Newsgroup: it.cultura.storia
Titolo: Thomas Malthus

Malthus ha avuto il torto di nascere troppo presto, la sua opera
fondamentale è stata scritta nel 1798, nel bel mezzo ed auge della
rivoluzione industriale inglese. In essa affermò che il numero della
popolazione cresce in misura superiore all'aumento dei mezzi di sussistenza.
Ne deriva quindi uno squilibrio che diventa causa di miserie, malattie,
guerre. La sua teoria fu subito rifiutata perchè da una parte non serviva
agli interessi del capitalismo, allora in forte espansione, e dall'altra
non potè proporre dei rimedi validi. Propose come fa oggi la Chiesa
dei rimedi preventivi di carattere morale (la castità). Questa dottrina fu
quindi in seguito contrastata da sociologhi ed economisti e in Europa, come
negli USA, che dimostrarono come pur crescendo la popolazione la rivoluzione
industriale progrediva. La nostra boria di Europei ci ha fatto illudere che
il nostro progresso tecnologico fu dovuto soltanto alle nostre qualità di
civiltà, mentre invece fu dovuto alla emigrazione della popolazione
eccedente. Malthus non aveva previsto che ci potrebbe essere stato
ugualmente uno sviluppo con l'emigrazione. Da nessuno fu riconosciuto il
grande servigio che facevano quelli che se ne andavano a quelli che
rimanevano. La storia Europea dovrebbe essere riscritta con più umiltà.
Oggi i seguaci di Malthus sostituiamo i suoi precetti di carattere morale,
sostenendo la necessità di applicare mezzi artificiali di limitazione delle
nascite, dando così origine al "neomalthusianesimo", che, però è in
contrasto con la morale cattolica, e spesso anche avversato da quelli che
vogliono sempre più schiavi per il capitale e per la società di consumo.
Malthus

 vogliono sempre più schiavi per il capitale e per la società di consumo.
Capisco. Meglio un essere umano raschiato via dall'utero materno che
qualche trattore e un po' di fertilizzante in più. Per tua informazione,
al *mondo* non esiste solo «la morale cattolica».
-- 
    Alberto N.       | "I did try to found a heresy of my own;
                     |  and when I had put the last touches to 
                     |  it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy." GKC-08 

 rivoluzione industriale inglese
Mi puoi dare dei riferimenti bibliografici recenti?
Grazie.
Sini

 Malthus ha avuto il torto di nascere troppo presto
Il vero torto di Mathus è stato quello di fondare le proprie teorie su un
postulato insussistente: non è vero che la crescita dei mezzi di sussistenza
avviene a un ritmo inferiore a quello della popolazione. Parimenti, la legge
della produttività decrescente non è sempre valida: il progresso tecnologico
(una variabile che Matlhus non aveva preso in considerazione) ha consentito
da Matlhus in poi incrementi della produttività di gran lunga superiori a
quelli demografici.
Non è la prima volta che lanci messaggi apocalittici appoggiandoti alle
teorie, ormai tramontate, di Malthus. Perché non ringiovanisci un po' le tue
letture con qualche economista un po' più recente? Per esempio il premio
nobel '98 A.Sen, che in "La bugia demografica" ha confutato le asserzioni
dei "neomalthusiani" citando qualche dato: le medie triennali dei periodi
1979-1981 e 1991-1993, la produzione alimentare per individuo nel mondo è
salita del 3%, ma solo del 2% in Europa mentre nel Nord America è scesa del
5%. Di contro, la produzione alimentare pro capite è schizzata verso
l'alto del 22% nel continente asiatico, con un 23% in India e un 39% in
Cina. "Anche se i milioni e milioni di individui che si aggiungono alle
popolazioni dell'India e della Cina vengono citati ocstantemente dai
terrorizzati, e terrorizzanti, profeti di un futuro apocalittico" scrive Sen
"è
proprio in questi paesi che possiamo osservare il tasso più rapido di
sviluppo nella produzione alimentare pro capite".
Alessandro

 dei "neomalthusiani"
Chiedo anche a te, per cortesia, dei riferimenti bibliografici.
Grazie.
Sini

 Chiedo anche a te, per cortesia, dei riferimenti bibliografici.
Ehi, ma ci voleva proprio il neomalthusiano per scomodare le Brigate
Cattoliche al gran completo!
Pensavo che fossi andato in ferie, non hai detto niente nemmeno dei
MIEI riferimenti bibliografici su Guernica. Ho fatto quello che ho
potuto, sai, non ho avuto molto tempo... Dopo le ferie magari farň
qualcosa di piů completo;-)
Allora, il patto dei gentiloni č sempre in vigore? Dai, che non mordo!
Ti avevo promesso la storia del mangiapreti, ricordi?
Te la metto sotto il thread che avevamo interrotto, ok?
Cosě pago anche questo debito :-)
saluti
--
Piero F.

 Così pago anche questo debito :-)
Attendo fremente. Certo che il patto dei gentiloni è sempre in vigore. Penso
che la discussione sulla faccenda del dott. Jeckill e mr. Hide (altrimenti
detta del mangiapreti) sia interessante e forse nemmeno troppo OT in questo
NG, perchè si colloca, per citare Russell, ad un livello logico superiore,
cioè a quello interpretativo (e non mi sto riferendo alla faccenda
"Guernica"). Per scendere ad un livello logico inferiore, cioè a quello dei
contenuti, se la discussione verterà sulla questione cristiano - ebraica non
potrò discutere per palese ignoranza mia in materia (come già dichiarato).
Dopodichè potrai andare in ferie. ^__-
Saluti.
Sini

 Dopodichè potrai andare in ferie. ^__-
ehmmm... veramente parlavo di qualcosa di più terra-terra...
Cavolaccio, c'erano anche discorsi seri, mica mi ricordavo più.
E non mi sono nemmeno più ricordato di cercare notizie sull'index,
porca miseria!
Mi pareva che tutto quello che "ti dovevo" fosse la storia del prete
che mi volevo mangiare... Te l'ho messa in risposta a "Fondamentalismo
religioso", se vuoi leggerla.
Che figura :-(
saluti
--
Piero F.

 Che figura :-(
Non preoccuparti, Piero, va bene così. E' estate e non fa male alla salute
"stare un pò leggeri"...
Tanto più che in ferie ci andrò davvero, quindi...
Mò leggo la storia del "mangiaatei"... ^__-
Saluti.
Sini

 al *mondo* non esiste solo «la morale cattolica».
No. Non è necessario arrivare all'aborto. Ci sono i mezzi contraccettivi,
specialmente il preservativo che ha anche il pregio di proteggere dalle
malattie. Ciò non toglie che la cooperazione aiuti con trattori o
fertilizzanti.
Anche qui non entro troppo nei dettagli per non essere OT
Malthus

 sviluppo nella produzione alimentare pro capite".
Immagino che a Sen lo abbiano pagato bene per avere scritto queste cose,
facilmente credibili per chi vive nella bambagia della società dei consumi.
E' vero che la produzione degli alimenti è aumentata, ma non di pari passo
all'esplosione demografica, altrimenti sarebbe difficile spiegare tutta la
fame che esiste nel mondo. Poi è questione di semplice logica: la crescita
esponenziale della popolazione per forza deve trovare dei limiti
considerando che il pianeta è quello che è.
Malthus 2002

 LONDON, PRINTED FOR J. JOHNSON, IN ST. PAUL'S CHURCH-YARD, 1798.
Meno male ch eho scritto "recenti"... in italiano? Nessuan edizione?
Grazie.
Sini

 wrote in message
2Wf19.15676$lu5.4...@twister1.libero.it...

Non ho a mano questo dato. In questo NG ho spedito a Santoro il primo
capitolo. Qui faccio seguire  il secondo. Fammi sapere se vuoi il terzo.
Chapter 2
The different ratio in which population and food increase - The necessary
effects of these different ratios of increase - Oscillation produced by them
in the condition of the lower classes of society - Reasons why this
oscillation has not been so much observed as might be expected - Three
propositions on which the general argument of the Essay depends - The
different states in which mankind have been known to exist proposed to be
examined with reference to these three propositions.
I SAID that population, when unchecked, increased in a geometrical ratio,
and subsistence for man in an arithmetical ratio.
    Let us examine whether this position be just. I think it will be
allowed, that no state has hitherto existed (at least that we have any
account of) where the manners were so pure and simple, and the means of
subsistence so abundant, that no check whatever has existed to early
marriages, among the lower classes, from a fear of not providing well for
their families, or among the higher classes, from a fear of lowering their
condition in life. Consequently in no state that we have yet known has the
power of population been left to exert itself with perfect freedom.
    Whether the law of marriage be instituted or not, the dictate of nature
and virtue seems to be an early attachment to one woman. Supposing a liberty
of changing in the case of an unfortunate choice, this liberty would not
affect population till it arose to a height greatly vicious; and we are now
supposing the existence of a society where vice is scarcely known.
    In a state therefore of great equality and virtue, where pure and simple
manners prevailed, and where the means of subsistence were so abundant that
no part of the society could have any fears about providing amply for a
family, the power of population being left to exert itself unchecked, the
increase of the human species would evidently be much greater than any
increase that has been hitherto known.
    In the United States of America, where the means of subsistence have
been more ample, the manners of the people more pure, and consequently the
checks to early marriages fewer, than in any of the modern states of Europe,
the population has been found to double itself in twenty-five years.
    This ratio of increase, though short of the utmost power of population,
yet as the result of actual experience, we will take as our rule, and say,
that population, when unchecked, goes on doubling itself every twenty-five
years or increases in a geometrical ratio.
    Let us now take any spot of earth, this Island for instance, and see in
what ratio the subsistence it affords can be supposed to increase. We will
begin with it under its present state of cultivation.
    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 may
be doubled in the first twenty-five years, I think it will be allowing as
much as any person can well demand.
    In the next twenty-five 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 twenty-five 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 twenty-five years, by a quantity of subsistence equal to
what it at present 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 ratio of increase is evidently arithmetical.
    It may be fairly said, therefore, that the means of subsistence increase
in an arithmetical ratio. Let us now bring the effects of these two ratios
together.
    The population of the Island is computed to be about seven millions, and
we will suppose the present produce equal to the support of such a number.
In the first twenty-five years the population would be fourteen millions,
and the food being also doubled, the means of subsistence would be equal to
this increase. In the next twenty-five years the population would be
twenty-eight millions, and the means of subsistence only equal to the
support of twenty-one millions. In the next period, the population would be
fifty-six millions, and the means of subsistence just sufficient for half
that number. And at the conclusion of the first century the population would
be one hundred and twelve millions and the means of subsistence only equal
to the support of thirty-five millions, which would leave a population of
seventy-seven millions totally unprovided for.
    A great emigration necessarily implies unhappiness of some kind or other
in the country that is deserted. For few persons will leave their families,
connections, friends, and native land, to seek a settlement in untried
foreign climes, without some strong subsisting causes of uneasiness where
they are, or the hope of some great advantages in the place to which they
are going.
    But to make the argument more general and less interrupted by the
partial views of emigration, let us take the whole earth, instead of one
spot, and suppose that the restraints to population were universally
removed. If the subsistence for man that the earth affords was to be
increased every twenty-five years by a quantity equal to what the whole
world at present produces, this would allow the power of production in the
earth to be absolutely unlimited, and its ratio of increase much greater
than we can conceive that any possible exertions of mankind could make it.
    Taking the population of the world at any number, a thousand millions,
for instance, the human species would increase in the ratio of -- 1, 2, 4,
8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, etc. and subsistence as -- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10, etc. In two centuries and a quarter, the population would be to
the means of subsistence as 512 to 10: in three centuries as 4096 to 13, and
in two thousand years the difference would be almost incalculable, though
the produce in that time would have increased to an immense extent.
    No limits whatever are placed to the productions of the earth; they may
increase for ever and be greater than any assignable quantity. yet still the
power of population being a power of a superior order, the increase of the
human species can only be kept commensurate to the increase of the means of
subsistence by the constant operation of the strong law of necessity acting
as a check upon the greater power.
    The effects of this check remain now to be considered.
    Among plants and animals the view of the subject is simple. They are all
impelled by a powerful instinct to the increase of their species, and this
instinct is interrupted by no reasoning or doubts about providing for their
offspring. Wherever therefore there is liberty, the power of increase is
exerted, and the superabundant effects are repressed afterwards by want of
room and nourishment, which is common to animals and plants, and among
animals by becoming the prey of others.
    The effects of this check on man are more complicated. Impelled to the
increase of his species by an equally powerful instinct, reason interrupts
his career and asks him whether he may not bring beings into the world for
whom he cannot provide the means of subsistence. In a state of equality,
this would be the simple question. In the present state of society, other
considerations occur. Will he not lower his rank in life? Will he not
subject himself to greater difficulties than he at present feels? Will he
not be obliged to labour harder? and if he has a large family, will his
utmost exertions enable him to support them? May he not see his offspring in
rags and misery, and clamouring for bread that he cannot give them? And may
he not be reduced to the grating necessity of forfeiting his independence,
and of being obliged to the sparing hand of charity for support?
    These considerations are calculated to prevent, and certainly do
prevent, a very great number in all civilized nations from pursuing the
dictate of nature in an early attachment to one woman. And this restraint
almost necessarily, though not absolutely so, produces vice. Yet in all
societies, even those that are most vicious, the tendency to a virtuous
attachment is so strong that there is a constant effort towards an increase
of population. This constant effort as constantly tends to subject the lower
classes of the society to distress and to prevent any great permanent
amelioration of their condition.
    The way in which these effects are produced seems to be this. We will
suppose the means of subsistence in any country just equal to the easy
support of its inhabitants. The constant effort towards population, which is
found to act even in the most vicious societies, increases the number of
people before the means of subsistence are increased. The food therefore
which before supported seven millions must now be divided among seven
millions and a half or eight millions. The poor consequently must live much
worse, and many of them be reduced to severe distress. The number of
labourers also being above the proportion of the work in the market, the
price of labour must tend toward a decrease, while the price of provisions
would at the same time tend to rise. The labourer therefore must work harder
to earn the same as he did before. During this season of distress, the
discouragements to marriage, and the difficulty of rearing a family are so
great that population is at a stand. In the mean time the cheapness of
labour, the plenty of labourers, and the necessity of an increased industry
amongst them, encourage cultivators to employ more labour upon their land,
to turn up fresh soil, and to manure and improve more completely what is
already in tillage, till ultimately the means of subsistence become in the
same proportion to the population as at the period from which we set out.
The situation of the labourer being then again tolerably comfortable, the
restraints to population are in some degree loosened, and the same
retrograde and progressive movements with respect to happiness are repeated.
    This sort of oscillation will not be remarked by superficial observers,
and it may be difficult even for the most penetrating mind to calculate its
periods. Yet that in all old states some such vibration does exist, though
from various transverse causes, in a much less marked, and in a much more
irregular manner than I have described it, no reflecting man who considers
the subject deeply can well doubt.
    Many reasons occur why this oscillation has been less obvious, and less
decidedly confirmed by experience, than might naturally be expected.
    One principal reason is that the histories of mankind that we possess
are histories only of the higher classes. We have but few accounts that can
be depended upon of the manners and customs of that part of mankind where
these retrograde and progressive movements chiefly take place. A
satisfactory history of this kind, on one people, and of one period, would
require the constant and minute attention of an observing mind during a long
life. Some of the objects of inquiry would be, in what proportion to the
number of adults was the number of marriages, to what extent vicious customs
prevailed in consequence of the restraints upon matrimony, what was the
comparative mortality among the children of the most distressed part of the
community and those who lived rather more at their ease, what were the
variations in the real price of labour, and what were the observable
differences in the state of the lower classes of society with respect to
ease and happiness, at different times during a certain period.
    Such a history would tend greatly to elucidate the manner in which the
constant check upon population acts and would probably prove the existence
of the retrograde and progressive movements that have been mentioned, though
the times of their vibrations must necessarily be rendered irregular from
the operation of many interrupting causes, such as the introduction or
failure of certain manufactures, a greater or less prevalent spirit of
agricultural enterprise, years of plenty, or years of scarcity, wars and
pestilence, poor laws, the invention of processes for shortening labour
without the proportional extension of the market for the commodity, and,
particularly, the difference between the nominal and real price of labour, a
circumstance which has perhaps more than any other contributed to conceal
this oscillation from common view.
    It very rarely happens that the nominal price of labour universally
falls, but we well know that it frequently remains the same, while the
nominal price of provisions has been gradually increasing. This is, in
effect, a real fall in the price of labour, and during this period the
condition of the lower orders of the community must gradually grow worse and
worse. But the farmers and capitalists are growing rich from the real
cheapness of labour. Their increased capitals enable them to employ a
greater number of men. Work therefore may be plentiful, and the price of
labour would consequently rise. But the want of freedom in the market of
labour, which occurs more or less in all communities, either from parish
laws, or the more general cause of the facility of combination among the
rich, and its difficulty among the poor, operates to prevent the price of
labour from rising at the natural period, and keeps it down some time
longer; perhaps till a year of scarcity, when the clamour is too loud and
the necessity too apparent to be resisted.
    The true cause of the advance in the price of labour is thus concealed,
and the rich affect to grant it as an act of compassion and favour to the
poor, in consideration of a year of scarcity, and, when plenty returns,
indulge themselves in the most unreasonable of all complaints, that the
price does not again fall, when a little rejection would shew them that it
must have risen long before but from an unjust conspiracy of their own.
    But though the rich by unfair combinations contribute frequently to
prolong a season of distress among the poor, yet no possible form of society
could prevent the almost constant action of misery upon a great part of
mankind, if in a state of inequality, and upon all, if all were equal.
    The theory on which the truth of this position depends appears to me so
extremely clear that I feel at a loss to conjecture what part of it can be
denied.
    That population cannot increase without the means of subsistence is a
proposition so evident that it needs no illustration.
    That population does invariably increase where there are the means of
subsistence, the history of every people that have ever existed will
abundantly prove.
    And that the superior power of population cannot be checked without
producing misery or vice, the ample portion of these too bitter ingredients
in the cup of human life and the continuance of the physical causes that
seem to have produced them bear too convincing a testimony.
    But, in order more fully to ascertain the validity of these three
propositions, let us examine the different states in which mankind have been
known to exist. Even a cursory review will, I think, be sufficient to
convince us that these propositions are incontrovertible truths.
Thomas Malthus
Ciao,
Malthus