We have to give more attention to the growth of population and its relation to the problem of unemployment and capital formation in the country. Efforts are being made in India for improving the economic condition of people but it can bear no fruitful result if population is allowed to growl unchecked. The national activities in free India are directed to the task of providing adequate means of livelihood to an increasing number of people through an integrated development of agriculture, trade, commerce and industries.
The schemes adopted for this purpose cannot materialize unless the population problem is tackled satisfactorily. However, it is also a fact that we cannot exercise any effective check on population unless there be an appreciable rise in the standard of living for the common people. Overpopulation weakens the economy in many respects. The increasing pressure of population on natural resources will retard the economic progress and minimize the scope for social services in the form of education, wealth, housing, etc.
Therefore, a planned growth of our economy needs some effective check on population. The benefits of family planning schemes initiated by the Government are being emphasized in many ways. Nevertheless, it requires persistent propaganda work before public opinion can be fully mobilized for a planned growth of population. If the tendency of mankind to increase be so great as I have represented it to be, it may appear strange that this increase does not come when it is thus repeatedly called for.
The true reason is, that the demand for a greater population is made without preparing the funds necessary to support it. Increase the demand for agricultural labour by promoting cultivation, and with it consequently increase the produce of the country, and ameliorate the condition of the labourer, and no apprehensions whatever need be entertained of the proportional increase of population.
An attempt to effect this purpose in any other way is vicious, cruel, and tyrannical, and in any state of tolerable freedom cannot therefore succeed. I have written a chapter expressly on the practical direction of our charity; and in detached passages elsewhere have paid a just tribute to the exalted virtue of benevolence. To those who have read these parts of my work, and have attended to the general tone and spirit of the whole, I willingly appeal, if they are but tolerably candid, against these charges Some, such as William Farr  and Karl Marx ,  argued that Malthus did not fully recognize the human capacity to increase food supply.
On this subject, however, Malthus had written: As a Christian and a clergyman, Malthus addressed the question of how an omnipotent and caring God could permit suffering. In the First Edition of his Essay Malthus reasoned that the constant threat of poverty and starvation served to teach the virtues of hard work and virtuous behaviour. Nevertheless, although the threat of poverty could be understood to be a prod to motivate human industry, it was not God's will that man should suffer. Malthus wrote that mankind itself was solely to blame for human suffering:.
And if, in endeavouring to obey the command to increase and multiply,  we people it only with beings of this latter description and suffer accordingly, we have no right to impeach the justice of the command, but our irrational mode of executing it. Malthus wrote of the relationship between population, real wages, and inflation. When the population of laborers grows faster than the production of food, real wages fall because the growing population causes the cost of living i.
Difficulties of raising a family eventually reduce the rate of population growth, until the falling population again leads to higher real wages:. It very rarely happens that the nominal price of labour universally falls; but we well know that it frequently remains the same, while the nominal price of provisions has been gradually rising.
This, indeed, will generally be the case, if the increase of manufactures and commerce be sufficient to employ the new labourers that are thrown into the market, and to prevent the increased supply from lowering the money-price.
But an increased number of labourers receiving the same money-wages will necessarily, by their competition, increase the money-price of corn. This is, in fact, a real fall in the price of labour; and, during this period, the condition of the lower classes of the community must be gradually growing worse.
But the farmers and capitalists are growing rich from the real cheapness of labour. Their increasing capitals enable them to employ a greater number of men; and, as the population had probably suffered some check from the greater difficulty of supporting a family, the demand for labour, after a certain period, would be great in proportion to the supply, and its price would of course rise, if left to find its natural level; and thus the wages of labour, and consequently the condition of the lower classes of society, might have progressive and retrograde movements, though the price of labour might never nominally fall.
In later editions of his essay, Malthus clarified his view that if society relied on human misery to limit population growth, then sources of misery e. On the other hand, "preventive checks" to population that limited birthrates, such as later marriages, could ensure a higher standard of living for all, while also increasing economic stability.
The full title of the first edition of Malthus' essay was "An Essay on the Principle of Population, as it affects the Future Improvement of Society with remarks on the Speculations of Mr. Condorcet , and Other Writers. William Godwin had published his utopian work Enquiry concerning Political Justice in , with later editions in and Also, Of Avarice and Profusion Malthus' remarks on Godwin's work spans chapters 10 through 15 inclusive out of nineteen.
Godwin responded with Of Population Malthus' remarks on Condorcet's work spans chapters 8 and 9. This natural inequality of the two powers, of population, and of production of the earth, and that great law of our nature which must constantly keep their effects equal, form the great difficulty that appears to me insurmountable in the way to the perfectibility of society. The only authors from whose writings I had deduced the principle, which formed the main argument of the Essay, were Hume, Wallace, Adam Smith, and Dr.
Chapters 1 and 2 outline Malthus' Principle of Population, and the unequal nature of food supply to population growth. The exponential nature of population growth is today known as the Malthusian growth model. This aspect of Malthus' Principle of Population, together with his assertion that food supply was subject to a linear growth model, would remain unchanged in future editions of his essay.
Note that Malthus actually used the terms geometric and arithmetic , respectively. Chapter 3 examines the overrun of the Roman empire by barbarians, due to population pressure.
War as a check on population is examined. Chapter 4 examines the current state of populousness of civilized nations particularly Europe. Malthus criticises David Hume for a "probable error" in his "criteria that he proposes as assisting in an estimate of population. Chapter 6 examines the rapid growth of new colonies such as the former Thirteen Colonies of the United States of America.
Chapter 7 examines checks on population such as pestilence and famine. Chapter 8 also examines a "probable error" by Wallace "that the difficulty arising from population is at a great distance. Chapters 16 and 17 examine the causes of the wealth of states, including criticisms of Adam Smith and Richard Price.
English wealth is compared with Chinese poverty. Chapters 18 and 19 set out a theodicy to explain the problem of evil in terms of natural theology. This views the world as "a mighty process for awakening matter" in which the Supreme Being acting "according to general laws" created "wants of the body" as "necessary to create exertion" which forms "the reasoning faculty".
In this way, the principle of population would "tend rather to promote, than impede the general purpose of Providence. The 1st edition influenced writers of natural theology such as William Paley and Thomas Chalmers. Following both widespread praise and criticism of his essay, Malthus revised his arguments and recognized other influences: In the course of this enquiry I found that much more had been done than I had been aware of, when I first published the Essay.
The poverty and misery arising from a too rapid increase of population had been distinctly seen, and the most violent remedies proposed, so long ago as the times of Plato and Aristotle. And of late years the subject has been treated in such a manner by some of the French Economists; occasionally by Montesquieu, and, among our own writers, by Dr. Franklin, Sir James Stewart, Mr.
Arthur Young, and Mr. Townsend, as to create a natural surprise that it had not excited more of the public attention. The 2nd edition, published in with Malthus now clearly identified as the author , was entitled " An Essay on the Principle of Population; or, a View of its Past and Present Effects on Human Happiness; with an enquiry into our Prospects respecting the Future Removal or Mitigation of the Evils which it occasions.
Malthus advised that the 2nd edition "may be considered as a new work", [ citation needed ] and the subsequent editions were all minor revisions of the 2nd edition. These were published in , , , and By far the biggest change was in how the 2nd to 6th editions of the essay were structured, and the most copious and detailed evidence that Malthus presented, more than any previous such book on population.
Essentially, for the first time, Malthus examined his own Principle of Population on a region-by-region basis of world population. The essay was organized in four books:. Due in part to the highly influential nature of Malthus' work see main article Thomas Malthus , this approach is regarded as pivotal in establishing the field of demography.
The following controversial quote appears in the second edition: A man who is born into a world already possessed, if he cannot get subsistence from his parents on whom he has a just demand, and if the society do not want his labour, has no claim of right to the smallest portion of food, and, in fact, has no business to be where he is.
At nature's mighty feast there is no vacant cover for him. She tells him to be gone, and will quickly execute her own orders, if he does not work upon the compassion of some of her guests. If these guests get up and make room for him, other intruders immediately appear demanding the same favour.
The report of a provision for all that come, fills the hall with numerous claimants. The order and harmony of the feast is disturbed, the plenty that before reigned is changed into scarcity; and the happiness of the guests is destroyed by the spectacle of misery and dependence in every part of the hall, and by the clamorous importunity of those, who are justly enraged at not finding the provision which they had been taught to expect.
The guests learn too late their error, in counter-acting those strict orders to all intruders, issued by the great mistress of the feast, who, wishing that all guests should have plenty, and knowing she could not provide for unlimited numbers, humanely refused to admit fresh comers when her table was already full. Ecologist Professor Garrett Hardin claims that the preceding passage inspired hostile reactions from many critics.
The offending passage of Malthus' essay appeared in the 2nd edition only, as Malthus felt obliged to remove it. From the 2nd edition onwards — in Book IV — Malthus advocated moral restraint as an additional, and voluntary, check on population. This included such measures as sexual abstinence and late marriage. As noted by Professor Robert M. Young, Malthus dropped his chapters on natural theology from the 2nd edition onwards.
Also, the essay became less of a personal response to Godwin and Condorcet. A Summary View on the Principle of Population was published in The author was identified as Rev.
Malthus wrote A Summary View for those who did not have the leisure to read the full essay and, as he put it, "to correct some of the misrepresentations which have gone abroad respecting two or three of the most important points of the Essay".
A Summary View ends with a defense of the Principle of Population against the charge that it "impeaches the goodness of the Deity, and is inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the scriptures". See main article Thomas Malthus for more. Malthus became subject to extreme personal criticism. People who knew nothing about his private life criticised him both for having no children and for having too many.
In , Shelley , berating Malthus as a priest, called him "a eunuch and a tyrant". In the 20th century an editor of the Everyman edition of Malthus claimed that Malthus had practised population control by begetting eleven girls.
Garrett Hardin provides an overview of such personal comments. The position held by Malthus as professor at the Haileybury training college, to his death in , gave his theories some influence over Britain's administration of India.
Concerns about Malthus's theory helped promote the idea of a national population census in the UK. Government official John Rickman became instrumental in the carrying out of the first modern British census in , under Pitt's administration. In the s Malthus's writings strongly influenced Whig reforms which overturned Tory paternalism and brought in the Poor Law Amendment Act of Malthus convinced most economists that even while high fertility might increase the gross output , it tended to reduce output per capita.
David Ricardo and Alfred Marshall admired Malthus, and so came under his influence. Early converts to his population theory included William Paley. Despite Malthus's opposition to contraception , his work exercised a strong influence on Francis Place — , whose neo-Malthusian movement became the first to advocate contraception.
Place published his Illustrations and Proofs of the Principles of Population in William Godwin criticized Malthus's criticisms of his own arguments in his book On Population Mill considered the criticisms of Malthus made thus far to have been superficial.
Carey maintained that the only situation in which the means of subsistence will determine population growth is one in which a given society is not introducing new technologies or not adopting forward-thinking governmental policy, and that population regulated itself in every well-governed society, but its pressure on subsistence characterized the lower stages of civilization.
Another strand of opposition to Malthus's ideas started in the middle of the 19th century with the writings of Friedrich Engels Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy , and Karl Marx Capital , Engels and Marx argued that what Malthus saw as the problem of the pressure of population on the means of production actually represented the pressure of the means of production on population. They thus viewed it in terms of their concept of the reserve army of labour.
In other words, the seeming excess of population that Malthus attributed to the seemingly innate disposition of the poor to reproduce beyond their means actually emerged as a product of the very dynamic of capitalist economy. Engels called Malthus's hypothesis "the crudest, most barbarous theory that ever existed, a system of despair which struck down all those beautiful phrases about love thy neighbour and world citizenship".
In the Marxist tradition, Lenin sharply criticized Malthusian theory and its neo-Malthusian version,  calling it a "reactionary doctrine" and "an attempt on the part of bourgeois ideologists to exonerate capitalism and to prove the inevitability of privation and misery for the working class under any social system".
In England, where Malthus lived, population was rapidly increasing but suitable agricultural land was limited. Russia, on the other hand, had extensive land with agricultural potential yet a relatively sparse population. In the 20th century, those who regarded Malthus as a failed prophet of doom included an editor of Nature , John Maddox. Economist Julian Lincoln Simon has criticised Malthus's conclusions.
Many factors have been identified as having contributed: Each played a role. From the opposite angle, Romanian American economist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen , a progenitor in economics and a paradigm founder of ecological economics , has argued that Malthus was too optimistic, as he failed to recognize any upper limit to the growth of population — only, the geometric increase in human numbers is occasionally slowed down checked by the arithmetic increase in agricultural produce, according to Malthus' simple growth model; but some upper limit to population is bound to exist, as the total amount of agricultural land — actual as well as potential — on Earth is finite, Georgescu-Roegen points out.
Machinery , chemical fertilisers and pesticides all rely on mineral resources for their operation, rendering modern agriculture — and the industrialised food processing and distribution systems associated with it — almost as dependent on Earth's mineral stock as the industrial sector has always been.
Georgescu-Roegen cautions that this situation is a major reason why the carrying capacity of Earth — that is, Earth's capacity to sustain human populations and consumption levels — is bound to decrease sometime in the future as Earth's finite stock of mineral resources is presently being extracted and put to use. Anthropologist Eric Ross depicts Malthus's work as a rationalization of the social inequities produced by the Industrial Revolution , anti-immigration movements, the eugenics movement [ clarification needed ] and the various international development movements.
Despite use of the term "Malthusian catastrophe" by detractors such as economist Julian Simon — , Malthus himself did not write that mankind faced an inevitable future catastrophe. Rather, he offered an evolutionary social theory of population dynamics as it had acted steadily throughout all previous history.
Malthusian social theory influenced Herbert Spencer 's idea of the survival of the fittest ,  and the modern ecological-evolutionary social theory of Gerhard Lenski and Marvin Harris. Huxley openly criticised communist and Roman Catholic attitudes to birth control , population control and overpopulation. Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace each read and acknowledged the role played by Malthus in the development of their own ideas.
Darwin referred to Malthus as "that great philosopher",  and said: I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population The result of this would be the formation of new species. It was the first great work I had yet read treating of any of the problems of philosophical biology, and its main principles remained with me as a permanent possession, and twenty years later gave me the long-sought clue to the effective agent in the evolution of organic species.
Ronald Fisher commented sceptically on Malthusianism as a basis for a theory of natural selection. John Maynard Smith doubted that famine functioned as the great leveller, as portrayed by Malthus, but he also accepted the basic premises:. Malthusian ideas continue to have considerable influence.
Ehrlich has written several books predicting famine as a result of population increase:
An Essay on the Principle of Population, as it affects the future improvement of society with remarks on the speculations of Mr. Godwin, M. Condorcet, and other writers.. Anonymously published. Anonymously published.
Change in population depends on the growth rate which is the difference between the birth rate and the death rate. Population boom: No goal is more crucial to healing the global environment than stabilizing the human population. The population explosion is the clearest single example that shows the change of human relationship with environment.
China is the largest country in the world with a population of 1, ,, people and ranked the third largest in size in the world. In the year the population of China will be about 1,,, The population in china is growing by about 87% a year. China is controlling the population by the one-child policy. Introduction: The rising population of India is one of the major problems of the country. The present population of India consists of over billion people. The big population of India undoubtedly provides large work-force resources which, if properly utilized, can highly advance the economic prosperity of the country.
Population essays are written for various reasons. An essay on principle of population may be written for academic use, another population essay may be written for a magazine, and a population growth essay could be written for a scientific journal, or an essay on principle of population could be written for a political research, etc. Essays on population The rate of population in the society is affected by a number of factors, and the primary ones are the death rates and the birth rates. However, currently regions communities do not exist in isolation and this is the reason immigration and emigration has also become the factors affecting population growth.