Nature's Evil

Nothing in the life cycle of either organism, the poppy or the human being, predicted their mutual dependence. Nature created the beautiful flowers of the poppy so that the bees would pollinate them, enabling poppies to reproduce and spread. Were the bees created so that they could pollinate the poppies? Philosopher Pangloss would have exclaimed at this point that all was created for the best: flowers for bees, bees for flowers, both for people – such is the divine plan. But the disillusioned Candide would have found many counter-examples. It is simply impossible to believe that the latex from unripe capsules was created so that people could derive pleasure from it, and that man was created so that he could spread the poppy around the globe. The poppy has caused so much evil in the human world that it makes it hard to believe in the benevolence of Providence; moreover, what actually happened between the poppy and people makes it hard to believe in the Creator’s wisdom. Even if a superior intelligence could have arranged the encounter between Homo sapiens and Papaver somnifer , it clearly did not predict the implications of this event. The historical prototype of Pangloss, the German philosopher Leibniz, taught that the world was predetermined by divine purpose and therefore was the best of all possible worlds. Opium refutes this theodicy as effectively as if the poppy had been created for that very purpose.

The opium poppy grows in many areas of the world – in Southern Europe, Africa and Asia. This undemanding plant easily reverts to its wild state, keeping its beauty and narcotic qualities intact. When dried, poppy latex keeps for a long time, so it can be transported and sold. People did this on such a scale that the volume of global trade in opium in the nineteenth century was worth more than the volume of any other goods and commodities. But the history of the opium trade is full of mysteries. It is not clear why India supplied opium to China at great expense, although poppy could just as well have been cultivated there, which did eventually happen. It is also not clear why the Chinese were more susceptible to opium dependency than Indians. It was only in China that opium use became epidemic, destroying tens of millions of people and bringing down the whole machinery of the state. What is clear is that the opium trade between the two countries was based on geographical inequality – the usual source of economic growth and political evil; and that it was a third power, the British Empire, that owned this trade. When long sea voyages connect unlimited demand with unlimited supply, the beneficiaries are the merchant-carriers, and they continue their trade against all the odds.

The Dutch started this business, but the British East India Company displaced them in the 1760s. Its new monopoly on the opium trade in India resulted from a series of military victories in the Seven Years’ War and then in Bengal. Having requisitioned the ports and warehouses, the company forced the Indians to deliver opium at fixed prices. Edmund Burke accused it of depriving the natives ‘of their natural right of dealing with many competitors’. The head of the company, Warren Hastings, rejected the accusations. Later he was convicted of corruption, so Burke was probably right, but the opium monopoly continued. At the beginning of the nineteenth century opium was India’s largest export item and China’s largest import. It was also the second largest source of imperial revenue for British India after the land tax. 13

In Victorian England, opium was a common remedy. Taken with alcohol, it was believed to relieve pain, fever and melancholy. Containing 10 per cent opium, the mixture was called laudanum – an ancient alchemic word. Right up until the twentieth century British pharmacies sold laudanum over the counter. The smoking of opium was considered a Chinese speciality; in other cultures it was used differently – either boiled and inhaled or eaten in various mixtures. In nineteenth-century Europe opium smoking quickly caught on. Still, people considered it an oriental extravagance. Addicts were accused of lack of character and moral decadence. Europeans were also susceptible to addiction, but an epidemic on the scale of the Chinese one never happened elsewhere.