50 pages • 1 hour read
Thomas MalthusAn Essay on the Principle of Population
Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 1798A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Themes
Population Growth as Inevitable
At its core, Malthusian theory asserts that population growth is inevitable whenever conditions are right. In other words, provided enough subsistence and stability, humanity will always tend toward multiplication. Since population grows at an exponentially faster rate than food production, a drop in the price of provisions will prompt a rise in birth rate, and this increase in the demand for food will soon negate any benefit from the initial price drop. Any additional population increase can be kept in check by active prevention (e.g., abstinence due to the incapacity of raising a family) or by forces such as natural disasters (e.g., epidemics arising from cramped and insalubrious living conditions). From these observations, Malthus concludes that the human condition, and society as a whole, always tends toward the level of subsistence.
Modern economists have deemed Malthus’s theory as deterministic. Although human action has some degree of power over change, the superior power of population will ensure that any societal progress toward abundance will inevitably be kept back by uncontrollable birth rates. Furthermore, Malthus comments that the greatest bouts of misery, which act as a check to population by increasing mortality rates, are mostly endured by the lower classes. This is dubbed the Malthusian catastrophe.
The Malthusian perspective is a product of its time, and its determinism has largely been disproven by modern economists. This is because it relies on several period-typical assumptions for relevancy. First is the idea that abstinence and other forms of contraception are ineffective and will likely never be practiced enough to significantly affect birth rate. Throughout the essay, Malthus repeatedly asserts that the “passion between the sexes” has not extinguished over time and that intellectual pursuits cannot replace carnal pleasures. To think this will change in the future is ultimately unscientific (see chapter 11).
Malthus’s deterministic argument against societal improvement requires that birth rates remain outside of human control. It presupposes that all married couples capable of caring for children will want as many as possible, especially in the lower ranks of society. This presumption is not supported by any hard data, and it is largely false in hindsight. From a modern perspective, the most notable omission in the discussion about birth rate is the use of contraceptives. Malthus’s peers may have speculated about a future where birth rates may be controlled, but even to them abstinence from carnal pleasures was the only acceptable method for such a goal. Without the capability of foresight, Malthus’s theory presumes that people will want to have as many children as their situation affords. In other words, if this is the natural cadence of life, population will always outgrow a society’s capability to produce food.
Poor Relief as Exacerbating the Poverty Problem
Malthus repeatedly criticizes the English poor laws in An Essay on the Principle of Population for exacerbating the poverty problem. His reasoning is based on two assumptions. The first is that charity, especially one distributed according to the number of people per household, encourages idleness and the multiplication of children. According to Malthus, this is precisely the case of the English poor laws, which all but diminish the aggregate happiness of the lower classes because “when one of the strongest checks to idleness and dissipation is thus removed, and when men are thus allured to marry with little or no prospect of being able to maintain a family of independence,” they are prone to reproducing more than necessary.
The author firmly believes people will only be incentivized to work if there is a necessity for it. In the final two chapters, he argues that mankind is first pushed to action to meet their bodily requirements. Hunger forces people to improve their methods of hunting or cultivating the land. Intellectual pursuits are often sparked by the wish for efficiency and convenience. Thus, many great inventions are the result of necessity, and in a state of abundance all basic human necessities are already fulfilled without the need for exertion. Later in Chapter 18, Malthus agrees with philosopher John Locke that people labor to avoid pain (for example, they may work hard for more food to avoid going hungry). In other words, the English poor laws and any form of charity only encourage complacency.
The second assumption against the effectiveness of poor relief is that it drives population growth without encouraging a proportional increase in food production. This is mainly because subsistence never increases at a ratio fast enough to keep up with population. Since the English poor laws are distributed according to the number of children per household, Malthus fears they will needlessly encourage reproduction. If the funds allow the lower classes a certain degree of financial comfort, the men no longer need to worry about providing for their family, which will ultimately encourage them to have more children. Without a proportional increase in the production of food, the price of groceries will increase. The poorer classes, whose salaries have not increased, are once more forced into poverty due to having more mouths to feed while paying inflated prices. Malthus declares that without a proper increase in food production, any charity given to relieve the poor will ultimately exacerbate their misery.
Perfectibility of Mankind
In writing An Essay on the Principle of Population, Malthus took inspiration from various topics of contention in the field of philosophy. His contemporaries saw the 1700s as a period of great progress, one that encouraged an optimistic outlook for the coming century. Given the tremendous changes that swept through Europe, many thinkers, including William Godwin and Marquis de Condorcet, who feature prominently in Malthus’s essay, began speculating about how much further humankind could go. Godwin optimistically believed immortality may be within reach in the future while Condorcet envisioned a world of equality and abundance. Both partook in what conservative scholars of their time might call preaching for “a happier state of society” for the sake of “destroy[ing] the present establishments” while “forward[ing] their own deep-laid schemes of ambition” (2).
Although Malthus tried to reconcile the progressive and conservative factions on the issue of the perfectibility of mankind in the first chapter, his own theory ultimately paints society as stagnant. The deterministic nature of his population theory leaves little room for talk of significant progress. Malthus spends over eight chapters critiquing the works of Godwin and Condorcet, refuting all essential arguments in favor of human progress on economic and philosophical grounds. Humanity may be capable of self-improvement, but they are not infinitely perfectible, and their social condition can never stray far from the present conditions. The division of class can never be erased, and the lower classes in particular must brace the miseries and disasters brought about by overpopulation. Stuck in a vicious cycle of happiness and suffering, their living conditions are wretched when resources are scarce, but when their situation improves toward abundance, they are immediately prone to uncontrolled reproduction. Society, as a whole, can attempt to limit the number of people who are extremely rich or poor, but ultimately cannot escape the fundamental law of exponential population growth.
Most notable throughout the Essay is Malthus’s disdain for Godwin and Condorcet’s indulgence in speculation about the future. He spares some words for their authority as important thinkers but just as easily spends paragraphs labeling their methodology as scientifically unsound and illogical. In addition, both Godwin and Condorcet are critiqued for losing sight of the most important aspect of philosophical inquiry: the desire to seek the truth through careful observation of existing phenomenon. In sum, the subject of the perfectibility of humankind is a recurring subject of discussion in Malthus’s time. The concept of societal progress is repeatedly critiqued throughout Malthus’s essay because it is contrary to the good practices of modern philosophy and because it paints too optimistic a picture of progress.
