what is doomism? + why you have to fight it

doomism, is, simply put, the idea that we are doomed. 

here the argument in 3 points.

1. There are too many people in the world. (this comes straight from Malthus)

Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will shew the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second. (p. 4).

Not true. Many of the most populated countries are in, ready? Europe. Southeast Asia has the same number of people per sq/km than England. 

There is consensus amongst economists that most of the earth's land mass will not become more densely populated than it is today. Why? Because population migrate to the cities.  Over the next 30 years the estimation is that 97% of Europe will be less densely populated. (UNPD 1998a: 96-99, 104-107). 

So?

Malthus was worried about the consequences of the French revolution in terms of availability of food. Remember, this is 18th century Political Economy (a bit of both and thus neither).

If political discontents were blended with the cries of hunger, and a revolution were to take place by the instrumentality of a mob clamouring for want of food, the consequences would be unceasing change and unceasing carnage, the bloody career of which nothing but the establishment of some complete despotism could arrest. (p. 418). 

What are we discussing here: food availability, poverty, population density? These three things are not thesame!(but we have to move on). There was plenty of food and poor distribution of it in France during the French Revolution (Malthus got it wrong). There can be food and not enough money to buy it (deflation), no food and plenty of money (inflation); population density and food distribution coexist (look at China today). Finally, you can eat well or pretty decently and be poor.  

The above argument is a hulling lie. 

2. We're destroying the planet. Homo Sapiens is a destructive force; the planet our enemy.

Isn't Homo Sapiens part of nature? Why separate them as if they're different? Divide and conquer.

And isn't our faculty of reason so far helped us along the way to survive and thrive? Why any different now? It's in our best interest NOT TO -EVER- DESTROY THE VERY PLANET WE LIVE IN. Unless such destruction is just pure hyperbole. 

Doomism keeps coming back in many guises.  It's part and parcel of Homo Sapiens interpretation of doomsday. 

Matter is neither destroyed nor created. Life is a consequence of matter. We're stardust! 

That is not to say the planet has no problems. But they are solvable. And you, the beautiful youth of the world are here to help solve them. 

Get to work!  

3. Bringing children into the world is a mistake. Many of my students really believe (rather been induced to believe) that life will be so awful that procreating is a form murder. 

Just think of Kant's first formulation. Do not to others what you would not like others do to you. 

You're in the world, and enjoy it so far, don't you? Why would you not offer the opportunity of autonomy to someone to come? Clearly, that future being, a Homo Sapiens, would undoubtedly prefer to judge by herself. Here a hypothetic dialogue: Why did I miss my chance?/I thought the world was a mistake./ Why not bring me and leave that decision to me? Autonomy is untransferable. 

Think for yourself.