There’s a small academic argument about whether Robt. Malthus’s dire predictions were defeated by science and technology. True, S&T greatly lifted farm productivity, but that’s not the fundamental flaw in Malthusianism. TW: nerdy stuff. 1/10

https://twitter.com/jgkoomey/status/1283762480536096769
1/10

Malthus famously said that human numbers increase geometrically. If a population was X million in 1800 and 2X million in 1825, it would go to 4X million in the next 25 yrs, and 8X in the next 25 after that. In his scheme, population would double every 25 years. 2/10

Then he said that farm harvests are different. If a country reaped X million tons of wheat in 1800, and 2X million in 1825, it could not go to 4x million in 1850—only 3X million. Then 4X in 1875, and so on. This sort of regular increase is called arithmetic or linear. 3/10

Malthus pointed out, correctly, that math dictates that geometric increases (1-2-4-8-16) always outpace linear increases (1-2-3-4-5). Because human reproduction is geometric & farm production is arithmetic, pop'ns always outpace food supplies. The customary illustration: 4/10

The only solution is to lower birth rates or raise death rates. Malthus thought lowering birth rates was impossible. Therefore death rates would, inevitably, rise. “Misery,” he said in his book, is “the necessary and inevitable results of [these] laws of nature.” 5/10

Pop-culture note: this is exactly Thanos’s argument in the Avengers movies. To avoid universal misery from overpopulation, he planned to raise death rates by, like, a lot. 6/10

Thanos’s Malthusianism is beaten by time travel. The more conventional anti-Malthus argument invokes science and technology. “Malthus was wrong because he didn’t consider the innovative human mind!” is the gist. But there’s something more important. 7/10

Malthus’s argument boils down to this: one species (humans) reproduces at an inherently different rate than others (farm crops). He gave no evidence for this idea, cuz there isn’t any. Nothing in nature says that wheat inherently can’t reproduce at the same rate as people. 8/10

In other words, Malthus is saying that people have special reproductive capacities that apparently pertain to no other species. This is ridiculous. His argument is wrong because it’s wrong on its face, not because he didn’t know about the power of innovation. 9/10

This was first noted, AFAIK, by the historian @joycechaplin, and the fact that arguments about Malthus and innovation are still going on is a sign (nudge, nudge) that the STEM folks who usually discuss this issue need to read more of the humanities. 10/10

Oh no--she's @JoyceChaplin1 !!! My apologies to Prof. Chaplin for the incorrect citation, and my thanks for @RyanFischer1050 for pointing out my error.