I also didn’t expect the feminism, and the extension of the analysis from the Well, this was not quite what I expected.The topic broadens into the public policy consequences of his theory and the metaphysical purposes of misery.There are two ways to control this: decrease birth rate (preventive checks) or increase death rate (positive checks); if the first one doesn't happen, the second inevitably will.
Surely, if he thought that suffering could be entirely extirpated, he would throw all his weight behind that solution.
Population explosion will likely be the major issue of our time.
I also didn’t expect the feminism, and the extension of the analysis from the of the misery produced by the imbalance in population and agriculture.
As a clergyman, Malthus understandably felt it incumbent on him to justify to man the ways of a God who would create such a law of nature.
As the human species continues to multiply at an ever-increasing rate, the ghost of Malthus will continue to haunt us.
I have heard it said that Malthus was an enemy of the poor—a lassez-faire capitalist that didn’t want welfare states to impinge on the free market.And when we look back at how much has already been done, we can thank Malthus for giving us a head start. The topic broadens into the public policy consequences of his theory and the metaphysical purposes of misery.Moreover, the writing is excellent; who expects Malthus to have a sense of humor?Unfortunately, we now suspect that rather than preventing a calamitous collapse, the Green Revolution may just have forestalled a catastrophic one; the new farming techniques are destroying our soil. (See Charles Mann's cover story in National Geographic, September 2008 for more.) We need a new silver bullet. You might explain that it'll only result in decreased sensitivity and a shortage of socks, but he is going to keep at it with endless industry and innovation. We'll either be able to innovate fast enough to barely stay ahead of our own unforeseen consequences, or something else will happen. ETA: Cecily directs me to a couple of poems that say pretty much what I've said but much better and they rhyme. I’m not sure what exactly I expected from this little book.He'll either get a girlfriend or die of autoerotic asphyxiation in his parents' basement. ) But it's human nature: show us a piece of land, and we will put stuff on it; give us an idea, and we will pursue it. Certainly, I expected to see Malthus’s oft cited argument concerning the rate of food production vs.He did not foresee the widespread use of contraceptives, nor the dazzling improvements in farming technology that would appear in the years to come. But then why has Malthus been brought up in every class on the environment that I have ever taken?I wonder what Malthus would say if you told him that, in the future, less than 2% of the population of the United States would be farmers, and that the population of the world would exceed 7 billion. This must be because, although Malthus was gloriously (and thankfully) wrong in the specifics, the general problem that he elucidates here is an important one that somehow eluded the attention of every major thinker before him.that of population increase (but I wondered if an entire book, however brief, could be filled on that topic).I just as certainly did not expect to meet such a charming writer and incisive thinker. Doubtless, Malthus was wrong about every specific prediction he ventured to make.In point of fact, the central concern of this book is to improve the lot of the greatest possible number of people.True, for reasons he lays forth, Malthus is not very optimistic about this prospect.