Dawkinswatch

Exposing Evolution As A Mess and Atheism As Hot-Air!

Thomas Robert Malthus Theory Influenced Charles Darwin

with 16 comments

Thomas Robert Matlhus and The Hold He Had On Darwin

It seems that Cahrles Darwin was influenced by the wooly thinking from one ,Thomas Robert Malthus and his theory that the world will run out of food because the population is growing beyond the resources which can sustain it. There is no more discredited theory.

Thomas Robert Malthus

Malthus Theory Taught In Schools

-I like this video, you can see how they are pushing this material on young people

– Violation of Human rights, China one child policy.

– Environmantalism a revival of Thomas Malthus.

It is fairly easy to debunk Mr Malthus, just because the man although an econommist, did not seem to understand the price mechanism. If there is shortage of food, the prices will go up. then all the farmers wiill start to grow the crops, or even I wiill start growing croops in my bedroom just because the price is so high.

Malthus thought can work in an Atheist Utopia like the Soviet Union just because they donot have price signals. If Charles Darwin’ thought are based on Thomas Malthus, they are based on quicksand and ought to be discounted.

But it is worse that, If we applly the survival of the fittest thought we and up with a Karl Marx or Hitler choosing who is fit to survive and who should die. Now I hope my Atheist friends are starting to see that Charles Darwin was dabblling with ideas he should not have.

My Atheist Friends what are your thought on Malthusianism and Eugenics.

Advertisements

16 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. You’re really not interested in honest intellectual discussion, are you? If you’ve read any historian’s account of Darwin’s notebooks, you’d probably understand. But let’s try and explain this for you.

    The reasoning goes:

    If every offspring survived to maturity and had offspring of its own, who also all survived, and the cycle kept repeating, you’d have infinite and exponential population growth. That’s obvious, and reading Malthus’s essay on this part (according to Darwin’s own notebook’s, the insight occurred while reconsidering Malthus’s essay on 28 Sept 1838) is what helped Darwin recognize his first basic fact, taken from a historical account of Darwin’s writings by Ernst Mayr:

    “Fact 1: All species have such great potential fertility that their population size would increase exponentially if all individuals that are born would again reproduce successfully.”

    I’m not sure on the origin of the second and third facts that Darwin drew upon, but it was:

    “Fact 2: Except for minor annual fluctuations and occasional major fluctuations, populations normally display stability.”

    “Fact 3: Natural resources are limited. In a stable environment they remain relatively constant.”

    From this, it followed in by straightforward logic that:

    “Since more individuals are produced than can be supported by the available resources but population size remains stable, it means that there must be a fierce struggle for existence among individuals of a population, resulting in the survival of a part, often a very small part, of the progeny of each generation.”

    Darwin also knew, from his familiarity with cattle and dog breeding, that:

    “Fact 4: No two individuals are exactly the same; rather, every population displays enormous variability.”

    And also:

    “Fact 5: Much of this variation is heritable.”

    From this, again, two things followed by use of straightforward logic:

    “Inference 2: Survival in the struggle for existence is not random but depends in part on the hereditary constitution of the surviving individuals. This unequal survival constitutes a process of natural selection.”

    And,

    “Inference 3: Over the generations this process of natural selection will lead to a continuing gradual change of populations, that is, to evolution and to the production of new species.”

    That’s pretty much Natural Selection in a nutshell. And it’s pretty simple and obvious once you think about it. But no one had thought about it until Darwin combined the first fact, drawn from thinking about Malthus’s essay, and the facts reached from familiarity with animal breeding practices. No one prior to Malthus had thought of populations in this way, that was the indispensable part.

    The only question that remained was, “So, can you observe the concluding inferences (#2 and #3) at work in nature?” And, indeed, biologists have been very successful in doing just that, and genetics in recent decades has proven it beyond any doubt.

    We can discuss it if you like.

    Dan

    May 20, 2009 at 3:25 pm

  2. Dan

    May 20, 2009 at 4:17 pm

  3. Let’s see. Malthus did not understand price structure (so you claim), ergo he was wrong about the concept of finite resources. Two unrelated concepts, but extrapolatring on your premise, it seems that resources are NOT finite, but infinite. Therefore there is nothing preventing the human population from topping 100 billion, or even a trillion.
    How comforting to know we have no ecological concerns whatsoever, simply because Malthus had an incomplete understanding of price structure.
    Wow.

    Bipedal Tetrapod

    May 20, 2009 at 8:03 pm

  4. It’s unclear how Darwin’s ideas could be made incorrect because another man’s ideas were. Facts, concepts, and ideas are independent of the person or persons who thought them up. That the person may have been wrong or heard wrong ideas previously has no bearing on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the idea itself.

    Just because a person was right ninety-nine times in a row does not mean that their hundredth statement is correct. It’s still subject to the same measures of accuracy that the previous ninety-nine were.

    Think of it like a coin flip. Previous coin flip outcomes have no bearing on the current coin flip. Ninety-nine heads in a row does not guarantee the hundredth flip will be tails.

    Mulloy

    May 20, 2009 at 8:15 pm

  5. Darwinism is a derivative of Malthus, if Malthusian thought is incorrect, then Darwin is incorrect multiplied.

    dawkinswatch

    May 21, 2009 at 3:58 pm

    • So, again, you are telling us that all resources are infinite? That there is no such thing as carrying capacity? Because that is the idea from Malthus that Darwin used.

      Bipedal Tetrapod

      May 21, 2009 at 7:07 pm

      • Clearly, DW doesn’t care about honestly discussing population growth and limited resources like an intelligent person. Much less the fact that the Galapagos finches and mockingbirds that Darwin was studying wouldn’t have adjusted their price structure to accommodate more offspring.

        No, DW doesn’t care about anything but trying to show up the non-Christian infidels, even if he has to lie to do it.

        Dan

        May 22, 2009 at 7:52 am

  6. Darwinism is a derivative of Malthus, if Malthusian thought is incorrect, then Darwin is incorrect multiplied.

    Damn you’re stupid.

    Dan

    May 21, 2009 at 5:37 pm

  7. well is a derivative have greater velocity than the underlying object?

    Dan you are a genius.

    stuffgirlslike

    May 22, 2009 at 6:09 pm

  8. Say Malthus was wrong, what more is there to discuss? Malthus was a false economist because his theiry excludes prices of food.

    stuffgirlslike

    May 22, 2009 at 6:11 pm

    • No, on population growth Darwin wasn’t wrong. Take for instance the exponential growth of some invasive species, such as rodents. With no predators, one pair of mice can in one year become thousands, demonstrating exactly what Malthus said on population growth and what caught Darwin’s attention.

      Dan

      May 23, 2009 at 8:42 am

      • Sorry, that first sentence should have been “No, on population growth *Malthus* wasn’t wrong.”

        Dan

        May 23, 2009 at 8:43 am

    • Or do you think that animal populations under selection pressure really do care about the dollar value of their food??

      LOL

      Dan

      May 23, 2009 at 9:01 am

  9. Dan have you heard on the Georgia Guidestones.

    dawkinswatch

    May 26, 2009 at 7:01 pm

    • Yes, a granite monument built in 1979. I suppose that that has something to do with Malthus and geometrical population growth?

      Dan

      May 27, 2009 at 6:31 am

  10. Thank you for exposing the ironies of our culture and for thinking, reasoning and speaking out!

    Lesli Manto

    June 20, 2009 at 12:39 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: