From “Essay on the Principle of Population”, First Edition, 1798
Published anonymously by the Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus
If I allow that by the best possible policy, by breaking up more land and by great encouragements to agriculture,
the produce of this Island [Britain] may be doubled in the first 25 years, I think it will be allowing as much as
any person can well demand.
In the next 25 years, it is impossible to suppose that the produce could be quadrupled. It would be contrary to all our
knowledge of the qualities of land. The very utmost that we can conceive is that the increase in the second 25 years
might equal the present produce.
Let us then take this for our rule, though certainly far beyond the truth, and allow that, by great exertion, the whole
produce of the island might be increased every 25 years by a quantity of subsistence equal to what it presently produces.
The most enthusiastic speculator cannot suppose a greater increase than this.
In a few centuries it would make every acre of land in the Island like a garden. Yet this ration of increase is evidently
arithmetical. It may be fairly said, therefore, that the means of subsistence increase in an arithmetic ratio.
As you can see, there is no logic in Malthus' argument, only an appeal to reason : "... it will be allowing as much as
any person can well demand.", "it is impossible to suppose ...", "the very utmost that we can conceive is ..."
Thus his final statement, that it can be "fairly said" that the means of subsistence
increase in an arithmetic ratio, is without any kind of mathematical rigour.
Nevertheless the "arithmetic ratio" gets compared to the "geometric ratio" of population increase
in some kind of mathematical way by Malthus.
I think Malthus' over-arching argument, that starvation will prevail, is correct,
but the mathematical basis for the argument is a con.
Dave Kimble April 2005
DK's Home page
You can support my not-for-profit causes by making a
donation
by secure on-line transaction. Thank you.
dvi cable