Changes

==Pre-Malthus notions==

==Pre-Malthus notions==

Over the centuries many theorists have considered one or another aspect of population, usually to promote the policy of more people (“pronatalist.”) The early Christian tradition, however, was “antinatalist”, with the highest prestige going to priests, monks and nuns who were celibate.  

Over the centuries many theorists have considered one or another aspect of population, usually to promote the policy of more people (“pronatalist.”) The early Christian tradition, however, was [[Anti-Natalism|antinatalist]] , with the highest prestige going to priests, monks and nuns who were celibate.

 

In the 17th and 18th century the general belief, called "[[mercantilism]]" was that the larger the population the better for the nation.  Larger population meant more farmers and more food,  more people in church (and more prayers), and larger, more powerful armies for deterrence, defense and expansion. People equaled power. As [[Frederick the Great]] of Prussia put it, "The number of the people makes the wealth of states."  The policy implications were clear: the state should help raise population through annexation of territory and pronatalist subsidies that encourage large families.  After 1800, a rising spirit of nationalism called out for more people  to make a bigger and more powerful nation.

==Malthus==

==Malthus==

English writer Reverend [[Thomas Malthus]] (1766-1834), in the first edition (1798) of his pamphlet, "An Essay on the Principle of Population" turned the received wisdom upside down.  His stunning conclusion was that more people might make it worse for everyone—that overpopulation was bad and unless proper steps were taken, disaster was inevitable.  Population growth was exceedingly dangerous, he warned, for it threatened overpopulation and soon we would all starve to death. The British were taking over India at this time, and could see first-hand the horrors associated with overpopulation.

English writer Reverend [[Thomas Malthus]] (1766-1834), in the first edition (1798) of his pamphlet, "An Essay on the Principle of Population" turned the received wisdom upside down.  His stunning conclusion was that more people might make it worse for everyone—that overpopulation was bad and unless proper steps were taken, disaster was inevitable.  Population growth was exceedingly dangerous, he warned, for it threatened overpopulation and soon we would all starve to death. The British were taking over India at this time, and could see first-hand the horrors associated with overpopulation.