Malthus, T. R. (Thomas Robert), 1766-1834; Malthusianism
St. Leon is miserable only because his gift is peculiar to himself; an
immortality that is common to all would be acceptable to all. A
Methuselah would not be melancholy among antediluvians. Such was
probably Godwin’s position. The mere belief in the possibility of
earthly immortality was not uncommon; Godwin is careful to number Bacon
among its supporters.[35] Malthus was probably right in tracing it to
the unconscious influence of Christianity,[36] though the progress in
Godwin’s days of the new science of chemistry had perhaps more to do
with it, and Godwin’s religion was never more than a bare Theism.[37] It
was held by Holcroft, one of Godwin’s most intimate friends,[38] and it
was an important part of Condorcet’s _Sketch of the Progress of the
Human Spirit_.
In the days of the Terror (1794) Condorcet, from his hiding-place in
the Rue Servandoni, had written of the “organic perfectibility of
man.” He looked to medicine, and to the arts and sciences in general,
to banish disease and prolong human life “indefinitely.”[39] Godwin
trusted to the inward development of the mind, not to outward
appliances.[40] But by different ways they arrive at the same
terminus, and receive from their great critic very much the same
reception there. Malthus points out to Godwin that there is no sign
that the body is becoming subjugated to the mind. Even philosophers,
said he (and he wrote feelingly, as he had the malady at the time of
writing), cannot endure the toothache patiently,[41] and even a merry
heart will not enable a weak man to walk as fast and as far as a
strong man. There is no change in the human body, and little or no
change in the relation of the mind to it. To Condorcet he simply
points out that, while the arts have made the lengthening of life
“indefinite,” that does not mean “infinite.” Gardeners can grow
carnations “indefinitely” large; no man can ever say that he has seen
the largest carnation that will ever be grown; but this he can say,
that a carnation will never be as large as a cabbage. The limit is
there, though it is undefined, and there is a limit also to the
lengthening of human life, though no one can fix it to a year.
Condorcet therefore has proved an earthly immortality only by a misuse
of the word “indefinite.” He has shown no organic change in man which
would prove the possibility of perfection in this world. Neither has
Condorcet repelled the objection which troubled Dr. Wallace. It is
true that, like Godwin, he faces the difficulty and admits the
importance of it.[42] The growth of population will always, he says,
cause inequality; there will always be a rich leisured class and a
poor industrial class; and to lighten the hardships of the latter
there ought to be a State Insurance fund, which will make all the
poorest citizens sure of support. But one cannot help thinking, if all
are sure of support, all will marry, and if all marry, will not the
difficulty be increased?[43] Yes, Condorcet grants this; the numbers
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