Talk:Thomas Malthus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thomas Malthus article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Core This article is listed on this project's core biographies page.
Peer review This Socsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles..
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
High rated as high-importance on the importance scale
The introduction of this article is too short.
To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, it should be expanded to summarize the article.

Contents

[edit] Malthus' justification for the genocide of the middle and lower classes

The book, The Hidden Heritage by John Howard Lawson (copyright 1950, Citidel Press, Inc.), has a chapter dedicated to Malthus and his influence on western civilization titled "Malthus and the Midland Riots". The following are excerpts from that excellent history:

. . . "When Thomas R. Malthus published an Essay on the Principles of Population in 1798, he responded to an historic change in the relationship of social and economic forces. By the end of the century, the demand for industrial labor lagged behind the growth of a dispossessed and unemployed population. Under these circumstances, it was necessary to take the most brutal measures to prevent popular organization and compel the acceptance of starvation. The Trial of Tom Paine in absentia was part of a series of prosecutions designed to outlaw feedom of speech and assembly, and to illegalize the mildest protest. . . . "The [Malthusian] argument embodied, in the simplest and most effective form, that the exploiting classes had no responsibility for the suffering of those whom they employed--and consigned to total starvation when there was not enough work to go round [sic]. The responsibility, said the pious parson, rested with God. Malthus rejoiced that the population is reduced by poverty and hunger, which demostrate that it is against God's will for the lower classes to multiply so incontinently. The fear that the meek may inherit the earth made it desirable that a considerable number of them be removed from it. In answer to Paine's Rights of Man, Malthus said: there is one right which man had generally been thought to possess, which I am confident he neither does nor can possess--a right to subsistence when his labour will not fairly purchase it. He proposed that the people be told that, in marrying and having children whom they cannot support, they are plunging themselves into distress, and that they are acting directly contrary to the will of God, and bringing down upon themselves various diseases.. . . "The people of the world are again stirred by the old dream of freedom, peace and creative labor for the welfare of the whole society. But today, the dream is realizable. The forces which seek to perpetuate war and misery must call again upon the Malthusian God of wrath, the God of blood and disaster, to justify the continuance of their destructive power. Malthusian theory has the double value of providing both a religious and a 'scientific' basis for the eternal necessity of wage-slavery, unemployment and perennial starvation. The United States is no longer an exception to "the law of overpopulation."

I find it interesting that there are so many comparisons which can be made between the ideology of "Neo-Conservativism" and Malthusianism. In the case of Hurricane Katrina, for instance, didn't someone from the "religious right" say that New Orleans was smited by God for their promiscuous behavior and homosexuality? Could Malthus have been the force behind the delay in assistance to the lower class victims of that disaster? Apparently, Malthus--the upperclass justifier of the oppression of the masses--is still alive and well. Could it be that the works of Malthus reside on the bookshelves of the elite classes adjacent to those of Machiavelli?

TroyMichaels 05:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] more

Good article, people. Curious about "Both men regarded Malthus' Principle of Population as additional proof of the existence of a deity." More explanation please!

[edit] name

Hi, I'm new to the wiki, so I don't feel comfortable changing it, but a couple of things: one, there is a webpage by a Malthus family member that notes the birthday is actually Feb 13th, and that he went by his middle name, Robert (so "Thomas Malthus" is not an appropriate shortening). See http://homepages.caverock.net.nz/~kh/bobperson.html.

Thomas Malthus is an appropriate shortening for the title for the reason that Wikipedia goes by the most-common-name convention. We can give his full name in the introductory sentence to the article. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 03:22, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but in that case the page should be "Robert Malthus", which is how his family and college (cf, Jesus College history) refer to him. The fact that a large number of people are ignorant and call him by the wrong name (it's Robert's right to choose how he is called, isn't it?) does not mean the Wikipedia should perpetuate that ignorance. It seems to me that the best compromise is to leave the page as Thomas Robert Malthus. GJeffery 07:53, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That's what google says: 51,400 for "thomas malthus", about 21,900 for "robert malthus", about 17,800 for "thomas robert malthus"; a wikipedia search shows 58 for "thomas malthus", and less than ten for the other two variants. So Thomas Malthus is definetly the most common name. But the 'it's his choice' argument isn't void. So I'd say we should move this article to the full name Thomas Robert Malthus and make the other two (or more, think Malthus, Robert...) versions redirects... Huerlisi 20:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] book

I found an interesting book in a used book shop written by Malthus, pity I didn't buy it. It was a travel description of his journey to Norway. Very interesting read! The preface in that book speculates that Malthus may have been inspired in his larger ideas by seeing scandinavian peasants, although very poor and living off much poorer land than the english, had a better standard of living - and explaining this with the low population.

It's also possible that he made his journey after writing his most influential book. Sorry if I mix this up, I should have bought that book!

Vintermann

It's good to see that Malthus' contributions to demography, population modelling, economics, and political science are ALL acknowledged here.

[edit] concern

I have a concern about this page, concerning this passage: "Here, he developed a theory of demand supply mismatches which he called gluts. Considered ridiculous at the time, his theory was later confirmed by the Great Depression and works of John Maynard Keynes." Hasn't Keynes' work been seriously debunked? How can he be cited as "proving" Malthus' gluts theory (of which I am unfamiliar, by the way). Also, isn't Malthus sort of a laughing-stock for his false prediction of catastrophe? Why is this noted on the Malthusian Catastrophe page, and not in his biography?

[edit] opposition

According to fr article, thomas malthus was opposed to the Speenhamland system. If anyone is willing to give more details about that ... :) Hashar 11:38, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Biography

I'm currently crawling the web to check some biography facts. There doesn't seem to be consensus on when and where he was born, respectivly when and where he died :-( Huerlisi 20:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Here are some sources:

[edit] Wikipedia article before my changes

I didn't find any sources for the February 14 birthday...

  • Born: February 14, 1766
  • Died: December 23, 1834

[edit] atheism.about.com

Very brief, but the only source I found stating all the facts... The 'February 2' (possibly 12, forgotten a '1') doesn't make it very thrustworthy though...

  • Born: February 2, 1766 in Dorking, Surrey (south of London)
  • Died: December 23, 1834 in Haileybury, Hertfordshire

[edit] Family Malthus Homepage

This Page has a quite extensive biography and contains references to its sources. Seems trustworthy... But the dates just don't fit with what everybody else says...

  • Born: February 13, 1766
  • Died: December 29, 1834

[edit] BBC Historic Figures

Well, I normaly trust BBC :-)

  • Born: February 1766 in Rookery, Surrey
  • Died: December 23, 1834

[edit] BookRags Premium Biographies

They about themselves: BookRags Premium Biographies are the most complete biographical resource available. Each biography is written by a biographical expert, professional educator, or scholar of the individual...

  • Born: 1766
  • Died: December 23, 1834, in Haileybury

[edit] Microsoft Encarta

  • Born: 1766, near Guildford, Surrey
  • Died: 1834

So I'm using the following for now. Just change if you find other, more trusted sources (don't forget to mention them here :-)

  • Born: February, 1766 in Surrey
  • Died: December 23, 1834 in Haileybury

[edit] Change of place of death

I've changed the place of his death to Bath - that's why he's buried in Bath Abbey! He worked at the East India College in Haileybury at one time but he didn't die there. His wife, Harriet, came from Claverton, near Bath and her parents had a house at 17 Portland Place, Bath. Malthus went to stay there for Christmas 1834, was taken ill and died there. I used to live at 17 Portland Place in the 1980s - the story is well-known in Bath. See The Malthus Family page on RootsWeb.

The details of Malthus' death given in James (1979) authoritative biography are Bath, 29 December. Corrected accordingly Robertsch55 15:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malthusian Drill

I just wanted to post a side note: In Huxley's "Brave New World" the women of the new world practice their 'Mathusian Drill' - their form of contraception. It's an interesting note to see the economist's name in such a novel.

Does anyone know cause of death?

[edit] Inappropriate Comment?

"And yet, the world population continues to grow exponentially, and a child dies of starvation every fifteen seconds."

This seems inappropriate to have in the article, because it has been shown that the population grows more linearly than exponentially. Malthusian Catastrophe (which this article links to) explians this. At any rate, it's not very encyclopaedic. syphonbyte 14:19, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In pop culture?

I don't have the full references handy & wasn't sure how it would be appropriate to add the topic but during the 70's in one of the classic Green Lantern/Green Arrow comics that had them roaming & exploring serious societal isses such as drug abuse, they went on an interstellar jaunt to a planet where it was so crowded that people couldn't move and there was never enough food. The planet was called "Malthus."

The plot is very similar to the Star Trek:TOS episode "The Mark of Gideon," which was also clearly influenced by Malthus' theories. (this last is a statement of opinion)

[edit] South Park reference

In one episode Cartman quotes A Christmas Carol's Scrooge's quote of Malthus.

[edit] Cultural depictions of Thomas Malthus

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The real father of the internet?

Rev. Thomas Robert Malthus, FRS (February 13, 1766 – December 23, 1834)

and on eksternal links:

  • [1] T. Robert Malthus's Homepage

And I who was soo sure that people stated with homepages in the 20th century.. Røed 20:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] introduction's attitude

malthus, although proven wrong with regards to his population principle, was still perhaps the most influential economist of his time. it is wrong to say in the introduction that he was best known for false and negligent views, because this misrepresents his true legacy, which is still profoundly felt today. save the specifics of the criticism for later in the article.

[edit] quick question

What about Boserup as a critic? bliz 19:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marx versus Malthus

I believe the article in the form I read it seriously misrepresents the relationship between Malthus's population theory and Marx's theories.

The encyclopedia artice currently states:

Karl Marx's social determinism has its roots in Malthus’s theory as well. Marx however rejected Darwin’s biological determinism and instead embraced social determinism (in other words one’s decisions are made as a direct reaction to one’s circumstances).

There are at least two reasons for believing this to be wrong. First, Malthus published a number of different essays on population, but the first one, the "Essay on the Principle of Population" published in 1798, was explicitly anti-revolution.

Its full title was "An Essay on the Principle of Population, As It Affects the Future Improvement of Society, With Remarks on the Speculation of Mr. Godwin, M. Condorcet and Other Writers," and about half of the work was dedicated to demolishing the utopian anarchist theories of William Godwin and the Marquis de Condorcet, a revolutionary nobleman who died in the French Revolution.

In the 1798 Essay, Malthus not argued that the idyllic society proposed by Godwin and de Condorcet would fail because it would only encourage the poor to have more children; he also stated that the population issue seemed to make impossible "any very marked and striking change for the better, in the form and structure of general society; by which I mean any great and decided amelioration of the condition of the lower classes of mankind." [Thomas Malthus, "An Essay on the Principle of Population," Penguin Classics edition, p. 172.]

This conclusion, of course, is almost opposite to Marx's idea that revolution could, in fact, bring about a "striking change for the better" in society and an amelioration of the lives of the poor.

The counter-revolutionary thrust of Malthus's ideas can also be seen pretty clearly in an 1824 Encyclopedia Britannica article on population that Malthus wrote, that was reprinted in 1830 as the "Summary View on the Principle of Population." In this work, Malthus toned down some of his bleak pessimism about the poor ever improving their lot, but he emphasized that the institution of private property was essential in inspiring the poor to limit their families. Private property basically forced individuals to accept limits on their incomes, which forced them to be prudent, Malthus argued; hence it would help to prevent over-breeding.

Marx was an enemy of private property, of course, so again it's impossible to see who his "determinism" (which was somewhat partial, as Thomas Sowell has noted) could have been based on Malthus's works.

Secondly, both Marx and his friend Friedrich Engels bitterly attacked Malthus in articles published in the 1840s, in a radical publication called the Deutche-Franszosiche Jahrbuch.

Marx called Malthus a "sycophant of the upper classes" (quote here is approximate) while Engels called the population theory a "revolting blasphemy against nature" because of its implication that the earth was too limited to support a large increase in population. For most of the last century and a half, therefore, Marxist socialists have generally opposed of "Malthusian" ideas about population.

A caveat: One way in which Malthus may have indirectly influenced Marx is through Malthus's influence on political economist David Ricardo, who adopted Malthus's population predictions and concluded that over time, excessive population growth would lead to land values rising to the point where landlords would collect enormous rents, so much so that capitalist profits and workers' wages would both be driven down to a minimal level. Marx when he studied political economy adopted many of Ricardo's ideas, so perhaps there was some indirect Malthusian influence on his work through Ricardo. Generally speaking, though, Marx got his ideas about "determinism" from Hegel, not Malthus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Fernbach (talk • contribs) 18:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Needs cleaning up

This article is in serious need of some cleaning up. Part of the references are totally irrelevant, and there is lack of balance between the different parts. In brief, a person of TRM's stature deserves better. Anyone else any thoughts on this? Robertsch55 07:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The "Influence" section is too long and rangy; it needs telescoping. Overall the article appears disjointed and lacking in cohesion. Alcmaeonid (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False conclusion alert

While critics may be justified that a global famine has not occurred, such events should be contrasted with famines throughout history. Clearly, famines indicate that a given population has exceeded the carrying capacity of their land.

How is it clear that famines in fact indicate that a given population has exceeded the carrying capacity of their land? This in fact presumes that the famines were CAUSED by a given population has exceeded the carrying capacity of their land, rather than failed economic, military and poltical philosophies.

Looking at some of the most notable famines of the last century - Ukraine, China, Ethiopia, Somalia... These famines had NOTHING to do with the inherent sustainablility of the land, and EVERYTHING to do with failed governemnt policies. Ukraine, the "Breadbasket of Europe" was starved half to death as a nation by the USSR. Because there were too many Ukrainians? Well, perhaps in the eyes of Marxists, but not because they had a population larger than their rich farmland could sustain.

The fact that famines DO exist, does not tell WHAT caused them. And the fact that famines have occured has been no vindication of of Malthus's theories.

If anything, I contend that when these famines have occured it has demonstrated just the opposite. The only time major famine has ever occured - the likes of which Malthus was speaking - it has NEVER occured for the reasons he gave. Elements of his predictions (famines) have occured, but not for the reasons he gave (inability to sustain) and not on the scale he predicted.

24.95.45.195 05:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Joseph N

[edit] Specific predictions of famine by Malthus

I removed a claim that Malthus "predicted famine in Europe, which has been proven false," which cited this: [2]. First of all, the linked article did not provide a source itself. Second, it didn't say that Malthus made any specific prediction. If he didn't, it hasn't been proved false, since famine could still happen in Europe.

Given all the nonsense that's been repeated about Malthus, I'm very skeptical of any source that makes claims about his opinions, especially specific predictions about famine, without actually citing his writings. Like this one, for example, from his Essay on the Principle of Population:

The ultimate check to population appears then to be a want of food, arising necessarily from the different ratios according to which population and food increase. But this ultimate check is never the immediate check, except in cases of actual famine.

Rsheridan6 11:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

An article in Nature is about as reliable as a source can be.Ultramarine 13:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Argument from authority is a fallacy even if the authority is an opinion piece in Nature. What's more, a more careful reading of the Nature article attributes the prediction to an unreferenced passage in the 1st edition of the essay, and clarifies that Malthus later back-tracked. The 6th edition should be considered the definitive edition. Even the author of this anti-Malthus opinion piece thought it appropriate not to qualify his statement with an explanation of that. Why, then, is it ok for to neglect to do so for Wikipedia?
What's more, the relevant portion of this article cites a secondary source, a book (the author of which at leasts appears to have read Malthus) which is partially reproduced here: [3]. I don't care if it's Nature - it's still third-hand information, and at least one of the people involved was trying to write a persuasive article. The final product in Wikipedia is fourth-hand information, in which two of the writers had a specific POV, and the final writer removed even the qualifications that had made it to the third step.
Please improve or remove this passage. It's not worthy of inclusion as-is.Rsheridan6 16:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Added a qualified regarding the first edition. Wikipedia does not decide truth, but cites views from verifiable sources. If you disagree and have a source with a different view, then please add it.Ultramarine 17:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
That's still inadequate, because it doesn't mention that he backtracked later, and readers should not be assumed to know that there was a substantially rewritten sixth edition.Rsheridan6 17:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Hindsight is easy. The fact remains that at least in the first edition he predicted continuing famines in the future.Ultramarine 20:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

As of now, this article says in two places that Malthus specifically predicted famines that didn't happen, both citing from secondary or tertiary sources that don't actually show where he said that, and in two other places this article says that he didn't make any specific predictions, one of which cites another secondary source and the other of which cites nothing (although it's kind of hard to cite something he didn't say. What are you supposed to do, blockquote the entire book and say "here it isn't!). I think that, if nobody can produce any actual predictions from Malthus, maybe all of them should just go away.Rsheridan6 22:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Citing a secondary or tertiary source that makes the claim about Malthus would be okay. I tried reading Malthus for specific predictions and my impression was that he makes general predictions of impending famine, but it is hard to capture this in any short block quote. Although I didn't finish him, so there may be a specific quote somewhere.--Michael C. Price talk 22:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Tertiary or secondary sources might be OK under normal circumstances, but in this case they're giving us contradictory results. If nobody can or will find a single primary quote, or at least a secondary source that makes some sort of case based on Malthus's actual writing rather than just making an unsupported assertion, that can clear this up, it should go. I'm not asking anybody to move mountains. The Principle of Population is available for free online in searchable form. And general impressions weren't the issue here - specific incorrect predictions were. FWIW (which isn't very much), I think he would be surprised by our current population and prosperity, but he certainly wasn't a Paul Ehrlich style, bet-losing prophet of doom.Rsheridan6 00:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hare Lip

That paragraph on his hare lip strikes me as very dodgy.

Yes, he did have a birth defect, but this is the first I've heard of those three associated "facts": that he was so embarrassed by it as to avoid portraits, that it was surgically repaired, and that such defects were common in his family.

I must declare an interest here: I am a Malthus, author of one of the web sites linked to this article. But since I first read that paragraph a couple of weeks ago I have been unable to find supporting evidence in the sources available to me, or by searching the web.

In fact, the possibility of repair never occurred to me before (how common was such surgery in those days?) although, on reflection, I concede that's what it looks like in his portrait. But if uncorroborated, is that sufficient evidence? And exactly when was it done? The timeline is problematic: He died at the end of 1834, the Linnell portrait is dated 1833, and the only explicit mention of a hare lip found by biographer Patricia James (1966) was a passage in the autobiography of Harriet Martineau, relating her meeting him in 1832. She was deaf and used an ear-trumpet, but worried that she would not hear him because of "his hare-lip which must prevent me offering him my tube." So it seems that Martineau was of the impression, at least before she met him, that the hare lip still existed and, after she met him, saw no need to correct that impression. To take Martineau at face value (ha!), the window of opportunity for the date of the surgery was pretty short. Likewise, the window of opportunity for people to start noticing that he was a handsome old dog! Actually, the "handsome" description appears to have originated in a memoir by TRM's niece, Louisa Bray (one of James' main biographical sources), in which she clearly states that he was considered handsome as a young man. So if the timeline suggested by this paragraph is correct then it should at least be amended to say he was considered handsome despite the defect, not merely after it was repaired.

As to avoiding the embarrassment of a portrait - well, I don't know; it just doesn't gel well with the descriptions of his equable nature. Has someone made an assumption based on the non-existence of earlier portraits?

Finally, I have seen it said that TRM inherited the defect from his great grandfather. Perhaps I am being overly sensitive, but I don't think that justifies the "common in his family" remark. If it was common then, it's frankly unknown now: neither I nor my father, who did fairly extensive research for a family tree 20-30 years ago, has any knowledge of cleft palates in any family member since TRM himself.

In other words, this paragraph smacks of some pretty loose extrapolation from some pretty thin data. Sources, please.

219.89.107.134 00:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Nigel Malthus

[edit] This sentence doesn't make sense

Essentially what this resulted in was the promotion of legislation which degenerated the conditions of the poor in England, lowering their population but effectively decreasing poverty.

If the conditions of the poor were degenerated, then wouldn't they be living in increased poverty?

Timhoooey 04:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extremist sources

Sections tagged [unreliable source?]

See WP:RS:

Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution. Tractorboy60 17:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The sites you tagged are just peak oil sites. They're not widely acknowledged as extremist, and they should not be considered unreliable for that reason. You can find articles about peak oil from mainstream sources like the New York Times which take the idea seriously, which demonstrates that it's not an extreme view.Lysine23 02:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

They promote alarmist arguments and dire, pessimistic forecasts. That makes it extremist in a political sense - see WP:RS above. In any event this doesn't belong on an encyclopedia article about Thomas Malthus. Take it to malthusian catastrophe, or better still a blog. WP:NPOV: "A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Evaluation of reliability will depend on the credibility of the author and the publication, along with consideration of the context. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." [i.e. arguably not the NYT]. WP:SOAP: "What Wikipedia is not - a site for... propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views."

As your section stands, it requires a balancing POV, and this also would not be in any way relevant to the subject of the article. Tractorboy60 06:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moral Restraint

As it stands, the article says:

"In the first edition of the Essay, Malthus suggested that only natural causes (such as accidents and old age), misery (war, pestilence, plague, and above all famine) [Book I, Ch. 2], moral restraint and vice (which for Malthus included infanticide, murder, contraception and homosexuality)[citation needed] could check excessive population-growth. In the second and subsequent editions, Malthus raised the possibility of moral restraint (including late marriage and sexual abstinence) as a check on the growth of population."

The inclusion of ", moral restraint" in the list of checks in the First Essay is incorrect (moral restraint first appeared in the Second Essay), and it implicitly contradicts the second statement which says that moral restraint appears in the second and subsequent editions of the Essay. I'm going to change it - I hope that's OK with everyone.

The statement that moral restraint includes "late marriage and sexual abstinence" is slightly awry: moral restraint means marrying late or not at all, coupled with sexual abstinence before marriage - but not within it.

Andy Denis (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Principle of population

I am unclear why the section of the article on Malthus's principle of population has been deleted. It was removed on 4 April by 75.199.49.135, apparently without any discussion. This has the effect of gutting the article. Unless there is a good reason for this change, let's put it back. Andy Denis (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC).