"Welfare to the needy would only increase their dependence and encourage the breeding of still more hungry mouths to feed, said critics."
167 years later, nothing has changed
Malthus held technology constant, which is silly. Subject to his assumptions, Malthus was correct, but his assumptions were flawed. Though, with what we knew of economics at the time, Malthus was cutting edge.
there is a hard ceiling to food production, though Malthus (in ignorance of future technologies) greatly underestimated it.
We have not reached it, yet.
doesn't mean we won't. If/When we do, Malthus' nighmare scenario will come to pass.
What, are you a slow reader or something?
Kind of like associating Christians with Jim Jones.
Social Darwinism had a pretty good run, but it was over in America early in the 20th century.
Malthus warned against shortages of food at just the exact time when the industrial revolution was paving the way for an undreamed of increase in the ability to produce it.
I am not at all sure that the premise of this article that the industrial revolution by 1838 had made only the capitalists rich. There was clearly a displacement of labor, and the creation for the first time of an urban, as opposed to a rural, underclass, but many people moved to the cities because they thought it would improve their lot in life. I think we tend to exaggerate the benefits of rural living.
Finally, there is evidence all over the world that industrial populations tend to self-limit. The consequences of underpopulation [expressed in the aging of populations] threatens to be as big a problem as overpopulation.
I ran across this quote from Thomas H. Huxley, Darwin's defender.
"The two most important questions in science are 'What can I know?' and 'How can I know it?'"
"Science and religion part ways over the first question, what each can know. Religion, and to some extent philosophy, believes that it can know, or at least address, the question, 'Why?'"
"The question 'why' is too deep for science. Science instead believes it can only learn 'how' something occurs."
There was a lot more, but basically, he said that science does not reject religion. They are not working on the same problems or seeking the same answers. It is religion that rejects science. Looks like it still does.
Ping.