Malthus's theories have been modified or adapted in various ways by neo-malthusians and communists. But Malthus's original full-strength theory is the insanest of all, and it is that theory which Darwin relies on for natural selection to work. You see, Malthus believed that populations are not just tending toward their maximum level of sustinence. The geometric growth is such that populations are always at their maximum level of sustinence, and, as a consequence, they are plunged into inescapable vice and misery when they go beyond it. Right now the paupers are beyond their maximum level of sustinence and that's why they are miserable and vice-ridden. Any more babies they have incurrs more punishment of this natural law that doles out more misery and vice to them. This isn't a catastrophe to happen in the future. It is supposed to be happening now and always. The purpose of his theory was to explain why the rich class existed alongside a huge class of miserable vice-ridden paupers in England, and what to do about it.
But as insane as Malthus’ views were and however discredited they’ve enjoyed a comfortable existence in Darwinism and as you said those accepting Darwinism are getting more than just Darwin, they’re getting Malthus too unto the point they hardly recognize it.
I mentioned the environmental/deep ecology movement because one logical conclusion of Malthus’ doctrine is that increasing the sustenance supply would actually be a waste of time and only put off the inevitable.
An increased food supply would increase population and another cycle would start, leading one to the idea that only a major decrease in population made sense.
Of course we know who would be selected to be decreased.
Ethan, excellent posts on Malthus.
It was a long wade though the valley of the shadow of brown noise and static (courtesy our fiends from DC), but it was worth it.
“You see, Malthus believed that populations are not just tending toward their maximum level of sustinence. The geometric growth is such that populations are always at their maximum level of sustinence, and, as a consequence, they are plunged into inescapable vice and misery when they go beyond it. Right now the paupers are beyond their maximum level of sustinence and that’s why they are miserable and vice-ridden. Any more babies they have incurrs more punishment of this natural law that doles out more misery and vice to them.”
What a deceptive fairy tale. It’s wrong in so many ways, but I’ll handicap myself; let’s assume that you’re interpreting Malthus correctly. Your point is still completely irrelevant to evolution and to Darwin’s role in its development. You have created the very type of strawman that creationists on this site accuse rational Christian scientists of putting forth at the slightest injection of reasoned debate.
I thank God (quite literally) that creation, based on such nonsense, is not taught as science in public schools.