Flaws in Thanos Theory

Thanos believes that wiping out half of all life in the universe will save every planet from their inevitable destruction by over-consumption and that doing so would be a righteous act, despite it being murder on a scale hitherto undreamt of. While some might admire his goal of saving life by taking life, there are several flaws in his theory. In the comic books, Thanos wants to kill half the life in the universe as a sacrifice to Mistress Death (a female Grim Reaper) because he's in love with her. In the Infinity War movie, they give him a different purpose, turning the mad Titan into an eco warrior who was trying to save the Universe. I'm not expecting to see "kill half the life in the universe" show up on the Green Party platform anytime soon, but I’m sure Greta Thunberg and friends liked some aspects of Thanos plan.

One of the big flaws in his theory (among many) is the notion that all ecosystems exist in a state of disequilibrium. Yes, sometimes a dominant species can over-consume and disrupt the natural balance, but there are still several places on Earth where the quantity of each species exists in a state of harmony. Some species breed faster than others, and removing exactly half of everything would inevitably give an advantage to the faster breeders. Kill half the rats and half the cats, and soon you’ll be over-run with rats. Look what happened in New York in a post finger snap world, although the increase in the rat population did help the Avengers save the planet. Not every ecosystem needs to be saved from itself. Wiping out half of an endangered species hardly seems beneficial. Thanos could find himself doing more harm than good, driving several species into extinction. Do we really need to kill half of the remaining black rhinoceros, or half the poachers?

I recently graduated from university with a degree in Geography and many things we learned can be applied to critique Thanos' mission statement. 

Population Growth:

One of my classes was called “Nature and Society” which regularly discussed the issue of over-population and critiqued the notion that it is causing most environmental problems. There are simply more factors involved. Just blaming demographics alone can often be inaccurate. Thanos believes over-population depletes natural resources because that's what happened on Titan. In some cases, he is correct. This is happening Earth but some places are more sustainable than others. It's safe to assume that Titan had people who also lived sustainably, while others disrupted the balance. It would make more sense to specifically cull those who are over-consuming, and spare those who are more eco-friendly. Allowing all the sustainable individuals to live would ensure that there is a greater proportion of sustainability among the survivors of the species.

Thanos also says that the universe's resources are finite which is true for some resources, but not everything. We see plenty of examples of sustainable resources on Earth. There are renewable forms of electricity, and clearly electricity is a resource. You can cut down a whole bunch of trees, then plant new seedlings. You can grow new crops on the same field year after year. According to Thomas Malthus, as population grows, the environment will be no longer able to provide enough resources to sustain the growing population. This creates scarcity which has occurred at different stages of human history. But over time, people innovated new farming techniques and found alternative resources to extract. Our use of science to develop new technology has increased the carrying capacity of our planet substantially.

Another movie villain who had similar beliefs to Thanos was Valentine from “Kingsman: The Secret Service”, who explained that Earth is a host and humanity is a virus. Either the host kills the virus or the virus kills the host. Either way the result is the same, humanity dies. His plan to reduce the population was much more savage than individuals vanishing in a finger snap, but the end goal was still the same. Theoretically, a super villain killing people may not be required. Mother nature could easily figure out a way on her own to reduce the population by creating a pandemic, as we are seeing right now. That would have a disproportionately negative effect on lower income individuals, while the wealthy can afford better care and are more likely to live. That means more resources for people higher up on the social hierarchy. We can assume that Thanos opposes gentrification. He strikes me as more of a “equality for everyone” kind of guy. 

Resource Exploitation:

Rapid development creates most environmental problems on Earth. Those responsible for the environmentally destructive externalities most often come from the “developed world” while those who are more likely to suffer from these exploitations tend live in developing countries. This may have occurred on Titan as well. According to John Locks theory of economic development, a country starts very impoverished but eventually changes their economic resources to more non-renewable sources and as this happens, poverty decreases. Viewing this through a political ecology perspective; a country will pollute heavily in it's early stages of development similar to the Industrial Revolution in Britain. But as time goes on, the country and the people consume less and carbon emissions are reduced.

Killing half the people doesn’t guarantee that the survivors will decrease their consumption habits. The finger snap isn’t creating new resources, so eventually the population will recover and find itself in the same situation it was in when the snap occurred. The survivors will have to find a new way for capital goods to keep circulating and maintain the economy. After some time wouldn't things return to normal? Thanos may have needed to further reflect on the habits of prosperous civilizations and how things would just revert back to business as usual eventually.  If you’ve got a gauntlet that gives you the power of God, why not just create infinite resources? Doesn’t that solve the problem as much as murdering half the galactic population?

Conservation and Hunting Permits

Before Thanos planned a massive cull of wildlife species, then he should have familiarized himself with the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (NAM) and provincial and state hunting permits. The most important aspect being that wildlife is state property. Ergo Thanos should have acquired hunting permits for every animal he killed, or spared those that are protected under federal and provincial law. In many countries, endangered species are protected by state law. It's illegal to just start killing animals at your leisure, so if Thanos set foot in countries like Canada after the finger snap, he would be facing substantial poaching charges….on top of murder charges.

Thanos would need millions of hunting permits and proof of confirmed kills if he were to include animals in his universal cull. Governments are not going to allow that. In Canada, we track the numbers of various species and do what we can to protect the vulnerable. We fly around in helicopters shooting wolves to save critically endangered cariboo. That’s similar to what Thanos is doing, except that we don’t kill both wolves and cariboo. The theory of disaster capitalism states that the destruction of some areas is needed in order to facilitate the spread of production. Instead of addressing the mining and forestry industries that are destroying cariboo habitat, we shoot wolves from helicopters because the economic activity of those industries accounts for a big chunk of our economy.

Killing millions of animals at once seems like trophy hunting, as Thanos clearly did not plan to harvest any of dead animals in the snap. Leaving animals after you have killed them is really unethical. Hunting is more ethical when it’s feeding your family. Perhaps Thanos wants to kill half the population so that the survivors can learn from their mistakes and build the universal utopia he envisions. I’m just not sure how killing endangered species helps create utopia. He should have collaborated with national Fish and Wildlife department to exclude endangered species from the finger snap and obtained permits for the others. Killing half of everything would disrupt predator prey cycles. That could cause prey populations eventually grow out of control and devastate plant life. Conventionally, as the number of prey goes up, the predator population increases as well. But since we start with half the predators, prey populations get of control since the predators can't repopulate as fast. 

  

Pristine Wilderness Myth

Thanos wiping out half of life draws similarities to the western ideal of what wilderness is supposed to be. Some national parks are created to portray a certain image of human absence and appeal to more prosperous social classes usually consisting of elite whites. Also, in the creation of national parks, predators such as wolves are eradicated in many places because they can be dangerous to people and consume livestock. Thanos eliminating half of all life seems similar to the events of European colonialism, where indigenous populations were killed off in large numbers. This displays the philosophy of Terra Nulius were the Europeans thought it was their right to take over empty land and impose their viewpoints. 

Thanos probably doesn’t believe in the western philosophy of what a wilderness should be. There's an argument that represents the human nature dualism meaning that humans should be separate from nature or is an area truly wilderness if there's is some degree of human intervention such as predator eradication or building fences. Is Thanos trying to challenge the master norm that humans should either be separate or have control over nature? Infinity War doesn't really delve into such philosophical dilemmas but instead chooses to mention the idea of depleting non renewable resources. But that isn't really caused by overpopulation but rather to fuel the technological advancements of the human race.

After Thanos completed his mission, he went to a place called the garden, so he must believe in the European pristine wilderness myth. It's possible that this plant used to be populated until he wiped the native population that lived here. The more I learn about the critiques of the environmentalist movement the more I begin to question Thanos's mission. 

Capitalism and Global Economic Development:

It's possible that Thanos was tired of civilizations living under a capitalist society and wanted to change the hierarchical organization. Infinity War doesn't clarify if Thanos is a supporter of capitalism or if he prefers subsistence economies, but the snap seems like the most radical form of an anti-capitalist protest. Let's assume that Thanos would have familiarized himself with Earth's environmental policy's on a global scale or at least has a general knowledge of The UN's climate summits. If he did, then he probably thought that developed countries were taking up more than fair share of CO2 emissions. Additionally, he could of thought that these countries are bullying third world countries into adopting their environmental policies. This represents ecological imperialism. 

Developing countries argue that developed countries should pay them for the environmental damages they caused in their countries over the past few hundred years. This concept is referred to as ecological debt. It's possible that Thanos wanted to ensure that developed countries provide reparations for these developing countries. Usually when a global environmental disaster happens, countries tend to work together if the tragedies affect everybody. Thanos probably believed in the concept of ecological debt and wanted to make sure developing countries voices are heard.

Thanos is more anti-consumption than anti-capitalist. On Earth, capitalism is the spoon that feeds our consumption, but every world will be different. I think Thanos would support sustainable capitalism wherever it exists, but what he really hates is unsustainable consumption which he blames on everyone equally whether you consume too much or not. The flaw in his strategy that all races and species should be culled equally is that he's also punishing those who are not over-consuming and live in sustainable equilibrium with their ecosystem. He should only be targeting the over-consumers. A blanket "kill them all" strategy is short-sighted and will ultimately create as many problems as it solves. 

Thanos may think that killing half of all life in the universe is a viable solution to fix our environmental crisis. On the surface, this seems admirable, but upon further analysis, there are many scientific and philosophical theories that Thanos has ignored. Had he familiarized himself with Earth's colonial history, endangered species protection efforts, and sustainable economic development his mission would've had universal support. Killing half of all life in the universe violates several international laws, increases threats to endangered species, and may even throw countries into an economic depression. There is no guarantee of utopia when all is said and done.