Last week’s edition of The Graham Star carried a column entitled “Malthusian Malfeasance.”
The column took Thomas Malthus’ work out of context, fast forwarded to a justification for unregulated free enterprise capitalism, ventured into a recommendation for high birth rates (code for banning abortions and ending a woman’s right to choose), and finished with a flourish of meritocracy to justify the actions of the rich and powerful from which many victims suffer.
That is a lot of stuff to pack into a column.
Before we assign Malthus’ work to the dustbin of outmoded theories, let’s unpack some of last week’s thoughts.
Thomas Malthus came from wealth. He attended Jesus College, which has been around for more than 500 years as one of the 31 colleges that make up the University of Cambridge in England. His early writings supported the Poor Laws which were designed to establish workhouses for the impoverished.
He is best known for his 1798 “Essay on the Principle of Population as It Affects the Future Improvement of Society.” The theme was that population grew faster than the means of production to support the increased number of people. This writing took place when the Industrial Revolution was just beginning to greatly expand the capacity of business to provide the goods necessary to support geometric population growth. It would be another 70 years until Russian Karl Marx created the word “capitalism” in his 1867 “Das Kapital.”
So, the solutions in the Malthusian Malfeasance column were barely or not even blips on the radar when Malthus wrote his seminal work.
Malthus believed that wars, famine, plagues (pandemics) and moral restraint (abstinence) would ameliorate unbridled population growth. He was an ordained minister before he became a writer and professor. The theory that high fertility (defined as cheap labor) would produce wealth was prevalent at the time he wrote. That same theory survives today in the economics of Social Security. Without new workers provided either by high birth rates or legal immigration, there will not be enough income to the system to fund the benefits due to an aging population.
As relates to meritocracy, there are many definitions. The one that seems best is “a system in which advancement in society is based on an individual’s capabilities and strengths rather than on the basis of family, wealth or social status.”
The opposite of meritocracy is cronyism. Ask yourself which of these polar opposites is the most prevalent path to a better life in our current world.
Let’s give my colleague credit for a clever lead-up to the forthcoming Supreme Court review of Roe v. Wade. Just like Brown v. Board of Education reversed Plessy v. Ferguson and did away with separate but equal segregated schools, the Supreme Court could do away with or severely limit a woman’s right to choose. That divisive issue will be debated later this year and probably be decided in 2022.
Whatever the outcome, Malthus and his projections have nothing to do with the modern world and his brilliance in the context of the early 1800’s should not be abused in the guise of unregulated capitalism, free enterprise, meritocracy or high birth rates producing more wealth.
Roger Carlton writes a bi-weekly column for The Graham Star. Email him at rcarlton57@hotmail.com.