Sure there are some things that Malthus didn’t know, and his model of reality was probably less accurate than ours.
Is there some meaning of “wrong” which does not involve inaccurate models?
Malthus claimed that human population doubled every 25 years unless limited in some way by the amount of available food.
So if there had been some span of time during which the human population was not limited in any way by a scarcity of available food and did not double at that rate, then that would be evidence that directly contradicts his theory.
There is, in fact, such a span of time. As I have pointed out, for two million years of human existence, there is no substantial evidence of famine. And yet the population did not double at Malthus’s proposed rate. Or ten times his proposed rate. Or a hundred times his proposed rate. In what way is he not wrong?
That is a flawed argument, WrongBot. Visible signs of starvation aren’t necessary to assume humans were living along Malthusian limits. Rates of violence were extremely high amongst hunter gatherers (homicide was the most common cause of death). According to Stephen Pinker, 20-60% of males were murdered. This shouldn’t surprise those of us who understand human nature, people will gladly start killing each other before they let themselves starve to death.
In addition, females menstruating less is a natural response to malthusian conditions. The malthusian limits wouldn’t look like hungry bodies, it would look like fewer pregnant women per year, and more murders.
That probably tells me all I need to know about Ryan and Jetha. I’ll read them, but if they dislike Pinker’s conclusions rather than his writing style they probably don’t like rationality much as I understand the term, as he’s the only mainstream academic I’m aware of who visibly demonstrates the full suite of traditional rationalist virtues in essentially all of his writing. As you might guess, I’m a big fan of traditional rationalist virtues, but as you might not know unless you have seen me speak recently, I’m also a fan of those who energetically reject them, so this should be fun.
Their primary issue with him is not his writing style or his conclusions: it’s that he blatantly misrepresents anthropological data to support his bottom-line conclusions.
For example, the way he claims that “20-60% of males were murdered” in hunter-gatherer societies in order to support the superhappy conclusion that human societies are becoming less violent over time.
For example, the way he claims that “20-60% of males were murdered” in hunter-gatherer societies in order to support the superhappy conclusion that human societies are becoming less violent over time.
Wait, what exactly is wrong with this claim? If large percentages of the male population were murdered that are no longer being murdered, how is that not “less violent”?
If you’re going to address that point in your next post, then no rush.
I’ll be covering this in the next post, but the very short version is that it isn’t his reasoning, it’s that the 20-60% number is derived in an incredibly misleading way; there is substantial anthropological and fossil evidence that he is off by at least an order of magnitude.
Much less than 2% to 6% of modern people are murdered. If, as you claim, the numbers were an order of magnitude lower than Pinker’s claim, the number of homicide deaths would still be an order of magnitude higher than the current global average of about 8 per 100,000 per year.
ETA: Thats a good point FAWS, thanks. I changed it.
8 per 100,000 would be per year, not per lifetime. Assuming an average life span of 70 years that would be about 0.56%, just about one order of magnitude lower.
there is substantial anthropological and fossil evidence that he is off by at least an order of magnitude.
It was a one sentence comment. I’m starting to worry about this community’s ability to argue in good faith.
(This criticism is not necessarily directed at you, knb; it’s not a preposterously unlikely mistake, and I know I’ve made errors of this type. It’s their frequency on LessWrong that’s starting to get to me.)
I am having difficulty with this thread. As I understand biology:
all organisms (not just humans) tend to be able to produce more offspring then the environment can support
those individuals that produce the most living (and reproducing) offspring have their genes in higher frequency in the population
therefore natural selection works and populations evolve
Both Darwin and Wallace crystallized their ideas on evolve after reading Malthus. It doesn’t matter if Malthus was wrong on some minor points—his general idea is one of the foundations of evolution by natural selection. If you throw out Malthus’ general idea then you throw out natural selection. You cannot have it both ways.
Also, the idea that famine did not occur throughout human history is naive.
Malthus claimed that human population doubled every 25 years unless limited in some way by the amount of available food.
So if there had been some span of time during which the human population was not limited in any way by a scarcity of available food and did not double at that rate, then that would be evidence that directly contradicts his theory.
Are you reading Malthus, or just listening to the little caricature of Malthus in your head and the popular media? Your own link doesn’t even say that!
“In the United States of America, where the means of subsistence have
been more ample, the manners of the people more pure, and consequently the checks to early marriages fewer, than in any of the modern states of Europe, the population has been found to double itself in twenty-five years.”
Basic grammar tells me that Malthus enumerates 2 checks on the population, only one of which has anything to do with food.
Earlier, Malthus writes:
“I think it will be allowed, that no state has hitherto existed (at least that we have any account of) where the manners were so pure and simple, and the means of subsistence so abundant, that no check whatever has existed to early marriages, among the lower classes, from a fear of not providing well for their families, or among the higher classes, from a fear of lowering their condition in life. Consequently in no state that we have yet known has the power of population been left to exert itself with perfect freedom.”
If you wish to not allow this, you need to prove both points: about means of subsistence being so abundant no fear exists, and about manners being pure and simple.
And more generally, you don’t grapple with the most fundamental point: population growth can be exponential, and resource growth is not.
So if there had been some span of time during which the human population was not limited in any way by a scarcity of available food and did not double at that rate, then that would be evidence that directly contradicts his theory.
The key point here is “not limited in any way by a scarcity of available food”.
The conversation went roughly like this
WrongBot: Malthus was wrong
MichaelVassar: what! why?
WrongBot: Well, here is evidence A (population growth data)
Emile: What? Evidence A is perfectly compatible with what Malthus said!
WrongBot: There is also evidence B (no signs of malnutrition in hunter-gatherers, etc.).
What I’m saying is that Evidence A alone is not enough to say Malthus was wrong. And that if you went back in time and showed evidence A only to Malthus, he would shrug. Do you disagree with this?
Evidence A without Evidence B is insufficient to wholly refute Malthus, yes, though I will point out that he predicts cycles of growth and starvation that are inconsistent with the slow and steady changes in population that seem to have characterized the spread of prehistoric humans. (There were massive die-offs at several points, but what evidence is available ties those points to natural disasters, not famine.)
Is there some meaning of “wrong” which does not involve inaccurate models?
Malthus claimed that human population doubled every 25 years unless limited in some way by the amount of available food.
So if there had been some span of time during which the human population was not limited in any way by a scarcity of available food and did not double at that rate, then that would be evidence that directly contradicts his theory.
There is, in fact, such a span of time. As I have pointed out, for two million years of human existence, there is no substantial evidence of famine. And yet the population did not double at Malthus’s proposed rate. Or ten times his proposed rate. Or a hundred times his proposed rate. In what way is he not wrong?
That is a flawed argument, WrongBot. Visible signs of starvation aren’t necessary to assume humans were living along Malthusian limits. Rates of violence were extremely high amongst hunter gatherers (homicide was the most common cause of death). According to Stephen Pinker, 20-60% of males were murdered. This shouldn’t surprise those of us who understand human nature, people will gladly start killing each other before they let themselves starve to death.
In addition, females menstruating less is a natural response to malthusian conditions. The malthusian limits wouldn’t look like hungry bodies, it would look like fewer pregnant women per year, and more murders.
Ryan and Jetha have a lot to say about Steven Pinker, and none of it is kind. I suspect you will have your objections answered in my next post.
That probably tells me all I need to know about Ryan and Jetha. I’ll read them, but if they dislike Pinker’s conclusions rather than his writing style they probably don’t like rationality much as I understand the term, as he’s the only mainstream academic I’m aware of who visibly demonstrates the full suite of traditional rationalist virtues in essentially all of his writing. As you might guess, I’m a big fan of traditional rationalist virtues, but as you might not know unless you have seen me speak recently, I’m also a fan of those who energetically reject them, so this should be fun.
Their primary issue with him is not his writing style or his conclusions: it’s that he blatantly misrepresents anthropological data to support his bottom-line conclusions.
For example, the way he claims that “20-60% of males were murdered” in hunter-gatherer societies in order to support the superhappy conclusion that human societies are becoming less violent over time.
Wait, what exactly is wrong with this claim? If large percentages of the male population were murdered that are no longer being murdered, how is that not “less violent”?
If you’re going to address that point in your next post, then no rush.
I’ll be covering this in the next post, but the very short version is that it isn’t his reasoning, it’s that the 20-60% number is derived in an incredibly misleading way; there is substantial anthropological and fossil evidence that he is off by at least an order of magnitude.
Much less than 2% to 6% of modern people are murdered. If, as you claim, the numbers were an order of magnitude lower than Pinker’s claim, the number of homicide deaths would still be an order of magnitude higher than the current global average of about 8 per 100,000 per year.
ETA: Thats a good point FAWS, thanks. I changed it.
8 per 100,000 would be per year, not per lifetime. Assuming an average life span of 70 years that would be about 0.56%, just about one order of magnitude lower.
Me:
It was a one sentence comment. I’m starting to worry about this community’s ability to argue in good faith.
(This criticism is not necessarily directed at you, knb; it’s not a preposterously unlikely mistake, and I know I’ve made errors of this type. It’s their frequency on LessWrong that’s starting to get to me.)
I am having difficulty with this thread. As I understand biology:
all organisms (not just humans) tend to be able to produce more offspring then the environment can support
those individuals that produce the most living (and reproducing) offspring have their genes in higher frequency in the population
therefore natural selection works and populations evolve
Both Darwin and Wallace crystallized their ideas on evolve after reading Malthus. It doesn’t matter if Malthus was wrong on some minor points—his general idea is one of the foundations of evolution by natural selection. If you throw out Malthus’ general idea then you throw out natural selection. You cannot have it both ways.
Also, the idea that famine did not occur throughout human history is naive.
Are you reading Malthus, or just listening to the little caricature of Malthus in your head and the popular media? Your own link doesn’t even say that!
Basic grammar tells me that Malthus enumerates 2 checks on the population, only one of which has anything to do with food.
Earlier, Malthus writes:
If you wish to not allow this, you need to prove both points: about means of subsistence being so abundant no fear exists, and about manners being pure and simple.
And more generally, you don’t grapple with the most fundamental point: population growth can be exponential, and resource growth is not.
The key point here is “not limited in any way by a scarcity of available food”.
The conversation went roughly like this
WrongBot: Malthus was wrong
MichaelVassar: what! why?
WrongBot: Well, here is evidence A (population growth data)
Emile: What? Evidence A is perfectly compatible with what Malthus said!
WrongBot: There is also evidence B (no signs of malnutrition in hunter-gatherers, etc.).
What I’m saying is that Evidence A alone is not enough to say Malthus was wrong. And that if you went back in time and showed evidence A only to Malthus, he would shrug. Do you disagree with this?
Evidence A without Evidence B is insufficient to wholly refute Malthus, yes, though I will point out that he predicts cycles of growth and starvation that are inconsistent with the slow and steady changes in population that seem to have characterized the spread of prehistoric humans. (There were massive die-offs at several points, but what evidence is available ties those points to natural disasters, not famine.)
Why do you separate natural disasters from possible causes of famine?
Because Malthus’s theory doesn’t (so far as I’m aware) discuss discontinuous decreases in the available food supply.
But you are right that much of the devastation wrought by natural disasters is due to a shrunken food supply.