The Director:

I would like to thank you for picking up on my article from Diario16 in your prestigious Diario Médico. I would also like to take advantage to demonstrate the different sides of the argument and thank D. (?) (?) for the letter that he wrote with regard to this (12-II-1993).

I totally agree with the necessity of thinking about future generations before acting and the serious ecological danger that the consumer, materialistic and western hedonist lifestyle, widespread on a planetary level, would bring. I have written about and am a defender of sustained development and the Ecological Economy in all their aspects. I still think, with facts, that Nature is generous if we know how to dominate it and work it respecting its rules. Our difficulties come from our ignorance and shortcomings in human organization. We have to keep in mind, for example that the whole current world population including the Chinese, could live within the frontiers of the United States and Australia if these two countries had a similar population density to the Dutch.

I would also like your statement that supporters of abortion do not exist to be true, but the more and more widespread pro-abortion campaigns in the different media, as well as annual levels of abortion in Spain and the millions on an international level are undeniable empiric proof that allows that assertion to be called into question.

The article that I wrote in Diario16 is written not from a moral, nor ethical, nor religious, and certainly not medical perspective, but exclusively from the point of view of my economic knowledge. In this sense I find the rotundity of your statement according to which "the reasoning of Malthus is correct" to be dangerous. In the Economy we should always be looking towards future necessities and one of the most important actions is Investment because, besides being a free donation to society without certain compensation, it allows current production to be stimulated and the capacity of future general production to be increased. All Investment in definitive always consists of a current sacrifice that is guided to the attainment of future profit and that in itself is already a social benefit. I insist: a new human being always has meaning because of the multiple and unknown future profits.

If my solvency in Economy does not deserve credibility I remind you that the expounded Theory of Population is not mine but the Nobel Prize for Economy Hayek's, agnostic just to prove it, and published in his last book before dying last year. It is entitled Fatal Arrogance and published by Unión Editorial, Madrid.

For the realism of Hayek, demographic increase allows a more elaborated differentiation and specialization which locates society in the face of the possibility of taking advantage of before nonexistent economic resources and notably elevating this way the productivity of the system. Due to the natural tendency of people to learn and practice those new abilities it is possible to facilitate access to superior standards of living. Simple peaceful coexistence alone favours a better exploitation of the available resources of a more numerous population.

Lastly I wish to indicate that I believe it is dangerous to identify the true or convenient with majority opinion. You only have to remember Christopher Columbus or Galileo in the technical and scientific area who acted clearly against the tendencies of the immense majority. I also remind you, in the political area, that Hitler, with his national-socialism, was chosen democratically.

Joseph John Franch Menéu
Diario Médico, Wednesday March 31st 1993