3 ms·
> Nope. Malthus made his observation based on history. He just happened to do so at the worst possible time, as the next couple of centuries saw unprecedented a
by tablespoon 4y ago
> Nope. Malthus made his observation based on history. He just happened to do so at the worst possible time, as the next couple of centuries saw unprecedented advances in food production and distribution followed by the more developed countries getting their population in check
Isn't that also a problem with the "refutations" of him? They're also based on history, just slightly more recent history. It's quite possible that future "advances in food production" will eventually fail to keep up with (perhaps slower) population growth, or future changes (climate change, reductions in fossil fuels, etc.) will undo some of the previous "advances in food production" required to sustain our current population.
- antisthenes 4y agoBingo. You hit the nail on the head. Most people who say Malthus is wrong are refuting a strawman that has nothing to do with the original strong argument.
- arcturus17 4y agoSorry but no - plenty of Malthusian arguments have been disproven.
- antisthenes 4y agoWrong. Unless you somehow travelled into the future and saw humanity's timeline until the end of time, his main thesis has not been disproven.
- notahacker 4y agoA universal law refuted by 200 years of completely different patterns isn't resuscitated because someone, somewhere may run out of food in some situation completely unlike the one Malthus described (i.e. food production always grows arithmetically, population always grows geometrically unless plague and famine kill enough people off... complete with extended musing on how to diminish or defer the "passion between the sexes" which assumes contraception isn't a thing)