that human nature does not exist, thatrnman is whatever his “environment”rnmakes him, and that if we just managernthe environment, we can also managernand manipulate human beings and theirrnbehavior.rnhideed, as Paul Gottfried points outrn(in an article in the Social Contract),rnMalthus’s essay was written primarily tornchallenge the vapid historical optimismrnbubbled forth by the left of his day, main-rnIv by William Godwin and the Marquisrnde Gondorcet, both of whom prophesiedrntheir own Utopias as the necessary futurernof mankind (neither would have beenrnimpressed by Hong Kong). To Godwinrnand Gondorcet, as to their radical colleaguesrnand their modern-day “conservative”rnheirs, the future of humanit)’ was tornbe one of unlimited peace, plenty, equality,rnjustice, freedom, and happiness.rnMalthus stated in the preface to the firstrnedition of his essay that his work onrnpopulation and food supply originated inrnan argument with a friend over the validityrnof the Godwin-Gondorcet prophecies.rnMr. Rohe frames Malthus’s generalrninsistence on human limits in the contextrnof modern ecology and sociobiology,rnespecially as formulated by GarrettrnHardin. The study of ecology offers insightsrninto the balance of nature and therninterdependence of plant and animalrnspecies within one area. Any significantrnalteration of the balance may lead to therndestruction of the entire “eco-system.”rnIn Hardin’s words, “We can never dornmerely one thing,” a law that is perfectlyrnconsistent with what classical conser’ativesrnunderstood about human society.rnAs the late Robert Nisbet noted, one ofrnthe fundamental beliefs of classical conservativesrnwho (like Malthus) rejectedrnthe Enlightenment and French Revolutionrnwas the “principle of interdependencernof social phenomena.”rnSince societ}’ is organismic in nature,rnthere is always a delicate interrelationrnof belief, habit, membership,rnand institution in the lifernof any society. Each individualrnand each social trait are parts of arnlarger system of coherence.rnEnlightenment social planners failedrnto grasp this principle, with regard to naturernor society, and the consequence ofrntheir reckless and rationalistic planningrnwas the destruction of existing social ordersrnas coherent systems. Ecology as arnscience of nature is essentially the transferencernof Nisbet’s “principle of social interdependence”rnto natural rather thanrnsocial systems: You cannot do merelyrnone thing in a meadow or a rain forestrnanymore than you can in an urban housingrnproject, a primitive culture, or a highlyrninterdependent industrialized society.rnThe general validit}’ of the ecologicalrnand Malthusian perspective and its overallrnconsistency with the sociological andrnanthropological perspective of classicalrnconservatism does not mean that everythingrnmodern environmentalists want torndo (or not do) should be done. A goodrndeal of what some of them demand is destructive,rnnot only to the Utopia of striprnmalls but to the livelihoods and socialrncommunities of those who have to putrnup with the restrictions they impose andrnthe bureaucracies they create. If it is truernthat we can never do merely one thing,rnthat means we ought to be a good dealrnmore cautious about doing not only whatrnthe growth cult demands but also manyrnof the things the environmentalist movementrninsists we do immediately. Nevertheless,rnthe point the environmentalistsrnmake is essentially valid and one thatrnconservatives, at least those who are seriousrnabout that term, ought to support.rnAs for abortion and birth control,rnMalthus himself, a clergyman and a fairlyrnconventional moral thinker, advocatedrnneither, and he would have been outragedrnby the suggestion that either bernpracticed. His own solution to the demographicrncatastrophes he predictedrnwas “moral restraint,” which of course isrnexactiy what the anti-Malthusian pro-lifernmovement advocates today. It is hardlyrnMalthus’s fault if, in the 200 years sincernhe wrote, Western society has turnedrnaway from his Christian morality, includingrnthe prohibitions on infanticide,rnabortion, and birth control. But it has alsornsufficiently abandoned traditionalrnmoral beliefs to the point that it can nornlonger bring to a halt the major source ofrnpopulation growth in the United Statesrntoday, namely, immigration. As Dr.rnHardin has written for years, immigrationrninto the United States is responsiblernfor 50 percent to 60 percent of the nation’srnpopulation growth since 1970, andrnhalting it, aside from its cultural and politicalrnbenefits, would more or less rip thernmuscles out of leftist environmentalism.rnA good many of the problems environmentalistsrntalk about and the state-imposedrnsolutions they demand would simplyrnvanish if immigration were halted:rnThe burden on land use, technical infrastructure,rnwater use, and other perishablernresources would be significantlyrnlower, and halting this Third World overflowrnmight eventually encourage therncountries from which the immigrants arerncoming to do something about controllingrntheir own populations. With thernavailability of the United States, Ganada,rnWestern Europe, Australia, and NewrnZealand as dumping grounds for excessrnand unwanted populations, these nationsrnhave no incentive whatsoever to reducernfertilit}’ rates.rnMr. Robe’s presentation of Malthus asrnessentially a reactionary, a critic of thernmodernist obsession with growth andrnmaterial progress and the social chaosrnthat this obsession engenders, ought tornbe useful to real conservatives, and thernMalthusian principles of the recognitionrnof limits and moral restraint (not necessarilyrnconfined to sex) ought to build arnbridge between conservatives who arernstill serious about their conservatism andrnnon-conservatives who have independentlyrnrediscovered what less seriousrnconservatives have thrown away. Thern”convergence” of right and left symbolizedrnby Jack Kemp and Newt Gingrichrnneed not be confined to them: There isrnno reason why a new cultural right, unifiedrnaround the principles of limits andrnsocial as well as natural interdependence,rncannot begin to flourish as easilyrnas the new cultural left that denies limitsrnand sees as its main mission the preservationrnof a political and economic systemrnthat revolves around mass gratificationrnand the destruction of communit}’ andrnpersonal independence.rnWhat is perhaps already happening isrnsimply the redefinition of “left” andrn”right” away from the political polaritiesrnthat have defined them since the NewrnDeal era and toward a new polarity, indeedrna new political spectrum, that opposesrndefense of social cohesion and national-rncultural identit)’ to the demand forrngrowth and gratification at the expense ofrncohesion and identity. Thomas Malthusrnand those who understand his legacyrnwould offer useful models for one side ofrnthis political and ideological antithesis;rnthe other side, like Karl Marx and hisrnheirs in the modern conservative movement,rnwould keep Malthus’s name at therntop of its enemies list and continue tornembrace the utopianism of unlimitedrngrowth that Malthus and the real conservativesrnof his age rejected.rnDECEMBER 1998/33rnrnrn