A common position of the Malthusian is that overpopulation is resulting in an overconsumption of resources, which may result in humanity endangering itself. Professing this motivation, the Malthusian feels justified in making actions that prohibit procreation among human beings, in an effort to keep human numbers in check. To this end, they encourage people to live single.
However, it’s easy to see that people living single actually consume more resources than if a male-female couple were to share the same dwelling space.
This should be simple to comprehend when you look at the resources consumed by couples, as opposed to what they’d consume if they were to live independently.
In terms of dwelling space, two people living single would require more space overall, as they would live in different homes, each with different sinks, refrigerators, air conditioners, and bathroom facilities. On the other hand, a couple would share all these facilities. Couples would easily use up half as much living space.
Next, let’s consider utilities. In the summer time, when people are uncomfortably hot, two people living single would air condition two different living spaces, whereas a cohabiting man and woman would only need to air condition one living space. Thus, the consumption of electricity would easily be halved when couples live together, and the electrical grid would be far less stressed.
Then, there’s winter time, when people get uncomfortably cold. A person with a one-bedroom flat in the northeast United States can easily spend as much as $200 a month keeping their place warm in the winter. However, a couple wouldn’t face the same hardship, as they’d share the utility expense, and their situation would be better still for the warmth the couple would provide one another.
When it comes to transportation, matters are less clear. I’ve seen couples that manage by sharing one automobile, but this isn’t always desirable for every situation. However, when people live by themselves, they each require their own transportation, which in many cases means many single people needing their own cars. This gets more significant as the result is the consumption of more fossil fuels, as well as ethanol, which is largely derived from corn. This is more significant as concerns agriculture and landmass when you consider that most corn grown in the United States is not for consumption as food, but for conversion to fuel.
As one considers all this, it’s plain to see who makes a killing off of Malthusianism: Real estate interests, utility companies, and oil barons.
If more people are living independently of other human beings, that means more people spending more on products and services than if they were to share these things with other human beings. Real estate companies profit when more people are buying homes and apartments for themselves than if they were to cohabit. Utility companies maximize the number of spending customers when each potential customer is spending for themselves, rather than sharing the benefit with another person. Oil barons profit huge when demand is increased, and this happens when more people are fueling more cars, rather than sharing cars with partners.
From this, we see that the product of Malthusianism is reduced living space, resources being depleted, and the environment being destroyed. Which is, of course, the exact opposite of what many of their own sincere believers may have wanted. But for the ones that really benefit from the ideology, it means dying rich while fucking over the entire world for successive generations.
All while pretending that the opposite is happening.