Maybe This Type of Theory Makes Less Sense Than I Had Thought…

My usual explanation for odd fact that people moving from “red” states to “blue” states frequently vote for the same policies that wrecked their old neighborhoods is that some of the refugees think they are fleeing overpopulation instead of fleeing government. Instead of voting for lower spending, they vote for growth controls.

On the other hand … I just realized that explaining away opinions one disagrees with by attributing them to Malthusians can be used for a wide variety of opinions, many of them on opposite sides of a question. For example, are pesticides intended to kill off the excess population or are pesticide bans intended to allow population-stabilizing diseases? You can make similar arguments for both sides of vaccines, GMO foods, or nuclear energy. We must also recall that a policy can be intended to have an effect without actually having that effect and vice versa.

The theory that counterproductive policies are due to Malthusianism sounds a little less certain now…