Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in or
create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 5: |
Line 5: |
| In contrast to Malthusianism, pro-growth Marxists (such as [[Deng Xiaoping]]) propose that humanity is not constrained in the same way as animals are when it comes to their population growth.<ref>[[The Part played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man]] by [[Frederick Engels]]</ref> Lyndon LaRocuhe expresses this ability to increase the human population with technology as the "[[Potential Relative Population Density]]." | | In contrast to Malthusianism, pro-growth Marxists (such as [[Deng Xiaoping]]) propose that humanity is not constrained in the same way as animals are when it comes to their population growth.<ref>[[The Part played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man]] by [[Frederick Engels]]</ref> Lyndon LaRocuhe expresses this ability to increase the human population with technology as the "[[Potential Relative Population Density]]." |
|
| |
|
| Marx and Engels were major critics of Malthusian population theory. Marx characterised Malthus' ''Essay on Population'' as "nothing more than a schoolboyish, superficial plagiary of De Foe, Sir James Steuart, Townsend, Franklin, Wallace, &c., [it] does not contain a single sentence thought out by himself."<ref>Marx, Karl. (1867). ''[https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf Capital Volume I]''. pp. 489–490.</ref> Though they accepted natural selection and other elements of [[Darwinism]], they rejected the influence Malthus had on both ''The Origin of Species'' and Darwin's work in general. | | Marx and Engels were major critics of Malthusian population theory. Though they accepted natural selection and other elements of [[Darwinism]], they rejected the influence Malthus had on both ''The Origin of Species'' and Darwin's work in general. This split later became a sharpened contradiction with the rise of [[Mendelism-Morganism]], which was viscerally critiqued by [[Trofim Lysenko]], the infamous Soviet agronomist. While the Mendelist-Morganists promoted [[Metaphysics|Metaphysical]] concepts such as genes and random mutation from their sterilized, controlled, cobweb-ridden laboratories, Lysenko experimented in the fields barefoot with Soviet farmers and used [[Dialectical Materialism]] as the basis of his scientific method. Lysenko, his colleagues, and their teacher (the agronomist [[I.V. Michurin]]) arguably synthesized what is now commonly accepted as epigenetics. |
| | |
| Engels wrote in 1843:<blockquote>Malthus establishes a formula on which he bases his entire system: population is said to increase in a geometrical progression – 1+2+4+8+16+32, etc.; the productive power of the land in an arithmetical progression – 1+2+3+4+5+6. The difference is obvious, is terrifying; but is it correct? Where has it been proved that the productivity of the land increases in an arithmetical progression? The extent of land is limited. All right! The labour-power to be employed on this land-surface increases with population. Even if we assume that the increase in yield due to increase in labour does not always rise in proportion to the labour, '''there still remains a third element which, admittedly, never means anything to the economist – science – whose progress is as unlimited and at least as rapid as that of population'''. What progress does the agriculture of this century owe to chemistry alone – indeed, to two men alone, Sir Humphry Davy and Justus Liebig! But science increases at least as much as population.<ref>Engels, Friedrich. (1843). [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/df-jahrbucher/outlines.htm ''Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy''], Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher.</ref></blockquote>This split later became a sharpened contradiction with the rise of [[Mendelism-Morganism]], which was viscerally critiqued by [[Trofim Lysenko]], the infamous Soviet agronomist. While the Mendelist-Morganists promoted [[Metaphysics|Metaphysical]] concepts such as genes and random mutation from their sterilized, controlled, cobweb-ridden laboratories, Lysenko experimented in the fields barefoot with Soviet farmers and used [[Dialectical Materialism]] as the basis of his scientific method. Lysenko, his colleagues, and their teacher (the agronomist [[I.V. Michurin]]) arguably synthesized what is now commonly accepted as epigenetics.
| |
|
| |
|
| [[Fox Green]] of the [[Space Commune]] has made a documentary called "''Consumerism: Can we buy a better world?''" which offers a critique of degrowth and Malthusianism.<ref>[https://youtu.be/0VbWe5SM9Lg Consumerism: Can we buy a better world?] on [[YouTube]]</ref> | | [[Fox Green]] of the [[Space Commune]] has made a documentary called "''Consumerism: Can we buy a better world?''" which offers a critique of degrowth and Malthusianism.<ref>[https://youtu.be/0VbWe5SM9Lg Consumerism: Can we buy a better world?] on [[YouTube]]</ref> |
