Malthus, T. R. (Thomas Robert), 1766-1834; Malthusianism
You speak of a society, he continues, where the members are all equally
comfortable and at leisure. Suppose it established, it could not last;
it would go to pieces through the principle of population alone. The
seven years of plenty would be at once devoured by seven years of want.
The proof of this is short and decisive:—Population, when unchecked,
increases in a geometrical ratio; subsistence only in an arithmetical.
“A slight acquaintance with numbers will show the immensity of the first
power in comparison with the second.”[23] “The race of plants and
animals shrinks under this great restrictive law, and the race of man
cannot by any efforts of reason escape from it. Among plants and animals
its effects are waste of seed, sickness, and premature death, among men
misery and vice,” the former necessary, the latter probable. Now, in the
old countries of Europe, population never is unchecked. It is checked by
want of room and food. Vice and misery, and the fear of them, are always
“equalizing” the numbers of the people with the food of the people. In
the New World, “the cynosure of neighbouring eyes,” there are fewer
hindrances to early marriage; there is more room and there is more food;
hard work is the only condition of a happy life. But, even there,
population is not entirely unchecked; the hard work will at least
interfere with the rearing of children; and the people, however
comfortable, are not at the very highest pitch of comfort, or at the
highest pitch of purity and simplicity of life; whereas, by assumption,
Godwin’s imaginary society is all these. If, therefore, the people of
old Europe double their numbers once a century, and the people of new
America (at least in the United States) once in twenty-five years, we
may be sure that in the millennial society of Godwin,
“Where all are proper and well-behaved,
And all are free from sorrow and pain,”
the increase would be much faster. The “leisure” he talks of would soon
disappear, and the old scramble for bread, the old inequality of rank
and property, would again become the order of the day. We should have
our own kind of society back again, with its masters and servants,
landlords and tenants, rich and poor.[24]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account