Thomas Malthus arguably has the most consequential influence
on Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection. Malthus’s thesis that populations overproduce
and outstrip their resources is a fundamental cornerstone of Darwin’s
theory. Without this competition for the
resources of life the concept of “survival of the fittest” is moot. It is the Survival of the fittest that is the
hallmark of “Natural Selection” the “Prime Mover” of evolution. The beauty of
the Malthusian contribution is that the inference is from “Man” back to “Animal”
the reciprocal of Darwin’s evolution.
Malthus was a political economist who observed a decline in the social
conditions in nineteenth century England.
He blamed this decline on the overproduction of young, inability of
resources to keep up and irresponsibility of the lower classes of people. While on initial exposure this seems a harsh
indictment on the “lower classes,” and I’m not sure exactly who they were
according to Malthus, this only detracts from the more acute point within the
observation. Which is that the analogy
of man’s behavior back to the animal kingdom is striking. In spite the significance of this
contribution I believe that Darwin would have forwarded his theory if Malthus
had not been around. The confluence of scientific
ideas at this time from so many contributors as well as the careful and
diligent work of Darwin himself made this theory a fait accompli. Even if Darwin had not published the work
himself a very similar work was about to be published by Wallace. I think these ideas were what Dawkins would
call a “Meme.” They were ideas whose time had come. They were not so much
dependent upon individuals as upon a collective, transferrable knowledge. Possibly the most harmful influence upon
Darwin and “On the origin of species” was the church. At a minimum the church caused a delay in the
publication and denied thousands access to knowledge for years. Some have argued that this delay resulted in
a more careful reflection of each and every supposition and ultimately caused
the work to be stronger. I really don’t believe that scientific inquiry
is best conducted in the atmosphere of fear.
One can’t help but wonder how much better and more quickly the arguments
could have been honed through the peer review process had it been published 20
years earlier.
Richard Dawkins' 1976 book The Selfish
Gene.
http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/CharlesDarwin.html
Good background on Malthus' work and well-written. I'll touch on your discussion of the reciprocal nature of Malthus and Darwin's work later.
ReplyDeleteWhich bullet points from the assignment guidelines do you think best describes Malthus' contribution to Darwin's theory?
It is possible that Darwin would have developed his theory without Malthus, but I do have my doubts. Even Darwin, in his papers, discusses that "ah-ha" moment of reading Malthus' paper and realizing how it was the key to his developing theory. Many scientists made contributions to Darwin, but there are only two that I would consider as possible indispensable to Darwin... Malthus is one. Lyell is the other.
I agree that science should not be conducted in fear. It is not conducive to creative thought and the free exchange of ideas that is central to science. That said, it is possible the delay had the accidental benefit of introducing Darwin's paper into a world more receptive to it than it would have been two decades earlier. But that's a lot of guess work.
Now two points:
Regarding Dawkin's use of the word "meme": A meme isn't a concept that idea is inevitable and will develop almost as a force of nature eventually. A meme, like a gene, is a unit of information. For a gene, it's DNA. For a meme, it's an idea, and like genes, some memes are more successful at being reproduced and spread throughout the population. So I'm not sure if natural selection at it's time of publishing would qualify as a meme. It's possible.
With regard to the reciprocal nature of Malthus and Darwin's ideas, I agree but in the opposite direction of your argument. Malthus saw how natural populations were naturally limited in their reproduction and, turning that to human populations, was disturbed to find that we were lacking in these natural limiting factors. This was the heart of Malthus' work, the concern over the results of overpopulation in humans, which could only be controlled by the extremes of famine and disease, unless humans chose to control theri reproduction. Darwin then took this conclusion of Malthus with regard to human populations and turned it back go animals. Yes, non-human populations did have natural limiting factors... but what were they? Was it random, who survived and out-competed others, or was there some force or process that "selected" the organisms that survived. His answer was natural selection, namely that the environment effectively selected the organisms best fit for that environment to out-compete and reproduce at a higher rate than other organisms. Darwin deliberately avoided direct reference to how this idea was applied to humans, knowing full well the powder keg that would light. It was only in his second book, "The Descent of Man", that he became brave enough to broach that subject.
Other than missing the section on bullet points, good post. You did a good job of bringing in other ideas from outside readings.
wow. I am impressed by your blog. You did a thorough job and I enjoyed reading bits of your references. I can tell you did in-depth research on Thomas Malthus.
ReplyDeleteI agree I feel that he is without a doubt the biggest influence on darwin's theory of natural selection. I saw that you wrote "Malthus blames the social decline on on irresponsibility of the lower class." This didn't sit well with me. It sounded very pretentious and elitist of Malthus.
You wrote." I really don’t believe that scientific inquiry is best conducted in the atmosphere of fear." I couldn't agree more. I wonder how many scientist hide their discoveries because of fear. It's awful that we live in a society where people wish to keep us ignorant.