Pondering on God, life and the utter lunacy of Globalist dogma, it struck me that one of the ideas it is based on is the Malthusian Malarkey, the moronic, myopic idea that there are too many people in the world, which in turn leads to the terrifying idea that a heap of them must be got shot of, something many very powerful people seem to have adopted with alacrity. The UN's sinister Agenda 30, for example, assumes that the world is over-populated.
By the time you finish reading this sentence, 25 more people have been born. By the end of this paragraph, that number might have doubled, especially as it is long-winded and meanders like a political speech. According to Thomas Malthus, the 18th-century English cleric and economic doomsayer, this fact should terrify you. Why? Because more people, in his view, means less food, more poverty, and an express ticket to societal collapse, ironically all now occurring because of Globalist dogma!
Malthus published An Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798, confidently declaring that population grows exponentially while food supply only increases arithmetically. Ergo, famine, pestilence, and heaps of other bad things are inevitable unless we do something drastic, like moral restraint (read: enforced celibacy) or letting nature weed out the riff-raff through war and disease. Sound familiar?
But here’s the thing: Malthus was wrong. Not just slightly wrong, like thinking Pluto is a planet or that oil is a fossil fuel, but spectacularly, historically, dangerously wrong. And yet, almost unquestioned, the myth of overpopulation keeps coming back, like that wasp to your pint, and often used as an excuse for further tyranny.
Aha! Armstrong talking bollicks again you might say. How do you reconcile de-population with mass, uncontrolled immigration? Easy. The people pushing Malthusianism and its sister Climate Change think on a global scale: take millions of young single men from areas that actually do breed like rabbits and let them loose where they don’t. Half of them will end up in jail anyhow, and the fear and anger they cause is good for the divide and rule policy needed to implement Globalism.
So, let’s pull back the curtain on the Malthusian doctrine, expose its flaws, and laugh it off the intellectual stage—before it causes even more harm than it already has.
Let’s start with the man himself. Malthus lived when agriculture still relied on weather, horses, and sheer optimism. The Industrial Revolution was only just getting started., so his concern at population growth is understandable. But his logic was based on alarmist algebra: people multiply like rabbits, food grows like snails, result: doom.
It’s the kind of maths that would make even an 11-plus failure like me raise an eyebrow. For instance, if population doubles every 25 years (as Malthus proposed), and food production increases by a fixed amount, then humanity would have been elbow-deep in cannibalism by now. Yet here we are, in 2025, with more people than ever, and the main issue in most countries isn’t starvation—it's obesity. People are not fighting over scraps; they’re fighting over the last doughnut, or over politician’s posturing.
Malthus took no account of human innovation. Alright, predicting technological progress is like using astronomy for your tax return. But still, the Industrial, Scientific and Green revolutions are a stunning refutation of Malthus’s theory. Thanks to modern agricultural science, genetically modified crops, synthetic fertilisers and irrigation, food production has exploded.
Norman Borlaug, the man credited with kickstarting the Green Revolution, arguably saved over a billion people from starvation. That’s billion with a “b,” the kind of number Malthus might have used to scare people. And he did it by increasing crop yields, proving that food production can—and does—grow exponentially when you put your mind (and a PhD) to it. No doubt if Malthus had been alive to see it, he’d have declared Borlaug an agent of the Devil – or even a far right racist!
One of the core fallacies of Malthusian thinking is that more people are a burden. It’s the intellectual equivalent of saying, “Too many cooks spoil the broth,” while ignoring that those cooks might invent an entirely new cuisine.
The truth is, people are not just mouths to feed—they’re brains to think, hands to build, and TikTok accounts to mock Malthusianism. Every additional person born has the potential to solve problems, not just create them. Charles Babbage, Tim Berners-Lee, Bob Mortimer, and whoever invented peas pudding all emerged from this growing mass of humanity. The idea that more people automatically means more misery is like saying more Dahlias automatically means more slugs—technically true perhaps, but wildly missing the point.
Economist Julian Simon famously argued that human ingenuity is the “ultimate resource.” In fact, Simon once bet doomsayer Paul Ehrlich that key commodities wouldn’t run out despite population growth. Simon won. Ehrlich lost.
Ironically, in reality the biggest demographic concern today is not overpopulation—it’s underpopulation. Fertility rates are falling across the globe. Japan, Italy, South Korea, and soon large swathes of the developed world are aging faster than a banana in a sauna. China, after years of ruthlessly enforcing a one-child policy (inspired by—you guessed it—Malthusian logic), is now begging couples to get fornicating and have more bairns.
The “population bomb” that was supposed to explode? It fizzled out like a dud firework on Guy Fawkes night. And yet the panic persists, perhaps because doom sells, or is useful for would be tyrants. There’s something deeply satisfying, even smug, about saying “We’re all doomed” while sipping artisanal coffee on a planet that stubbornly keeps not dooming.
Now, modern Malthusians emphasise climate change over famine. “Sure,” they say, “we aren’t starving yet, but more people means more emissions, more consumption, more plastic straws in sea turtles’ nostrils.” This line of thinking – even if man-made climate change were true, which it is not - makes the same mistake as Malthus: it ignores innovation and assumes that current trends will continue forever, unaltered by intelligence, policy, or basic problem-solving (let alone the Sun).
It also risks moral peril. History is replete with examples where Malthusian logic was used to justify terrible policies. Forced sterilizations and eugenics programs have all been rationalised under the guise of “population control”, and quite likely, war is now seen as a final solution. If you treat people as a threat rather than a resource, it becomes all too easy to treat them like disposable problems – and take action to dispose of them, like cutting pensioner’s fuel allowance and implementing policies that result in the world’s highest electricity prices.
The myth of overpopulation is dangerous not just because it’s wrong, but because it undermines humanity’s greatest strengths: cooperation, innovation, and adaptability. It feeds into a scarcity mindset, the idea that there's never enough to go around—when in fact, we’ve never had more resources, more knowledge, or more ability to solve problems than we do right now. It also works against democracy and allows unscrupulous would-be tyrants to persuade the gullible that all the restrictions on life they want to introduce are for their own good.
We’ve got mini-nuclear generators that can power whole towns, food in abundance, and ‘apps’ that deliver food faster than you can say “Malthusian fallacy.” If Malthus could see a modern city—buzzing with energy, brimming with abundance, and everyone’s face buried in a glowing rectangle—he might keel over with terminal gobsmackarditis.
So, let’s call time on the Malthusian myth. Overpopulation is not the ticking time bomb we were led to believe. It’s a zombie idea—dead but still shambling through political debates, academic papers, and apocalyptic Mad Ed Miliband rants. It’s time we buried it properly, along with Ed, with a stake through the heart and a “Do Not Resuscitate” sign stapled to its forehead.
Humanity isn’t doomed by its numbers—it thrives because of them. Each person born brings potential. Yes, we face challenges, but we also bring tools to meet those challenges. And those tools don’t run out when more people are added; they multiply, evolve, and sometimes even go viral on YouTube.
So, let’s put the Malthusian Establishment on the scrap heap and go back to enjoying life, building, creating, pro-creating, laughing, and living life to the full. And not forgetting eating doughnuts—because, let’s face it, there are plenty to go around.