Talk:Thomas Robert Malthus/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

more

Good article, people. Curious about "Both men regarded Malthus' Principle of Population as additional proof of the existence of a deity." More explanation please!


21/Oct/09 Hey can someone change the title above Thomas Malthus's photo from Hitler to something else?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.161.102 (talk) 02:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

name

Hi, I'm new to the wiki, so I don't feel comfortable changing it, but a couple of things: one, there is a webpage by a Malthus family member that notes the birthday is actually Feb 13th, and that he went by his middle name, Robert (so "Thomas Malthus" is not an appropriate shortening). See http://homepages.caverock.net.nz/~kh/bobperson.html.

Thomas Malthus is an appropriate shortening for the title for the reason that Wikipedia goes by the most-common-name convention. We can give his full name in the introductory sentence to the article. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 03:22, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but in that case the page should be "Robert Malthus", which is how his family and college (cf, Jesus College history) refer to him. The fact that a large number of people are ignorant and call him by the wrong name (it's Robert's right to choose how he is called, isn't it?) does not mean the Wikipedia should perpetuate that ignorance. It seems to me that the best compromise is to leave the page as Thomas Robert Malthus. GJeffery 07:53, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That's what google says: 51,400 for "thomas malthus", about 21,900 for "robert malthus", about 17,800 for "thomas robert malthus"; a wikipedia search shows 58 for "thomas malthus", and less than ten for the other two variants. So Thomas Malthus is definetly the most common name. But the 'it's his choice' argument isn't void. So I'd say we should move this article to the full name Thomas Robert Malthus and make the other two (or more, think Malthus, Robert...) versions redirects... Huerlisi 20:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

book

I found an interesting book in a used book shop written by Malthus, pity I didn't buy it. It was a travel description of his journey to Norway. Very interesting read! The preface in that book speculates that Malthus may have been inspired in his larger ideas by seeing scandinavian peasants, although very poor and living off much poorer land than the english, had a better standard of living - and explaining this with the low population.

It's also possible that he made his journey after writing his most influential book. Sorry if I mix this up, I should have bought that book!

Vintermann 10:09, 16 September 2004‎ (UTC)

It's good to see that Malthus' contributions to demography, population modelling, economics, and political science are ALL acknowledged here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.96.69 (talk) 04:20, 15 November 2003‎ (UTC)

concern

I have a concern about this page, concerning this passage: "Here, he developed a theory of demand supply mismatches which he called gluts. Considered ridiculous at the time, his theory was later confirmed by the Great Depression and works of John Maynard Keynes." Hasn't Keynes' work been seriously debunked? How can he be cited as "proving" Malthus' gluts theory (of which I am unfamiliar, by the way). Also, isn't Malthus sort of a laughing-stock for his false prediction of catastrophe? Why is this noted on the Malthusian Catastrophe page, and not in his biography?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.6.101.9 (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2004 (UTC)

opposition

According to fr article, thomas malthus was opposed to the Speenhamland system. If anyone is willing to give more details about that ... :) Hashar 11:38, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Biography

I'm currently crawling the web to check some biography facts. There doesn't seem to be consensus on when and where he was born, respectivly when and where he died :-( Huerlisi 20:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Here are some sources:

Wikipedia article before my changes

I didn't find any sources for the February 14 birthday...

  • Born: February 14, 1766
  • Died: December 23, 1834

atheism.about.com

Very brief, but the only source I found stating all the facts... The 'February 2' (possibly 12, forgotten a '1') doesn't make it very thrustworthy though...

  • Born: February 2, 1766 in Dorking, Surrey (south of London)
  • Died: December 23, 1834 in Haileybury, Hertfordshire

Family Malthus Homepage

This Page has a quite extensive biography and contains references to its sources. Seems trustworthy... But the dates just don't fit with what everybody else says...

  • Born: February 13, 1766
  • Died: December 29, 1834

BBC Historic Figures

Well, I normaly trust BBC :-)

  • Born: February 1766 in Rookery, Surrey
  • Died: December 23, 1834

BookRags Premium Biographies

They about themselves: BookRags Premium Biographies are the most complete biographical resource available. Each biography is written by a biographical expert, professional educator, or scholar of the individual...

  • Born: 1766
  • Died: December 23, 1834, in Haileybury

Microsoft Encarta

  • Born: 1766, near Guildford, Surrey
  • Died: 1834

So I'm using the following for now. Just change if you find other, more trusted sources (don't forget to mention them here :-)

  • Born: February, 1766 in Surrey
  • Died: December 23, 1834 in Haileybury

Change of place of death

I've changed the place of his death to Bath - that's why he's buried in Bath Abbey! He worked at the East India College in Haileybury at one time but he didn't die there. His wife, Harriet, came from Claverton, near Bath and her parents had a house at 17 Portland Place, Bath. Malthus went to stay there for Christmas 1834, was taken ill and died there. I used to live at 17 Portland Place in the 1980s - the story is well-known in Bath. See The Malthus Family page on RootsWeb.

The details of Malthus' death given in James (1979) authoritative biography are Bath, 29 December. Corrected accordingly Robertsch55 15:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Malthusian Drill

I just wanted to post a side note: In Huxley's "Brave New World" the women of the new world practice their 'Mathusian Drill' - their form of contraception. It's an interesting note to see the economist's name in such a novel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.55.23.155 (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2005‎ (UTC)

Does anyone know cause of death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.250.22.202 (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2007‎ (UTC)

Inappropriate Comment?

"And yet, the world population continues to grow exponentially, and a child dies of starvation every fifteen seconds."

This seems inappropriate to have in the article, because it has been shown that the population grows more linearly than exponentially. Malthusian Catastrophe (which this article links to) explians this. At any rate, it's not very encyclopaedic. syphonbyte 14:19, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

In pop culture?

I don't have the full references handy & wasn't sure how it would be appropriate to add the topic but during the 70's in one of the classic Green Lantern/Green Arrow comics that had them roaming & exploring serious societal isses such as drug abuse, they went on an interstellar jaunt to a planet where it was so crowded that people couldn't move and there was never enough food. The planet was called "Malthus."

The plot is very similar to the Star Trek:TOS episode "The Mark of Gideon," which was also clearly influenced by Malthus' theories. (this last is a statement of opinion)

Malthus was referenced in "The Merchant of Death" episode from season 1 of "Wiseguy". WeeWillieWiki (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

South Park reference

In one episode Cartman quotes A Christmas Carol's Scrooge's quote of Malthus.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kransky (talk • contribs) 09:56, 1 June 2006‎ (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Thomas Malthus

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The real father of the internet?

Rev. Thomas Robert Malthus, FRS (February 13, 1766 – December 23, 1834)

and on eksternal links:

  • [1] T. Robert Malthus's Homepage

And I who was soo sure that people stated with homepages in the 20th century.. Røed 20:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

introduction's attitude

malthus, although proven wrong with regards to his population principle, was still perhaps the most influential economist of his time. it is wrong to say in the introduction that he was best known for false and negligent views, because this misrepresents his true legacy, which is still profoundly felt today. save the specifics of the criticism for later in the article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.23.198 (talk) 06:07, 30 November 2006‎ (UTC)

quick question

What about Boserup as a critic? bliz 19:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Marx versus Malthus

I believe the article in the form I read it seriously misrepresents the relationship between Malthus's population theory and Marx's theories.

The encyclopedia artice currently states:

Karl Marx's social determinism has its roots in Malthus’s theory as well. Marx however rejected Darwin’s biological determinism and instead embraced social determinism (in other words one’s decisions are made as a direct reaction to one’s circumstances).

There are at least two reasons for believing this to be wrong. First, Malthus published a number of different essays on population, but the first one, the "Essay on the Principle of Population" published in 1798, was explicitly anti-revolution.

Its full title was "An Essay on the Principle of Population, As It Affects the Future Improvement of Society, With Remarks on the Speculation of Mr. Godwin, M. Condorcet and Other Writers," and about half of the work was dedicated to demolishing the utopian anarchist theories of William Godwin and the Marquis de Condorcet, a revolutionary nobleman who died in the French Revolution.

In the 1798 Essay, Malthus not argued that the idyllic society proposed by Godwin and de Condorcet would fail because it would only encourage the poor to have more children; he also stated that the population issue seemed to make impossible "any very marked and striking change for the better, in the form and structure of general society; by which I mean any great and decided amelioration of the condition of the lower classes of mankind." [Thomas Malthus, "An Essay on the Principle of Population," Penguin Classics edition, p. 172.]

This conclusion, of course, is almost opposite to Marx's idea that revolution could, in fact, bring about a "striking change for the better" in society and an amelioration of the lives of the poor.

The counter-revolutionary thrust of Malthus's ideas can also be seen pretty clearly in an 1824 Encyclopedia Britannica article on population that Malthus wrote, that was reprinted in 1830 as the "Summary View on the Principle of Population." In this work, Malthus toned down some of his bleak pessimism about the poor ever improving their lot, but he emphasized that the institution of private property was essential in inspiring the poor to limit their families. Private property basically forced individuals to accept limits on their incomes, which forced them to be prudent, Malthus argued; hence it would help to prevent over-breeding.

Marx was an enemy of private property, of course, so again it's impossible to see who his "determinism" (which was somewhat partial, as Thomas Sowell has noted) could have been based on Malthus's works.

Secondly, both Marx and his friend Friedrich Engels bitterly attacked Malthus in articles published in the 1840s, in a radical publication called the Deutche-Franszosiche Jahrbuch.

Marx called Malthus a "sycophant of the upper classes" (quote here is approximate) while Engels called the population theory a "revolting blasphemy against nature" because of its implication that the earth was too limited to support a large increase in population. For most of the last century and a half, therefore, Marxist socialists have generally opposed of "Malthusian" ideas about population.

A caveat: One way in which Malthus may have indirectly influenced Marx is through Malthus's influence on political economist David Ricardo, who adopted Malthus's population predictions and concluded that over time, excessive population growth would lead to land values rising to the point where landlords would collect enormous rents, so much so that capitalist profits and workers' wages would both be driven down to a minimal level. Marx when he studied political economy adopted many of Ricardo's ideas, so perhaps there was some indirect Malthusian influence on his work through Ricardo. Generally speaking, though, Marx got his ideas about "determinism" from Hegel, not Malthus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Fernbach (talk • contribs) 18:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC).


Needs cleaning up

This article is in serious need of some cleaning up. Part of the references are totally irrelevant, and there is lack of balance between the different parts. In brief, a person of TRM's stature deserves better. Anyone else any thoughts on this? Robertsch55 07:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The "Influence" section is too long and rangy; it needs telescoping. Overall the article appears disjointed and lacking in cohesion. Alcmaeonid (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

False conclusion alert

While critics may be justified that a global famine has not occurred, such events should be contrasted with famines throughout history. Clearly, famines indicate that a given population has exceeded the carrying capacity of their land.

How is it clear that famines in fact indicate that a given population has exceeded the carrying capacity of their land? This in fact presumes that the famines were CAUSED by a given population has exceeded the carrying capacity of their land, rather than failed economic, military and poltical philosophies.

Looking at some of the most notable famines of the last century - Ukraine, China, Ethiopia, Somalia... These famines had NOTHING to do with the inherent sustainablility of the land, and EVERYTHING to do with failed governemnt policies. Ukraine, the "Breadbasket of Europe" was starved half to death as a nation by the USSR. Because there were too many Ukrainians? Well, perhaps in the eyes of Marxists, but not because they had a population larger than their rich farmland could sustain.

The fact that famines DO exist, does not tell WHAT caused them. And the fact that famines have occured has been no vindication of of Malthus's theories.

If anything, I contend that when these famines have occured it has demonstrated just the opposite. The only time major famine has ever occured - the likes of which Malthus was speaking - it has NEVER occured for the reasons he gave. Elements of his predictions (famines) have occured, but not for the reasons he gave (inability to sustain) and not on the scale he predicted.

24.95.45.195 05:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Joseph N

Specific predictions of famine by Malthus

I removed a claim that Malthus "predicted famine in Europe, which has been proven false," which cited this: [2]. First of all, the linked article did not provide a source itself. Second, it didn't say that Malthus made any specific prediction. If he didn't, it hasn't been proved false, since famine could still happen in Europe.

Given all the nonsense that's been repeated about Malthus, I'm very skeptical of any source that makes claims about his opinions, especially specific predictions about famine, without actually citing his writings. Like this one, for example, from his Essay on the Principle of Population:

The ultimate check to population appears then to be a want of food, arising necessarily from the different ratios according to which population and food increase. But this ultimate check is never the immediate check, except in cases of actual famine.

Rsheridan6 11:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

An article in Nature is about as reliable as a source can be.Ultramarine 13:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Argument from authority is a fallacy even if the authority is an opinion piece in Nature. What's more, a more careful reading of the Nature article attributes the prediction to an unreferenced passage in the 1st edition of the essay, and clarifies that Malthus later back-tracked. The 6th edition should be considered the definitive edition. Even the author of this anti-Malthus opinion piece thought it appropriate not to qualify his statement with an explanation of that. Why, then, is it ok for to neglect to do so for Wikipedia?
What's more, the relevant portion of this article cites a secondary source, a book (the author of which at leasts appears to have read Malthus) which is partially reproduced here: [3]. I don't care if it's Nature - it's still third-hand information, and at least one of the people involved was trying to write a persuasive article. The final product in Wikipedia is fourth-hand information, in which two of the writers had a specific POV, and the final writer removed even the qualifications that had made it to the third step.
Please improve or remove this passage. It's not worthy of inclusion as-is.Rsheridan6 16:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Added a qualified regarding the first edition. Wikipedia does not decide truth, but cites views from verifiable sources. If you disagree and have a source with a different view, then please add it.Ultramarine 17:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
That's still inadequate, because it doesn't mention that he backtracked later, and readers should not be assumed to know that there was a substantially rewritten sixth edition.Rsheridan6 17:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Hindsight is easy. The fact remains that at least in the first edition he predicted continuing famines in the future.Ultramarine 20:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

As of now, this article says in two places that Malthus specifically predicted famines that didn't happen, both citing from secondary or tertiary sources that don't actually show where he said that, and in two other places this article says that he didn't make any specific predictions, one of which cites another secondary source and the other of which cites nothing (although it's kind of hard to cite something he didn't say. What are you supposed to do, blockquote the entire book and say "here it isn't!). I think that, if nobody can produce any actual predictions from Malthus, maybe all of them should just go away.Rsheridan6 22:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Citing a secondary or tertiary source that makes the claim about Malthus would be okay. I tried reading Malthus for specific predictions and my impression was that he makes general predictions of impending famine, but it is hard to capture this in any short block quote. Although I didn't finish him, so there may be a specific quote somewhere.--Michael C. Price talk 22:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Tertiary or secondary sources might be OK under normal circumstances, but in this case they're giving us contradictory results. If nobody can or will find a single primary quote, or at least a secondary source that makes some sort of case based on Malthus's actual writing rather than just making an unsupported assertion, that can clear this up, it should go. I'm not asking anybody to move mountains. The Principle of Population is available for free online in searchable form. And general impressions weren't the issue here - specific incorrect predictions were. FWIW (which isn't very much), I think he would be surprised by our current population and prosperity, but he certainly wasn't a Paul Ehrlich style, bet-losing prophet of doom.Rsheridan6 00:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hare Lip

That paragraph on his hare lip strikes me as very dodgy.

Yes, he did have a birth defect, but this is the first I've heard of those three associated "facts": that he was so embarrassed by it as to avoid portraits, that it was surgically repaired, and that such defects were common in his family.

I must declare an interest here: I am a Malthus, author of one of the web sites linked to this article. But since I first read that paragraph a couple of weeks ago I have been unable to find supporting evidence in the sources available to me, or by searching the web.

In fact, the possibility of repair never occurred to me before (how common was such surgery in those days?) although, on reflection, I concede that's what it looks like in his portrait. But if uncorroborated, is that sufficient evidence? And exactly when was it done? The timeline is problematic: He died at the end of 1834, the Linnell portrait is dated 1833, and the only explicit mention of a hare lip found by biographer Patricia James (1966) was a passage in the autobiography of Harriet Martineau, relating her meeting him in 1832. She was deaf and used an ear-trumpet, but worried that she would not hear him because of "his hare-lip which must prevent me offering him my tube." So it seems that Martineau was of the impression, at least before she met him, that the hare lip still existed and, after she met him, saw no need to correct that impression. To take Martineau at face value (ha!), the window of opportunity for the date of the surgery was pretty short. Likewise, the window of opportunity for people to start noticing that he was a handsome old dog! Actually, the "handsome" description appears to have originated in a memoir by TRM's niece, Louisa Bray (one of James' main biographical sources), in which she clearly states that he was considered handsome as a young man. So if the timeline suggested by this paragraph is correct then it should at least be amended to say he was considered handsome despite the defect, not merely after it was repaired.

As to avoiding the embarrassment of a portrait - well, I don't know; it just doesn't gel well with the descriptions of his equable nature. Has someone made an assumption based on the non-existence of earlier portraits?

Finally, I have seen it said that TRM inherited the defect from his great grandfather. Perhaps I am being overly sensitive, but I don't think that justifies the "common in his family" remark. If it was common then, it's frankly unknown now: neither I nor my father, who did fairly extensive research for a family tree 20-30 years ago, has any knowledge of cleft palates in any family member since TRM himself.

In other words, this paragraph smacks of some pretty loose extrapolation from some pretty thin data. Sources, please.

219.89.107.134 00:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Nigel Malthus

This sentence doesn't make sense

Essentially what this resulted in was the promotion of legislation which degenerated the conditions of the poor in England, lowering their population but effectively decreasing poverty.

If the conditions of the poor were degenerated, then wouldn't they be living in increased poverty?

Timhoooey 04:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Extremist sources

Sections tagged [unreliable source?]

See WP:RS:

Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution. Tractorboy60 17:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The sites you tagged are just peak oil sites. They're not widely acknowledged as extremist, and they should not be considered unreliable for that reason. You can find articles about peak oil from mainstream sources like the New York Times which take the idea seriously, which demonstrates that it's not an extreme view.Lysine23 02:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

They promote alarmist arguments and dire, pessimistic forecasts. That makes it extremist in a political sense - see WP:RS above. In any event this doesn't belong on an encyclopedia article about Thomas Malthus. Take it to malthusian catastrophe, or better still a blog. WP:NPOV: "A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Evaluation of reliability will depend on the credibility of the author and the publication, along with consideration of the context. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." [i.e. arguably not the NYT]. WP:SOAP: "What Wikipedia is not - a site for... propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views."

As your section stands, it requires a balancing POV, and this also would not be in any way relevant to the subject of the article. Tractorboy60 06:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Moral Restraint

As it stands, the article says:

"In the first edition of the Essay, Malthus suggested that only natural causes (such as accidents and old age), misery (war, pestilence, plague, and above all famine) [Book I, Ch. 2], moral restraint and vice (which for Malthus included infanticide, murder, contraception and homosexuality)[citation needed] could check excessive population-growth. In the second and subsequent editions, Malthus raised the possibility of moral restraint (including late marriage and sexual abstinence) as a check on the growth of population."

The inclusion of ", moral restraint" in the list of checks in the First Essay is incorrect (moral restraint first appeared in the Second Essay), and it implicitly contradicts the second statement which says that moral restraint appears in the second and subsequent editions of the Essay. I'm going to change it - I hope that's OK with everyone.

The statement that moral restraint includes "late marriage and sexual abstinence" is slightly awry: moral restraint means marrying late or not at all, coupled with sexual abstinence before marriage - but not within it.

Andy Denis (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Principle of population

I am unclear why the section of the article on Malthus's principle of population has been deleted. It was removed on 4 April by 75.199.49.135, apparently without any discussion. This has the effect of gutting the article. Unless there is a good reason for this change, let's put it back. Andy Denis (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC).

The last paragraph has a vague reference for people who disagree with Malthus on the Human capacity to increase food supply (indeed it is marked with the "who" tag already) - isn't this a good place to link to Ester Boserup who is arguably one of the most famous advocates of humanity increasing food production to whatever amount is required?
ShaunKenyon (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
If you can supply the reference then by all means do. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


Margaret Sanger

Hi All Margaret Sanger was partially influenced by Malthus and actually organized Malthusian Conferences i think. It might be appropriate to mention that someplace. Mike mlhooten#gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.82.130.131 (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If anywhere, it would be the Margaret Sanger article – but first verification is needed. . dave souza, talk 20:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

it is a disgrace

that all the criticisms supplied in the article are not humanistic (which is to say, defensive of the dignity of human life which Malthus tears to shreds by looking the other way), but calculated economic responses, not any better in the lines of thought that led to them and differing from Malthus only in their conclusions.

It will be a good idea to find and include humanistic responses to Malthus. I have one from Tolstoy (from "What is art?") and would eagerly include it, except that it does not supply a counter-argument. --VKokielov (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have cut out the part of my opinion which concerns the article's contents, and left only the part which concerns the article. If my opinion shows through, I can't help it -- I am not a machine; and anyway it does not hurt any here -- I haven't written an essay of four pages. --VKokielov (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The article's a reflection of what we can verify fromreliable sources, and if you can find good sources for that aspect of criticism, a summary will be most welcome. As you'll appreciate you must be careful not to put in your own interpretation or ideas. A significant issue that's missing from the article is the point made by Moore[4] that the Reverend Malthus was expressing a theological view – "For Malthus, the gap between population growth and increase of food supply is God-ordained. God has ordained this tremendous fecundity amongst human beings in order to get us to till the land, to give us the incentive to feed ourselves. We're always going to have to struggle to do that. And also the incentive to restrain ourselves sexually. This is a law of nature and it's for our own good." I'll try to watch out for a more authoritative source for that aspect. . . dave souza, talk 19:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

multiple adverbs

To modify adverbs, we use other adverbs, as in "very commonly" or "fairly commonly" or "relatively commonly". Why not? -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

See Strunk's Elements of Style, Ch.5, section 12. Do not construct awkward adverbs. "Adverbs are easy to build. Take an adjective or a participle, add -ly, and behold! you have an adverb. But you'd probably be better off without it." Goes double for the clumsy double adverb. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Strunk's comments appear to relate to the construction of "awkward adverbs", which might not strictly apply to standard adverbs well-acclimatized in the English language like "relatively" (definitively attested per the OED as early as 1561) or "frequently" (known since 1531). What one reader may find "clumsy" another may appreciatively find carefully precise and accurate -- and thus eminently well-suited for our encyclopedia. -- Do we have a Wikipedia guideline or a style guide that would ban this sort of standard English construction? -- I note that a Google search for the quoted phrase "relatively frequently" finds about 79,000 cases... suggesting that it occurs relatively frequently... -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Googling adverbs? Seriously? Just the thought of it gives me a strong case of giggling adjectives. I'll have to try that some bored and restless wiki-night. Why does the remarkable discovery of thousands of instances of bad writing via Google search not surprise me? This argument is about style not substance and I refuse to spend another minute on it. If you feel compelled put this stumbling prose back in by all means do so. Cheers. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
One can google lots of stuff. The Google database may not represent the most balanced linguistic corpus available, but it comes in handy. And it even has important words like adverbs! -- I agree that our little friendly spat has centered on style. We can expect to find clashing preferences in such matters; but I did want to make sure that Wikipedia didn't have some absurd guideline banning standard and normal multiple adverbs. (PS: the Corpus of Contemporary American English seems to include at least eight samples of "relatively frequently" from various recent contexts: http://www.americancorpus.org/ The smaller British National Corpus includes, proportionately, three examples: http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/x.asp ) -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

References

This article is getting a bit of a much needed spring-clean. The most frequent problem is the occurrence of claims without appropriate references, so please help if you can. Remember, the references must be a) to reliable sources, and b) directly relevant to the section in question. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, looks well worthwhile. I've added a brief account of the moral purpose Malthus saw in his pessimistic view, as briefly covered by Bowler. It may be possible to expand this a bit with reference to Moore as above, will watch out for further references. . dave souza, talk 15:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
At present, I know of no clear evidence that M. thought that the population increase &c. was "divinely imposed to teach virtuous behaviour", and am tepid about the Moore reference, lacking textual references as it does. I'd like to see a text reference to M. saying just that!
One of the problems is that people with identical beliefs come up with different solutions, raising the possibility that their beliefs have nothing to do with their practice. I think every part of the intro has to be carefully justified, and that is not justified at present. On the other hand, there is a place for a consideration of the interplay between belief and the socio-economic theory. Perhaps something along the lines of:
6th ed., IV.I.4 "Natural and moral evil seem to be the instruments employed by the Deity in admonishing us to avoid any mode of conduct which is not suited to our being, and will consequently injure our happiness. If we are intemperate in eating and drinking, our health is disordered; if we indulge the transports of anger, we seldom fail to commit acts of which we afterwards repent; if we multiply too fast, we die miserably of poverty and contagious diseases. The laws of nature in all these cases are similar and uniform. They indicate to us that we have followed these impulses too far, so as to trench upon some other law, which equally demands attention. The uneasiness we feel from repletion, the injuries that we inflict on ourselves or others in anger, and the inconveniencies we suffer on the approach of poverty, are all admonitions to us to regulate these impulses better; and if we heed not this admonition, we justly incur the penalty of our disobedience, and our sufferings operate as a warning to others."
Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
From the 1798 edition;
"To avoid evil and to pursue good seem to be the great duty and business of man, and this world appears to be peculiarly calculated to afford opportunity of the most unremitted exertion of this kind, and it is by this exertion, by these stimulants, that mind is formed. If Locke's idea be just, and there is great reason to think that it is, evil seems to be necessary to create exertion, and exertion seems evidently necessary to create mind.
The necessity of food for the support of life gives rise, probably, to a greater quantity of exertion than any other want, bodily or mental. The Supreme Being has ordained that the earth shall not produce good in great quantities till much preparatory labour and ingenuity has been exercised upon its surface. There is no conceivable connection to our comprehensions, between the seed and the plant or tree that rises from it. The Supreme Creator might, undoubtedly, raise up plants of all kinds, for the use of his creatures, without the assistance of those little bits of matter, which we call seed, or even without the assisting labour and attention of man. The processes of ploughing and clearing the ground, of collecting and sowing seeds, are not surely for the assistance of God in his creation, but are madepreviously necessary to the enjoyment of the blessings of life, in order to rouse man into action, and form his mind to reason.
To furnish the most unremitted excitements of this kind, and to urge man to further the gracious designs of Providence by the full cultivation of the earth, it has been ordained that population should increase much faster than food. This general law (as it has appeared in the former parts of this Essay) undoubtedly produces much partial evil, but a little reflection may, perhaps, satisfy us, that it produces a great overbalance of good. Strong excitements seem necessary to create exertion, and to direct this exertion, and form the reasoning faculty, it seems absolutely necessary, that the Supreme Being should act always according to general laws...."
"As the reasons... we may pronounce with certainty that the world would not have been peopled, but for the superiority of the power of population to the means of subsistence. Strong and constantly operative as this stimulus is on man to urge him to the cultivation of the earth, if we still see that cultivation proceeds very slowly, we may fairly conclude that a less stimulus would have been insufficient. Even under the operation of this constant excitement, savages will inhabit countries of the greatest natural fertility for a long period before they betake themselves to pasturage or agriculture. Had population and food increased in the same ratio, it is probable that man might never have emerged from the savage state..... it is impossible that this law can operate, and produce the effects apparently intended by the Supreme Being, without occasioning partial evil........"
"....The idea that the impressions and excitements of this world are the instruments with which the Supreme Being forms matter into mind, and that the necessity of constant exertion to avoid evil and to pursue good is the principal spring of these impressions and excitements, seems to smooth many of the difficulties that occur in a contemplation of human life, and appears to me to give a satisfactory reason for the existence of natural and moral evil, and, consequently, for that part of both, and it certainly is not a very small part, which arises from the principle of population. .... Evil exists in the world not to create despair but activity. We are not patiently to submit to it, but to exert ourselves to avoid it. It is not only the interest but the duty of every individual to use his utmost efforts to remove evil from himself and from as large a circle as he can influence, and the more he exercises himself in this duty, the more wisely he directs his efforts, and the more successful these efforts are, the more he will probably improve and exalt his own mind and the more completely does he appear to fulfil the will of his Creator."
According to this source, the last two chapters setting out this theodicy were removed in the 1803 edition, but it's a significant part of Malthus's thinking which is lost if he's portrayed as a heartless economist. As it states, "His theology nevertheless remained essential to his theory of population, underlying in particular his concept of 'moral restraint' from reproduction, a new category of check added to 'vice' and misery'." As this puts it;
""Contrary to the simplistic misinterpretation that Malthus condoned the ills of the world, for Malthus evil was something to be fought. His Essay is a warning that without evil to struggle against, the virtuous may become complacent or inert. As John Pullen (1981) and others have argued, to understand Malthus’s contribution it is necessary to examine the natural theology that permeates his Essay. Malthus addresses a key problem faced by all believers: why should a wise and caring God plan or allow the existence of such wickedness and suffering in the world?... Malthus held the view that evil should not be tolerated in any degree or form. He explained the existence of such sufferings and wrongs in terms of their function in arousing humanity to strive unceasingly for virtuous ends. For him, it was part of God’s plan." . . dave souza, talk 19:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Spring-clean

... is just about complete, apart from tinkering with refs. It has been interesting to see how controversial his views still are in our age of social welfare, environmentalism and growing population. If we had a biog 'relevance to today' scale, he'd be near the top. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Dystopian?

The intro says Malthus promoted a dystopian view. I don't think this is really accurate, since Malthus saw the problems caused by resource scarcity as drivers for advancement, not as hopeless or useless suffering. Denying the possibility of utopia doesn't automatically make one's views dystopian. Vultur (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It is, I think, in the consequences of the theory (Secondary theory: the consequences) that there is justification for the term. Distress of the poor, famine, pestilence, plague, war &c. are almost by definition dystopic in character. Also, note the many reactions to his work. I don't doubt for a second his good intentions, and his intentions are not traduced or even criticised in the article, except to the extent that some of his critics are quoted. But, the term dystopia/dystopic is properly used. IMHO. I daresay many who write a dystopia do it to improve the world. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Dystopian jumped out at me also. Should Jesus be listed as a dystopian (the poor we will have with us always). One can just as accurately say- Distress of the poor, famine, pestilence, plague, war &c. are almost by definition realistic in character. Utopian and Dsytopian are best used for writings that describe hypothetical societies. I think M was trying to describe the real world to the best of his abilities. Neither Jean-Jacques Rousseau or William Godwin are generally considered to hold utopian views. Also since M died before the word was coined its use is a bit anachronistic. Nitpyck (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I will makes some changes, even though I think both of you are underrating just how outspoken and extreme Malthus' views were. The following is quite out of the ordinary for 18thC England:
"The power of population is so superior to the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other, visit the human race... sickly seasons, epidemics, pertilence, and plague, advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and ten thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow, levels the population with the food of the world." (p61, end of Chapter VII)
Now, it's not right to call this 'realistic', since that begs the question of whether such consequences have ever happened or are going to happen. It's certainly not happened in England, despite the population now being ten times what it was in his day. But I'll try and use the conflict over the putative improvability of society to generate a more widely acceptable intro. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Too many flags?

Yes, probably. But this is what happens when you write in a hurry, and don't put sources and references in-line with the text. Don't leave to others what you can do yourself. Especially in technical subjects, those who have competence might contribute in a disciplined manner: better to do less, but do it in a way which is not open to criticism and complaint. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Name redux

Robert is clearly the appropriate name. It was the name he used, and there are more g-hits for Robert (I get ~250K) than for Thomas (~222K). As it stands now, the article is contributing to confusion over the appropriate name--my students don't know whether to say Thomas or Robert. I will move the page, if there are no strong objections.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I object. Robert currently exists as a redirect to here. If the article absolutely had to be moved, I would only support Thomas Robert Malthus (with redirects from Robert and Thomas). Syrthiss (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
That might be the best solution: the article name as Thomas Robert Malthus, and then use only the name Robert Malthus throughout the article.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I can live with Thomas Robert Malthus, with initial explanation. I prefer surname, Malthus, later in article, unless ambig. with other family members. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, of course, in most cases the surname only, but if a given name is used, it should be Robert. I'll wait a few days before I do anything, so no one is caught by surprise.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

hidden advertisement link??

Just browsing through this page and at the bottom under "footnotes" i noticed a link: "Essay writing service" to (blacklisted link removed),

i didnt want to delete it as i just made an account to point this out but i thought anyone should know

edit will just delete it as it may be a while before anyone checks this page again

GylesB (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Corn Laws

Malthus favored corn laws (regulation of corn importation) as promoting long term stability. From Book 3, Chapter 6 of his sixth edition:

"The war that succeeded to the peace of Amiens found us dependent upon foreign countries for a very considerable portion of our supplies of corn; and we now grow our own consumption, notwithstanding an unusual increase of population in the interval. This great and sudden change in the state of our agriculture could only have been effected by very high prices occasioned by an inadequate home supply and the great expense and difficulty of importing foreign corn. But the rapidity with which this change has been effected must necessarily create a glut in the market as soon as the home growth of corn became fully equal or a little in excess above the home consumption; and, aided only by a small foreign importation, must inevitably occasion a very sudden fall of prices. If the ports had continued open for the free importation of foreign corn, there can be little doubt that the price of corn in 1815 would have been still considerably lower. This low price of corn, even if by means of lowered rents our present state of cultivation could be in a great degree preserved, must give such a check to future improvement, that if the ports were to continue open, we should certainly not grow a sufficiency at home to keep pace with our increasing population; and at the end of ten or twelve years we might be found by a new war in the same state that we were at the commencement of the present. We should then have the same career of high prices to pass through, the same excessive stimulus to agriculture followed by the same sudden and depressing check to it, and the same enormous loans borrowed with the price of wheat at 90 or 100 shillings a quarter, and the monied incomes of the landholders and industrious classes of society nearly in proportion, to be paid when wheat is at 50 or 60 shillings a quarter, and the incomes of the landlords and industrious classes of society greatly reduced—a state of things which cannot take place without an excessive aggravation of the difficulty of paying taxes, and particularly that invariable monied amount which pays the interest of the national debt.

"On the other hand a country which so restricts the importations of foreign corn as on an average to grow its own supplies, and to import merely in periods of scarcity, is not only certain of spreading every invention in manufactures and every peculiar advantage it may possess from its colonies or general commerce on the land, and thus of fixing them to the spot and rescuing them from accidents; but is necessarily exempt from those violent and distressing convulsions of property which almost unavoidably arise from the coincidence of a general war and an insufficient home supply of corn." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdkag (talk • contribs) 14:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Social Theory section

The Section 5.3 lists eight main points contained in the 1798 Essay. One of these is listed as: "because productivity increases cannot maintain the potential rate of population growth, population requires strong checks to keep parity with the carrying-capacity." The term "carrying capacity" is wikilinked. However, a quick search of the Essay at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4239/4239-h/4239-h.htm indicates that the word "capacity" is never used in this context. 128.252.65.228 (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Consistent style variants

WP:ENGVAR encourages spelling-consistency and respect for national origins. Thus I suggest we change "skepticism" to "scepticism" in this article to retain and harmonize with the British English which it already uses (as in, for example, "Fisher commented sceptically" and "enviro-sceptic Bjørn Lomborg"). -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved material to An Essay on the Principle of Population

This article had an extended discussion of An Essay on the Principle of Population, while the actual "main" article about the essay was only a comparatively short article. I moved most of the material about the essay to An Essay on the Principle of Population, which is the more logical place for it, and left only the briefest discussion here. Readers interested in the essay can use the "Main article" link to get to the extended discussion. Geoffrey.landis (talk)

Thanks, that seems appropriate under WP:SUMMARY. My intention is to do further work to improve the logical flow and detail in the article. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I have now done likewise with almost all the material on the reception of the Essay. I hope this article can now develop more freely as a biography. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this bit of the article correct? Seems a bit random.

Is this bit of the article correct? Seems a bit random.

"Dennis Burgess' theory also relates to that of Malthus'. He believed that when Sahil Verma was born, food was due to run out. This is how the overpopulation theories all started. This was also how fast food was invented as Verma is constantly hungry and need food fast."

202.175.143.30 (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Nope, looks like that paragraph was added wholesale by someone yesterday. I've taken it out. Thanks for spotting it. --McGeddon (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-neutral points of view

It's pretty clear that the author(s) are not neutral:

"Simon infers from this success that human ingenuity--"The Ultimate Resource"--can overcome any environmental limit. This is a version of the much-discredited Labor Theory of Value, and it is puzzling that mainstream economists accepted Simon's arguments against Malthus without noting that they depended on this doctrine that none of them accept. Karl Marx, a strong advocate of the Labor Theory of Value, argued that Malthus had to be wrong because every human being that is born is born with their own two hands--their labor power--with which they can get their living. Note that this doctrine effectively assumes that the planet is infinite--that there is no need to credit nature as the provisioner of humans, because agricultural production is due solely to the investment of farming effort, no natural inputs required. In this area (as in others), Simonism is indistinguishable from Marxism."

This is a version of the much-discredited Labor Theory of Value..."? "Simonism is indistinguishable from Marxism"? I doubt that assessment could be found in unbiased analysis of Julian Simon's writings.

Similarly, "The enviro-sceptic Bjørn Lomborg presents data showing that the environment has actually improved[relevant? – discuss].[62] Calories produced per day per capita globally went up 23% between 1960 and 2000, despite the world population doubling during that period.[63]

Most of the increase was due to increased use of fossil fuel, a point that Lomborg ignores."

"Most of the increase was due to increased use of fossil fuel, a point that Lomborg ignores" is nothing more than the author expressing his opinion as fact.Mark Bahner (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The last five paragraphs in the section "Other Dissenters" reads like an opinion piece and is clearly not neutral voice. The author(s) is trying to refute criticism of Malthus's theory and passing off opinion as fact. Modern scientists still debate the merits of Malthusian theory and their are many critics[1]. Many of the claims the author makes are in dispute and should not be presented as fact. Propose deleting these paragraphs altogether. Publicus ambactus (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.voxfux.com/features/malthusian_theory/malthusian_theory.htm


You're probably right about the critique failing neutral point of view. Nevertheless, the "voxfux" website linked in that reference is an extremely wacky conspiracy theory site, so if this is your reference for "many critics," I'm not convinced -- I would not label anything there a reliable source. The "paper" linked cites The Heritage Foundation, The Population Research Institute, The Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, and The Catholic University of America; none of which are even remotely neutral on the subject of birth control. 76.241.158.127 (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I have to concur that the phrasing of the article can be improved vis neutrality. That said, there is at this point a general consensus within economics (Malthus' area of study) that the ideas most widely credited to Malthus are out-dated and in some cases completely discredited. For example, the notion that arithmetical food growth will always be outpaced by exponential population growth failed to take into account large leaps forward in food production due to technological breakthroughs (GMO's, etc) as well as demographic shifts in non-agricultural economies that have shifted to neutral to negative population trends. All major, modern schools of economics have published critiques of Malthus. Leaving aside Marx, I would recommend reviewing Keynes' "Eulogy for Malthus" and on the other end of the spectrum "Malthus and the Assault on Population" by Rothbard. The most contemporary critic of Malthus was perhaps Bastiat, who was overshadowed by Malthus at the time but whose views over the long term are becoming more influential in terms of the population problem.

That said, I do agree with Mr Bahner that in many areas outside of the study of economics, Malthus' ideas are still taken as gospel; particularly among certain segments of the environmental movement. IMO an article with a non-biased point of view would offer cited summaries of the counter-arguments outlined above as well as others with a focus on citations from economic publications. Supporting arguments should be provided from economists where credible sources are available, and they may in fact be scarce. By credible source I do not refer to someone who agrees with my point of view re: Malthus - rather the more general expectation of someone in that field as being someone published within peer reviewed academic journals, someone who is cited as a theoretical basis for neutrally funded experiments/lab work, etc. We should also make use of concurrent sources outside of economics that meet similar criteria or less stringent criteria to argue larger social significance. I will do some studying and attempt some re-writes and citations that I hope will meet everyone's standards. Jaydubya93 (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for "Reception and Influence" Section

This article provides a substantial amount of information on Malthus' works and theories, however I think it could be enhanced by adding more information to the "influence" section. Although Charles Darwin is mentioned briefly in the introduction, Malthus' work had a direct effect on Darwin's thinking, specifically referring to the concept of "the Struggle for Existence". As Darwin is a very influential and well known figure, it is worth including Malthus' impact on his work. Dcbru (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for article order

I think that the article has some sections that are very strong, yet others could use some more information including the above mentioned influences section. I also think that the subdivisions could be organized a bit differently to make more sense, such as the early life and family is separated by a few sections on his accomplishments. They could be perhaps arranged by all family and early life and then go into his accomplishments. MackenzieGlaze (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for Changes in Sections

The Section titled “Population Growth”, discussing the process that Malthus underwent to write "An Essay on the Principle of Population" and the resulting impact that his writing and theories had on society, could be improved by combining the “Population Growth” article with the later section titled “An Essay on the Principle of Population”. Instead of separating the two sections, and confusing the reader as to the difference between Malthus’ ideas about population growth and his essay, the article would be improved by demonstrating that Malthus’ ideas about population growth are written in his essay. The sections “Academic”, “Later life” and “Family”, could all be combined into a “Later Life” section, organized by dates in order to alleviate confusion on the time of events occurring when reading the article. Although the dates of his marriage and academic work are included, it is more coherent to read when placed in order of events. However, although the later life section concludes with his death, the section “Malthus-Ricardo debate on political economy” should remain after “Later Life”, because he has a large bulk of information which should not be swallowed in a section on his family and academic career, but instead remain separated with its current title. Eeb017 (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

1814: Observations... Corn Laws

The first sentence of the chapter seems wrong or a coalesce of two sentences. Could someone knowledgeable clean up "Although government in Britain had regulated the prices of grain, the Corn Laws originated in 1815"? 

Or is really meant that dispite regulation of prices of grain, the Corn Laws origintated in 1815?

Theking2 (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate chart

I've removed a chart that wrongly represented Malthus. I contacted the creator of the chart but have not heard back, so I've "been bold" and taken it out. - Metalello talk 20:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I see your edits, but don't see where you contacted me (I'm new and may have missed it). What is the misrepresentation? --Rdubeau (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay I see your email and the talk page for the image. I'll reply there, thank you. --Rdubeau (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Thomas Robert Malthus. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Potential to make addition to the popular culture section

Hello, about an hour ago, I found this page and thought I could add a paragraph (don't have a Wikipedia account) in the Popular Culture section, as I played a game called Xenoblade Chronicles 2, in which a character (and main antagonist) by the name of Amalthus seems obviously inspired or loosely based on Thomas Malthus and his ideas. It was a little addition, about 2 or 3 sentences detailing (objectively as possible) why this was a probable reference to the real life Thomas Malthus. Without my notification and without reason it was deleted. I understand I don't have an account, and that if you didn't play the game it is hard to verify. I linked his character page from a fandom site, which was the only place I could find his reference. I guess the game is rather niche, so there wasn't much I could work with. There isn't much more out there I could find about the character Amalthus beyond fan wikis, so I suppose its a dead end. Its clear he is based on Malthus, and the game dealing with much of the themes of Malthus's works, and Amalthus in particular being a caricature or loose interpretation of the man, in the same vein as Scrooge. I'm just curious of the protocol in this situation. I can't use self made sources, fan wikis seem in it of themselves a no go, and I can't just LINK the game itself. As well, what I typed I believe was very well done, if in need of a little work. I spent about a half hour getting the proper language down to fit with the rest of the article, and just like that its gone. Someone may very well have thought I vandalized the page and deleted it without a second thought, and it may very well be gone forever, which would be very disappointing. If removed sections such as this are saved somewhere, I'd really appreciate if I could have access to it. I'll gladly edit it to conform to Wikipedia's standards and use the proper links if I'm just given the idea of what that is. Thank you.


96.238.133.97 (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


EDIT; I have found the section I wrote, whatever needs to be added to make it acceptable, please let me know.

  • In the video game Xenoblade Chronicles 2 the main antagonist Praetor Amalthus is seemingly inspired by and named for Thomas Malthus. His views of religion and the decline of humanity (morally and culturally) parallel many of Malthus's own political opinions, and these ideological struggles between Amalthus, blades (a subservient second class race within the game) and the protagonists serve as the main crux of the games conflict. Another large theme of Xenoblade Chronicles 2 involves the decline of the world, as livable land dies off and resources become ever scarce, instigating wars between the nations of this games universe, and the quest of the main character (Rex) who searches for the mythical paradise known as "Elysium", a land of plenty where all humans can live in harmony. The game as a whole appears to based upon Malthusian philosophy, including its implications and applications. [1]

96.238.133.97 (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Amalthus". Xenoblade Wiki. Retrieved 2019-04-14.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Robert_Malthus/Archive_1&oldid=1137250682"