Thomas Malthus Views On Population Growth
Thomas Robert Malthus' perspective on population growth is peculiar today because it is different, bold, and not widely accepted. While I do not agree with all of Malthus' opinions and conclusion on reproductive health I think he had some valuable points. Firstly, it is unfair for Malthus to assert that "human beings, like plants and subhuman animals, are 'impelled' to increase the population of the species by what he called a powerful 'instinct,' in the urge to reproduce." (Weeks 114) Since ancient times, if one looks at the Bible, people have been commanded to "...be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth, and subdue it.." (Genesis 1:28) Thus, one should take into account that people of the Christian faith have been accustomed to following
that passage since the beginning of time. Therefore, when they were giving birth to various numbers of children they were not worried about the work that needs to be done, because as the children grew they were given different responsibilities - like farming. Thus the land is being cultivated constantly and there are people always working. As a result, Malthus' point that "the ultimate to check to growth is lack of food (the 'means of subsistence')" (Weeks 115) However, moving along in history, his perspective is not necessarily true, because there are so many families in developing countries that lack three square meals but are still having a lot of children (which is subjective) according to the western world. On the other hand, I often wonder why the WHO or other public health organizations do not mention abstinence as an option for preventing unwanted pregnancies, STDs/STIs, AIDS etc. While I do not think using the term "moral restraint" (Weeks 115) is the proper term Mathus should have used, I believe and know we are all human and can literally have sex at any time, however abstinence is achievable if one makes the conscious decision to do so. On that account I do not think it would make anyone feel uncomfortable for what decision they take in terms of their reproductive health or that of their partner(s), it would be beneficial for people to know that it is also an option.
that passage since the beginning of time. Therefore, when they were giving birth to various numbers of children they were not worried about the work that needs to be done, because as the children grew they were given different responsibilities - like farming. Thus the land is being cultivated constantly and there are people always working. As a result, Malthus' point that "the ultimate to check to growth is lack of food (the 'means of subsistence')" (Weeks 115) However, moving along in history, his perspective is not necessarily true, because there are so many families in developing countries that lack three square meals but are still having a lot of children (which is subjective) according to the western world. On the other hand, I often wonder why the WHO or other public health organizations do not mention abstinence as an option for preventing unwanted pregnancies, STDs/STIs, AIDS etc. While I do not think using the term "moral restraint" (Weeks 115) is the proper term Mathus should have used, I believe and know we are all human and can literally have sex at any time, however abstinence is achievable if one makes the conscious decision to do so. On that account I do not think it would make anyone feel uncomfortable for what decision they take in terms of their reproductive health or that of their partner(s), it would be beneficial for people to know that it is also an option.