Charles Darwin
What do you think of when you think of evolution? During the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, there was a boom in geology and evolutionary theory. Today scientists base their theories and discussions off of naturalists and theorists from the nineteenth century. Many people were involved in the evolution of evolutionary theory.
Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) was an English economist. Malthus was known for his theory that the population of man kind may grow, but that doesn't mean its resources grow with it. He noted that food and water supply for humans would mean constant worry and fear that we run out as our population continues to grow.
He wrote An Essay on the Principle of Population, then published it in 1798. He never wrote about species change like Charles Darwin or Alfred Russel Wallace which makes it hard to understand why Malthus would have such an influence over both of their studies of evolution. But when Darwin and Wallace read though Malthus' work, they compared his ideas to their versions of natural selection.
Darwin used natural selection to describe his theory for evolution. Natural selection is the term that refers to genetic changes in species due to different reproductive successes. If you've ever heard the phrase, "survival of the fittest," you will understand natural selection. Darwin uses his theory of natural selection to explain an evolutionary theory that is based off of species narrowing down physical and neurological traits due to "survival of the fittest." Malthus viewed mankind as a kind of competition for resources, similar to how Darwin viewed each species at competition with itself. Darwin probably wouldn't have been able to fully develop his theory of natural selection as strongly or as robust as he had without the influence of Malthus. During the time of Charles Darwin, many feared this uproar of evolutionary theory because they thought it threatened the Church's teachings, especially in Britain.
"Resources are limited- Our planet has a limit of much it can hold and produce. There will not be enough resources available for all organisms to reproduce as many offspring as they can"
I thought that this bullet-point seemed very relatable to Malthus' theory. Malthus clearly understood that mankind was reproducing far too quick for its resources. This statement could easily be based off of his theories and findings. I think Darwin also builds on this statement with his natural selection theory.
SOURCE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfsUz2O2jww
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thomas-Malthus
Hello Bella!
ReplyDeleteI had also chosen Malthus, and found it really interesting that both Wallace and Darwin took his theory and applied it to the organisms and species of nature rather than to people like Malthus did. That quote you added in at the end of your blog also hit me, because it's ultimately true in terms of our planets resources being limited, and it can only produce and hold so much at a time.
Hi Bella, I enjoyed reading your analysis about Thomas Malthus! I can see what you mean how seeing that he might of not had such a big impact on Darwin as Alfred Wallace , but both Darwin and Wallace did read into Thomas's finding. I do believe this helped them understand and come up with an even deeper evaluation/analysis about natural selection so in a sense they were all involved with the improvement of natural selection>
ReplyDeleteAn interesting read, and I appreciate how you understood the importance of an economist influencing the work of naturalists. There is a lot of crossover between fields. Inspiration can come from amazing places.
ReplyDeleteI suggest you keep the same order as is presented in the guidelines. I had to look around a bit to find your responses.
You discuss the very important point of "competition", which becomes the driving force for Darwin's mechanism of natural selection. But can you explain where this competition came from, according to Malthus? This is important to help your reader draw a direct connection between Malthus' and Darwin's ideas.
For example: Malthus was an economist who was also very concerned about the problems related to overpopulation. He understood that populations had the potential of growing exponentially, while resources tended to grow at a slower, arithmetic rate. He noticed that natural populations of animals never seemed to overpopulate their available resources. It was as if some natural force was limiting their population size. He then compared natural populations to human populations and recognized that humans seemed to be lacking this natural force (whatever it was) and as a result, humans seemed to outgrow their available resources. Malthus argued that unless humans self-regulated their reproduction (he was a huge proponent of birth control), other processes, such as famine, disease and war, would be the natural result, forcing us to cut our populations via mass death.
From that central work, we have the two Malthusian principles:
1. Populations have to ability to produce at an exponential rate.
2. Resources are more limited, reproducing at only an arithmetic rate.
These two principles should look familiar from the bullet points in the guidelines. ;-) These two concepts produce a natural point of conflict, with the populations striving to get the limited resources they need to survive. This is the "competition for resources" that was so central to Darwin's mechanism of natural selection.
I agree with your choice of bullet point but what about the point regarding the potential of populations to grow exponentially? Shouldn't that be applied to Malthus as well?
"Malthus viewed mankind as a kind of competition for resources, similar to how Darwin viewed each species at competition with itself. "
Okay, but competition for resources isn't always within a species. It can be between species as well.
Google limited the length of my comment, so I will finish it here:
Delete_______________________________________________________________
"Darwin probably wouldn't have been able to fully develop his theory of natural selection as strongly or as robust as he had without the influence of Malthus."
That needed to be explained (and expanded). What is the difference between a "robust" theory and a "non-robust" theory? How do you operationalize that term?
I usually don't like to grant any one scientist so much credit as to be indispensable to the work of another, but in the case of Malthus (and Lyell) I'm willing to do so. As you explain in the second section, Malthus' work was the logical foundation for Darwin's theory. At the time Darwin read Malthus' essay, Darwin had collected a mountain of specimens and data, but couldn't figure out how to put it all together into a cohesive theory. Malthus concept of resource competition was key. Even Darwin himself seems to indicate just how important Malthus was to his work in his writings:
"... it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work".
Charles Darwin, from his autobiography. (1876)
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/malthus.html
"During the time of Charles Darwin, many feared this uproar of evolutionary theory because they thought it threatened the Church's teachings"
Okay... so how did that impact Darwin directly? How did this impact his decision to publish... or not publish? This needed to be expanded. Darwin delayed publishing for more than 20 years so it is worthwhile to try to understand the reason for this extensive delay. What were Darwin's concerns? Darwin was fully aware that the concept of evolution would be controversial. The uproar such a publication would produce could hurt his standing in the community, personally and professionally. And was he only worried about himself or was he also worried about how his family might be impacted by publishing? Remember that his wife was very devout. How might she have been impacted if the church responded negatively to Darwin? Recognize that scientists don't work in a vacuum. They can be influenced not just by academics but also by social, cultural and personal issues.
Hi Bella! I did my research on Jean so it was really nice and fresh to see that you did your blog post on Thomas! It was really easy and simple to read your post. I noticed you gave a great explanation and background on him. It really helped while I followed along. I'll take note of that for next time when I do my next blog post. A comparison I noticed is that I too thought the same thing when talking about Jean. They seem so close to explaining evolution but they both helped Darwin come to the conclusion.
ReplyDelete