Malthuse, The Matrix, and The Human Virus

In a memorable scene from the classic science fiction movie, The Matrix, Agent Smith has caught Morpheus and he is trying to get information from him. A memorable moment comes when Agent Smith is discussing how they have studied the human species and the more they have studied humans that they are not mammals and primates like once thought. Smith states that a much better description of the human species is that of a virus. Humans consume and have absolutely no concern for their environment and ruin it without worry. This resembles more the patterns of a virus, not a mammal primate.

With the fact that we are now in a global pandemic, the question of whether Agent Smith was right is being asked more and more. There have been observations that greenhouse gas emissions have dropped due to humans not consuming or travelling as much. Most striking is this picture over China where the virus originated.

These observations while true may not be quite as big of a positive as first thought, but these observations have led many Twitter users to be more up front with their opinions.

This one acknowledging the clean water and ability to see wildlife is innocent enough, and I am perfectly fine with it. However, this ends going somewhere a bit darker.

Olimpia here seems to think that this global pandemic is actually a good thing and that it is an awakening or mother nature taking back what is rightfully hers. I guess that the fact that potentially millions of people is a price worth paying for this.

Tom is even more explicit with his position that we, as in humans, are in fact the virus and that the effects of the coronavirus pandemic are actually a positive.

This of course is not actually as much of an enlightened take or the bright side of a catastrophic global crisis, but it is instead rehashed Malthusian arguments against overpopulation. Malthuse argued that eventually humanity would not be able to produce for the growing population and that the solution would be to let the poor people die off to prevent the problem of overpopulation. This would lead rightfully so to Karl Marx calling him a fool for his overpopulation theory was nonsense when he wrote it, and it is still today nonsense.

The idea that we cannot grow the economy enough to provide for humanity is one that is made in some gross misunderstandings of nature and how humanity relates to it. We already produce more than enough food to feed the entire population, and we have the proper technology to fuel our economy and combat climate change at the same time. However, we still have the ghost of Malthuse in the background. Why is this?

Well, one of the problems is much of the left has wrongfully targeted growth as the problem of capitalism. One of the highest profile proponents of this is Naomi Klein who supports what is known as degrowth. Degrowth is essentially the idea that climate change has been produced by humans consuming far more than is sustainable and the only way we can undo this damage is to shrink the economy. This comes with many ideas which not only are flawed such as localizing all markets, but it also comes with the reality that in a growing population growth really isn’t an option, but rather a necessity. To provide for the growing population the economy must grow with it.

This has led many popular left youtubers such as Mexie to embrace degrowth as well. In her video she explains how western leftists don’t seem to understand that in a post-revolutionary society life wont’ be able to go on as before. How we will have to make sacrifices to sustain the environment meaning we cannot consume at the same rates we do today. She also mentions the book of an American Indian author, Robin Kimmerer, whom is nothing short of a complete pseudoscientific quack. Kimmerer proposes the idea of reciprocity which is essentially the idea that what we take from the Earth we must also give in return. This is very common among many different indigenous cultures, not just in North America, and it does make some basic sense to the average person. The idea of balancing what we consume and give to the Earth seems right. If I cut down a tree, I should plant another one.

Lakota Law project made an interesting response to Tom whom we shared earlier. They are perfectly correct with their first point, and then they mention balance which we mention previously discussing Mexie and Kimmerer. This idea is however just untrue with the entire history of nature as balance has never been something true of nature. Given that we have seen huge changes in environment throughout history and in fact some eras of which would have been uninhabitable for humans, balance seems to be something that is rarely ever true in nature. As for their last point, they are approaching the point. I admittedly do think the legacy of colonialism isn’t related, but the profit motive absolutely is one of the problems. Let’s go from there and take a look at one more tweet.

Anarchopac’s response is much better in my opinion. They correctly identify the problem being capitalism and how the economy is organized, not humans. The profit motive being the overwhelming major culprit as it does not encourage sustainability, but rather the most profitable methods of extracting resources. This is why the fossil fuels industry and much more are so damaging on our environment. However, when Anarchopac suggests “unrelenting accumulation is incompatible with sustainability” I am not quite sure if they are correct here. If I am being very generous they are essentially repeating the critique of the profit motive, but I don’t think that’s what they are critiquing. I ultimately think they are critiquing growth as well. They want an economy based on lack of growth.

This however should be the opposite of how us Marxists look to solve this issue. As Marxists, our primary critique of capitalism is that it exploits the workers of their labour and the capitalists get to reap all the benefits of that labour. The point of achieving communism is so that all of humanity make reap the rewards of their labour. This is simply not achievable if we believe that economic growth and consumption is the root problem with climate change. Fortunately, this is not the case with modern technology.

Part of what fueled the industrial revolution and all previous revolutions in modes of production was the transition to fossil fuels which have allowed us to build the society we live in today. This will most likely be true for any future communist society. These new modes of energy are not something unknown either. We actually have the technology right in front of us, especially with nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is truly a communist form of energy which if implemented properly could help us power all of our needs with virtually no emissions. Combining this with the transition to renewable energies such as wind and solar we can manage to handle a growing population and we will be able to provide all humans with a high standard of living. It will be unnecessary to worry about population, and even in that case if trends stay the same the best manner to control this has been to bring up the living standards of a country and provide education and access to birth control.

So, was Agent Smith right and are humans a virus? Absolutely not. Humans are however special. We are the only species that has developed the tools and technology that we can mold and shape nature as we please. As Francis Bacon said the goal of science is to dominate nature, and we shouldn’t be scared of this. To dominate nature doesn’t mean to destroy it, but rather to be able to use it to our fullest ability to create the best environment for humans to live. This is why I am such a strong supporter of anthropocentric climate solutions which put the lives of humans first. Ultimately, that is what matters is that humans can live on this planet. While I do find beauty in nature and other things none of this really matters if we must die to preserve it. I would like to leave this with a quote from from Leon Trotsky which was brought to my attention from a comrade, Ralph Leonard.