Malthusianism: Difference between revisions

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]]."

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.

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.

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>

@@ 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]]."
-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.
+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.
+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>