated from Malthusianism. The pessimistic Malthusianism is inherently anthropocentric, although it warns of the declining natural resources in connection with absolute overpopulation. Darwin’s teaching of the natural and sexual selection is also anthropocentric. While nature contains unimaginably sophisticated mechanisms, this does not mean that the man looks up to nature as a moral authority.

While the approaches applied by Herbert Spencer appear to be present in environmentalist biocentrism, these are in fact eliminated meticulously from the thought processes of environmentalism. To quote an impetus for further contemplation: “One common theme appears across all these new, sophisticated and creative approaches to the issue of sharing the Earth with other creatures. This is the awareness that we are dealing with living creatures – with populations of organisms, their pressure and counterpressure, their growth and decline. We can only find rational balance between our species and hordes of insects if we bear in mind the aspects of life referred to above and if we guide them carefully in a manner bringing benefit for us” [12]. Environmental biocentrism uncorrected by pessimism is a source of environmentalist optimism, which tends to expand and thus becomes intangible. This is reflected in unrealistic and even fanciful assumptions and ideas. Unity of the mankind as regards management of natural resources on the Earth cracks, as the question of what the vulnerability of biosphere should correctly be called is asked. There are two different basic terminological approaches – firstly the one applied in evolutionism of the 19th and 20th century, and secondly one based mainly on environmental biocentrism.

The People’s Republic of China declared in October 1949 is the heir of many complex problems arising from the thousands of years of the Chinese history. In the 18th century, during the reign of the emperors Kang-Hi and Kien Long, population grew significantly during a relatively long period of peace and economic prosperity. The population grew gradually during the 19th century, despite the decline in Chinese economy. This was caused by lowering death rate on the island of Taiwan, which was occupied by Japan until the end of World War II, and in continental China, where certain elementary hygienic measures began to be applied. The discussion leading to the policy of one child was triggered by the first census in 1953, which found that China had 580 million people, and this was significantly higher than anticipated. Until then, the leaders of the Chinese communist party promoted the traditional pronatalist ideology: large population was seen as a symbol of the nation’s greatness and an instrument of defense against the intentions of colonial powers. However, this pronatalist thinking was gradually replaced by a Marxist opinion, which rejects the control of birth rate as a key instrument for addressing demographic issues.

The population of China grew fast after the establishment of the People’s Republic of China. This was caused by unprecedented measures introduced by the state administration: free medical care was provided along with sickness benefits equal to 60-100% of the normal income during the first six months of illness, disability and old-age pension. China had no public healthcare before the revolution. In 1957, the death rate in the People’s Republic of China dropped to a level comparable to the developed world. Steps to increase birth rate were made, emancipation of women progressed, superfluous obstacles preventing divorced and widowed people from entering into marriage were abolished [13]. The first step in the gradual revision of the originally purely pronatalist thinking of the People’s Republic of China, which is integrated with the Marxist notion of full social determinedness of demographic issues, to the neo-Malthusian prioritization of the control of birth rate was made in 1955, when the PRC started to produce contraceptives and abortions and sterilizations became legal. In 1973, the number of residents was stated in economic plans as an indicator for the first time, and in the same year a family planning conference adopted the key points for controlling birth rate until the end of the 1970s.

The rule that women should marry between their 23rd and 25th year of age was to be increasingly enforced and the recommended age for men was 25 to 28 years. The maximum number of children per couple was determined at 2 and children were to be 4 years apart. However, these recommendations were not to apply to national minorities. At the end of the 1970s and beginning of the 1980s, China responded to its increasing economic problems after the end of the cultural revolution by introducing the policy of one child. The transition from the policy of two permitted children to the policy of one child was gradual, complex and regionally differentiated. The applied medical procedures, such as officially ordered abortions and sterilizations were increasingly criticized. The repressive supervision of compliance with the policy of one child deepened after 1990. However, from 1998, the policy of one child expanded in modern fields of medicine, such as reproductive health, free gynecological care and consultancy, care for patients with HIV/AIDS and with sexually transmitted diseases (STIs). Most of the national minorities were included in the parenthood planning policy from the second half of the 1980s.

As regards specific medical aspects of controlling the birth rate under the policy of one child, cervical caps were preferred as the main contraceptive method and sterilizations were only carried out after the birth of a second child. Nonetheless, certain provinces with fast growth of population promoted sterilization already after the birth of the first child. Around 10% of the population used hormonal contraception or condoms due to financial costs, although this proportion was higher in cities. The number of abortions carried out was exceptionally high. The overall outcomes of the systematic application of neo-Malthusian principles over the decades were breathtaking. While the number of children born on average to one woman was 6.1 in 1953, this number dropped to 1.5 in 2010. Life expectancy at birth in 1953 was 40,3 years, yet in 2010 it was 74,5 years [14]. The merciless application of neo- Malthusian principles, i.e. putting the control of birth rate first, transformed life expectancy and quality of life in the Chinese society in the positive sense, in addition to the overall economic and scientific and technological development. It was authentic social neo-Malthusianism responding to an extreme situation, albeit outside the boundaries of the traditional humanism especially in its European context.

Principally, it was an honest game rather than a false game with ulterior objectives aimed outside the interests of the Chinese society.

The following can be concluded from the above facts:
a) The People’s Republic of China was probably mostly successful at making sure that measures of a neo-Malthusian character did not cross the dangerous boundary of a clear strategy of eugenic differential fertility. Significant deformation of the sex-ratio resulting from the preference of male children through sex-selective abortions, which were often carried out illegally in the case of the policy of one child, is a problem associated with this approach.
b) The People’s Republic of China clearly avoided the measures of a neo-Malthusian character being abused by hedonist anarchism.
c) Neo-Malthusianism was demonstrated in its pure form for the first time in the entire global history in the policy of one child in the People’s Republic of China. In this case, neo- Malthusianism seems to have eliminated at least part of its paradoxicality.
d) However, it is essential to note that in the case of the policy of one child, measures of a neo-Malthusian character were implemented in an environment of a Marxist character, which is characterized by the concept of planned development of the human society and a close link between demographics and the economy. The Marxist approach is reflected in Mao Zedong’s understanding of reproduction as a factor that cannot be allowed to develop chaotically and should be subjected to a social plan. This may be the reason why the People’s Republic of China was able to avoid the pitfalls of eugenic differential fertility and hedonist anarchism. As if the assertion of modern contraceptive methods to control the birth rate in the context of planned development was a per partes method on the one side, yet the method delivered general effect on the society on the other side.

The pronounced aging of the Chinese population is the negative side of the successful policy of one child. The authors of the study entitled “Population Planning after the One-Child Policy: Shifting Modes of Political Steering in China”, B. Alpermann and S. Zhan state: “The inevitable corollary of this rapid demographic transition is that China is aging fast. While this has long been anticipated by the Chinese government, the speed of population aging has clearly exceeded earlier expectation [15]. The consequences are understandable: During 2013-2015, the strictly applied policy of one child was relaxed and the People’s Republic of China transitioned to the Universal-Two-Child-Policy. However, the control of birth rate applied as a measure of a neo-Malthusian character, i.e. the top-priority objective, remains unchanged. The state firmly holds the authority to decide on any future interventions in this area. The policy of one child has been entrenched deeply in the Chinese society and became internalized. The state gradually develops a multilevel strategy for engaging seniors in the country’s political and economic life.

The current scientific opinion is that hormonal contraception in the most effective reversible method for preventing conception. The idea of hormonal blocking of ovulation was pursued over one hundred years and these efforts culminated in 1960, when the first commercially available oral hormonal contraception, ENOVID was marketed, followed by ANOVLAR available in Europe one year later. While outstanding efficacy of these first products was confirmed, certain side effect appeared, some being even very serious. Since the side effects were dose dependent, the development over the following thirty years focused on gradual reduction of estrogen and progestogen doses contained in the products. The popularity of combined oral contraception (COC) peaked at the end of the 1970s. With gradually declining popularity of COC in the 1980s pharmaceutical companies stopped marketing the existing contraceptives as the most effective and reversible method for preventing conception, offering oral contraceptives as the so-called “lifestyle drug” from the 1990s [16,17].

Let’s look at the study by Daniel Bendix and Suzanne Shultz “The Political Economy of Family Planning: Population Dynamics and Contraceptive Markets”. Bendix and Shultz state: “Proposing birth reduction among the global poor as a solution of various global crisis phenomena – from poverty, economic recession, migration and patriarchal systems to ecological destruction – and thus blaming the poor rather than, for instance, inequality, is typical for neo-Malthusianism”. The authors therefore describe the main trend in the population policy of multinational establishment and multinational corporations with regard to the global South as neo- Malthusian. This trend involves discussion around the Demographic Dividend, as well as the evaluation tool entitled Age Structure as the decisive universal approach to the analysis of social groups to the level of individual states. Regardless of the nature of the discourse, multinational pharmaceutical companies are in practice given the unique opportunity to penetrate the market with contraceptives in the global South once and for all.

If the stress on the control of birth rate using modern contraceptives is the prioritized objective, regardless of all of its nuances, if the issue of economic, environmental and cultural equality is set aside, the business opportunities for the pharmaceutical industry is all the more promising. Bendix and Shultz state: “Neo-Malthusian economic reductionism and the technocratic family planning approach provide a favorable climate for the pharmaceutical industry to access new opportunities for marketing and financing and allow for diversified strategies to conquer, secure or expand contraceptive markets” [18]. However, does this overall approach, which will be eventually reflected in practice in the development of a market with modern contraceptives throughout the global South, truly have a neo-Malthusian character? This study claims that it seems to be the case at the first sight, but this is only the external impression. This approach entirely lacks empathy, social reformation effort and moral ethos, which has been historically typical for neo-Malthusianism. However, this discredits neo-Malthusianism and leaves in particular the global South in a situation of a wandering and paralyzed player.

To maintain objectiveness, it is necessary to state that systematic usage of hormonal contraceptives to control birth rate within integrated reproductive health of women is indeed a greatly important strategy for resolving the population problems in the global South. However, if the entire combination of social and economic problems is not resolved, the consumption of contraceptives will continue to grow and the entire vicious circle will be increasingly entrenched.

3rd Global Population Congress in Bucharest and Deformed Neo-Malthusianism

An iconic moment in the 3rd Global Population Congress in Bucharest in 1974 was the speech of the spokesperson of the US delegation, who stressed out that the United States did not consider demographic programmes aimed at the control of birth rate to be a substitute for social and economic development. Instead, these programmes were an integral part of this development. The conclusion reached in Bucharest was that demographic problems facing the humanity, when escalated, cannot be resolved merely by demographic or neo-Malthusian approaches focused primarily on the control of birth rate. Instead, purely population focused approaches need to be integrated in the wider frame of the economic and social development. Interestingly, these opinions were voiced not only by delegates of western countries, but also by intellectuals of the current developing world, who identified themselves as Marxist, i.e. rejected neo-Malthusianism as such, eo ipso neo- Malthusian approaches of the western countries, explaining them as a way of economic tie up and control of the global South.

What is understood by the term of deformed neo- Malthusianism? The 3rd Global Population Congress in Bucharest is generally considered to be of a neo-Malthusian nature. Indeed, it was empathic and authentically neo-Malthusian. It was honest in seeking solutions to unprecedented global problems. This congress brought a balanced combination of neo-Malthusian rhetoric, which sees intervention in the population’s reproduction as important, with the rhetoric of industrialism, which does not believe that demographic measures are the ultimate solution and sees the need for systematic elimination of poverty throughout the developing world through its industrialization. It is important to recall the claim by T. R. Malthus that poverty triggers uncontrollable population growth. On the other hand, deformed neo-Malthusianism speaks of neo-Malthusian measures applied in India and China with moralizing contempt, declaring that the state should not intervene in the reproductive privacy of its citizens, while eugenic measures are in fact already being carried out, i.e. measures at the very bottom edge of neo-Malthusianism, within its high-risk zone, as shown for example in the paper by E. Dyck and M. Lux “Population Control in the “Global North?”: Canada’s Response to Indigenous Reproductive Rights and Neo-Eugenics” [19]. However, this study will not elaborate on this problem excessively, as it only sees this as an attempt to understand deformed neo-Malthusianism.

The change in the rhetoric in the current times is clearly noticeable in the study “Conceiving of Contraception: World Society, Cultural Resistance, and Contraceptive Use, 1970-2012”. “World cultural rhetoric frames contraception as a necessity for economic development, a human right issue, and women’s health matter… Women’s rights activists criticized development rhetoric for treating women as factors of (re)production rather than as autonomous and self-determining agents. During the 1970s, feminists began to assert that contraceptive access is a fundamental human right that enables to make their own reproductive choices…International conferences on human rights (Vienna, 1993), population (Cairo,1994), and women (Beijing, 1995) forged a connection between women’s empowerment and reproductive health. In sum, world society discourses emphasize that contraception is beneficial for economic development, essential for women’s health outcomes, and a fundamental human right. All else being equal, world society integration should correspond with higher rates of contraceptive use” [20].

What is happening? Women’s rights, naturally undoubted, are removed and placed outside the clear association with demographic measures aimed at birth rate control and the necessity of integrating demographic measures in the wider context of economic and social development not only in poor countries. The one-sided emphasis on women’s rights, including the reproductive rights, seems to move aside the factor of economic and social development as a key instrument that essentially creates the space for exercising women’s rights, including their reproductive rights. Women’s rights are thus counterposed against the entire block of civil and human rights, which are the source of the actual implementation of women’s rights. Therefore, they become the narrative of the deformed anti-Malthusianism, which disrupts the unity of authentic neo-Malthusianism combined with the requirement of economic and social development as an essential condition for resolving demographic issues. This was achieved successfully at least in declarations at the Bucharest congress in 1974.

In his book entitled “Die Frau und der Socialisms” August Bebel writes: “The origination of Malthus’ theory came during the period of change in the English industry, during which cotton and wool industry changed significantly as result of inventions by Mr. Hargreaves and Mr. Arkwright. Hundreds of thousands of workers in the affected industries lost their livelihood… It was comfortable to attribute the rapid growth of superfluous working population to the workers themselves and thus conceal the original causes of this misery – concentration of production and lands in the hands of lords. Malthus stepped out with his “work” justifying the course of action of the governing party under these circumstances, and the governing party accepted and praised the work”.

Bebel continues: “Darwinists share the concern from overpopulation and modern Malthusians base their conclusions on Darwinism. Anything that applies to animals is transferred to humans without further adjustment, without realizing that the man as the most perfect creature studies the laws of nature and therefore is able to control and utilize these laws” [21]. Marxism rejects the absolute contrast between the society and nature, as well as complete identification of the society with nature. As regards the character of population laws, according to Marx these are “natural laws, but only natural laws of the man at a certain level of historical development with the development of production forces determined by the man’s historical development”. Human reproduction according to Marx is one side of the “two-sided” relationship: on the one side, it is a natural, biological relationship (production of life by giving birth), on the other side it is a social relationship (production of life through work)”. The phenomenon of overpopulation takes unique, historically unrepeatable forms over time with changes in production procedures and in certain dependency on geographic conditions.

Overpopulation, meaning relative rather than absolute overpopulation, is a moving force of the capitalist production method. According to Marx, the capital has the tendency to multiply the population as much as possible, while at the same time exclude a part of the population as superfluous. The value of the capital is best increased in this manner. Overpopulation according to Marx is always relative and is eliminated once a fair social order is restored. Malthus sees the population law as an eternal and irremovable. Marx on the other hand claims that the population law is eternal and irremovable only in the realms of nature. Once the man interferes in nature with its inventions and work, the population law ceases to apply as an absolute inherent principle. According to Marx, Malthus is mistaken in considering all types of overpopulation as homogeneous. In addition, Malthus is wrong in seeing two sequences behind overpopulation: the geometric growth of population on one side and the arithmetic growth of means of sustenance on the other side.

On the other hand, Marx appreciates the socially engaged pathos of Malthusianism: “We derive the most striking economic arguments for social reform from Malthus’ theory; even if Malthus was right, this reform would still need to be implemented immediately, because only this reform and education of the masses brought by the reform would enable the moral restriction of the multiplication instinct, which Malthus himself describes as the most effective and the easiest instrument against overpopulation”. According to the founder of the soviet state, V. I. Lenin, the control of birth rate as such is directed correctly. He stressed the need for medical promotion of birth rate control and the right of women to an elective abortion. The soviet government made elective abortions legal throughout the Soviet Union as early as in 1923. This measure was in line with the objectives of the newly established state, aiming to eliminate one of the pressing problems of the time – infanticide and abandonment of children. However, the capacity of the soviet medical system was insufficient for meeting the needs arising from exercising the rights of women and controlling birth rate.

On the other hand, Lenin blamed the neo-Malthusian movement of diverting the workers’ movement from its main objective – fighting for social justice and overthrowing the social system that caused the adverse situation. In the terminology of the time, Lenin believed that social neo-Malthusianism expressed the pessimism of bourgeoisie, which focused on the consequences instead of addressing the causes inherent to the capitalist social order. Direct quote from his text from 1913 “The Working Class and Neo-Malthusianism” can serve as an example: “Naturally, this does not prevent us from requiring that all laws prosecuting elective abortions or dissemination of medical documents on protective measures, etc. be abolished. Such laws are mere hypocrisy of the ruling classes. These laws will not heal the ulcers of capitalism. Instead, they will cause these problems to be particularly devastating and heavy for the oppressed masses. The freedom of medical propaganda and the protection of elementary democratic rights of male and female citizens is something different from the social teaching of neo-Malthusianism. Conscious workers will always fight relentlessly against all attempts to force this reactionary and cowardly teaching to the most progressive and the strongest class in the current society, to a class that is best prepared for great changes” [22].

The approaches to population issues developed over time in the Soviet Union. At first, the “population law of socialism” was defined as pronatalist, because the birth rate would necessarily grow as the obstacles to harmonious development of the population were removed. However, the population development in the Soviet Union and in its East European allies did not in fact confirm the pronatalist character of the “population law of socialism”. Many soviet demographists came to the conclusion over time that the demographic attitude assuming that everything in socialism unfolds differently to capitalism was wrong. As the birth rate curve showed a declining trend similarly to the death rate curve in the Soviet Union, the soviet demography came to the conclusion that the population law of socialism should be neither pronatalist, nor antinatalist. The humanity should strive for qualitative, rather than quantitative improvement, mainly in the aspect of harmonization of individual and social interests.

Consequences of the Success of the Control of Birth Rate in the PRC for the Global Demographic Thinking Let’s attempt to analyses the situation, in which the People’s Republic of China successfully united two opposing principles, i.e. Marxism and neo-Malthusianism, to protect the country from absolute overpopulation and subsequent collapse of the state. It is necessary to highlight that the risk of absolute overpopulation arises from the historical development of China as a country with a high birth rate and a high death rate followed by gradually declining death rate. The country’s status before the demographic transition or before the emerging demographic transition is bound to have great inertia. The question is what the consequences of the following factors are: a) continued Marxist orientation of the PRC; b) neo-Malthusianism applied over decades as a systematic approach with the control of birth rate being specified as the main social objective with the concurrent effort to eliminate the burden of eugenic differential fertility and anarchist tendencies as much as possible.

The first clear consequence is that Marxist description of the principles of population dynamics is not sufficient in terms of description of the demographic development of the society at the time over longer periods of time. The application of purely Marxist approaches does not result in reliable demographic prognoses. This is not to say that Marxism applied per partes would not be legitimate in the issues of population. The proposed idea is that a general review is needed. The example of the successful application of the policy of one child in the People’s Republic of China shows that previously unknown demographic principles decide the fate of societies from the long-term perspective. This historical lesson learnt by the PRC and consequently by the rest of the world says that even those who perceive population issues as primarily socially determined are forced to repeatedly revise their entire spectrum of demographic thinking. Yet it is true that despite the limits of social reforms faced with unknown demographic principles, societies need to attempt these reforms repeatedly and strive to achieve rational and proportionate justice.

The second consequence is the following: This study claims that T. R. Malthus is not an advocate serving the interests of the elite of his time, although his work may have been used by the propaganda at the time. Malthus’ strong footing in Christianity and elementary truthfulness is clear in his work, as he strives to communicate the truth without the falsity of comforting optimism, although the truth is always limited by the relevant time. Malthus does not claim that the inevitable occurrence of wars or catastrophes under certain circumstances makes social reforms futile. Instead, he points out that social reforms can only change little in the humanity and its overall situation. Yet, Malthus did not abandon his faith in God or specifically Christian religion, did not become a nihilist, meaning that he still saw unquestionable purpose in the existence of the humanity anchored in God. Despite his skepticism, which may be seen as skepticism derived from the Old Testament and the prophetic books (although Malthus’ skepticism is not this far reaching), Malthus at least believes in the purgatorial effect of the truth.

While Karl Marx is one of the most avid critics of the teaching of Thomas R. Malthus, the two thinkers do not differ greatly in their underlying approach to reality. They both strive to seek the truth beyond the limits of the possible, although it may appear from the outside that they advocate for individual interests. However, the multifaceted nature of the social reality, its diachrony, and permanent discrepancy between the intention and result bring about the significant difference in the historical role played by each of them. The interval that has passed since their time in the third decade of the 21st century allows us to objectively assess certain ideologies of the 19th and 20th century, which claimed to be universally applicable. The world currently appears to be as dynamic and ontologically ambiguous that it cannot be explained and restrained by a single system of thought. It is becoming clear that the world is radically indefinite and its dialectics is interminable. While this does not invalidate the essence of the ideological movements of the 19th and 20th century, such as Marxism, Malthusianism or neo- Malthusianism, it narrows down their applicability.

The author would like to thank the Study and Scientific Library of the Plzeň Region for their help with researching the topic.

1. Daniel Driák (2020) Antikoncepce. Praha: Galén PP. 467.
2. Ludmila Nesládková (2003) Reprodukce kulturně odlišných skupin obyvatelstva jižní Moravy v novověku na příkladu křesťanů a židů. Praha: Česká demografická společnost PP. 255.
3. Marek Loužek (2010) Populační pesimista Thomas Malthus. In: Robert Holman et al. (editor Marek Loužek) Thomas Malthus: 175 let od smrti. Praha: CEP – Centrum pro ekonomiku a politiku PP. 137, PP. 41-59.
4. Marek Loužek (2013) Populační ekonomie a její důsledky pro účinnost pronatalitních politik. Praha: Národohospodářský ústav Josefa Hlávky PP. 125.
5. Zdeněk Pavlík (2010) Význam Thomase Malthuse pro demografii. In: Robert Holman et al. (editor Marek Loužek) Thomas Malthus: 175 let od smrti. Praha: CEP – Centrum pro ekonomiku a politiku PP. 137, PP. 17-27.
6. Dana Seidlová, Jan Hugo (1997) Kontracepce pro praxi. Praha: MAXDORF s.r.o., Jessenius PP.
7. Alena Šubrtová (ed), Jaroslav Purš (ed.) (1989) Dějiny populačního myšlení a populačních teorií. Praha: Ústav československých a světových dějin ČSAV PP. 691. (reproduced in the Institute of Czechoslovak and World History of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences – for internal purposes only).
8. Donella H. Meadowsová, Dennis L. Meadows, Jǿrgen Randers (1995) Překročení mezí – konfrontace globálního kolapsu s představou trvale udržitelné Translated by Pavla Polechová a Ladislav Zvolánek. Praha: Argo PP. 319.
9. Herbert Spencer (1898) O studiu sociologie. Translated by Josef Pelcl. Praha: Josef Pelcl, společným nákladem Rozhledů a Spolku českých právníků Všehrd PP. 368.
10. Charles Darwin (2007) O vzniku druhů přírodním výbě Translated by Emil Hadač a Alena Hadačová. Second revised edition. Praha: Nakladatelství Academia PP. 579.
11. Charles Darwin (2005) O pohlavním výbě Translated by Hana Marsault-Rejlková. Praha: Academia, nakladatelství Akademie věd České republiky PP. 470.
12. Rachel Carsonová (1921) Tiché Translated by Filip Drlík. Brno: nakladatelství Host PP. 376.
13. Zdeněk Pavlík (1964) Nástin populačního vývoje svě Praha: Nakladatelství Československé akademie věd PP. 308.
14. Thomas Scharping (2014) Bevölkerungpolitik und demographische Entwicklung in China: Alte Probleme, neue Perspektiven. Kölner China-Studien Online - Arbeitspapiere zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Chinas. Köln: Moderne China-Studien Köln PP. 22.
15. Björn Alperman, Shaoshua Zhan (2019) Population Planning after the One-Child Policy: Shifting Modes of Political Steering in China. Journal of Contemporary China 28(117): 348-366.
16. Elizabeth Siegel Watkins (2012) How the Pill Became a Lifestyle Drug – the Pharmaceutical Industry and Birth Control in the United States Since 1960. Am J Public Health 102(8): 1462-1472.
17. Tomáš Hájek (2022) Kontexty vlivu neomalthusiánství na aktuální otázky kontroly porodnosti. In: XXV. Košické sexuologické dni, Hotel DoubleTree by Hilton Košice, Slovakia.
18. Daniel Bendix, Suzanne Schultz (2017) The Political Economy of Family Planning: Population Dynamics and Contraceptive Markets: Focus: The Political Economy of Family Planning. Development and Change 49(2): 259-285.
19. Erika Dyck, Maureen Lux (2021) Population Control in the Global North? Canada´s Response to Indigenous Reproductive Rights and Neo-Eugenics. The Canadian Historical Review 102(3): 876-902.
20. Wade M. Cole, Claudia Geist (2021) Conceiving of Contraception: World Society, Cultural Resistance, and Contraceptive Use, 1970-2012. Social Forces 99(4): 1394-1431.
21. August Bebel (1896) Žena v minulosti, přítomnosti a budoucnosti. Authorised translation of the 25th jubilee edition. Translated by Karel Vaně Praha: časopis Socialní democrat PP. 470.
22. Vladimír Iljič Lenin (1957) Dělnická třída a novomalthusiánství. Praha: vydavatelství Ústředního výboru KSČ 611, PP. 229-231.