6 ms·

Because he believed that population would be limited only by resources, and that fertility rate was nearly invariant. These have both proved to be wrong. The po

Because he believed that population would be limited only by resources, and that fertility rate was nearly invariant. These have both proved to be wrong. The popular imagination of the Mathusian prediction of inevitable mass starvation (which is not really that mis-characterized) was also wrong. So classifying him as wrong seems fair.

danbruc 9y ago
Well, he got wrong how the fertility rate would evolve, but that does not invalidate the model he developed. And he would probably have been pretty spot on with his predictions if the fertility rate had not drastically decreased.
- igravious 9y ago
  > And he would probably have been pretty spot on with his predictions if the fertility rate had not drastically decreased. If I went around saying, "well, I would have been right if that one part of my theory hadn't become invalidated by events on the ground" people would think me impossible to reason with.
  - jobigoud 9y ago
    Not if your theory became a meme that influenced people's behavior. Consider if we were to somehow diffuse the climate change bomb thanks to policies put in place based on current models. Our collective behavior would influence the outcome, but it doesn't invalidate the predictions.
  - rsynnott 9y ago
    In fairness, it would have been very hard for him to predict the decrease in fertility; it relies on both technological (birth control) and social (womens’ rights, pensions systems, and various others) innovations that would not have been reasonably predictable at the time.
ScottBurson 9y ago
And yet, the specter of a possible Malthusian catastrophe may have helped motivate us to prevent it. I don't really call that being wrong.
- bryanlarsen 9y ago
  The specter of a Malthusian catastrophe was what motivated Adolf Hitler. The factors that ended up defusing the Malthusian catastrophe were not influenced by Malthus at all. We did not go about educating women because of Malthus.
  - amvalo 9y ago
    Good Godwin.
    - ionised 9y ago
      Simply mentioning Hitler or the Nazis is not a reason to invoke Godwin's law.
      - amvalo 9y ago
        Godwin's law simply states that Nazis will eventually be mentioned (with probability approaching 1). Also, he's completely wrong. Hitler's reasoning was not to avoid a malthusian catastrophe. Pretty surprised people here bought that.
        philwelch 9y ago
        The goal of the Nazis was to conquer eastern Europe, remove most of the existing population, and resettle it with German colonists. The rationale was to feed and support a growing population, which is an idea at least reminiscent of Malthus.
        amvalo 9y ago
        The rationale was that their own ethnic group deserved to prosper at the expense of others. The idea that germany might be in danger of running out of food via population growth was not present. If by "reminiscent" you mean "has something to do with population" then sure, it's reminiscent.
Finnucane 9y ago
Population remains limited by resources. How could it not be? We've been adept over the years at finding new resources or extending old ones (the expansion of ranching and farming in the Americas in the 19th century, which greatly increased the global food supply, or the invention of artificial fertilizer, for instance), but it is a bit of hubris to say that this is a solved problem for all time.
- mikeash 9y ago
  Population is not only limited by resources. There are many places where humans reproduce at a rate well below what resources can support.
- rz2k 9y ago
  It is a ceiling, but there are so many signals prior to hitting that ceiling that the simplification of the Malthusian growth model does not seem to have any utility. Take for example US population density west of the Mississippi. No one needs to explicitly die of thirst. If water is the limiting factor, the cost of water is invisibly incorporated into nearly every cost people experience. If there were limitless water, the influence of other constraints would simply rearrange.
  - danbruc 9y ago
    After reading the comments here it probably boils down on what you focus. If you see the entire work pointing out the unsustainability of exponential population growth that will come to an halt either by positive or preventive checks, then you will probably not call him wrong. If you focus on his view that people will probably not be able to get the fertility rate down to sustainable levels and that a Malthusian catastrophe is therefore probably inevitable, then you will most likely call him wrong. But as I said before, I didn't read much of his work and therefore I might have a misconception about what points he actually stressed the most.
- Animats 9y ago
  Population remains limited by resources. No, it's not, and that's what's so surprising. As nations become wealthier, the birth rate goes down, not up. And it goes down by a lot; more than 50%. All the way down below replacement rate. The US passed "peak baby" in 2007. Outside of Africa, all the major world regions are past "peak baby".[1] Population seems likely to level off around 2050. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate

danbruc 9y ago

Well, he got wrong how the fertility rate would evolve, but that does not invalidate the model he developed. And he would probably have been pretty spot on with his predictions if the fertility rate had not drastically decreased.

igravious 9y ago
> And he would probably have been pretty spot on with his predictions if the fertility rate had not drastically decreased. If I went around saying, "well, I would have been right if that one part of my theory hadn't become invalidated by events on the ground" people would think me impossible to reason with.
- jobigoud 9y ago
  Not if your theory became a meme that influenced people's behavior. Consider if we were to somehow diffuse the climate change bomb thanks to policies put in place based on current models. Our collective behavior would influence the outcome, but it doesn't invalidate the predictions.
- rsynnott 9y ago
  In fairness, it would have been very hard for him to predict the decrease in fertility; it relies on both technological (birth control) and social (womens’ rights, pensions systems, and various others) innovations that would not have been reasonably predictable at the time.

ScottBurson 9y ago

And yet, the specter of a possible Malthusian catastrophe may have helped motivate us to prevent it. I don't really call that being wrong.

bryanlarsen 9y ago
The specter of a Malthusian catastrophe was what motivated Adolf Hitler. The factors that ended up defusing the Malthusian catastrophe were not influenced by Malthus at all. We did not go about educating women because of Malthus.
- amvalo 9y ago
  Good Godwin.
  - ionised 9y ago
    Simply mentioning Hitler or the Nazis is not a reason to invoke Godwin's law.
    - amvalo 9y ago
      Godwin's law simply states that Nazis will eventually be mentioned (with probability approaching 1). Also, he's completely wrong. Hitler's reasoning was not to avoid a malthusian catastrophe. Pretty surprised people here bought that.
      - philwelch 9y ago
        The goal of the Nazis was to conquer eastern Europe, remove most of the existing population, and resettle it with German colonists. The rationale was to feed and support a growing population, which is an idea at least reminiscent of Malthus.
        amvalo 9y ago
        The rationale was that their own ethnic group deserved to prosper at the expense of others. The idea that germany might be in danger of running out of food via population growth was not present. If by "reminiscent" you mean "has something to do with population" then sure, it's reminiscent.

Finnucane 9y ago

Population remains limited by resources. How could it not be? We've been adept over the years at finding new resources or extending old ones (the expansion of ranching and farming in the Americas in the 19th century, which greatly increased the global food supply, or the invention of artificial fertilizer, for instance), but it is a bit of hubris to say that this is a solved problem for all time.

mikeash 9y ago
Population is not only limited by resources. There are many places where humans reproduce at a rate well below what resources can support.
rz2k 9y ago
It is a ceiling, but there are so many signals prior to hitting that ceiling that the simplification of the Malthusian growth model does not seem to have any utility. Take for example US population density west of the Mississippi. No one needs to explicitly die of thirst. If water is the limiting factor, the cost of water is invisibly incorporated into nearly every cost people experience. If there were limitless water, the influence of other constraints would simply rearrange.
- danbruc 9y ago
  After reading the comments here it probably boils down on what you focus. If you see the entire work pointing out the unsustainability of exponential population growth that will come to an halt either by positive or preventive checks, then you will probably not call him wrong. If you focus on his view that people will probably not be able to get the fertility rate down to sustainable levels and that a Malthusian catastrophe is therefore probably inevitable, then you will most likely call him wrong. But as I said before, I didn't read much of his work and therefore I might have a misconception about what points he actually stressed the most.
Animats 9y ago
Population remains limited by resources. No, it's not, and that's what's so surprising. As nations become wealthier, the birth rate goes down, not up. And it goes down by a lot; more than 50%. All the way down below replacement rate. The US passed "peak baby" in 2007. Outside of Africa, all the major world regions are past "peak baby".[1] Population seems likely to level off around 2050. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate