Malthus

Jim Menegay <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

As it turns out, Malthus's argument regarding the wage
rate was correct, but irrelevant, due to an escape
mechanism that Malthus noted but did not take seriously:
"vice". Also, he underestimated the degree to which
capital could be substituted for land as a factor of
production. Capital, like population, can increase
geometrically, for a few more centuries, anyways.

Malthus said:

``Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical
ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio.
A slight acquaintance with numbers will shew the immensity
of the first power in comparison of the second.''

- ac.wwu.edumalthus.1.htmlOpen ↗

While there is a universal speed limit, resources will find
it difficult to expand faster than a sphere whose radius is
increasing at the speed limit - and that is *not* fast
enough to keep up with unrestrained reproduction.

Malthus saw no way of avoiding the resulting resource
limits.

*If* there /is/ a way out of the dilemma Malthus mentioned,
it is not yet clearly visible.
--
__________
|im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.orgOpen ↗ [email hidden] Remove
lock to reply.

Jim Menegay said:

(John Wilkins) said:

John Edser said:

Where Malthus could only see death and destruction

This is also false. Malthus thought that economic
selection would generate fitter individuals (in the pre-
Fisherian sense of "fit"😉.

Quoted message said:

Darwin saw natural selection.

John (Wilkins, that is),

Your claim about Malthus is new and interesting to me. As
an economics student, I was taught that Malthus had argued
that the wage rate could never rise significantly above
the subsistence level (a grim conclusion, to be sure, but
not exactly the "death and destruction" that Edser
paints). I have never heard that he had suggested any
tendency toward increased "pre-Fisherian fitness" in the
population.

Could you expand on this, and perhaps provide references?
Also, what do you mean by "economic selection" as the
causal agent in all this? What did "fit" mean, pre-Fisher?
For that matter, what did it mean, pre-Spencer?

Malthusian economics is not quite the same as Malthus'
arguments on population growth and the Poor Laws. He has
been pilloried and parodied by many (mostly by Marx, Engels
and their followers). What he said was roughly this:

There are two actual, and one possible, checks on population
growth. The actual ones are the "preventive" checks and the
"positive" checks.

Preventive checks include raising a family with foresight,
saving money and resources to educate and set them up. This
tends to reduce the birthrate.

Positive checks include disease, war, famine, and the like.

*is* the early 19thC).

He says (Ch 5) that "all checks to population may be
resolved into misery of vice" and notes that "The sons and
daughters of peasants will not be found such rosy cherubs in
real life as they are described to be in romances. It cannot
fail to be remarked by those who live much in the country
that the sons of labourers are very apt to be stunted in
their growth, and are a long while arriving at maturity",
and this he ascribes to poor food, a "want of either proper
or of sufficient nourishment".

It follows that if one takes preventive and moral restraint
into account when raising a family, they will be better off
and fitter. The Poor Laws "tend to depress the general
condition of the poor in ... two ways. Their first obvious
tendency is to increase population without increasing the
food for its support. ... Secondly, the quantity of
provisions consumed in workhouses upon a part of the society
that cannot in general be considered as the most valuable
part diminishes the shares that would otherwise belong to
more industrious and more worthy members..." [p97 in the
Penguin edition]

To put it in modern terms, the poor relief laws will
increase the population beyond the carrying capacity of
the environment, and secondly will cause a Tragedy of
the Commons.

Quoted message said:

[moderator's note: This may seem a bit off-topic, and I
suppose perhaps it
is. I don't care; I think it's interesting, and any
discussion about historical perceptions of "fitness"
is, in my view, relevant to our charter. John, (and
any others who would like to weigh in): carry on. -
JAH]

As it turns out, Malthus's argument regarding the wage
rate was correct, but irrelevant, due to an escape
mechanism that Malthus noted but did not take seriously:
"vice". Also, he underestimated the degree to which
capital could be substituted for land as a factor of
production. Capital, like population, can increase
geometrically, for a few more centuries, anyways.

Flew notes that Malthus implies what economist Kenneth
Boulding called the Dismal Theorem - that actively pursuing
vice will tend to apply a positive check on the population,
and the Utterly Dismal Theorem, that increasing the
subsistence will inevitably increase misery and vice.

These things have obvious evolutionary analogues. It is no
coincidence that Darwin's ideas are similarly economic to
Adam Smith's. He read a lot of Smith and of Ricardo, one of
Smith's followers.
--
John Wilkins [email hidden]
wilkins.id.auwilkins.id.auOpen ↗ "Men mark it when they hit, but do
not mark it when they miss"
- Francis
Bacon

Jim asks:

Quoted message said:

Could you expand on this, and perhaps provide references?
Also, what do you mean by "economic selection" as the
causal agent in all this? What did "fit" mean, pre-Fisher?
For that matter, what did it mean, pre-Spencer?

"Fitness" meant "appropriateness to purpose" to Darwin.
Outside of Fisherian mathematical biology, it means the same
thing today, and is written in one fashion or another on
every software warranty. This wording accompanies a Linux
distribution::

"This software is provided by the Regents and contributors
"as is" and any express or implied warranties, including,
but not limited to, the implied warranties of
merchantability and *fitness for a particular purpose* are
disclaimed."

Darwin used the word in exactly the same way. You can get a
deep sense of Darwin's definition just from his writings.
These sentences appear in Chapter 6 of the "Origin":

"Furthermore, we may conclude that transitional grades
between structures *fitted for very different habits of
life* will rarely have been developed at an early period in
great numbers and under many subordinate forms."

"Although no graduated links of structure, *fitted for
gliding* through the air, now connect the Galeopithecus with
the other Lemuridae, yet I can see no difficulty in
supposing that such links formerly existed..."

"When either case occurs, it would be *easy for natural
selection to fit the animal*, by some modification of its
structure, for its changed habits, or exclusively for one of
its several different habits."

"But by far the most important consideration is that the
chief part of the organisation of every being is simply due
to inheritance; and consequently, though each being
assuredly is *well fitted for its place in nature*, many
structures now have no direct relation to the habits of life
of each species."

"So we may believe that the progenitor of the seal had not a
flipper, but *a foot with five toes fitted for walking or
grasping*..."

Wirt Atmar

Tim Tyler <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

While there is a universal speed limit, resources will
find it difficult to expand faster than a sphere whose
radius is increasing at the speed limit - and that is
*not* fast enough to keep up with unrestrained
reproduction.

Of course, we are likely to run out of resources long before
the speed of light becomes an issue. However, because I
enjoy quibbling, I must point out that the speed of light is
not the limit you seem to think it is. Due to the Fitzgerald-
Lorenz contraction, unlimited numbers of people can be
packed into the expanding wavefront. ;-)

Quoted message said:

Malthus saw no way of avoiding the resulting
resource limits.

*If* there /is/ a way out of the dilemma Malthus
mentioned, it is not yet clearly visible.

Personally, I prefer 'vice'. Though, as a long term
solution, it does require that we somehow turn off natural
selection.

[email hidden] (John Wilkins) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Jim Menegay said:

(John Wilkins) said:

John Edser <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Where Malthus could only see death and destruction

This is also false. Malthus thought that economic
selection would generate fitter individuals (in the
pre-Fisherian sense of "fit"😉.

> Darwin saw natural selection.

John (Wilkins, that is),

Your claim about Malthus is new and interesting to me.
As an economics student, I was taught that Malthus had
argued that the wage rate could never rise significantly
above the subsistence level (a grim conclusion, to be
sure, but not exactly the "death and destruction" that
Edser paints). I have never heard that he had suggested
any tendency toward increased "pre-Fisherian fitness" in
the population.

Could you expand on this, and perhaps provide
references? Also, what do you mean by "economic
selection" as the causal agent in all this? What did
"fit" mean, pre-Fisher? For that matter, what did it
mean, pre-Spencer?

Malthusian economics is not quite the same as Malthus'
arguments on population growth and the Poor Laws. He
has been pilloried and parodied by many (mostly by
Marx, Engels and their followers). What he said was
roughly this:

There are two actual, and one possible, checks on
population growth. The actual ones are the "preventive"
checks and the "positive" checks.

Preventive checks include raising a family with foresight,
saving money and resources to educate and set them up.
This tends to reduce the birthrate.

Positive checks include disease, war, famine, and
the like.

Quoted message said:

*is* the early 19thC).

He says (Ch 5) that "all checks to population may be
resolved into misery of vice" and notes that "The sons and
daughters of peasants will not be found such rosy cherubs
in real life as they are described to be in romances. It
cannot fail to be remarked by those who live much in the
country that the sons of labourers are very apt to be
stunted in their growth, and are a long while arriving at
maturity", and this he ascribes to poor food, a "want of
either proper or of sufficient nourishment".

This is new to me. The excerpts of Malthus that I had read
did not define 'vice', but I picked up the strong impression
that he was speaking delicately of anything that diverted
the "passion between

realize that he included post-childbirth evils such as
malnutrition.

I suppose that in forming this misimpression, I was
forgetting that back then, "virtue" and "vice" were not
necessarily used in a purely moral sense, as they mostly
are today.

Quoted message said:

It follows that if one takes preventive and moral
restraint into account when raising a family, they will be
better off and fitter. The Poor Laws "tend to depress the
general condition of the poor in ... two ways. Their first
obvious tendency is to increase population without
increasing the food for its support. ... Secondly, the
quantity of provisions consumed in workhouses upon a part
of the society that cannot in general be considered as the
most valuable part diminishes the shares that would
otherwise belong to more industrious and more worthy
members..." [p97 in the Penguin edition]

To put it in modern terms, the poor relief laws will
increase the population beyond the carrying capacity of
the environment, and secondly will cause a Tragedy of the
Commons.

Quoted message said:

[snip] I still don't quite see that you have supported your
claim that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Malthus thought that economic selection would generate
fitter individuals.

The only dynamic that I can see in this that might generate
fitter individuals would be:
1. Culling of the unfit ("economic selection"?)
2. Survival of the fit offspring of the foresightful.
3. Cultural inheritance of the habit of foresight. I can see
this dynamic possibly increasing population fitness, and
population foresight, if not shortcircuited by "bad
ideas" such as the poor laws. (That is, I can see it if I
close my eyes to the likelyhood that the culling will not
be precise, nor will the economic hardship be so
perfectly tuned that the foresightful will never have
unfit offspring).

My question is whether Malthus actually closed the causal
cycle in this way, from one generation to the next, and
predicted a virtuous cycle of increasing fitness and
foresight? If he did, it is fairly amazing that Darwin was
the first reader of Malthus to think of the idea of
substituting some other kind of inheritance for cultural
inheritance in this dynamic.

Jim Menegay said:

[email hidden] (John Wilkins) wrote:

...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He says (Ch 5) that "all checks to population may be
resolved into misery of vice" and notes that "The sons
and daughters of peasants will not be found such rosy
cherubs in real life as they are described to be in
romances. It cannot fail to be remarked by those who
live much in the country that the sons of labourers are
very apt to be stunted in their growth, and are a long
while arriving at maturity", and this he ascribes to
poor food, a "want of either proper or of sufficient
nourishment".

...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It follows that if one takes preventive and moral
restraint into account when raising a family, they will
be better off and fitter. The Poor Laws "tend to depress
the general condition of the poor in ... two ways. Their
first obvious tendency is to increase population without
increasing the food for its support. ... Secondly, the
quantity of provisions consumed in workhouses upon a
part of the society that cannot in general be considered
as the most valuable part diminishes the shares that
would otherwise belong to more industrious and more
worthy members..." [p97 in the Penguin edition]

To put it in modern terms, the poor relief laws will
increase the population beyond the carrying capacity of
the environment, and secondly will cause a Tragedy of
the Commons.

Quoted message said:

[snip] I still don't quite see that you have supported
your claim that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Malthus thought that economic selection would
>generate fitter individuals.

Jim, I mention fitness (in the non-evolutionary sense, but
rather one of being as healthy as one can be and suited for
one's environment) several times above. Malthus thinks that
economic selection will generate fitter individuals. But
note that the term "fitness" here in the population
genetics sense is post-Fisher. Prior to that, it means what
it means above.

Quoted message said:

The only dynamic that I can see in this that might
generate fitter individuals would be:
1. Culling of the unfit ("economic selection"?)
2. Survival of the fit offspring of the foresightful.
3. Cultural inheritance of the habit of foresight. I can
see this dynamic possibly increasing population
fitness, and population foresight, if not
shortcircuited by "bad ideas" such as the poor laws.
(That is, I can see it if I close my eyes to the
likelyhood that the culling will not be precise, nor
will the economic hardship be so perfectly tuned that
the foresightful will never have unfit offspring).

My question is whether Malthus actually closed the causal
cycle in this way, from one generation to the next, and
predicted a virtuous cycle of increasing fitness and
foresight? If he did, it is fairly amazing that Darwin was
the first reader of Malthus to think of the idea of
substituting some other kind of inheritance for cultural
inheritance in this dynamic.

I think you are conflating the two meanings of "fit" here -
I took care to be precise:

<OP>

Quoted message said:

John Edser said:

Where Malthus could only see death and destruction

This is also false. Malthus thought that economic
selection would generate fitter individuals (in the pre-
Fisherian sense of "fit"😉.

</OP>
--
John Wilkins [email hidden]
wilkins.id.auwilkins.id.auOpen ↗ "Men mark it when they hit, but do
not mark it when they miss"
- Francis
Bacon

Jim Menegay <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

Tim Tyler <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

While there is a universal speed limit, resources will
find it difficult to expand faster than a sphere whose
radius is increasing at the speed limit - and that is
*not* fast enough to keep up with unrestrained
reproduction.

Of course, we are likely to run out of resources long
before the speed of light becomes an issue. However,
because I enjoy quibbling, I must point out that the speed
of light is not the limit you seem to think it is. Due to
the Fitzgerald-Lorenz contraction, unlimited numbers of
people can be packed into the expanding wavefront. ;-)

Attempts to pack in an "unlimited" number of people
anywhere are likely to result in gravitational collapse -
and a black hole.

In practice, I don't think expanding at near the speed of
light is very realistic. At that speed, most of the rest of
the matter in the universe is rushing towards you pretty
fast and is very difficult to either avoid or use as fuel.

Without new physical laws (which of course can't be ruled
out), it seems the expansion rate of a population is
unlikely to ever get anywhere near the speed of light.
--
__________
|im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.orgOpen ↗ [email hidden] Remove
lock to reply.

[email hidden] (John Wilkins) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Jim Menegay said:

I still don't quite see that you have supported your
claim that

Quoted message said:

> >Malthus thought that economic selection would
> >generate fitter individuals.

Jim, I mention fitness (in the non-evolutionary sense, but
rather one of being as healthy as one can be and suited
for one's environment) several times above. Malthus thinks
that economic selection will generate fitter individuals.
But note that the term "fitness" here in the population
genetics sense is post-Fisher. Prior to that, it means
what it means above.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

I think you are conflating the two meanings of "fit" here
- I took care to be precise: [snip]

I am sorry if I seem dense here. I was trying to be equally
precise in using only the pre-Fisher sense of "fit". To
avoid future confusion, let us eliminate all use of this
word, and substitute "healthy".

I accept your two premises:
1. Malthus believed that malnutrition leads to unhealth.
2. Malthus believed that foresight leads to health.

I don't understand the logic leading to your conclusion:
3. Malthus believed that economic selection would lead to
increased health.

I believe that the real difficulty here is that you are
assuming that we have a shared understanding of the term
"economic selection", whereas actually I have no idea what
this phrase is intended to mean. I think I understand that
it was not Malthus's term, but rather a coinage of later
commentators, but that doesn't help me to understand
it.

In economic analysis, the term "selection" is rarely used.
When it is used, it is almost always in discussing the fate
of firms or enterprises. There, it is used in Spencer's
sense. I have never seen the term used in an analysis of
the unskilled labor market or in an analysis of the causes
of poverty.

Perhaps a second cause of my failure to understand you is
that I come into this with a preconceived notion (I am
willing to be corrected) that Malthus thought that poverty
is inevitable. Poverty is, after all, a necessary component
of both of his actual checks on population growth -
foresight and child mortality. Even if poverty could somehow
be alleviated in the short term, the long term effect would
be dire. And, furthermore, while a short term artificial
increase in poverty in this generation might actually
decrease poverty in the next generation, the long term
problem remains.

Therefore, the only mechanism which I can imagine Malthus
thinking would be effective in increasing the level of
health would be something that shifts the balance in favor
of his preferred check - foresight - and decreasing the
importance of the more vicious checking mechanism involving
malnutrition and child mortality.

I would have thought that he would have suggested
"exhortation" as the only available mechanism for producing
this shift. I don't see any way that "economic selection"
would produce the shift - but perhaps there is some subtlety
in your use of the term that I don't understand yet.

I hope this clarifies why I seem to be obstinate on this.

Jim Menegay said:

(John Wilkins) said:

Jim Menegay said:

I still don't quite see that you have supported your
claim that
> > >Malthus thought that economic selection would
> > >generate fitter individuals.

Jim, I mention fitness (in the non-evolutionary sense,
but rather one of being as healthy as one can be and
suited for one's environment) several times above.
Malthus thinks that economic selection will generate
fitter individuals. But note that the term "fitness"
here in the population genetics sense is post-Fisher.
Prior to that, it means what it means above.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

I think you are conflating the two meanings of "fit"
here - I took care to be precise: [snip]

I am sorry if I seem dense here. I was trying to be
equally precise in using only the pre-Fisher sense of
"fit". To avoid future confusion, let us eliminate all use
of this word, and substitute "healthy".

"and adapted to one's environment"

Quoted message said:

I accept your two premises:
1. Malthus believed that malnutrition leads to unhealth.
2. Malthus believed that foresight leads to health.

I don't understand the logic leading to your conclusion:
3. Malthus believed that economic selection would lead to
increased health.

Because it would apply the positive checks to the unhealthy,
leaving a higher average health in the remaining population.

Quoted message said:

I believe that the real difficulty here is that you are
assuming that we have a shared understanding of the term
"economic selection", whereas actually I have no idea what
this phrase is intended to mean. I think I understand that
it was not Malthus's term, but rather a coinage of later
commentators, but that doesn't help me to understand
it.

In economic analysis, the term "selection" is rarely used.
When it is used, it is almost always in discussing the
fate of firms or enterprises. There, it is used in
Spencer's sense. I have never seen the term used in an
analysis of the unskilled labor market or in an analysis
of the causes of poverty.

It is possible I am importing Spencerian terms and ideas
back into Malthus. But he does say that checks to population
increase will address the problems of undernourished and
underdeveloped laborers, at the least.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps a second cause of my failure to understand you is
that I come into this with a preconceived notion (I am
willing to be corrected) that Malthus thought that poverty
is inevitable. Poverty is, after all, a necessary
component of both of his actual checks on population
growth - foresight and child mortality. Even if poverty
could somehow be alleviated in the short term, the long
term effect would be dire. And, furthermore, while a short
term artificial increase in poverty in this generation
might actually decrease poverty in the next generation,
the long term problem remains.

But if positive checks of want and misery and vice are
allowed to operate, then there will be *less* remaining
poverty (so he claims - this is not a defence of Malthus).

Quoted message said:

Therefore, the only mechanism which I can imagine Malthus
thinking would be effective in increasing the level of
health would be something that shifts the balance in favor
of his preferred check - foresight - and decreasing the
importance of the more vicious checking mechanism
involving malnutrition and child mortality.

I would have thought that he would have suggested
"exhortation" as the only available mechanism for
producing this shift. I don't see any way that "economic
selection" would produce the shift - but perhaps there is
some subtlety in your use of the term that I don't
understand yet.

I hope this clarifies why I seem to be obstinate on this.

Sure. I think we are now disagreeing on what sort of
selection is in play. I think Malthus thought it would weed
out the unfit/unhealthy, and so the average fitness of the
population would thus rise. This is how I read him. It is
possible I am doing the eisegesis here. I never did study
economics.
--
John Wilkins [email hidden]
wilkins.id.auwilkins.id.auOpen ↗ "Men mark it when they hit, but do
not mark it when they miss"
- Francis
Bacon