A Conservative Reading of Malthus

[Anonymous No.11615610]

Few thinkers have been so wrongly maligned or misunderstood as Thomas Malthus. Often seen as an advocate for birth control, this is about as accurate and popular as calling Nietzsche an advocate for nihilism. Malthus, in his essay on population, specifically says a high birthrate, while not specifically guaranteeing prosperity, is a basic criterion for it. He is also certainly no utilitarian, arguing that even though misery is undesirable, abolishing hardship and pain altogether would turn humans into narcissistic brats.

He gained his reputation from those offended by his argument against the welfare state, and also communism. To illustrate an issue he raises with the first, imagine a state with universal basic income. Those living on it would not have to sacrifice any income for their children, and so would likely children (which they ought not until they get a job). This would drive up the price of food without production being added to. This raises the cost of living for low income workers more and more, making them more likely to get sucked into the blackhole of state aid, worsening the problem. This is always an issue if people are not required to support their children, and "society" is expected to.

I recently created a discord for conservative /lit/ (you don't have to be conservative to join, just have an interest in conservative literature). Will add more channels today

https://discord.gg/c5Vga4E

[Anonymous No.11616009]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11616574]

>>11615610
nietzsche was an advocate for metaphysical nihilism

[Anonymous No.11616585]

malthus was right, but in western society some revolutions happened--but that only postpones the catastrophe.
africa is pretty much malthusian trapped everywhere.
ugh, I have spoken.

[Anonymous No.11616596]

>>11615610
>Often seen as an advocate for birth control
I think Malthus is generally seen these days as an advocate for at least some measure of eugenics. There's a reason he's unpopular with modern academics.

[Anonymous No.11616670]

Malthus, just as Marx, underestimated the potential of industrial societies able to find new technology to overcome crises. Malthus couldn't predict oil-based fertilizers and the green revolution. Now, that doesn't mean Malthus will forever be wrong. It is entirely possible we fail to find technologies able to overcome in a timely manner the combination of the depletion of oil resources, climate change, water scarcity and the extreme slowness of the demographic transition.

[Anonymous No.11617010]

>>11616596
>Malthus is generally seen these days as an advocate for at least some measure of eugenics.
Based on?

>>11616670
>Malthus, just as Marx, underestimated the potential of industrial societies able to find new technology to overcome crises.

How so?

[Anonymous No.11617108]

>>11617010
Don't know about people but a big part of ecology is managing the things that limit a population if you want it to grow. People can overcome their own limiting factors due to intelligence. If there's ever an insurmountable problem or resources run out population would theoretically drop.

[Anonymous No.11617482]

>>11617108
Not sure how this contradicts Malthus

[Anonymous No.11617500]

>>11615610
you are like a little baby
watch this
http://www.xenosystems.net/malthusian-horror/

[Anonymous No.11617519]

>>11616670
Entirely possible? I think you're in denial just how fucked we are in terms of future energy

[Anonymous No.11617676]

>>11617482
What? I was just showing what "overcoming crisis" is. Malthus would only be wrong if all limiting factors could be eliminated (they'll never be because resources are limited).

[Anonymous No.11617679]

>>11615610
Malthus literally advocated infanticide to make sure everyone didn't starve... his entire population theory has been proven empirically wrong by all subsequent developments.

His entire economics was proto-Keynesian, he claimed a free market couldn't generate the aggregate demand necessary to clear markets and the state should work specifically to protect rentier interests [instead of Keynes who had a more technocratic ideology] (Malthus supported the corn laws against Ricardo's argument for free trade). "Welfare state" and "communism" wasn't exactly in the public discourse of the day but he was a proponent of state intervention.

>>11616585
>africa is pretty much malthusian trapped everywhere.
Africa's state is entirely the result of religious NGO's and Western neo-colonial "aid" programs

50 years ago you would be claiming the same thing about China being in a malthusian trap

>>11616670
>Malthus, just as Marx, underestimated the potential of industrial societies able to find new technology to overcome crises.
Marx claimed the growing mass of fixed capital, and its associated depreciation expenses, relative to employed labour was at the root of crises and indicated the very historical limitation of capitalism in controlling the technological forces [the depreciation of which is turning debt-capital into demand for money resulting in inflation in costs to cover the losses from the fixed capital financed via debt] it would generate

[Anonymous No.11617713]

>>11617679
>Malthus literally advocated infanticide to make sure everyone didn't starve.
Actually no, he didn't. He considered infanticide to be horrific

[Anonymous No.11617721]

>>11617679
In fact he opposed the Poor Laws and explains why they worsened the lot of the poor

[Anonymous No.11617783]

>>11617713
Malthus preferred later marriage and sexual abstinence but he didn't ruled out vice as an option for population control

>>11617721
Yes he opposed the Poor Laws [which were cruel] but he wasn't interested in benefiting the poor... he was a proponent of state intervention to protect specifically rentier interests against capitalists/labourers... he would be a big fan of military Keynesianism if he was alive today

[Anonymous No.11617877]

>malthus is wrong meany capitalists are the problem not resources

[Anonymous No.11617915]

>>11617519
What year is it? Am I back in 2008? We /fracking/ now, fag.

[Anonymous No.11617928]

>>11617915
>fracking
oh nononono

[Anonymous No.11617951]

>>11617915
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/06/the-us-natural-gas-industry-leaking-way-more-methane-than-ever-before.html

https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/04/11/climate-change-two-degree-warming-fracking-natural-gas-rush-ingraffea

Hope you factored in the costs of destruction of all seaside property