On April 12, 1804, I married Harriet Eckersall (my cousin once removed). With her I had three children - Henry, Emily, and Lucy. I became Britain's first professor in political economy at the East India Company College in 1805. My students often called me "Pop" or "Population" Malthus.

I was always embarrassed over my hare lip, so I had refused to have my portrait painted for years. However, it was corrected by surgery, so I finally allowed it in 1833. (I was considered handsome, too!) I also had a cleft palate inside my mouth that affected speech - these types of birth defect were pretty common among my family members.

I died on December 29, and following my death in 1834, I was buried at Bath Abbey in England.

2. In 1800 I published my first pamphlet, titled "The Present High Price of Provisions". Here, I stated that high price of everyday goods - such as corn - originated from the Poor laws, which increased parish allowances at the same rate of corn. Thus, in time of scarcity, such laws raised price of daily goods evenly, which actually produced a beneficial effect.

3. I also published "Principles of Political Economy" in 1820, which was intended to rival Ricardo's work, "Principles" (1817). In this work I defended the the views of "general glut".

4. Other publications include "Observations on the effect of the Corn Laws" (1814).

The Principle of Population was based on the idea that unchecked population grows at a geometric rate (2, 4, 8, 16, ...), whereas food supply grows at an arithmetic rate (1, 2, 3, 4, ...). Assuming this, I believed that there were two types of "checks" that could bring the population back to a manageable size. I believed there were "preventive checks" such as practicing abstinence or delayed marriage (which were practices of moral restraint), and I also believed in "positive checks", which included disease, starvation, and war, which would lead to "premature death". The positive checks are referred as a Malthusian catastrophe. I believed that if people didn't practice the moral restraints, the population would increase faster than its means of subsistence - resulting in a so-called Malthusian catastrophe. Though this term has been applied to a variety of political and social movements, it almost always comes back to advocates of population control.

Eight major points can be found in "An Essay on the Principles of Population" (1798):

• Population level is severely limited by subsistence
• When the means of subsistence increases, so does the population
• Population pressures stimulate increases in productivity
• Increases in productivity stimulate further population growth
• Since this productivity can never keep up with the potential of population growth for long, there must be strong checks on population to keep it in line with carrying capacity
• It is through individual cost/benefit decisions regarding sex, work, and children that population and production are expanded or contracted
• Checks will come into operation as population exceeds subsistence level
• The nature of these checks will have significant effect on the rest of the socio-cultural system

My ideas are also the basis of Malthusianism and Neo-Malthusianism today.

Neo-Malthusianism is the modern day belief and support of population control programs, to ensure resources for current and future generations. Though they differ from my beliefs in regards to their choice to focus more on the problems of global catastrophe rather than poverty--the belief in the potentiality of a Malthusian catastrophe is the same.

Furthermore, the influence of my theories had considerable importance for years to come. As the developer of a theory of demand-supply mismatches which I called "gluts" my theory helped to shape later theories about the Great Depression and the works of John Maynard Keynes.Though at the time, this law was considered absurd, (as it violated Say's Law [which basically stated that supply creates its own demand]) it ended up influencing the works of a handful of other economists, including David Ricardo.

China's one-child policy is a prominent example of an implemented policy with a Neo-Malthusianism background. And in the popular culture of today, Malthusianism is also an often mentioned theme, especially in dystopian novels. My ideas are central to Aldous Huxley's classical novel Brave New World and Dan Brown's Inferno.

Below is a chart of estimated annual growth rates in the world population. The rates before 1950 are historical estimates made by the US Census Bureau, while the red portion are estimates made by the US Census Bureau to 2025. (Source: Wikipedia, Malthusian Catastrophe)

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Malthus.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/malthus_thomas.shtml

http://cgge.aag.org/PopulationandNaturalResources1e/CF_PopNatRes_Jan10/CF_PopNatRes_Jan108.html

Hello Mr. Malthus! It’s an honor to meet you. As you probably now know, your theories helped shape my own theories. I wholeheartedly support your principle of population: when I was a live, I was Director of the British Eugenics Society, and also once declared eugenics to be “the most important, significant and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists.” Looking at China, do you believe that the One-Child Policy is the most effective way to maintain population growth? If not what other ideas do you propose?

Dear Mr. Schumeter, 

I am very glad that you asked this question. Many of the points you have made are valid--life expectancy is indeed growing longer and the world is getting more prosperous as a whole. Initially, when I proposed my theories on population, I was unable to take into consideration the exponential rate at, which technology--especially medicine--would grow. Yet, can you not admit that even today, the clear signs of human overpopulation are there? The size of the human population grows exponentially faster every day. In fact, it took our species all of human history until around the early 1800s to reach 1 billion people, yet we doubled that in less than 150 years, and reached 3 billion in less than half a century after that in the 1960s. 42 years later, in 2012, the world’s population reached over 7 billion. And at the same time, the earth’s finite resources grow smaller and smaller. At current levels of consumption, our fossil fuels—which took around 300 million years to become oil—will only last us around another 40 years. Water shortage is also apparent in Beijing, China—a thousand year old city, which recently had to resort to re-directing the paths of entire rivers, in order to supply the needs of the people. And around one billion people go to bed hungry and/or lack sufficient water for consumption and everyday needs. While life in cities and developed countries may have improved dramatically, many people around the world are still suffering greatly.

Dear Mr. Keynes,

It is a pleasure to meet someone who my theories has inspired, especially one as influential as you, as well.  China’s One Child Policy is a unique piece of legislation, that I must say has equally as many pros and cons. On one hand, China has always been a very populated country, and this escalated into a giant problem in the mid 1900s. And so, in an effort to prevent mass famines and overcrowding, the One Child Policy was put into place, effectively curbing the population growth of China. Since then, many other countries have also proposed similar policies that are usually far more lax. For example, the Indian government affords a small reward system for those with less children. While the effectiveness of this is questionable, it can be argued that the plan is more ethically “correct” than a harsh policy like China’s. However, if we are to look at developed countries today, like the United States or Western European countries, where population growth is growing slower and slower every year, I must say that education and industrial development is perhaps the most effective way of preventing population growth and will hopefully be the solution to population growth in the future, before human overpopulation reaches a disastrous point.  

Dear Mr. Ricardo,

Thank you for your questions. I agree that to an extent, my population growth theories show that humans are indeed, in the basest of ways, similar to all animals on this planet. Our population and survival depends on the resources of our planet. And it is the very scarcity of these resources that is the root of nearly all problems in our world today. If nothing is done to curb our population, eventually famine will be inevitable as we simply run out of the space and fertile soil necessary for sufficient food production. And eventually, this will affect the majority of the human population, independent of whether one lives in a developed country or not, simply because of the globalization of resources today. Our bananas are from Costa Rica, our cars are Japanese, our electronics are Chinese, and as a result, one countries scarcity will end up affecting us all. Human overpopulation must be curbed.

Dear Adam Smith,

It is an honor to meet you Mr. Smith, and you bring up a very valid point. As governments become more and more aware of the issues with human overpopulation, surely policies have been put into place—whether to educate or force the slowing down of population growth. And while this is true in many developed countries such as the United States, Canada or other countries in Western Europe—it is the developing countries in the world that truly make up the majority of the world’s population today. Developing countries are often industrializing or largely agricultural-based, and even with the advancements in technology constantly being made today, these industries are still very labor intensive. In our current situation, there are really only two solutions left. We can either choose to ignore the growth of the human population, and nature itself will check our population through famines and poverty (like seen in many undeveloped countries) or we can implement education—which is the main force in slowing down human population growth in Western countries today—or forceful legislation like China’s One Child Policy.

Many nations around the world have an immense growing number of population as you say, though, due to the technology we have in the current decade, not everybody in the human population can actually work, because not everyone is needed. We work so efficiently due to the technology, that so many of us are unemployed. My concern is: With all the unemployment, do you still believe that in the near future, famine will strike many of us again?

Considering the views you expressed through your principle of population, it seems that you are an antinativist. I completely agree that our world population is growing at a quicker rate than our resources, though there are many variables that have changed the dynamics of our modern societies. Personally, i believe that advancements in areas such as technology have played a role in altering the “geometric” and “arithmetic” rates you have theorized. (Nonetheless, I admire how you have incorporated your mathematical education with your economic works!) However, in regards to the economic repercussions of a smaller population, such as limiting a nation’s capital, how do you think populations could maximize their economic sufficiency even with a small population?  

Also, just out of curiosity, you mentioned reacting to the influences of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the Enlightenment thinker, and i was wondering in which of your ideas or publications do you express these responses? Simply put, how has Rousseau contributed to your ideas?

Dear Mr. Marshall,

I am glad that you have, like me, noticed the patterns, which developing countries and developed countries have adopted in regards to population growth. It is only unfortunate that I could not have adopted nor predicted such development of technology in my own times. Unfortunately for humanity however, my predictions regarding population growth seem to still hold true for the majority of the world. This can be seen by the fact that the Western world as we know it today, only makes up around 1/7 of the world’s population while the rest of the world’s countries (the “developing countries” whose economies are largely production and agricultural based) make up the majority of the world’s population. And it is important to remember that “developed” itself is a relative term, and without agricultural and labor-intensive countries, many of the Western countries and their economies would in fact, no longer be able to maintain their current ways of consumption. The only thing, which seems to be slowing down this pattern is education (most prominent in developed countries), but even so, with the division amongst countries today, it seems unlikely that this pattern will truly be slowed down before a crises occurs, forcing our population to shrink. Of course, the increasing rate of destruction and war in the modern world doesn’t seem to be helping us find ways to save humanity from this type of famine or crisis either.

Dear Mr. Marx,

While I acknowledge your points about the growing rate of technology, I must point out that while many developed parts of the world have high unemployment and advanced technology, the majority of the world still lacks access to this expensive technology and are still largely agricultural-based economies. As a result, these countries are still largely dependent on a large labor force, and make up around 6/7 of the world’s total population. It is for this reason, that I firmly stand by my belief that famine or some other form of crises will indeed strike us in the future and force us to—at the very least—consider the curbing of our population.

Thank you for your comment! As technology advances faster and faster today—especially in developed countries, it becomes more and more possible for countries with small populations to maintain a wealthy economy, though not without a cost. Previously, in my times, many countries (especially European ones) tended to try and attempt self-sufficiency within one’s own empire or country. This meant that they would have to produce their own agriculture, fuel, and raw materials so as to not risk economic collapse in times of war with other countries. However, today, this is no longer necessary due to globalization and the opening of trade with other countries. As a result, countries like Singapore and Luxembourg—both with very little land, resources, and population are still able to maintain very stable and prosperous economies. However, this is because they have chosen to “specialize” and turn away from spending land and effort on agriculture or resource mining. As a result, however, they now must import everything from other agricultural-based economies, and essentially thus forcing other countries to remain “developing” or “undeveloped” in order to support their own wealthy interests.