In which I digress to answer a question from Matthew Yglesias… Now if only I can find a place for this in my book ms…. The question is about how original Thomas Robert Malthus’s argument is—that humanity is doomed by fecundity to poverty, with patriarchy, monarchy, and orthodoxy being the only path to build not a good but a not-totally-horrible society...
Malthus' reliance on Patriarchy, Monarchy and Orthodoxy (or at least the first and third) makes a lot of sense also if Patriarchy, Monarchy and Orthodoxy are completely false/nonsensical. Patriarchy, Monarchy and Orthodoxy keep population growth below output growth so that we are released from the Malthusian trap. That is reasonable if rather sad.
But why did Malthus and especially his successors get so upset about birth control etc etc? Birth control keeps us from the Malthusian trap without those silly costs (believing in fairy tales, giving up on premarital sex).
I really enjoyed this post. I can't remember what your next book is supposed to be about, even though I think I promised to pre-order it. But if you were to write your thoughts about Malthusianism, evolution, and "the long run", I would pre-order that too.
Adam Smith nearly got it right in his observation between the fecundity of a Highlands women and a woman of privilege. It was a missed opportunity to debunk Malthus.
What is obvious today is that the key to reducing population growth is widespread opportunity and education, particularly among women. This is where those such as Paul Ehrlich, The Club of Rome, and ultimately, the CCP got it wrong. Equal opportunity causes childbirth to be self-limiting.
In a world where opportunity depends on marriage and inheritance, Malthus may not have been so far off. Yet, it is exactly such a world that creates his nightmare.
I enjoyed the opening chapter of Slouching, in which a link is made between a technology index and sustainable population -- the higher the technology level, the larger a population that the planet can sustain. I think most believe that this is true, even as we approach 8 billion. We are aggressively working on sustainable food and energy. Technological solutions are being developed to sequester our (and our livestocks’) waste products to keep us from poisoning ourselves thereby allowing us to maintain our birth rate and longevity. Moreover it is inferred that our technological level was rising exponentially, thereby keeping the sustainable population level much higher than the actual level. So, the illusion is that population growth will always lag behind the population limit. With even higher tech levels on the horizon, questions arise if it would be feasible (or even allowable) to transplant a significant portion of human society to the moon, Mars, or even other stars. 10 billion? 100 billion? 1 trillion humans? It’s almost like counting Dollars!
The corollary to Malthus’ position, as I look at it, is that population size is proportional to misery. Low population leads to sustainable food, fewer human predators, and thus low misery. High population leads to strained food supply, more human competition, and high misery, followed by stunted population growth or even depopulation. The population/misery index may not be directly proportional, but may be ‘U’ shaped, with misery rising exponentially at a certain population level. His use of the mentioned factors (Patriarchy, Monarchy and Orthodoxy) is merely a method to constrain population growth so as to not outstrip food supply nor induce competition. However even in the absence of misery, I don’t think it is safe to assume the appearance of either morality (Malthus’ definition) or happiness. In fact, I cannot be certain those two factors are even linked to each other.
Thanks. That's fascinating. Meanwhile, French and British birth rates started diverging around 1760 with France decreasing fertility and England increasing fertility. I get the impression that this dramatic change was not noticed in English intellectual circles.
This post alone was worth the annual subscription.
Wonderful essay, Brad!
Malthus' reliance on Patriarchy, Monarchy and Orthodoxy (or at least the first and third) makes a lot of sense also if Patriarchy, Monarchy and Orthodoxy are completely false/nonsensical. Patriarchy, Monarchy and Orthodoxy keep population growth below output growth so that we are released from the Malthusian trap. That is reasonable if rather sad.
But why did Malthus and especially his successors get so upset about birth control etc etc? Birth control keeps us from the Malthusian trap without those silly costs (believing in fairy tales, giving up on premarital sex).
I really enjoyed this post. I can't remember what your next book is supposed to be about, even though I think I promised to pre-order it. But if you were to write your thoughts about Malthusianism, evolution, and "the long run", I would pre-order that too.
Adam Smith nearly got it right in his observation between the fecundity of a Highlands women and a woman of privilege. It was a missed opportunity to debunk Malthus.
What is obvious today is that the key to reducing population growth is widespread opportunity and education, particularly among women. This is where those such as Paul Ehrlich, The Club of Rome, and ultimately, the CCP got it wrong. Equal opportunity causes childbirth to be self-limiting.
In a world where opportunity depends on marriage and inheritance, Malthus may not have been so far off. Yet, it is exactly such a world that creates his nightmare.
Indeed...
I enjoyed the opening chapter of Slouching, in which a link is made between a technology index and sustainable population -- the higher the technology level, the larger a population that the planet can sustain. I think most believe that this is true, even as we approach 8 billion. We are aggressively working on sustainable food and energy. Technological solutions are being developed to sequester our (and our livestocks’) waste products to keep us from poisoning ourselves thereby allowing us to maintain our birth rate and longevity. Moreover it is inferred that our technological level was rising exponentially, thereby keeping the sustainable population level much higher than the actual level. So, the illusion is that population growth will always lag behind the population limit. With even higher tech levels on the horizon, questions arise if it would be feasible (or even allowable) to transplant a significant portion of human society to the moon, Mars, or even other stars. 10 billion? 100 billion? 1 trillion humans? It’s almost like counting Dollars!
The corollary to Malthus’ position, as I look at it, is that population size is proportional to misery. Low population leads to sustainable food, fewer human predators, and thus low misery. High population leads to strained food supply, more human competition, and high misery, followed by stunted population growth or even depopulation. The population/misery index may not be directly proportional, but may be ‘U’ shaped, with misery rising exponentially at a certain population level. His use of the mentioned factors (Patriarchy, Monarchy and Orthodoxy) is merely a method to constrain population growth so as to not outstrip food supply nor induce competition. However even in the absence of misery, I don’t think it is safe to assume the appearance of either morality (Malthus’ definition) or happiness. In fact, I cannot be certain those two factors are even linked to each other.
Thanks. That's fascinating. Meanwhile, French and British birth rates started diverging around 1760 with France decreasing fertility and England increasing fertility. I get the impression that this dramatic change was not noticed in English intellectual circles.
http://www.kaleberg.com/public/French%20and%20English%20Fertility.jpg