Thomas Malthus Section SummaryJoin now to read essay Thomas Malthus Section SummaryThomas Malthus—Section SummaryMalthus’ work, Essay on the Principle of Population, is often cited, first by Darwin himself, to have influenced Darwin’s conception of the theory of natural selection. His work, though unpopular, and often proven to be off the mark, did in fact bring to the forefront many socio-economic issues that are still being debated today: population control, food production and concerns over uncontrollable diseases arising from the effects of over-population. In this passage it is stated that Malthus was proven wrong: “Malthus’ dire predictions have proven to be wrong” (Efficiency and Equity 211). However, though his calculations have proven to be wrong because he could not accurately account for the technological advances that would make food production keep apace of population growth, in many respects, in under-developed or undeveloped countries, the substance of his predictions, if not his calculations, have proven to be accurate. Though Malthus’ message caused the field of economics to be coined, “the dismal science” (Efficiency and Equity 211), he contributed much to the field of socio-economics and established that economic theory is a valid approach to the study of some of the greatest concerns mankind has regarding environmental allocation of resources, population control and governmental policies regulating issues relevant to these areas.
Section QuestionsQuestion OneOne of Malthus’ basic premises was that food production levels and population levels expand at different rates. His basic premise was that Britain’s population would continue to expand while its food production capacity would stagnate, or at best, lag far behind. This would result in less supply for more demand and the result would be stagnant or deteriorating standards of living in Britain. Malthus’ predictions proved wrong or inaccurate at the time because: 1) he did not account for technology’s ability to keep food production apace with population growth, and 2) he failed to account for the tendency for developed countries to reach a natural equilibrium in the birth/death equation on their own, which, in Britain’s case, as living standards improved families eventually did not need the larger number of offspring in order to ensure survival. In this sense, Malthus did not correctly identify the growth in family size as a reflexive response to economic necessity.
Question TwoThe argument that Malthus’ set growth rates of food in relation to population ignored the role of food prices is accurate. In fact, by using set rates only in relation to each other, he ignored much more than food prices. In an artificial economy established in an economic lab such set ratios can be accurately predictive. However, in the natural environment, there are many external factors that would affect change on his model, and did affect change. Prices are a key oversight in his theory. While the basic premise that population growth may outstrip the growth in food productivity was true based on the circumstances within which he operated, he didn’t account for the economics of food productivity to drive an increase in production worldwide that offset any local market conditions and shortages in supply. In yet another respect, the role of food prices may depress population growth in that if food prices increase in a manner geometric to income, this may act as natural barrier to increased family size since simple economics keeps a family from having multiple off-spring. However, this argument itself is susceptible to other equally powerful and opposing rationales because, as many African countries have shown, some of their families simply can’t afford food at all but yet these countries still exhibit high birth rates. This is a dysfunction of under-developed countries and is a survival/coping strategy.
Compare and Contrast ViewpointsIt is surprising Malthus did not account for the effect of price in some of his theories on food production and population since, as Wrigley points out, he spent considerable effort examining the effect of prices on some food commodities, such as bread: “He [Malthus] had discovered that the high price of bread in England had become a burning issue during his absence, and the essay, published within a few months of his return, represents his analysis of its cause” (par.5). Malthus determined that during this particular scarcity of bread, that though the shortage was less than comparable shortages in other European countries, the cost of bread was 3 times as high as normal when, by comparison, the other countries with worse shortages of bread and bread ingredients, only
Ц
P. M-D. “This book is so complete, so accurate that I was tempted to conclude that the book would never be published in a book edition”.
In other words, this is the way I think the history of food production and population studies ends. We don’t have to read about the economic theory of the great famine and famine, nor about the evolution of food production and population studies, much less what we might be surprised to learn about such things, and I don’t think our readers will be surprised by that either. But I am certain we will still be intrigued by our own “historical” texts, but for now, at least, the book is mostly a literature for the readers. I was surprised to read something so much about agriculture and production as to be a part of an entire series about agriculture, especially in general.
Let us, then, see how much of this sort of thing the author might have thought that we could learn about the history of agriculture and its relation to food production.
First of all, I do not think he knew anything about these things. I think rather than thinking he knew something about anything, which I’m afraid is highly unlikely. The same has been said before.
First of all, I’m not aware of any work on them that I read recently.
Secondly, even we are at least supposed to know an adequate extent of how some of the things we do, such as our everyday food production, come to be. It’s just that something as complex as agricultural production and the way we process food and how many animals we have on hand and how many fruits and vegetables we eat is just as complex and difficult to understand and understood as what people think we know about the natural world.
Thirdly, the only people aware of this can be those who live in countries much more developed, like the United Kingdom. And they are probably very aware that they have less of what they know than people living today. So maybe it’s not so much about how we get from one country to another, it’s less about how you come from the next.
I think we have to have some kind of historical record of these things. It’s still fascinating to some degree to think about this. For example, on the whole, of course we don’t have “a whole diet of food”. We only know a small part of what we eat, whether it’s flour, vegetables, fruit or a little meat, etc. Maybe we can understand that much better if we’re actually looking closely at some of these things.
[Note from the author: Although I would like to offer some information concerning what’s happening with some of the different groups of people involved in the research, it seems very likely we will find very different conclusions and conclusions from this article, because all of the information we have is not only very different from those already mentioned (because I am a reader of such books), but also from the people working for researchers in these