episode_0021

An Essay on the Principle of Population.

A book about future population trends, written by the renowned 18th-century British scholar Thomas Malthus.

He used data collected over many years and his knowledge as a scholar to propose population-related policies that society should adopt.

If I only talk about it like this, it seems like an ordinary book, so why is it evaluated as the knowledge of the devil or an evil argument?

This is because of the law that Malthus used as the basic framework for developing his logic in the book.

[I can confidently say that, without any restraints, the population of the world tends to double every 25 years, increasing at an exponential rate.

Population can increase indefinitely as long as there is food, and the increased population then acts as a stronger factor for further increase. Without constant control and management, the world’s population will inevitably exceed the limit of survival resources.]

Malthus mathematically presented the way people and food increase through plausible numbers and formulas.

The population doubles every 25 years, but food production only increases by a few tens of percent at best.

If it continues like this, the gap will become uncontrollable.

Until now, population has been controlled by epidemics, wars, and disasters… but there is no guarantee that things will always go well.

He strongly argued that the problem should be solved through ‘appropriate measures’ before a serious situation occurs.

This is the theory commonly known as the Malthusian Trap.

‘It sounds crazy, but it was somewhat persuasive.’

But terribly.

This argument was correct at the time the book was published.

In reality, there was a limit to the increase in food production due to the development of agricultural tools and the cultivation of virgin land, but not for people.

The mortality rate was decreasing day by day due to the development of medicine and the expansion of infrastructure, while the birth rate remained the same.

Population growth was accelerating and showed no signs of decreasing.

It was obvious to anyone that if this continued, we would fall into a vicious cycle.

[Technological development → Increased production/improved sanitation → Population increase → All kinds of disasters and wars → Population decrease → Increased production/improved sanitation → Population increase → Technological development]

The quality of life steadily hits rock bottom, the number of people increases, and the flow is endlessly repeated.

There were even several real-life examples.

‘Like our ancestors.’

Joseon is a prime example.

The population increased endlessly, but the amount of farmland remained the same, so poverty and famine became frequent at the end of the dynasty.

People dug up grass roots and stripped tree bark to endure hunger, devastating even mountains and fields.

It was a bonus that thousands or tens of thousands of people died lightly in years when cold waves or droughts hit.

‘No country was an exception.’

No country in the five oceans and six continents could avoid this situation.

Except for those exceptional countries where the territory was too large to have land left over, or where food could be imported from abroad. The problem of food shortage due to population increase came to everyone equally.

Malthus’s argument was radical, but it was closer to a realistic social analysis than a reckless or insane rant.

Because, cruelly, that was the rule and law by which human civilization operated at the time.

‘If there had been no scientific development, it would probably be the same until now.’

If German Fritz Haber had not developed chemical fertilizers by synthesizing ammonia through the Haber-Bosch process.

If the phenomenon of natural decline in birth rates had not been discovered as society developed and individual lives improved.

Perhaps we would still be living under the control of the Malthusian Trap.

That is why there are still many followers of this theory in the 21st century.

“I understand what you’re saying… but how exactly is this dangerous? According to you, it’s just an academic book.”

At Kalia’s question, I shrugged lightly.

“It’s not the content of the book itself, but the ripple effect it will cause that is dangerous.”

“Ripple effect?”

“People are surprisingly evil. If you just give them a little push, they’ll commit unimaginable crazy things.”

When Malthus’s theory was revealed.

Even though food production had already been increased through guano in England, all kinds of controversies and adverse effects erupted.

A trend of contempt for the weak spread, became a basis for opposing welfare policies, and even promoted imperialistic public opinion.

It was common to oppress and sacrifice the lower classes of society at will under the pretext of preventing famine and for the sake of the country’s future.

It is no exaggeration to say that a significant part of the madness that swept through the 19th and early to mid-20th centuries was triggered by this one book.

Then, what changes will occur in this world where farming is still done with manure and compost?

… I don’t know exactly, but it won’t be positive in the end.

“People are evil… I completely agree with that, but I don’t really empathize with your explanation.”

“It’s okay. You’ll understand soon when you see it yourself.”

Well, it’s hard to empathize with this story unless you experience it yourself.

Why is madness called madness?

It’s madness because even people who have experienced the situation directly can barely understand it.

* * * * *

Anyway, the writing work started again.

This time, there was no need to twist the original author’s expressions or phrases like last time. The original was already heinous.

Therefore, my job was to explain it in an easy-to-understand way for readers by adding a little bit of expression modification and a little bit of digression and paragraphs, just like when I wrote On War.

[The exponential increase in population is always restricted in the real world. This is a phenomenon that occurs through the combined action of preventive and positive checks.

A positive check is an increase in mortality caused by population pressure, specifically poverty, disease, and infanticide.

On the other hand, preventive checks refer to means to avoid population pressure itself, including abortion, contraception, and homosexuality.]

[The root cause of positive and preventive checks is the deterioration of living standards due to population increase.

While the explosive increase in population is controlled by these regulations, at the same time, the constant pressure of population prevents the living standards of the masses from escaping the lowest stage for survival.]

[Moral restraint, such as voluntarily delaying marriage or abstaining from reproduction, is the best way to suppress population without causing ethical problems.

The fundamental difference between developed and developing countries is that the former controls population through moral restraint, while the latter uses positive checks.]

Malthus simply believed that if the population was adjusted appropriately, future generations would enjoy a happier life.

Rather than being born too much and suffering from hunger and poverty, he intended to achieve stability through a little restraint and sexual abstinence.

Because he didn’t know that in the future, ammonia would be synthesized and food would be copied indefinitely.

He came to the conclusion that he thought was the best within the knowledge he knew and the limitations of the era.

Regardless of the thoughts or direction of thinking of the people who accept it.

‘He was naive. Too naive.’

But I am not in a position to correct misunderstandings or correct them properly.

So I decided to let them believe what they wanted to believe.

To abandon hypocritical attitudes and be honest with their true feelings.

To be able to proudly assert greed and cruelty in the name of a cause.

[Relief and support for the poor is, paradoxically, no different from torture for the poor.

If you help the poor get married early and start a family, will their family circumstances improve?

Rather, won’t the number of family members to feed increase, making it difficult to become economically independent?

Increased population and increased consumption by the poor cause inflation. This is not good for the poor, the common people, or the middle class.]

[Rather, create accommodation facilities, make them work, or give them jobs to develop the ability to become self-sufficient. Because that is a policy that has a good impact on society and the people.]

[If you were not born in the first place, you would not suffer. Rather than making children grow up poor and live a desperate life, wouldn’t it be better to avoid pregnancy itself?]

Of course, there may be opposition from religious circles, so I added a few logics to refute it.

I slightly mixed in famous lines from my favorite manga.

If you’re going to commit a crime anyway, it’s much more active to commit it proudly and without hesitation.

To create change, you have to eliminate factors that hesitate to act.

“Hoo, transcribing from memory is surprisingly difficult.”

With this, the spark has been sown.

Hispania is far away, so it will take some time for the effect to appear… Shall we prepare another bomb in the meantime?

* * * * *

And from the next day.

“…A special political science course to prepare for the rapidly changing world situation?”

“Instructor, what is this?”

“This is a program specially prepared for enthusiastic students like you. Please feel free to apply if you are interested.”

I carefully selected and scraped together potential subversive elements hidden in the academy.