 |
Nigel Malthus of Christchurch, New Zealand. Malthus, Thomas Robert, An Essay on the Principle of Population. J. Johnson. 1798. (1st edition) Library of Economics and Liberty. Malthus, Thomas Robert, An Essay on the Principle of Population. John Murray. 1826. (6th edition) Library of Economics and Liberty. New School Profiles: Thomas Robert Malthus Britannica.com (search on "Malthus") |
Reverend Thomas Malthus - An Atheist View
"The purpose of population is not ultimately peopling earth. It is to fill heaven."
Graham D. Leonard, Bishop Of London (Speech 1983).
"Think of the earth as a living organism that is being attacked by billions of bacteria whose numbers double every forty years. Either the host dies, or the virus dies, or both die."
Gore Vidal, U.S. novelist and critic. (From "Gods and Greens", Observer, London, 1989)
From Microsoft Bookshelf 1994 - Quotations.
Malthus' Epitaph
Malthus has his tombstone set into the wall of the entrance to Bath Abbey, England. The first King of all England, Edgar, was crowned upon the site of the Abbey in 973AD. Next door are the Roman Baths, from which Bath (known by the Romans as Aqua Sulis) derives its name. It's a significant site for a burial.
Having lived in Bath for 8 years, I could see the Abbey from the lounge window of my attic flat in Portland Place on the steep slope of Lansdown hill. At night, the whole beautiful cityscape was floodlit, including the Abbey.
Strangely enough, it was only after emigrating to Australia and designing 6 Billion™ that I discovered that Malthus was buried in the Abbey. The next time I visited Bath, I made sure I visited Malthus' burial place.
This is what it says on his tombstone (commas added by me).:-
Sacred to the memory of the Rev Thomas Robert Malthus, long known to the lettered world by his admirable writings on the social branches of political economy, particularly by his essay on population.
One of the best men and truest philosophers of any age or country, raised by native dignity of mind above the misrepresentation of the ignorant and the neglect of the great, he lived a serene and happy life devoted to the pursuit and communication of truth.
Supported by a calm but firm conviction of the usefulness of his labors.
Content with the approbation of the wise and good.
His writings will be a lasting monument of the extent and correctness of his understanding.
The spotless integrity of his principles, the equity and candour of his nature, his sweetness of temper, urbanity of manners and tenderness of heart, his benevolence and his piety are still dearer recollections of his family and friends.
Born Feb 14 1766 Died 29 Dec 1834.
Malthus studied mathematics at Jesus College, Cambridge. He left there in 1788 to enter the Church.
Of Malthus' works, I have only read An Essay On The Principle Of Population (Penguin Classics edition, and that only once) though I have flicked through it subsequently from time to time. Even for this one work Malthus deserves the respect he has been given, though I beg to differ on the extent of his correctness.
What Malthus got right.
Malthus, writing in 1798, introduces the Principle Of Population:
"The perpetual tendency in the race of man to increase beyond the means of subsistence is one of the general laws of animated nature, which we can have no reason to expect to change."
As discussed in The Mechanism Of Population Doubling, this principle is mathematical in nature.
Malthus also stated:
"this constantly subsisting cause of periodical misery has existed ever since we have had any histories of mankind, does exist at present, and will for ever continue to exist, unless some decided change takes place in the physical constitution of our nature."
People commonly mistake this to mean that we are heading for a "Malthusian catastrophe", but what Malthus is saying is that it has always been this way, and it always will. We are living in a Malthusian catastrophe right now, just as humanity has always lived. Even though he is frequently misunderstood on this point, Malthus is again correct. War, Famine, Pestilence and Death (The Four Riders Of The Apocalypse) are ever present in our lives and our media, and are brought into our homes via television. Malthus also introduced at least one indisputable limit to growth - the planet Earth. Hence, for the first time, humanity could consider the implications of the exponential growth of its global population.
Malthus realised that his Principle Of Population did not just apply to humanity:
"In taking a view of animated nature, we cannot fail to be struck with a prodigious power of increase in plants and animals."
But Malthus understood the special power of the human species over nature:
"The main peculiarity which distinguishes man from other animals, is the means of his support, is the power which he possesses of very greatly increasing these means."
Malthus also realised that another unique power of our species was to show "moral restraint". This concept includes sexual abstinence followed by a late or no marriage, and voluntary restraint on sex within marriage. People could thus voluntarily, consciously, and deliberately restrict our own numbers. This unpopular suggestion could be just as effective as the "stop at two" approach of the Zero Population Growth protagonists.
Although Malthus got the basic Principle Of Population right (the natural tendency of populations towards exponential growth within the limits to growth), and correctly foresaw the consequences (War, Famine, Pestilence & Death), he got the rest wrong.
Still, Malthus at least recognised that nothing would change for humanity unless "...some decided change takes place in the physical constitution of our nature". I doubt very much whether Malthus would approve of the options now facing humanity, including some possibilities which he might have viewed as distinctly inhuman and "unholy":
- human-computer hybrids
- artificial intelligence
- von Neumann machines (self-replicating machines)
- nanotechnology (including nano-medicine, nano-computers and nano-assemblers)
- genetic engineering (human and non-human)
- cloning (human and non-human)
- biotechnology
Malthus does make a passing reference to the idea of the colonisation of space - 6 Billion™:
"The germs of existence contained in this spot of earth, with ample food, and ample room to expand in, would fill millions of worlds in the course of a few thousand years."
However, Malthus does not consider this subject in any detail. Yet should we or one of our creations colonise our solar system as 6 Billion™ suggests, Malthus will still essentially be right. There will always be checks on growth, including the greatest of all - the limits to growth.
Evolution will then favour that species (human or otherwise) which can escape the confines of the Earth and best adapt to grow exponentially in space. Later, a similar challenge will be to leave behind this solar system and spread life (in its broadest sense) to the stars.
What Malthus got wrong.
In the conclusion to his Summary View, Malthus states that "It has been thought..." that his Principle Of Population "...impeaches the goodness of the Deity, and is inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the scriptures." He realises that this would indeed be a serious charge, and provides us with his defence:
- he states that it all comes down to evil and vice, only introducing "moral restraint" from the "...irregular or excessive gratifications of the human passions in general..." in later editions of his essay.
- he saw "the state of man on earth" with its "...difficulties to overcome, and temptations to be resisted..." as "...strong additional proofs..." of the truth of divine revelation.
- he saw Earth as a proving ground provided by a "benevolent Creator" with the reward for the virtuous being "...happiness in this life as well as the next."
- hence he concludes that, since it is obvious to all that this is both good for the individual and society, "...the ways of God to man with regard to this great law are completely vindicated."
So what did Malthus get wrong? Given his background as a clergyman, I believe his blind religious faith is the direct cause of his five most serious errors of judgement :-
- he underestimated the rate of scientific progress, and its affect upon food supply
- he saw purpose and design in the natural process of exponential growth
- Earth is the eternal proving ground for this process
- this process was designed for humanity (even though it applied to all species!)
- Malthus was opposed to certain practises, even though each continues to act as an effective preventative check on population growth in today's world. These include contraception, homosexuality and abortion.
- he stated that it all came down to vice, virtue, and moral restraint
I have already dealt with scientific progress and some ethical matters in "The Cassandra Prediction - Exploding The ZPG Myth".
I gather that Malthus must have imagined that Christians are more virtuous than Atheists, and perhaps more capable of moral restraint. We know from Roman writers such as Lucretius and Greek writers such as Epicurus that atheism has been around for some time, since before Christianity (see The Philosophy Garden). Every good Christian knows that atheists are hedonists - sinful, evil and full of vice. So how can we prove whether Christians or Atheists are the more virtuous? Simple - count all the Christians and all the Atheists in the world today. My guess is that the Atheists are heavily outnumbered, thus proving Atheists to be far more virtuous than Christians throughout history (and obviously more capable of showing moral restraint). Malthus is therefore proven wrong.
The Hedonistic Atheist Theory rebuked.
Ah, but Atheists have always been a minority, so we should still expect fewer of them. Suppose, when Malthus wrote his essay that the following populations existed: The Faithful with a virtuous growth rate of 1% (doubling every 70 years) and The Atheists with a sinful 7% (doubling every 10 years):
Atheists (in millions) 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 then (rounding down)...
Atheists (in billions) 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024
The Faithful (in billions) 1 2 4 8
That's roughly 20 doubles for the naughty Atheists (200 years), and only 3 doubles for the Faithful (210 years is close enough to prove the point)
Obviously then, given that 95% of the world today believe in one religion or another, the figure for the Faithful is at least close whereas the figure for the Atheists cannot be true. Hence, Atheists are clearly not that hedonistic. So if Atheists are not that hedonistic, then how hedonistic are they?
The "We're-all-the-same" theory of morality
I would venture, in fact, that Atheists and the Faithful are equally 'virtuous' (and equally 'sinful'), thus calling into question the usefulness of the major world religions. Matt Ridley's "The Origins Of Virtue" explores how virtue emerges naturally in human society, for those that are interested.
We can try various growth rates for both factions since 1800, but the one that seems to work best is to use the same historical population doubling times for both factions -
From 1 billion in 1800 to 2 billion in 1930 - doubled in 130 years.
From 2 billion in 1930 to 4 billion in 1974 - doubled in 44 years.Atheists (in millions) 50 doubles in 130 years to 100, which doubles in 44 years to 200
The Faithful (in billions) 1 doubles in 130 years to 2, which doubles in 44 years to 4
This total of 4.4 billion takes us just beyond the historical landmark of 4 billion in 1974. The ratio of 5% of the world population being Atheist is maintained from 1800 through to 1974. This confirms that adherents to all major religions are no different, from a moral point of view, to those that do not adhere to any of the world's major religions. Atheists must be as capable of moral restraint as those with religious faith.
There is no divine purpose
It is perhaps ironic that Reverend Malthus's writings inspired those of Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace (co-founders of evolutionary theory), for evolution requires no purpose to work. This point has been reinforced by Richard Dawkins in books such as "The Selfish Gene" and "The Blind Watchmaker".
Looking at all the world's religions today, the one common theme is a sense of divine purpose. They all teach that we are here for a reason. Sadly, this isn't true. I'll show you why, and Malthus is going to help me. Let's take 2,000 people, half of them believe in a religion, and half of them are atheists. They each have a sustained annual growth rate of 1% (doubling roughly every 70 years):-
Atheists (in 1,000's) 1 2 4 8 16
The Faithful (in 1,000's) 1 2 4 8 16
So what has purpose, or any reason for existence, got to do with mathematics? Nothing - thus proving my point. OK, so perhaps all I have proven is that the Principle Of Population does not require "a reason" or a "purpose" for it to work. Much like evolution itself, it is a blind purposeless process. It works just as well for viruses, bacteria, birds, beasts or fish as it does for humanity. The mathematics works with or without a god. This disproves Malthus's assertion that the Principle Of Population has a God-given purpose.
Myself, I find the randomness and uselessness of most deaths during war, famine, pestilence or other means of death to also constitute proof of the absence of any divine purpose or reason for being. If you draw some comfort from seeing a divine purpose or reason for being, then stick with it. Myself, I believe it's time that humanity realised that we are responsible for creating our own sense of purpose, and our own reasons for being. These can be both noble and virtuous.
Earth is not special, humanity is not special
That got your attention! OK, so Earth is special, but why? Like Malthus, people are blinded by the fact that all life (as far as we know) exists here on Earth. If you took away all that life, including humanity, how special would the Earth be? It would be boring and pointless, much like every other planet in the solar system. Yes, Saturn's rings are pretty and Jupiter is rather impressive - but only because humanity is around to perceive them (no other species on Earth has seen them).
We used to think the Earth was flat. We used to think that Earth was the centre of the universe, and the stars were little pin-pricks in the great revolving dome of night and day. We used to think that the Sun and all the planets revolved around the Earth. Looking at the random mayhem of all those craters on the Moon, we get a sense of the randomness of creation across the geological ages, but many still delude themselves that the process has ceased or doesn't really apply to the Earth.
Our pride in our home planet is misplaced, and we still have a lot to learn.
If you created an ecology on Mars similar to Earth's but without humanity (or any intelligent technological species), would that make Mars special too?
If we built von Neumann machines endowed with artificial intelligence, and gave them Mercury to live on (or perhaps "in"), would that make Mercury special?
If inanimate matter itself could be transformed into something "alive", through nanotechnology, what might that do to Venus? Add a few nano-computers for good measure. Would Venus be special now?
The point is that Earth is not special, life is special. The point is that though life is special, intelligent life is more special. The point is that humanity is busy redefining the intelligent life on Earth.
Humanity is the only Earth species ever to contemplate colonising the solar system, or the stars. The sheer audacity of the idea is too much for many people to handle. You won't find these ideas revealed in the scriptures. Nonetheless, if life can find a way, it will happen.
Conclusion
There is no need to continue to prove Malthus right in his prediction of periodic human catastrophe here on Earth. However the inability of the general populace to see the obvious, and instead trust in faith, should please the English clergyman.
Dreaming of human salvation in Heaven, he has thrown a spiritual veil over people's eyes, obscuring the truly scientific nature of his own scientific discovery. Because of this, he may have helped to create Hell On Earth. People are still convinced that our goal is simply to reject technology, and live in spiritual harmony with nature. This view is alive and well today, and endorsed by the likes of HRH Prince Charles in his contribution to "Respect For Earth - Sustainable Development". It is too late for that - we are too many already. Plus, it is science applied through technology which even now sustains us and not spiritual harmony. The days of the hunter gatherers are over, and it is time to let go of the past rather than return to it. As a species we must now look to the future, before it is too late.
If we do not seize our chance now to colonise our solar system, and later colonise the stars, we may never get the chance again. One of two things (or perhaps both) will happen:
- we will slowly erode life on Earth
- we will be surpassed by one or more of our own creations
Obviously, to Malthus's way of thinking, all the virtuous people (including him) will be safely dead and in Heaven and those that are left on Earth will be Evil and full of Vice (and deserve what they get).
Many that agree with Malthus think we're in that situation now or, if not, then we will be soon. I disagree. We still have time, but nobody knows how much time we have left. For a while, the choice will be ours.
Mathematics knows nothing of vice or virtue, good or evil - these are all human inventions. The Principle Of Population stated by Malthus works on simple mathematical principles. Life, including human life, will always strive towards exponential growth. Whilst it is noble and commendable to stabilise the rate of human growth on Earth, and nurture and protect life on Earth as much as possible, we must also encourage all efforts to advance life into the solar system and beyond.
This is the true "purpose" behind the Principle Of Population, and it was thought of by humans and requires no divine inspiration. This "purpose" was neatly summed up by British zoologist Richard Dawkins (1995), in his book "A River Out Of Eden", in which he calls life a replication bomb. He states:
"We humans are an extremely important manifestation of the replication bomb, because it is through us - through our brains, our symbolic culture and our technology - that the explosion may proceed to the next stage and reverberate through deep space."
David Coutts
If you want to buy a copy of the book, it's worth knowing about the six editions of his work. Thoemmes Press have all the details.
Nigel Malthus, of Christchurch New Zealand. Nigel is a direct descendant of the Reverend Thomas Malthus' older brother, Sydenham. Nigel Malthus (2001) made the following comments:
"I think you're quite right in suggesting that exponential growth sailing merrily on until it meets some disastrous end is not the way populations work; rather, that the tendency for exponential growth means populations are constantly pushing against the straps, as it were.
...I wonder whether you're not a little harsh on TRM, ascribing his mistakes to his Christianity. That is, you may be right in the sense that his ideas were coming out of a particular mind set, but it was, after all, the prevailing mind set. In every age, even the avant-garde and the revolutionary only take a few small steps from the conventional, compared to the great sweep of history..."
Kate Stafford (2001), from the Replicators: Evolutionary Powerhouses site, wrote:
"Just a random thought: perhaps Malthus remains underrated for the same reason that Wallace is often ignored in accounts of the history of evolutionary theory - that is, because he held the wrong opinions. Darwin presented a case for an entirely naturalistic account of the origin and development of life and complexity as we know it. This concept exorcises the lurking demon who was supposed to have imparted living structure on the inanimate world. Having finally eliminated (religious) teleology from the explanation of life, perhaps some modern theorists are unwilling to give proper credit to a man like Malthus, who was rather irritatingly religious? This would certainly correlate with the relative marginalizing of Wallace, who eventually thought that natural selection did not apply to man and also wandered far down the ideological road into socialism.”
For a list of articles by me, see the Articles page.
