Thomas Malthus
Malthus' most influential work is :An Essay on the Principle of Population as it affects the Future Improvement of Society.
In this work, Malthus hypothesized that a nation could ever reach nirvana - a point where there were no laws and everyone lived a fulfilling life; void of laws, prospering in eternal happiness. That the agony of human existence was incessant population growth which would inhibit its ability to feed itself. Malthus' work was of an economic importance because it looked at humans in mass, as a population and not as individuals and pointed out that entitlements to the poor would hasten the demise of a nation by allowing them to bear more off-spring, eventually overwhelming the resources needed for survival. One difference: Malthus' theory was based on devine intervention. He was a God-fearing man. Darwin was not. He pointed out that these forces were also at work in the plant and animal kingdoms-that plants and animals produce far more off-spring than could survive based on the natural resources available. Upon reading Malthus' work, it became clear to Darwin that humans must evolve as animals do.
From Darwin's autobiography:
"In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long- continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work".
2. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_14
3. What is preventing organisms from reproducing at their potential?
Darwin's rejection of religion allowed him to formulate his theory using nature as proponent of natural selection both in terms of ultimate reason for and the outcome of, whereas Malthus' perspective was derived from his religious belief that natural outcomes such as poverty, famine, plagues, disease or natural disasters came from divine intervention thus creating the roadblocks to reproducing to potential. Darwin, on the other hand, surmised that competitiveness among siblings for limited resources and the outcome would be influenced by traits that would give some a greater chance at survival.
4. Could Darwin have developed his theory of natural selection without the influence and ideas of this individual? No, with a big "if". Darwin's work was built upon Malthus' hypothesis. Malthus was an economist concerned with over-population of London's poor and purposed limiting the number of off-sping allowed to them. Malthus believed it was divine intervention in the form of plagues, natural disasters and famine that kept population growth in-check and not natural selection. Darwin's approach was that of "favorable variations" or traits would preserve a spices and it was his "thinking out of the box" approach, one that discounted God's existence, that led Darwin to develop his theory.
5. How did the attitude of the church affect Darwin and his eventual publication of his book On the Origin of Species?
The church of England or the Vatican?
Darwin’s theories had never been formally condemned by the Roman Catholic Church decreing that "evolution was a valid scientific approach to evolution."
It was the criticism by the Bishop of Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce, that led to the erroneous belief of the Church of England as a whole condemned Darwin's theory. Darwin saw and supported the Church of England as and only as a social institution.
The Church of England wants to correct the impression that Darwin’s relationship with Anglicanism was contentious. The Anglican Church as a whole did not condemn Darwin or his beliefs. It says that although he lost his faith (1830), he did not become antiChurch or antireligious.
Neither the views of the Vatican nor the Church of England have any effect on its publication.
Good job! Your blog made me go back to the internet for more study after I posted my paper on Malthus. I mistakenly thought Darwin continued his belief in Christianity but see now that he left the church after his scientific research. He was a tortured man as shown in this quote from his
ReplyDeleteautobiography. He still believed in God, just an impersonal one.
"With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.– I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I [should] wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton.— Let each man hope & believe what he can.[61]
There was always confrontation between science and the church and "stringcatt's" point of view hits the nail right on the head. Malthus's saw the struggle for the survival of the fittest and the competition among species; although he didn't conflict the church against scientific studies. I also agree that Darwin would not have been able to accomplish what he had without the help of Malthus because of the fact that Darwin disproved many of Malthus's theories (like in the example that stringcatt gave about species dying due to plague and other biblical explanations.
ReplyDeleteYour blog is very good and thorough, I see why you picked Malthus, he helped Darwin see that life was a struggle with limited resources and that made Darwin extend Malthus principle. I didn't know he left the church either. God and science have never gotten along and never will. I don't think Darwin would have been able to accomplish what he has without the help of Malthus. Your blog has showed me that need to do better research!
ReplyDelete@25a76dbe-d05e-11e0-a63a-000bcdcb471e
ReplyDeleteI have no idea who you are. Please identify yourself with your name if your class user id does not come up as it should. I can't give you credit for a comment if I don't know who you are.
Thank you.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteVery thorough on the background of Malthus' work and good connection with the issue of factors keeping organisms reproducing to their potential.
ReplyDeleteJust a couple of comments that seemed out of place that I would like to highlight with some questions.
You say: "Upon reading Malthus' work, it became clear to Darwin that humans must evolve as animals do."
That's actually not the connection that Darwin made. Malthus used animal populations to explain population control problems in humans, problems such as growing beyond resource availability. Darwin took that information and then asked why natural, non-human populations tend to not overpopulate? What stops them from producing to their potential (point #3)? Is it random or is there a pattern? Darwin didn't make his connection to human population until much later and it was a reluctant connection because of the religious implications.
Why do you say that Darwin was not a "God fearing man"? Your other comment about "discounting God's existence" is a curious statement that makes assumptions I'm not sure can be supported. This doesn't really impact your post, but I'm curious as to where you get this information.
RE #5: You say: "The Church of England wants to correct the impression that Darwin’s relationship with Anglicanism was contentious."
So you are citing the church in order to deny that the church negatively impacted the progress of scientific ideas deplored by the church? :-) I'm sure the church does want to "fix" that important piece of history, but it doesn't reflect the reality of how socially and scientifically powerful the church (both the Church of England with regard to Darwin and the Roman Catholic Church with other scientific issues) were when it came to science and ideas that could potentially undermine it's power in society. I'd like to get a source from you as to where you are getting this background information. It's not supported by your citation nor is it included in your textbook.