MALTHUSIAN Theory, Explained [AP Human Geography Review-Unit 2 Topic 6]

[@JonathanKuruvilla]

I took apwh last year and these vids carried me so hard bc my teacher was so bad at his job. Thank u heimy heimler

[@heimlershistory]

🙌🏻

[@jesuisdenis5739]

You may struggle in college.

[@JonathanKuruvilla]

@@jesuisdenis5739 how?

[@stroywalk]

I cannot fathom how people can call his theory/predictions wrong in the slightest, due directly to the fact that new developments occurred in pursuit to prevent the outcome. One could easily argue that abortion, birth control and limiting population birth rates, such as China did for decades is a direct net negative to potential population growth, in which case he was right. This doesn't even take into account millions of people still starve to death each year, and many are uncounted for. See also the millions dead under commust regimes; wars throughout the centuries etc. Yes, vaccines and medicines do save many, however many still die to plagues and diseases. How do we not know that we haven't yet reached the threshold, like an expanding balloon waiting to pop?Your summary actually doesn't disprove anything or give less credibility to the theory but makes it all the more relevant as if there were not need for the developments to slow the progression of misery, then they wouldn't be pursued.

[@EastCoastMan603]

This is a textbook of revisionist history. The vast majority of people don’t think critically. “This guy has 600k subscribers…he must know what he’s talking about”. Hard truths are perpetual problem for the modern man…I concur with your assessment. This is post “covid-19” nonsense.

[@vampsxs1523]

facks for someone at that period Malthus was smart to think that about his theory, Think about it him humans grow Exponentially and crops can grow Arithmeticaly it is smart to say about that the resources of this earth is finite

[@soumyadeepchatterjee6538]

There is enough food to feed everyone on the planet but capitalism exists.

[@MuhammadJeng-vl3yk]

Hello Do you realize that in our Africa there is no debate about this theory been right! Coz what malthus was suggesting, everything is happening in Africa and we only need competent leaders to at least do better in the aspects of the leaving ways 😊

[@isamnamrouti9944]

NIR is expected to fall which prevents his theory from happening

[@e-records5771]

Hey heimler, I’m taking APUSH this year and I notice those are you oldest videos; they aren’t outdated are they? Like they’re just as good as euro (which I took last year) and this? Thanks your the greatest

[@heimlershistory]

Yep, they haven’t changed the curriculum since I published them, so they’re still current. Good luck this year!

[@e-records5771]

@@heimlershistory thanks! You are the best don’t you ever forget it

[@seizuresalad91]

Checked Paul Ehrlich's early life section and wasn't surprised one bit. Lol

[@sadieonpointe]

ur the only reason i’m passing

[@cuanocid]

Malthus was right. It is worth reading the subsequent versions of his "essay". It was not technology that increased living standards, it was decreasing fertility. Malthus predicted the increase in living standards by predicting that decreasing mortality would lead to decreasing fertility (demographic transition). This pattern as well as the following increase in living standards can be observed all over the world. If fertility had remained on the preindustrial level, we would now be about 100 Billion people on earth. Do you think that modern tractors and fertilizers could feed such a big population?

[@jjlepepe5875]

You are incorrect.

[@danielfigueroa8686]

So where is the apocalyptic famine he predicted is then?

[@cuanocid]

@@danielfigueroa8686 He did not predict such a thing. But maybe youre gonna find a passage in his work that I missed. If so, please post it ;)

[@Robholyoake3778]

all what we our seeing is by design, people lived longer back 100 years ago. All the m industry is to make us sick ..... not save us

[@littleredflying-fox]

But doesn't the "green revolution" depend upon chemical fertilizers , itself a finite and unrenewable resource? In the 1960s and 1970s this allowed the expansion of agriculture to feed and encourage a growing population. Can we honestly expect future technology to solve this problem, as every advancement in technology requires resources that are scarce to begin with (rare elements). The price of a battery for a Tesla (that would be expensive to recycle) is a major percentage of the cost of the car. Recycling efforts, at least in US, has been a dismal failure. I could go on. In any case and in my opinion, our concern should not be with whether humanity can thrive with a population of 12 billion, but whether Earth's biosphere can handle that load. Would the world be a happier, healthier place if instead of 8 billion people there were just 8 million? and if that 8 million were educated, given meaningful employment, and not raised in a consumerist society that promotes resource waste? Global warming (which seems indisputable at this point) seems to be a result of human activity. If we reduce humanity, we reduce the need to destroy biodiversity to service that humanity. Ultimately, can anyone dispute that the world was a healthier place before humanity exploded beyond our bronze age ancestors? True, they did not have I-phones, Social Media and processed foods, but they also didn't have a complex legal system that requires representation, and an opaque political bureaucracy. Sorry for the rant.

[@calebterr8877]

Ok thanos chill a bit

[@LMYS5697]

So.... Maybe we shouldn't be driving Tesla's? How many people could you feed a year for the resource cost of one Tesla? Is your what literally, 'let the poors starve because I want to drive my Tesla"?

[@marieolivier746]

Thank you, I understood your video and it is very usefull !

[@bruceeng3376]

He couldn't gather the infinity stones.

[@Yankee4ever2]

Im here cuz UWORLD

[@someperson5770]

We all celebrate, cheering joyfully that we have a growing population! Malthus, on the other hand, proposed that such an increase will lead to food shortages, not keeping a steady pace with the rising population. Such a fault-finder!!

[@jjlepepe5875]

People started living longer due to better sanitation and better nutrition. Antibiotics were also beneficial. Vaccines and many other early medicines were not the reason people were living longer.

[@explore-trucking]

In your opinion the population of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh live longer and multiply because of, as you said “sanitation and better nutrition “?!?

[@Robholyoake3778]

Vaccines dont help us. But helped the people to make the people sick, illness is worse now then ever..

[@Nordheimer291]

nice job not talking about how half of The Origin of Species by Darwin was directly influenced by his philosophy as usual. nice "AP" course.

[@BrainTemple]

yeah, he didn't talk about tHat at all lol darwin was exceptionally influenced by malthus, even to the point tHat tHat's wHat seemingly led him to refer to nature as an economy in and of itself (having referred to it as the "economy of nature" several times when i read the origin of species). malthus's argument is essentially the way population control works, which you learn about in any biology class. also, every persOn who makes an argument rejecting malthusian populatiOn theory is literally just, "well, malthus lived a lOng time ago, and we're not dead yet." like, this dude seemed to be so internally nervOus about it tHat he called an "exponential growth rate" a "geometry rate" :DD and if malthus is sO wrong, then how come china only allows one kid to a fAmily to handle their overpopulatiOn problem? also, let's cOnsider climate change >:3 the thing tHat people don't realize is tHat the food supply thing (which cOuld certainly still happen due to the fact tHat the human population increased 8x the amount since malthus penned his essay just 226 years ago), is tHat he was ultimately making a point tHat there's a natural resource we're gOing to eventually run out of, which is essentially going tO be inevitable. malthus was attempting to expedite the prOblem before we got to the point tHat we're at. also, the problem w/ this guy's technology argument (which is very unscientific, i gotta say), is tHat the technology will somehow continue to advance at an exponential rate concerning food resources, but if there's sO many people on the planet tHat we live like a giant kowloon city, tHat human population isn't gonna be controlled until the guiding hand of nature kills a bunch of people off when we run out of some significant resources (which to anyone reading this, you don't know wHat you are talking about if you are gonna blame tHat on capitalism, considering tHat capitalism is interchangeable w/ the economy due to it being the emergence of a sophisticated form of natural selection processes as the development of an intelligent organizational system which is a counter response to the acceleration of cosmic entropy).

[@Sugarsail1]

The archetypal delusional environmental doomsayer

[@dsh1667]

More more of an non apocalyptic world you live in? I bet you wear news shies. From Kalky World?

[@athenemcqueen2545]

Malthus' population theory (already shamefully plagiarized from Townsend) is made funny if one reads the main bodies of his works in political economy; wherein he argues that in order for society to function it requires a permanent population of non-productive consumers! Malthus, retropsectively was likely little more than an Anglican hysteric concerned about little more than his reputation and the continued longevity of the landlords and the clergy. Notably, although the food supply problem is what is taken up here, when Malthus is discussing it, it is more in the sense of the "price of corn," already evidenced as potentially being a social problem in 1817 with the Corn Laws & the Poor Laws of England. In his eyes what was beginning to vex the Ricardians, the problem of Machinery and the basis of the wage-relationship to profits, was the result of profit being unable to realize itself and thus actually increasing the rate of profit, which thus led to expropriation of the labouring class. Thus his argument in favor of the maintenance of the "consuming classes." Of course this turned out to be silly, but at least he had an apprehension of the social problem behind poverty and imperialist war of the 19th century. In this sense, is Malthus' cycle of misery so far-fetched? World War 2, The Great Depression and the various wars and crises of the 19th century all speak to the unresolved "Social Question," as the folks of Malthus' day would have referred to it. Perhaps he misapprehended the problem, and was unable to foresee Cecil Rhodes and Fritz Haber, but one could at least admit that he grasped towards a problem.

[@anthamh]

first

[@JUAN_OLIVIER]

Sounds a lot like some African countries.