Talk:Malthusian catastrophe

message: This article is supposed to be about Malthusian catastrophe, and the following quote and reference certainly does NOT belong in the section where it has been placed:
"In her book Humanity and it's foolishness, Stacey Walker invites readers to challenge previous views on individuality looking instead for a paradigm shift towards a collective Hive Mind. Once in Humanity has entered the 'Hive State' Walker postulates an end to resource depletion via the Druidic virtue of 'Survival of the Fittest'."
That should be removed and if necessary placed into some sort of "related works" section.  
Addendum to note: I would also beg to differ with the statement implying that Druids are somehow responsible for the theory of 'Survival of the Fittest'.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.43.230 (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stacey Walked Hive Mind Doesn't Belong 

message: Hmm. I just wanted to object to a few things:
*The World Population graph is described as "clearly... close to linear". Really? To me it looks "clearly curved". (In fact, I think I see evidence of the logistic curve, but that could well be spurious.) As alluded to in the article, 50 years is an awfully short time to get a good idea of how human population levels are changing. In fact, graphing the data from 1804-1999 given in the first external link at that point in the article, would give a strong impression of exponential growth. Yes, maybe we're starting to see the beginning of the "slowing down" in growth that's predicted by the logistic model, but it's relatively early in that process, IMO, so I would be very hesitant to claim that the growth is no longer exponential — certainly not based on the data given here. (dcljr, continued below)
** Yes, graphing the 6 points 1804-1999 does look closer to exponential (see below) - but the data prior to 1950 are extrapolations or approximations, based partly on the assumption of exponential growth prior to 1950 (and of course data after 2004 is purely extrapolated with some unstated model). Only the data highlighted in blue are based largely on actual census counts. (In any case, it looks closer still to two linear segments with an critical point near 1960). So the reason for concentrating on the last 50 years is because that is the sole period for which we have reasonably reliable data. And when you graph that real data, you get something that offers little support for the common assumption that "it's obviously exponential". Also it was not stated that it's "no longer exponential", but rather that there is no strong evidence that it ever has been. In fact it could be a very slow exponential, or maybe a very slow logistical, or perhaps linear, or quadratic - the point is we really don't know, and at any rate it certainly isn't a simple function. But at least the reason for choosing this period should be clarified. (Securiger)
*** Hmm... Part of the reason it might look closer to two linear segments is because the interpolating curve is (I assume) a cubic spline (and there's no point for it to go through between c. 1805 and 1925). Anyway, I agree with the rest of your paragraph. - dcljr 22:53, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graph of World Population 

message: I read what was discussed before, and I still think it is misleading to only show data from 1950-2000. Regardless of the precision of the data before 1950, the numbers can still be shown to be in the right ballpark. (One reader commented that the data before 1950 were often approxomations that, in part, assumed exponential growth - but one can not possibly assume linear growth, or there would have been no people before 1900! And the numbers for earlier dates are based on real data, not merely assumptions.) 
It's obvious that the period from 1950 to 2000 looks much more linear than, say, 1750 to 2000, and gives a misleading impression. The correct answer is, as has been said, that world population appears to follow a more complex function than simple linear, exponential, or quadratic growth. So why show only the select portion that appears linear? – Quadell (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there has been no discussion for 2 weeks on this, I'm going to change the article. – Quadell (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only showing to 1950 in the chart 

message: When you say: 
:"[Malthus] predicted that population growth would eventually outrun food supply," 
(this being one of many statements you've made in support of your interpretation) you seem to be claiming that Malthus was describing (and predicting) a future catastrophic global event - one that has yet to occur. That is not what he was saying, at all.
Malthus posited a doubling of world population every 25 years under ideal conditions (no shortage of food and none of the "positive" constraints of, for example, war and disease).  It is wrong to assume that Malthus actually thought the world population would double every 25 years until some future event in which there would not be enough food to sustain the population. (Given his ideal conditions and a population at the close of the 18th century of 1 billion, the world population would now be in excess of 250 billion.) 
What he predicted was not some apocalyptic event but ongoing catastrophes playing out simultaneously in localized areas all over the world, wherever and whenever any group of people could not sustain themselves because their population had outrun the local area's food production capacity. His intent is quite clear in his statement (when discussing the American Indian):
:"Yet, [...] the effort towards population, even in this people, seems to be always greater than the means to support it." [emphasis added]
It is also implicitly clear that when Darwin found in Malthus' essay the mechanism that drives evolution - a constant competition for survival due to limited resources - he didn't think Malthus was predicting some future global catastrophe. 
Malthus was addressing the idea of utopian societies gaining popularity at the time he wrote his essay. The point of his essay was to show that there could never be a population free from poverty and hunger and, therefore, the dream of a utopian society was just that - a dream. While your point that food production is now far greater than Malthus could ever imagine is true, what Malthus was saying remains valid. There are more people living in extreme poverty today than there were people (in total) at the time Malthus wrote his essay. 
Paul Pomeroy 06:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Inaccurate Interpretation 

message: Hi,
when discussing the correctness of the geometric growth assumption and Malthus' theory in general it's important to keep Malthus' exact words in mind: "Population, WHEN UNCHECKED, increases in a geometrical ratio". Since the late 18th century occured plenty of Malthusian' checks to the human population: wars and epidemics, unhealthy living conditions, still existing infant mortality, contraception and abortion etc.
Arguing that the Malthusian population model is void because we can't see a perfect exponential growth in the world population chart seems somewhat dubios; without considering the existence of checks (that, in Malthus' thinking, avoid, or delay, the "big catastrophe").
-- 212.144.193.196 12:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: user 212.144.193.196 is right on target. i wish she or he would get a name :) Anlace 21:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population, WHEN UNCHECKED, increases in a geometrical ratio 

message: There has been enormous decrease in female fertility worldwide and this is something that is not just specific to the west.  The average worldwide fertility is now 2.59 (2.1 is the replacement rate fertility at which no population growth will occur in the long term).  For instance the fertility rate in India is now 2.73.  This implies that growth is not exponential since a constant fertility rate would be required for exponential growth.  This is the reason for the UN estimates.  A scientific approach (scientific does not mean environmentalist) implies that population growth must level off due to decreasing fertility.  Therefore neo-malthusian theory makes no sense and has just been debunked. QED bitches.
:the anonymous author above makes little sense.  the birth rate of India for example would lead to tens of millions more people in that country in the next decades if the rate is left unchecked and death rates do not escalate severely.  moreover there are many ways population growth can "level off" besides decreased fertility.  thus the author above has revealed his or her inherent lack of scientific approach. Anlace 04:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the commenter means by 'female fertility'. There is no reason to think that women are physiologically less fertile than they used to be.  The reduction in actual birth rates is due mainly to contraception, abortion, and to the increasing economic independence of women, which means they do not need to marry as soon as possible.  I don't know about 'neo-Malthusian theory', but Malthus himself was aware of the primitive methods of birth control available in his day, and deplored them as immoral 'violations of the marriage bed'.  His own preferred method of birth control was 'moral restraint', i.e. abstention from marriage by those who cannot afford to raise children, combined with chastity by the unmarried.  Which is a bit grim, but don't forget he was a clergyman.109.158.128.2 (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Could we please have a moratorium on comments about Malthus by people who have never read him?  Malthus never claimed that population actually increases at an exponential rate, only that it would do if there were no 'checks' on reproduction.  He then devoted hundreds of pages (in the later editions of his Essay) to analyzing what those 'checks' were.109.158.128.2 (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: i think someone is missing the big picture here. have you seen the "low" projections for india and many lesser developed countries (i am not considering India lesser developed by the way).  the real issue is carrying capacity. do you honestly believe there is carrying capacity for these burgeoning billions when over one billion people today do not have safe drinking water?  this is not a simple matter of sharing the wealth.  we are simply living on a finite planet, whose resources are stretched thinly.  wake up and smell the coffee.  the catatastrophe is occurring now. by the way your credibility would grow exponentially if you would create an account :) Anlace 05:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Carrying capacity is a variable in the Logistic curve, it is not part of malthus' original theory afaik. Kim Bruning 09:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fertility Rate 

message: They're already mentioned, but not emphasized. Could we maybe stress that there are currently improved population models available. Both these newer models *do* actually have malthusian style exponential growth for certain parameters. They just also have different behaviour under other parameters.  --Kim Bruning 09:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logistic curve and lotka-volterra 

message: The section on "is the catastrophe happening?" seems to have a Non-NPOV and perhaps even some factual accuracy.  I just stumbled on this article and don't know enough to necessarily correct it all myself, but tagged the section.  For example, the unsourced and original opinion that the UN study is "less scientific" than contradicting studies.  There are weasel words/phrases like "numerous scholars accept...", "some analysts consider...", etc.  I think the section has definitely been massaged to push a subtly apocalyptic point of view.--160.39.213.64 01:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there is no question that more sourcing is needed on this article (along with 99 percent of all wikipedia articles}.  Vultur, the way you "heard it" is factually in error.  the world food supply is presently being produced by unsustainable agricultural methods. in some of the biggest production areas (eg great plains of USA and north China plain) groundwater is being exhausted.  there are countless other factual examples of the fact that food production is not foreseeably adequate...let alone adequate drinking water.  thus i hope the zeal expressed above will translate into acquiring fact based sources. regards. Anlace 15:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV & Factual accuracy

message: Maybe this article is asking for a "Malthusian catastrophe in popular culture" section, as popular on many other articles?  To seed such a section, here's a piece of trivia: the Guardians of the Universe, from DC Comics, originated in a planed named Maltus, and were called Maltusians.  Some of them evolved into the Guardians and left for Oa, while most stayed behind, and were later depicted as much less advanced than Earth, presumably due to Malthusian effects.  It may be that the name is only a coincidence, and as such I'd rather not touch the article, but I believe it's intentional.  I'm sure other people can remember lots of other pop references. LaloMartins 05:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malthusian catastrophe in popular culture 

message: By the simple rule of supply and demand, an increasing population would lead to an increasing demand for food. If then the supply of food isn't increasing at the same rate, the price of food will increase. Thus, more people would find it worth to work agricultural, and if the land area of agriculture isn't enough, find alternatives for producing food. Such alternatives could be food based on algae or fungi www.ias.ac.in/resonance/May2004/pdf/May2004p33-40.pdf or, on the long term, purely synthetic food.
On the other hand, increasing prices of food would render the consumers to find cheaper alternatives. Thus, the worst catastrophe that could happen is that all people would have to become vegetarians, instead of the wasting system of eating animals eating vegetables. Alternatively, the population would have to eat more algae or seaweed.
:The problem is that you run into limits of what can physically be produced.  Prolonged exponential growth would lead to absurdities like having more people than there are atoms in the universe, or a vast ball of humans expanding into space faster than the speed of light.  Supply and demand isn't going to make those scenarios any less absurd.  Even to get remotely close to those scenarios would require sci-fi-style technology (think Ringworld), which, while it may appear in the future, should not be taken for granted.  Currently feasible things like eating seaweed would buy us a few doubling times, at best, and the population doubles every 70 years at a modest 1% growth rate.  
:Malthus agreed with you that agricultural output could be increased, but he didn't believe it could increase as fast as a growing population.Rsheridan6 03:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That has nothing to do with the essence of the theory.  Read the paragraph above yours:  where is the cheap junk food going to come from when there are 12, 24, 48, 96, or 192 billion people?  The theory is based on the fundamental nature of food production and population growth, and the fact that farming productivity outstripped population growth for a century or two (really not a long time on an evolutionary or historical scale) doesn't render the theory null and void forever, any more than the fact that oil production increased for a few centuries proves that there's an infinite supply of oil in the ground.  To render it void forever, you would have to either show that we can reliably have food production increases similar to the green revolution on a regular basis, or that population growth will cease forever. Rsheridan6 05:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Economically

message: The starvation we see on earth today isn't a result of an insufficiency of the earth to supply food, even without prospects of purely synthetic food and a shift to eating algae and fungi. Rather, it's a result of inability to transport it to all areas where it is needed.
By the economic reasons above, this will continue into the future as well. Thus, there will be no deterioration of mankind due to the Malthusian catastrophe, although an unfair distribution of supply might persist.
:The sections (Distribution in particular) are stating opinion as fact, and not crediting the opinion to any source. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and must also be written from a neutral point of view. We cannot say "it's obvious that this theory is wrong because blah", we must say "John F. Doe and Dr. Foo disagree with this theory due to blah". Capi 14:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, right.  Guess the U.N. know what they are talking about when they say that there's already enough food for 12 billion people. And the population is expected to reach a maximum of 9 billion. Actually in many parts of the world the population already stopped growing. So I don't think figuring out how to grow stuff in space is our primary problem to stop people starving and I also don't think the Malthusian catastrophe is about to happen any time soon. --Mudd1 13:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Distribution

message: In most discussions/articles RE: the sustaniability or otherwise of future (or even current) population levels there is far too much emphisis on the feasibility (or otherwise) of meeting projected demands of FOOD but what of other resources required by modern people to lead worthwhile lives like housing, clean water, clothing, energy, transport, medicine and all manner of manufactured goods. There are serious question marks over the long term availability of sufficent supplies of raw materials to meet these needs even at current population levels. And what pollution ? All other considerations being equal surely twelve billion people will produce a lot more than say two billion. 80.229.222.48 11:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Untrue. It is technology (Engels called it "science" and others generalized as "industrial revolution") which is able to prevent pollution. It remains a mistery for me why this fact didn't yet get into the minds of Americans, so therefore they've outsourced their industry to China, polluting all over the Chinese lands. Therefore, you should travel to Europe once to see how clean our industries are nowadays...the only problem that still does pollute is actually atomic energy production (even coal or gas plants have very good filters!) and cars, but the latter mainly pollutes the lung of humans and not nature (plants need CO2 allowing them to grow faster, a fact that is often ignored by so called "environmental scientists"). Conclusion: Clean industry is already a fact in especially Northern and Middle Europe, clean energy not yet. However, the USA is probably 20 to 30 years behind Europe in environmental technologies. But that's because the US capitalism won't work here: Saving the nature and environment was, is and will never be profitable, except a government does create laws to save nature in one hand and subsidizates green technologies in the other hand. --81.6.59.42 (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, goodness, that was a completely unbiased opinion.  Yes, yes, the primitive little Yanks are just decades behind everyone, and falling farther behind each day.  Poor, poor Americans, blinded by the Evils of Capitalism.  It is to weep. 174.28.32.169 (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Man does not live by bread alone

message: First I just want to point out that links within the See also section shouldn't have the same level of scrutiny as those in the EL sections.  That said, this connection is a bit loose... I can see how one might argue that an Anarcho-primitivist might support the return to a different lifestyle in order to avoid a Malthusian catastrophy, but couldn't the same be said for any type of primitivst?  Maybe a section could be inserted in the text which discusses movements which aim to mitigate a catastrophy and primitivism could be mentioned there (but since this is essentially a population issue, a sudden drop in technology levels worldwide would create an instant and artificial--rather than organic--Malthusian catastrophy).
This seems a bit tricky, but if done correctly could improve the article.  NJGW (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarcho-primitivism is an anarchist critique of the origins and progress of civilization. According to anarcho-primitivism, the shift from hunter-gatherer to agricultural subsistence gave rise to social stratification, coercion, and alienation. Anarcho-primitivists advocate a return to non-"civilized" ways of life through deindustrialisation, abolition of division of labour or specialization, and abandonment of technology. There are  other non-anarchist forms of primitivism, and not all primitivists point to the same phenomenon as the source of modern, civilized problems. I fail to see how this is related... much to Malthus, if at all. skip sievert (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should try to read more than the first paragraph of an article in wikipedia when trying to understand a subject. Maziotis (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah probably that is the angle that would have to be tried to get at... if a link were to be made. As NJGW said Maybe a section could be inserted in the text which discusses movements which aim to mitigate a catastrophy and primitivism could be mentioned there (but since this is essentially a population issue, a sudden drop in technology levels worldwide would create an instant and artificial--rather than organic--Malthusian catastrophy).... Another section might list a bunch of alternative concepts... but still Anarcho-primitivism being in my opinion... a kind of political social movement... that is possibly a couple of steps from even mainstream hetorodox thinking, although I am familiar with Tainter and his ideas, and also some of the other well known advocates of this movement. skip sievert (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Speaking in terms of psychology there is high correlation between anarcho-primivitism and psychopathy. That's because psychopaths are mostly anarchists, and certainly very primitive people. The only thing they care about is power over others and sex (many of them also tend to take drugs and alcohol to compensate their lack of feelings and empathy). But the worst thing is that psychopaths usually perceive themselves as very "rational" people, although they're in fact as irrational as noone else, doing so much stupid things normal people could never imagine. All these attributes correlate with anarcho-primitivism, too. --81.6.59.42 (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

text: By the way there certainly is a Marx in anarcho-primitivism, but no anarcho-primitivism in Marx. The only anarcho-primitivism in Marx may be attributed to his war hypothesis, that only revolutions (or war) could change a society. In fact that's the main point where he completely disagreed with Heinrich Heine, who was in favor of peaceful changements of a society. Personally I think to fully understand Marx you really need to know about his relationsship with Heine. What do we learn out of this? Well, most people are able to think rational and learn by thinking, but some people aren't: They need force to change their behaviour. It's not possible to argue or reason with these kind of people. And since they favor only power, they usually get what they want. Because normal people don't want power, but love. And about the changements? Well, without the right technologies, there won't be any changement towards a more peaceful world in the future. And with the wrong technologies, the world will even become more and more anarchistic. Which - unfortunately - is the direction we're clearly heading into right now: An anarchistic Orwellian dystopia. --81.6.59.42 (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarcho-primitivism connection? 

message: "An August 2007 science review in The New York Times raised the claim that the Industrial Revolution had enabled the modern world to break out of the Malthusian Trap,[1] " ... uh... the idea the that the Industrial Revolution enabled the modern world to break out of the Malthusian Trap goes back to ... well, shortly after Malthus. Certainly it was widely accepted among economists by the early 20th century. And that's way, way, way before 2007. This is so outdated (2007 vs. 1900) and trite ("raised the claim" to characterize a widely held view completely supported by empirical evidence) that it just does not belong in the article, and definitely not in the lede.radek (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but I'd replace the term "Industrial Revolution" by "constructive technology". Because Industrial Revolution also means destructive technologies as e.g. pollution, atomic bombs, poisonous drugs or microwave radiation. As such and after all, humanity may still end up in a decline or even extinction, not because of the Malthusian catastrophe, but because the limitations of - at least some - human minds. --81.6.59.42 (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  does not belong in lede 

message: "In some cases, population growth occurs due to increasing life expectancies, even though fertility rates are below replacement."
Does not seem to make mathematical sense. The mechanism where increasing life expectancies creates population growth works in the way that: greater life expectancies cause increasing fertility rates, which causes population growth. Increasing life expectancies cannot create population growth without increasing fertility rates about replacement first. Think about the arithmetic of it:
If you have an initial number, say, 0, and can (only) add or subtract as many 1s from it anytime, you need to add more times than you subtract to get a greater number. I'm no mathematician, by the way, so I don't know if this is always true, but I'm pretty true it applies here. Anyways, if "fertility rates are below replacement," as in the sentence in question, it corresponds to subtracting more times than adding, if the resulting number corresponds to the population, but since you need to add more times than you subtract to get a greater number, the population could only decrease. If the population could only decrease, it wouldn't make sense how "population growth occurs". If no one objects, I'll remove this statement at February. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And also, the example where there's "1.3 children/woman" doesn't seem to be a replacement rate because the children's parents don't necessarily have to be replaced. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This sentence is questionable 

message: Wouldn't it be better to have this article, with a slight rewrite and shift of focus, under Malthusian theory (currently a redirect here) rather than "catastrophe"? The way the idea works is that there are demographic checks on income per capita but a "catastrophe" in the sense of something sudden and very bad is not necessarily a consequence of the model.VolunteerMarek 08:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: In the section "Neo-Malthusian theory" in the 4th paragraph, "Second figure" is mentioned.  There is no obvious "second figure".  The first image shown in the article is close, but not quite matching "Figure on the right".
--Tikmok (talk) 07:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  No "second figure" in Neo-Malthusian theory 

message: Dr. Lasserre has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Lasserre has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Skander Ben Abdallah & Pierre Lasserre, 2008. "A Real Option Approach to the Protection of a Habitat Dependent Endangered Species," CIRANO Working Papers 2008s-30, CIRANO.
ExpertIdeas (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually - or in fact -, industrialisation and technologies prevented the Malthusian catastrophe at all, because it gave us unlimited food production! Which doesn't mean that no sort of other catastrophes are coming up. You might also read my other postings here. --81.6.59.42 (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Lasserre's comment on this article 

message: The Malthusian "catastrophe" (or theory) only applies to development countries, where the growth of a population is depending on the food supply. However, in industrialized countries the food production is almost "unlimited" (actually only limited by the land used for food production) and as such the Malthusian catastrophe won't play here anymore. Maybe Boserup or Simon explained this in details (I didn't read them), however these facts should be somehow mentioned within the introduction of this article. --81.6.59.42 (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limitations of Malthusian catastrophe 

message: Dr. Khalil has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Khalil has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
*Reference : Elias L. Khalil, 2007. "Charles Darwin meets Amoeba economicus: Why Natural Selection Cannot Explain Rationality," Papers on Economics and Evolution 2006-22, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Khalil's comment on this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Malthusian catastrophe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131013110506/http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html to https://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I've made a merge proposal to combine this article with Malthusian Trap. They seem to cover the same topic, rely on the same evidence, and both came out of the same essay by Malthus. Both are also small articles, and I think would be more useful together. TripleShortOfACycle (talk - contribs) 02:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry but I cant see the appropriate discussion of merging Malthusianism? Malthusian Trap I get, but I am missing the vote on doing a merge for Malthusianism. I for my part would rather merge malthusian catastrophe into malthusianism. Nsae Comp (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Greetings! Merging of articles doesn't require advance discussion unless there is disagreement; I mostly use the tags as "todo/please help/see also, sorry" indicators. But since you have concerns, we can certainly do so. I have no objection to moving the article to Malthusianism as you suggest.  I interpreted your comment above as preferring "Malthusian catastrophe" over "Malthusianism" but perhaps it was actually preferred to "Malthusian trap"? Would you object to a move to "Malthusianism"? Anyone else have any opinions? -- Beland (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As said: if a merger is consens, then I would suggest to merge everything into malthusianism instead of malthusian catastrophe, resulting in a chapter of malthusian catastrophe in the article of malthusianism. PS: thanks for the replies/considerations. Nsae Comp (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @ I have no strong feelings - to me, Malthusian Catastrophe sounds more recognisable, but that could very well just be a section in an "Malthusianism" article. So @ go ahead, I just wanted to vote merge in general. --LordPeterII (talk) 08:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I reversed the merge and all content is now at Malthusianism. -- Beland (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Proposal with Malthusian Trap 

message: This is not covered, and if any references could be found that would be a good addition.
There are two angles.  Firstly, the ideas of Malthus were part of the inspiration for Alfred Wallace (and then Darwin) to propose the theory of Natural Selection.
Secondly, Natural Selection says that the purpose of existence is simply to exist.  Our preference for good living vs large families is likely temporary, as those from large families tend to have large families, and eventually they will dominate any society.  And who is to say that Nature is wrong and that that is a bad thing. Tuntable (talk) 10:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: For the first angle, have you come across any sources which document that connection? For the second angle, natural selection does not imply purpose, and you might say that it actually implies lack of purpose or intentionality. It merely observes that the self-replicating creatures which are alive at any given time are those with ancestors with attributes that were able to successfully reproduce in the circumstances at the time, and that the process of evolution is driven by this along with random mutations. It describes what is, not what ought to be. The same argument for large families could be made for any organism, but some organisms have evolved to have small families for a variety of reasons. Humans are now not merely subject to genetic evolution, but also the much more rapid cultural evolution, artificial selection, and soon the ability to perform genetic engineering on ourselves. The future of human evolution is for these and many other reasons too complicated to predict reliably; there are many opinions on the topic, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. But if you are interested in the subject, try not to think too hard about the outcome depicted in Idiocracy. 8) -- Beland (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malthus and Natural Selection