Malthus, T. R. (Thomas Robert), 1766-1834; Malthusianism
Even the question of the ratios was not settled. Godwin had counted his
discussion of them the most important part of his book. It gives us his
third substantial argument against Malthus. Godwin takes up,[850] what
seems to have been a common charge, that the essayist had written a
quarto volume to prove that population increases in a geometrical and
food in an arithmetical ratio. The essayist had answered, as long ago as
1806,[851] that the first proposition was proved as soon as the facts
about America were authenticated, and the second was self-evident; his
book was meant less to prove the ratios than to trace their effects. His
authorities, as he told Godwin afterwards,[852] were Dr. Price, Styles,
Benjamin Franklin, Euler, and Sir William Petty, supplemented, for
figures, by Short and Süssmilch and the censuses of the United States
and England, and, for principles, by Adam Smith and Hume. We have
already seen[853] how far the simile of geometrical and arithmetical
ratios was meant to be pressed. Godwin thinks he exposes it by arguing
that the increase of population can never be quite exactly
geometrical[854] (which Malthus would admit),—that America was an
exception[855] (in face of the maxim that the exception tests the
rule),—that, in order to suppose population doubling itself in the
United States, we must suppose it, as regards births, doing the same in
the Old World (in other words, fact is the same as tendency),—that the
normal increase is not that of America but that of Sweden,[856] in which
case (Malthus would answer) the normal increase must be one that takes
place in face of very severe restrictions. To the charge of damaging the
borrowed kettle the old Irishwoman had three answers:—It was cracked
when I got it; it was whole when I returned it; I never had it. So
Godwin’s views of the American colonies vacillated between three
inconsistent propositions: the great increase of the numbers is natural
(or spontaneous), but that of the food is greater still;[857] the great
increase is not natural, but due to immigration;[858] there has been no
great increase at all.[859] The reader has three alternative arguments
presented to him, and it matters little whereby he is convinced, if only
in the end he is persuaded to believe with Godwin, that population
requires no checks at all,[860] and is a fitful principle.[861] In
history, says Godwin, it seems to operate by fits and starts; and such
irregular effects cannot have a uniform cause. It might be replied that
in the same sense gravitation is fitful, for we seem to break it by
walking upstairs as well as down, by using a siphon as well as a
water-jug, or by drying up a drop of ink with blotting-paper instead of
letting it sink down into the paper. Yet in these cases the fitfulness
is never imputed to the absence of a cause, but to the presence of more
causes than one. To believe, as Godwin seems to do, in occult laws which
vary with the circumstances is to believe in no laws at all.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account