It may be that I do not myself adopt all the opinions of Malthus. Every question has two phases: and I believe that Malthus may have fixed6 his regards too exclusively upon the sombre side. In my own economical studies and inquiries7, I have been so frequently led to the conclusion, that whatever is the work of Providence8 is good, that when logic9 has seemed to force me to a different conclusion, I have been inclined to distrust my logic. I am aware that this faith in final causes is not unattended with danger to the mind of an inquirer. But this will not prevent me from acknowledging that there is a vast amount of truth in the admirable work of this economist10, or from rendering11 homage12 to that ardent13 love of mankind by which every line of it is inspired.
Malthus, whose knowledge of the social economy was profound, had a clear view of all the ingenious mechanism14 with which nature has provided the human race to assure its onward15 march on the road of progress. And yet he believed that human progress might find itself entirely16 paralyzed by one principle, namely, the principle of Population. In contemplating17 the world, he gave way to the melancholy18 reflection, that “God appears to have taken great care of the species, and very little of the individual. In fact, as regards a certain class of animated19 beings, we see them endowed with a [p398] fecundity20 so prolific21, a power of multiplication22 so extraordinary, a profusion23 of germs so superabundant, that the destiny of the species would seem undoubtedly25 well assured, while that of the individuals of the species appears very precarious26; for the whole of these germs cannot be brought to life and maturity27. They must either fail to live, or must die prematurely29.”
“Man makes no exception to this law.” [It is surprising that this should shock the Socialists30, who have never done telling us that general must take precedence of individual right.] “This much is certain, that God has secured the continuance of the human race by providing it with a great power of reproduction. The numbers of mankind, then, would come naturally, but for prudence31 and foresight32, to exceed what the earth could maintain. But man is endued33 with foresight, and it is his reason and his will which can alone interpose a check to this fatal progression.”
Setting out from these premises34, which you may dispute if you will, but which Malthus regarded as incontestable, he attached necessarily the highest value to the exercise of foresight. For there was no alternative;—man must either restrain voluntarily this excessive multiplication, or else he must become subject, like all the other species of living creatures, to the operation of positive or repressive checks.
Malthus, then, believed that he could never urge men too strongly to the exercise of foresight. His very philanthropy engaged him to exhibit in strong relief the fatal consequences of imprudent reproduction, in order to put men upon their guard. He said to them: If you multiply inconsiderately, you cannot avoid the chastisement35 which awaits you in some form or other, and always in a hideous36 form—famine, war, pestilence37, etc. Benevolence38, charity, poor-laws, and all other expedients39 are but ineffectual remedies.
In his ardour, Malthus allowed an expression to escape him, which, when separated from the rest of his system, and from the sentiment which dictated40 it, may appear harsh. It occurred in the first edition of his work, which was then only a brochure, and has since become a book of four volumes. It was represented to him that his meaning in this objectionable passage might give rise to erroneous interpretations41. He immediately suppressed it, and it has never since reappeared in any of the numerous editions of his Essay on Population.
But Mr Godwin, one of his opponents, had quoted this suppressed passage, and the consequence was, that M. de Sismondi (a man who, with the best intentions in the world, has done much [p399] mischief) reproduced this unlucky sentence. The Socialists instantly laid hold of it, and on this they proceeded to try, condemn42, and execute Malthus. Truly, they were much indebted to Sismondi’s learning, for they had never themselves read either Malthus or Godwin.
The Socialists have thus represented an unguarded passage, which Malthus himself had suppressed, as the basis of his system. They repeat it ad nauseam. In a little 18mo volume, M. Pierre Leroux reproduced it at least forty times, and it forms the stock-in-trade of all our declamatory second-rate reformers.
The most celebrated43 and the most vigorous of that school of writers having written an article against Malthus, I happened one day to converse44 with him, and cited some opinions expressed in the Essay on Population. I thought I perceived that he was not acquainted with the work. I remarked to him, “You who have refuted Malthus, have you not read his book from beginning to end?” “I have not read it at all,” he replied. “His whole system is to be found in one page, and is condensed in the famous ‘arithmetical and geometrical progressions’—that is enough for me.” “It seems to me,” I said, “that you are jesting with the public, with Malthus, with truth, with conscience, and with yourself.”
This is the way that opinions obtain currency with us. Fifty ignorant people repeat in chorus something spiteful and absurd, put forward by one more ignorant than themselves, and if it happens to have the least connexion with the fashionable opinions or passions of the hour, it is at once received as an axiom.
Science, however, it must be allowed, cannot enter on the solution of a problem with the settled intention of establishing a foregone conclusion, however consolatory45. What should we think of a man who should sit down to the study of physiology46, resolved beforehand to demonstrate that God has not willed that mankind should be afflicted47 with diseases? Were one physiologist48 to found a system on such a basis as this, and another to controvert49 it by an appeal to facts, the former would most likely fly into a rage, and tax his opponent with impiety50; but it is difficult to believe that he would go the length of accusing his opponent himself of being the author of diseases.
This, however, is what has happened to Malthus. In a work founded on facts and figures, he explained a law which has given great offence to our optimists51; and in their anxiety to ignore the existence of this law, they have attacked Malthus with rancorous virulence52 and flagrant bad faith, as if he had himself deliberately53 [p400] thrown in the way of mankind those obstacles which flowed, as he thought, from the principle of population. It would surely have been more philosophical54 to have proved simply that Malthus was mistaken, and that his pretended law had in reality no existence.
Population, we must allow, is one of a numerous class of subjects which serve to remind us that man has frequently left him only a choice of evils. Whatever may have been its design, suffering: has entered into the plan of Providence. Let us not, then, seek for harmony in the absence of evil, but in the tendency of evil to bring us back to what is good, and in the gradual contraction55 of its own domain56. God has indued us with free will. It is necessary that we should learn,—which is a long and difficult process,—and then it is necessary that we should act on the knowledge thus acquired, which is not much less difficult. In this way we shall gradually emancipate57 ourselves from suffering, but without ever altogether escaping from it; for even when we succeed completely in eluding58 chastisement, we have still to exercise the painful effort of foresight. In freeing ourselves from the one, we must submit ourselves to the other.
It is of no use to rebel against this order of things; for it envelopes us; it is the atmosphere in which we live and breathe; and it is with this alternative of restriction59 or prevention before us, which we cannot get rid of, and cannot lose sight of, that we proceed, with Malthus, to enter upon the problem of population. On this great question I shall first of all assume the function of a mere60 reporter, and then give you my own views. If the laws of population can be comprised in a short aphorism61, it will be a happy thing for the advancement62 and diffusion63 of the science. But if, from the number and the shifting nature of the postulates64, we find that these laws refuse to be shut up in a brief and rigorous formula, we must acquiesce65. Prolix66 exactitude is better than delusive67 brevity.
We have seen that progress consists in causing natural forces to co-operate more and more towards the satisfaction of our wants, so that, at each successive epoch68, the same amount of utility is obtained, whilst to society is left either more leisure, or a greater amount of disposable labour, to be applied69 to the acquisition of new enjoyments70.
On the other hand, we have demonstrated that every fresh conquest we thus gain over nature, after having for a time brought additional profit to the inventor, never fails to become, by the [p401] operation of the law of competition, the common and gratuitous72 patrimony73 of mankind at large.
From these premises we should conclude that human happiness must be enlarged, and, at the same time, rapidly equalized. That it has not been so in reality, however, is a point beyond all dispute. There are in the world multitudes of unfortunate people, whose wretchedness has not been caused by their own misdeeds.
How are we to account for this?
I believe it is owing to a multiplicity of causes. One of them is called spoliation, or, if you will, injustice74. Economists75 have referred to it only incidentally, as implying some error, some false scientific notion. Engaged in the explanation of general laws, it is not their business, they think, to concern themselves with those laws, when they are not in operation or violated. Spoliation, however, has borne, and still bears, too prominent a share in human affairs to permit even economists to throw it aside as a consideration unworthy of being taken into account. What we have to do with here is not accidental thefts, petty larcenies76, or isolated77 crimes. War, slavery, priestly impostures, privileges, monopolies, restrictions78, abuses of taxation,—these are the more salient manifestations79 of spoliation. It is easy to see what influence disturbing forces of such magnitude must have exercised, and must still exercise by their presence, or the deep traces they have left behind them, on the inequality of conditions; and it will be our business hereafter to estimate the vast extent of their effects.
But another cause which retards80 progress, and, above all, which hinders its extension to all classes, is, as some authors think, the principle of population.
And no doubt, if in proportion as wealth increases, the number of people among whom that wealth is to be divided increases also, and more rapidly, absolute wealth may be greater, and individual wealth less.
If, moreover, there be one species of services which everybody can render, like the services which require only muscular exertion82, and if it be just the class whose business it is to render such services, the worst paid of all, which multiplies with the greatest rapidity, we must conclude that labour creates for itself a fatal competition. The lowest class will never benefit by progress, if that class increases faster than it can spread and distribute itself.
You see, then, how important the principle of population is.
Malthus has reduced the principle to this formula: [p402]
Population has a tendency to keep on a level with the means of subsistence.
I cannot help remarking in passing that it is surprising that the honour and responsibility of enunciating this principle, be it true or false, should have been ascribed to Malthus. No writer on such subjects since the days of Aristotle but has proclaimed it, and frequently in the very same words.86
It is impossible to look around us on the aggregate83 of animated beings without being convinced beyond doubt that nature has been more engrossed84 with the care of species than of individuals.
The precautions which nature has taken to ensure the perpetuity of races are remarkable85; and among these precautions, a very noticeable one is the profusion of germs or seeds. This superabundance appears to be calculated in an inverse86 ratio to the sensibility, intelligence, and power with which each species is endowed, to enable it to resist destruction.
Thus, in the vegetable kingdom, the means of reproduction, by seeds, cuttings, etc., which a single plant can furnish, are countless87. One elm (were all its seeds to take root) might give birth in a single year to a million of trees. Why should this not actually happen? Because all the seeds have not the benefit of the conditions which vegetable life exacts, namely, space and nourishment88. They are destroyed; and as plants are destitute89 of sensibility, nature has spared neither the means of reproduction nor those of destruction.
Animals, too, whose life is of a type akin90 to vegetable life, reproduce themselves in immense numbers. Who has not wondered that oysters91, for instance, could multiply sufficiently92 to supply the enormous consumption of them?
As we advance in the scale of animal life, we find that the means of reproduction has been bestowed93 by nature with greater parsimony94.
Vertebrated animals, especially the larger species, do not multiply so quickly as others. The cow goes nine months, produces only [p403] one calf95, and must suckle it for some time. Yet even among cattle the reproductive power surpasses what might be thought absolutely necessary. In rich countries, such as England, France, and Switzerland, the number of animals of this description increases notwithstanding the enormous destruction of them; and had we boundless96 pastures and prairies, there can be no doubt that we might have both a still greater destruction and more rapid reproduction of them. I should say that if nourishment and space were not limited, we might have in a few years ten times more oxen and cows, even if we consumed ten times more meat. The reproductive power of cattle, then, even laying aside the extraneous97 consideration of the limitation of space and nourishment, is far from being fully98 developed.
It is certain that the reproductive faculty99 in the human species is less powerful than in any other, and it ought to be so. Man, in the superior situation in which nature has placed him, as regards intelligence and sympathy, ought not to be exposed to destruction in the same degree as the inferior animals. But we are not to suppose that physically100 he escapes from that law in virtue101 of which all species have the faculty of multiplying to a greater extent than space and nourishment permit.
I say physically, because I am speaking here only of the physiological102 law.
There is a wide difference between the physiological power of multiplying and actual multiplication.
The one is an absolute organic power when freed from all obstacle and all limitation ab extra—the other is the effective resulting force of this power combined with the aggregate of all the resistance which limits and restrains it. Thus the power of multiplication of the poppy may be a million a year, perhaps; but in a field of poppies the actual reproduction may be stationary103 or even decrease.
It is this physiological law that Malthus essayed to reduce to a formula. He inquired in what period of time a given number of men would double, if their space and food were unlimited104.
We can see beforehand that as this hypothesis of the complete satisfaction of all wants is never realized in practice, the theoretic period must necessarily be shorter than any period of actual doubling which has ever been observed.
Observation, in fact, gives very different results for different countries. According to the results obtained by M. Moreau de Jonnès, taking for basis the actual increase of population, the period of doubling would require—in Turkey, 555 years; in [p404] Switzerland, 227; in France, 138; in Spain, 106; in Holland, 100; in Germany, 76; in Russia and in England, 43; and in the United States of America, 25 years, deducting105 the contingent106 furnished by immigration.
Now, what is the reason of such enormous differences? We have no reason to think that they are the result of physiological causes. Swiss women are as well formed and as prolific as American women.
We must conclude, then, that the absolute generative power is restrained by external obstacles. And what proves this beyond doubt is, that it is manifested as soon as circumstances occur to remove these obstacles. Thus an improved agriculture, new manufactures, some new source of local wealth, leads invariably in that locality to an increase of population. In the same way, when a scourge107 like a plague, or a famine, or war, destroys a great part of the population, we immediately find that multiplication is more rapidly developed.
When an increase of population, then, is retarded108, or stops, we find that space and nourishment are awanting, or likely to be so; that it has encountered an obstacle, or is scared by one.
This phenomenon, the announcement of which has brought down so much abuse on Malthus, appears in truth beyond the reach of doubt.
If you put a thousand mice into a cage, with only as much provision as is necessary for their daily sustenance109, their number, in spite of the acknowledged fecundity of the species, can never exceed a thousand, or if it do, there will be privation and there will be suffering,—both tending to reduce the number. In this case it would be correct to say that an external cause limits, not the power of fecundity, but the result of fecundity. There would assuredly be an antagonism110 between the physiological tendency and the restraining force, and the result would be that the number would be stationary. To prove this, increase gradually the provision until you double it, and you will very soon find two thousand mice in the cage.
And what is the answer which is made to Malthus? He is met with the very fact upon which his theory is founded. The proof, it is said, that the power of reproduction in man is not indefinite, is that in certain countries the population is stationary. If the law of progression were true, if population doubled every twenty-five years, France, which had thirty millions of inhabitants in 1820, would now have more than sixty millions.
Is this logical? [p405]
I begin by proving that the population of France has increased only a fifth in twenty-five years, whilst in other countries it has doubled. I seek for the cause of this; and I find it in the deficiency of space and sustenance. I find that in the existing state of cultivation111, population, and national manners and habits, there is a difficulty in creating with sufficient rapidity subsistence for generations that might be born, or for maintaining those that are actually born. I assert that the means of subsistence cannot be doubled—at least that they are not doubled—in France every twenty-five years. This is exactly the aggregate of those negative forces which restrain, as I think, the physiological power—and you bring forward this slowness of multiplication in order to prove that this physiological power has no existence. Such a mode of discussing the question is mere trifling112.
Is the argument against the geometrical progression of Malthus more conclusive113? Malthus has nowhere asserted that, in point of fact, population increases according to a geometrical progression. He alleges114, on the contrary, that the fact is not so, and the subject of his inquiry116 has reference to the obstacles which hinder it. The progression is brought forward merely as a formula of the organic power of multiplication.
Seeking to discover in what time a given population can double itself, on the assumption that all its wants are supplied, he fixed this period at twenty-five years. He so fixed it, because direct observation had shown him that this state of things actually existed among a people, who, although very far from fulfilling all the conditions of his hypothesis, came nearer the conditions he had assumed than any other—namely, the people of America. This period once found, and the question having always reference to the virtual power of propagation, he lays it down that population has a tendency to increase in a geometrical progression.
This is denied; but the denial is in the teeth of evidence. It may be said, indeed, that the period of doubling may not be everywhere twenty-five years; that it may be thirty, forty, or fifty years; that it varies in different countries and races. All this is fair subject of discussion; but granting this, it certainly cannot be said that, on the hypothesis assumed, the progression is not geometrical. If, in fact, a hundred couples produce two hundred in a given time, why may not two hundred produce four hundred in an equal time?
Because, say the opponents of the theory, multiplication will be restrained.
This is just what Malthus has said. [p406]
But by what means will multiplication be restrained?
Malthus points out two general obstacles to indefinite multiplication, which he has denominated the preventive and repressive checks.
As population can be kept down below the level of its physiological tendency only by a diminution117 of the number of births, or an increase of the number of deaths, the nomenclature of Malthus is undoubtedly correct.
Moreover, when the conditions as regards space and nourishment are such that population cannot go beyond a certain figure, it is evident that the destructive check has more power, in proportion as the preventive check has less. To allege115 that the number of births may increase without an increase in the number of deaths, while the means of subsistence are stationary, would be to fall into a manifest contradiction.
Nor is it less evident, à priori, and independently of other grave economic considerations, that in such a situation voluntary self-restraint is preferable to forced repression118.
As far as we have yet gone, then, the theory of Malthus is in all respects incontestable.
He was wrong, perhaps, in adopting this period of twenty-five years as the limit of human fecundity, although it holds good in the United States. I am convinced that in assuming this period he wished to avoid the imputation119 of exaggeration, or of dealing120 in pure abstractions. “How can they pretend,” he may have thought, “that I give too much latitude121 to the possible if I found my principle on what actually takes place?” He did not consider that by mixing up in this way the virtual and the real, and representing as the measure of the law of multiplication, without reference to the law of limitation, a period which is the result of facts governed by both laws, he should expose himself to be misunderstood. This is what has actually happened. His geometrical and arithmetical progressions have been laughed at; he has been reproached for taking the United States as a type of the rest of the world; in a word, the confusion he has given rise to by mixing up these two distinct laws, has been seized upon to confute the one by the other.
When we seek to discover the abstract power of propagation, we must put aside for the moment all consideration of the physical and moral checks arising from deficiency of space, food, or comfortable circumstances. But the question once proposed in these terms, it is quite superfluous122 to attempt an exact solution. This power, in the human race, as in all organized existences, surpasses, [p407] in an enormous proportion, all the phenomena123 of rapid multiplication that we have observed in the past, or can ever observe in the future. Take wheat, for example: allowing five stalks for every seed, and five grains for every stalk, one grain has the virtual power of producing four hundred millions of grains in five years. Or take the canine124 race, and suppose four puppies to each litter, and six years of fecundity, we shall find that one couple may in twelve years produce eight millions of cubs125.
As regards the human race, assuming sixteen as the age of puberty, and fecundity to cease at thirty, each couple might give birth to eight children. It is making a large deduction126 to reduce this number to one-half on account of premature28 deaths, since we are reasoning on the supposition of absolute comfort and all wants satisfied, which greatly limits the amount of mortality. However, let us state the premises in this way, and they give us in twenty-five years 2—4—8—16—32—64—128—256—512, etc.; in short, two millions in two centuries.
If we make the calculation on the basis adopted by Euler, the period of doubling will be twelve years and a half. Eight such periods will make exactly a century, and the increase in that space of time will be as 512:2.
At no era, and in no country, have we ever observed the numbers of the human race increase with this frightful127 rapidity. According to the book of Genesis, the Hebrews who entered Egypt amounted to seventy couples;87 and we find from the book of Numbers that when Moses numbered the people, two centuries afterwards, they amounted to six hundred thousand men above twenty-one years of age,88 which supposes a population of two millions at least. From this we may infer that the period of doubling was fourteen years. Statistical128 tables can scarcely be admitted to control biblical facts. Shall we say that six hundred thousand men “able to go to war” supposes a population larger than two millions, and infer from that a period of doubling less than Euler has calculated? In that case, we should cast doubt either on the census129 of Moses or on the calculations of Euler. All that we contend for is, that it should not be pretended that the Hebrews multiplied with greater rapidity than it is possible to multiply.
After this example, which is probably that in which actual fecundity approximates most nearly to virtual fecundity, we have [p408] the case of the United States of America, where we know that the population doubles in less than twenty-five years.
It is unnecessary to pursue such researches further. It is sufficient to know that in our species, as in all, the organic power of multiplication is superior to the actual multiplication. Moreover, it would involve a contradiction to assert that the actual surpasses the virtual.
Alongside of this absolute power, which it is unnecessary to determine more exactly, and which we may safely regard as uniform, there exists, as we have said, another force, which limits, compresses, suspends, to a certain extent, the action of the first, and opposes to it obstacles of different kinds, varying with times and places, with the occupations, the manners, the laws, or the religion of different nations.
I denominate this second force the law of limitation; and it is evident that the progress of population in each country, and in each class, is the result of the combined action of these two laws.
But in what does this law of limitation consist? We may say in a very general way that the propagation of life is restrained or prevented by the difficulty of sustaining life. This idea, which we have already expressed in the terms of the formula of Malthus, it is of importance to develop farther, for it is the essential part of our subject.89
Organized existences, which are indued with life, but without feeling, are entirely passive in this struggle between the two principles. As regards vegetables, it is strictly130 true that the number of each species is limited by the means of subsistence. The profusion of germs is infinite, but the resources of space and territorial131 fertility are not so. These germs injure or destroy one another; they fail to grow, or they take root and come to maturity only to the extent that the soil allows of. Animals are endued with feeling, but they would seem in general to be destitute of foresight. They breed, increase, and multiply without regard to the fate of their offspring. Death, premature death, alone limits their multiplication, and maintains the equilibrium132 between their numbers and their means of subsistence.
M. de Lamennais, in his inimitable language, thus addresses the people:—
“There is room enough in the world for all, and God has made it fertile enough to supply the wants of all.” And, further on, he says,—“The Author of the universe has not assigned a worse [p409] condition to man than to the inferior animals. Are not all invited to the rich banquet of nature? Is one alone excluded?” And, again, he adds,—“Plants extend their roots from one field to another, in a soil which nourishes them all, and all grow there in peace; none of them absorbs the sap of another.”
In all this we see only fallacious declamation133, which serves as the basis of dangerous conclusions; and we cannot help regretting that an eloquence134 so admirable should be devoted135 to giving popular currency to the most fatal of errors.
It is not true that no plant robs another of its sap, and that all extend their roots in the soil without injury. Hundreds of millions of vegetable germs fall every year upon the ground, derive136 from it a beginning of vitality137, and then die stifled138 by plants stronger, ranker, hardier139 than themselves. It is not true that all animals which are born are invited to the banquet of nature, and that none of them is excluded. Wild beasts devour140 one another; and of domestic animals man destroys a countless number. Nothing, in fact, is better calculated than this to show the existence and relations of these two principles—that of multiplication and that of limitation. Why have we in this country so many oxen and sheep, notwithstanding the havoc141 we make? Why are there so few bears and wolves, although we slaughter142 far fewer of them, and they are so organized as to be capable of multiplying much faster? The reason is, that man prepares subsistence for the one class of animals, and takes it away from the other class. As regards each, he so arranges the law of limitation as to leave more or less latitude to the law of increase.
Thus, as regards both vegetables and animals, the limiting force appears only in one form, that of destruction. But man is indued with reason and foresight, and this new element modifies, and even changes, the mode of action of this force, so far as he is concerned.
Undoubtedly, in as far as he is a being provided with material organs, or, to speak plainly, in as far as he is an animal, the law of limitation, in the form of destruction, applies to him. It is impossible that the numbers of men can exceed their means of subsistence; for to assert that more men existed than had the means of existing, would imply a contradiction. If, then, his reason and foresight are lulled143 asleep, he becomes a vegetable, he becomes a brute144. In that case, he will inevitably145 multiply in virtue of the great physiological law which governs all organized nature; and, in that case, it is equally inevitable146 that he should perish in virtue of that law of limitation the action of which he has ignored. [p410]
But if he exercise foresight, this second law comes within the sphere of his will. He modifies and directs it. It is, in fact, no longer the same law. It is no longer a blind, but an intelligent force; it is no longer a mere natural, it has become a social law. Man is the centre in which these two principles, matter and intelligence, meet, unite, and are blended; he belongs exclusively neither to the one nor to the other. As regards the human race, the law of limitation is manifested in both its aspects, and maintains population at the necessary level by the double action of foresight and destruction.
These two actions are not of uniform intensity147. On the contrary, the one is enlarged in proportion as the other is restrained. The thing to be accomplished148, the point to be reached is limitation; and it is so more or less by means of repression, or by means of prevention, according as man is brutish or spiritual, according as he is more allied149 to matter or to mind, according as he has in him more of vegetative or of moral life. The law may be external to him, or internal, but it must exist somewhere.
We do not form a just idea of the vast domain of foresight, which the translator of Malthus has much circumscribed150, by giving currency to that vague and inadequate152 expression, moral restraint [contrainte morale], which he has still farther limited by the definition he has given of it, namely, “The virtue which consists in not marrying, when one has not the means of maintaining a family, and yet living in chastity.” The obstacles which intelligent human society opposes to possible multiplication take many other forms besides that of moral restraint thus defined. What means, for example, the pure and holy ignorance of early life, the only ignorance which it is criminal to dissipate, which every one respects, and over which the timid mother watches as over hidden treasure? What means the modesty153 which succeeds that ignorance, that mysterious defence of the young female, which intimidates154 whilst it enchants155 her lover, and prolongs, while it embellishes156, the innocent season of courtship? The veil which is thus interposed at first between ignorance and truth, and then between truth and happiness, is a marvellous thing, and in aught save this would be absurd. What means that power of opinion which imposes such severe laws on the relations of the sexes, stigmatizes157 the slightest transgression158 of those laws, and visits it not only on the erring159 feebleness which succumbs160, but, from generation to generation, on the unhappy offspring? What mean that sensitive honour, that rigid161 reserve, so generally admired even by those who have cast it off, those institutions, those [p411] restraints of etiquette162, those precautions of all sorts—if they are not the action of that law of limitation manifested in an intelligent, moral, and preventive shape—in a shape, consequently, which is peculiar163 to man?
Let these barriers be once overturned—let mankind, in what regards the sexes, be no longer concerned either with etiquette or with fortune, or with the future, or with opinion, or with manners—let men lower themselves to the rank of vegetables or animals,—can we doubt that for the former, as for the latter, the power of multiplication would act with a force to necessitate164 the instant intervention165 of the law of limitation, manifested under such circumstances in a physical, brutal166, and repressive shape; that is to say, by the action of indigence167, disease, and death?
It is impossible to deny that, but for foresight and moral considerations, marriage would, in most cases, be contracted at an early age, or immediately after puberty. If we fix this age at sixteen, and if the registers of a given country show that marriages on an average, do not take place before four-and-twenty, we have then eight years deducted168 by the law of limitation, in its moral and preventive form, from the action of the law of multiplication; and if we add to this figure the necessary allowance for those who never marry, we shall be convinced that the Creator has not degraded man to the level of the beasts that perish, but, on the contrary, has given him the power to transform the repressive into the preventive limitation.
It is singular enough that the spiritualist school and the materialist169 school should have, as it were, changed sides on this great question: the former fulminating against foresight, and endeavouring to set up the principle of animal nature; the latter exalting170 the moral part of man, and enforcing the dominion171 of reason over passion and appetite.
The truth is, the subject is not rightly understood. Let a father consult the most orthodox clergyman he can find as to the management of his family, the counsels he will receive are just those which science has exalted172 into principles, and which, as such, the clergyman might probably repudiate173. “Keep your daughter in strict seclusion,” the old minister will say; “conceal from her as much as you can the seductions of the world; cultivate, as you would a precious flower, that holy ignorance, that heavenly modesty, which are at once her charm and her defence. Wait until an eligible174 match presents itself; and labour in the meantime to secure her an adequate fortune. Consider that a poor and improvident175 marriage brings along with it much suffering and many dangers. Recall [p412] those old proverbs which embody176 the wisdom of nations, and which assure us that comfortable circumstances constitute the surest guarantee of union and domestic peace. Why be in a hurry? Would you have your daughter at five-and-twenty burdened with a family which she cannot maintain and educate suitably to your rank in life? Would you have her husband, feeling the inadequacy177 of his income to support his family, fall into affliction and despair, and finally, perhaps, betake himself to riot and debauchery? The subject which now occupies you is the most important which can come under your consideration. Weigh it well and maturely; and avoid precipitation,” etc.
Suppose that the father, borrowing the language of M. de Lamennais, should reply: “In the beginning God addressed to all men the command to increase and multiply, and replenish178 the earth and subdue179 it. And yet you would persuade a young woman to live single, renounce180 family ties, and give up and abandon the chaste181 happiness of married life, and the holy joys of maternity182; and all this for no better reason than a sordid183 fear of poverty.” Think you the old clergyman would have no reply to this?
God, he might say, has not commanded man to increase and multiply without discretion184 and without prudence; to act with as little regard to the future as the inferior animals. He has not indued man with reason, in order that he may cease to use it in the most solemn and important circumstances. He has commanded man, no doubt, to increase, but in order to increase he must live, and in order to live he must have the means of living. In the command to increase, therefore, there is implied another command, namely, to prepare for his offspring the means of subsistence. Religion has not placed celibacy185 in the catalogue of crimes. So far from that, she has ranked it as a virtue, which she honours and sanctifies. We must not think that we violate the commandment of God when we are preparing to fulfil it with prudence, and with a view to the future good, happiness, and dignity of our family.
Now this reasoning, or reasoning of a similar kind, which we hear repeated every day, and which regulates the conduct of every moral and enlightened family, what is it but the application of a general doctrine186 to particular cases? Or rather, what is that doctrine, but the generalization187 of reasoning which applies to every particular case? The spiritualist who repudiates188, on principle, the intervention of preventive limitation, is like the natural philosopher who should say to us, “Act in every case as if gravity existed, but don’t admit gravitation in theory.” [p413]
In our observations hitherto we have followed the theory of Malthus; but there is one attribute of humanity to which it seems to me that most of our authors have not assigned that importance which it merits, and which plays an important part in the phenomena relative to population, resolves many of the problems to which this great question has given rise, and gives birth in the mind of the philanthropist to a confidence and serenity189 which false science had banished190; this attribute, which is comprised, indeed, in the notions of reason and foresight, is man’s perfectibility. Man is perfectible; he is susceptible191 of amelioration and of deterioration192; and if, in a strict sense, he can remain stationary, he can also mount and descend193 without limit the endless ladder of civilisation194. This holds true not only of individuals, but of families, nations, and races.
It is from not having taken into account all the power of this progressive principle, that Malthus has landed us in those discouraging consequences which have rendered his theory generally repulsive195.
For, regarding the preventive check, in a somewhat ascetic196 and not very attractive light, he could hardly attribute much force to it. Hence he concludes that it is the repressive check which generally operates; in other words, vice81, poverty, war, crime, etc.
This, as I think, is an error; and we are about to see that the limitative force presents itself not only in the shape of an effort of chastity, an act of self-control, but also, and above all, as a condition of happiness, an instructive movement which prevents men from degrading themselves and their families.
Population, it has been said, tends to keep on a level with the means of subsistence. I should say that, for this expression means of subsistence, formerly197 in universal use, J. B. Say has substituted another which is much more correct, namely, means of existence. At first sight it would seem that subsistence alone enters into the question, but it is not so. Man does not live by bread alone, and a reference to facts shows us clearly that population is arrested, or retarded, when the aggregate of all the means of existence, including clothing, lodging198, and other things which climate or even habit renders necessary, come to be awanting.
We should say, then, that population tends to keep on a level with the means of existence.
But do these means constitute something which is fixed, absolute, and uniform? Certainly not. In proportion as civilisation advances, the range of man’s wants is enlarged, having regard even to simple subsistence. Regarded as a perfectible being the means of [p414] existence, among which we comprehend the satisfaction of moral and intellectual, as well as physical wants, admit of as many degrees as there are degrees in civilisation itself, in other words, of infinite degrees. Undoubtedly, there is an inferior limit—to appease199 hunger, to shelter oneself from cold to some extent, is one condition of life, and this limit we may perceive among American savages200 or European paupers201. But a superior limit I know not—in fact, there is none. Natural wants satisfied, others spring up, which are factitious at first, if you will, but which habit renders natural in their turn, and, after these, others still, and so on without assignable limit.
At each step, then, which man takes on the road of civilisation, his wants embrace a wider and more extended circle, and the means of existence, the point where the laws of multiplication and limitation meet, is removed and elevated. For although man is susceptible of deterioration as well as of improvement, he aspires202 after the one and shuns203 the other. His efforts all tend to maintain the rank he has gained, and to rise still higher; and habit, which has been so well called a second nature, performs the part of the valves of our arterial system, by checking every retrograde tendency. It is very natural, then, that the intelligent and moral control which man exercises over his own multiplication should partake of the nature of these efforts to rise, and be combined and mixed up with his progressive tendencies.
The consequences which result from this organization are numerous. We shall confine ourselves to pointing out a few of them. First of all, we admit with the Economists that population and the means of existence come to an equilibrium; but the last of these terms being infinitely204 flexible, and varying with civilisation and habits, we cannot admit that in comparing nations and classes, population is proportionate to production, as J. B. Say90 affirms, or to income, as is represented by M. de Sismondi. And then every advancing step of culture implies greater foresight, and the moral and preventive check comes to neutralize205 the repressive one more and more as civilisation is realized in society at large, or in one or other of its sections. Hence it follows that each step of progress tends to a new step in the same direction, vires acquirit eundo; seeing that better circumstances and greater foresight engender206 one another in indefinite succession. For the same reason, when men, from whatever cause, follow a retrograde course, narrower circumstances and want of foresight become reciprocally cause and effect, [p415] and retrogression and decay would have no limit had society not been indued with that curative force, that vis medicatrix, which Providence has vouchsafed207 to all organized bodies. Observe, too, that at each step of this retrograde movement, the action of the law of limitation in its destructive form becomes at once more painful and more apparent. At first, it is only deterioration and sinking in the social scale; then it is poverty, famine, disorder208, war, death;—painful but infallible teachers.
I should like to pause here to show how well this theory explains facts, and how well facts in their turn justify209 the theory. When, in the case of a nation or a class, the means of existence have descended210 to that inferior limit at which they come to be confounded with the means of pure subsistence, as in China, in Ireland, and among the lowest and poorest class of every country, the smallest oscillations of population, or of the supply of food, are tantamount to death. In this respect facts confirm the scientific induction211. Famine has not for a long period visited Europe, and we attribute the absence of this scourge to a multitude of causes. The most general of these causes undoubtedly is, that the means of existence, by reason of social progress, have risen far above the means of mere subsistence. When years of scarcity212 come, we are thus enabled to give up many enjoyments before encroaching on the first necessaries of life. Not so in such countries as China or Ireland, where men have nothing in the world but a little rice or a few potatoes. When the rice or potato crops fail, they have absolutely no means of purchasing other food.
A third consequence of human perfectibility we must notice here, because it tends to modify the doctrine of Malthus in its most afflicting213 phase. The formula which we have attributed to that economist is, that “Population tends to keep on a level with the means of subsistence.” We should say that he has gone much farther, and that his true formula, that from which he has drawn214 his most distressing215 conclusions, is this: “Population tends to go beyond the means of subsistence.” Had Malthus by this simply meant to say that in the human race the power of propagating life is superior to the power of sustaining life, there could have been no controversy216. But this is not what he means. He affirms that, taking into account absolute fecundity on the one hand, and, on the other, limitation, as manifested in the two forms, repressive and preventive, the result is still the tendency of population to go beyond the means of subsistence.91 This holds true of every species [p416] of living creatures, except the human race. Man is an intelligent being, and can make an unlimited use of the preventive check. He is perfectible, seeks after improvement, and shuns deterioration. Progress is his normal state, and progress presupposes a more and more enlightened exercise of the preventive check; and then the means of existence increase more rapidly than population. This effect not only flows from the principle of perfectibility, but is confirmed by fact, since on all sides the range of satisfactions is extended. Were it true, as Malthus asserts, that along with every addition to the means of subsistence there is a still greater addition to the population, the misery217 of our race would be fatally—inevitably—progressive; society would begin with civilisation and end with barbarism. The contrary is the fact; and we must conclude that the law of limitation has had sufficient force to restrain the multiplication of men, and keep it below the multiplication of products.
It may be seen from what has been said how vast and how difficult the question of population is. We may regret, no doubt, that a precise formula has not been given to it, and we regret still more that we find ourselves unable to propose one. But we may see how repugnant the narrow limits of a dogmatic axiom are to such a subject. It is a vain endeavour to try to express, in the form of an inflexible218 equation, the relations of data so essentially219 variable. Allow me to recapitulate220 these data.
(1.) The law of increase or multiplication.—The absolute, virtual, physiological power which resides in the human race to propagate life, apart from the consideration of the difficulty of sustaining life. This first datum221, the only one susceptible of anything like precision, is the only one in which precision is superfluous; for what matters it where the superior limit of multiplication is placed in the hypothesis, if it can never be attained222 in the actual condition of man, which is to sustain life with the sweat of his brow.
(2.) There is a limit, then, to the law of multiplication. What is that limit? The means of existence, it is replied. But what are the means of existence? The aggregate of satisfactions or enjoyments, which cannot be exactly defined. They vary with times, places, races, ranks, manners, opinions, habits, and consequently the limit we are in search of is shifted or displaced.
(3.) Last of all, it may be asked, in what consists the force which [p417] restrains population within this limit, which is itself movable? As far as man is concerned, it is twofold: a force which represses, and a force which prevents. Now, the action of the first, incapable223 as it is in itself of being accurately224 measured, is, moreover, entirely subordinated to the action of the second, which depends on the degree of civilisation, on the power and prevalence of habits, on the tendency of political and religious institutions, on the organization of property, of labour, of family relations, etc. Between the law of multiplication and the law of limitation, then, it is impossible to establish an equation from which could be deduced the actual population. In algebra225 a and b represent determinate quantities which are numbered and measured, and of which we can fix the proportions; but means of existence, moral government of the will, inevitable action of mortality, these are the three data of the problem of population, data which are flexible in themselves, and which partake somewhat, moreover, of the astonishing flexibility226 of the subject to which they have reference—man—that being whom Montaigne describes as so fluctuating and so variable. It is not surprising, then, that in desiring to give to this equation a precision of which it is incapable, economists have rather divided men’s minds than brought them into unison227, and this because there is not one of the terms of their formulas which is not open to a multitude of objections, both in reasoning and in fact.
We shall now proceed to say something on the practical application of the doctrine of population, for application not only elucidates228 doctrine, but is the true fruit of the tree of science.
Labour, as we have said, is the only subject of exchange. In order to obtain utility (unless the utility which nature gives us gratuitously229), we must be at the pains to produce it, or remunerate another who takes the pains for us. Man creates, and can create, nothing; he arranges, disposes, or transports things for a useful purpose; he cannot do this without exertion, and the result of this exertion becomes his property. If he gives away his property, he has right to recompense, in the shape of a service which is judged equivalent after free discussion. Such is the principle of value, of remuneration, of exchange—a principle which is not the less true because it is simple. Into what we denominate products, there enter divers230 degrees of natural utility, and divers degrees of artificial utility; the latter, which alone implies labour, is alone the subject of human bargains and transactions; and without questioning in the least the celebrated and suggestive formula of J. B. Say, that “products are exchanged for products,” I esteem231 it more [p418] rigorously scientific to say that labour is exchanged for labour, or, better still, that services are exchanged for services.
It must not be inferred from this, however, that quantities of labour are exchanged for each other in the ratio of their duration or of their intensity; or that the man who transfers to another an hour’s labour, or even the man who labours with the greatest intensity, who, as it were, pushes the needle of the dynamometer up to 100 degrees, can always stipulate232 for an equal effort in return. Duration and intensity are, no doubt, two of the elements taken into account in the appreciation233 of labour; but they are not the only ones; for we must consider, besides, that labour may be more or less repugnant, dangerous, difficult, intelligent, that it may imply more or less foresight, and may even be more or less successful. When transactions are free, and property completely secured, each has entire control over his own labour, and, consequently, need only dispose of it at his own price. The limit to his compliance234 is the point at which it is more advantageous235 to reserve his labour than to exchange it; the limit to his exactions is the point at which the other party to the bargain finds it his interest not to make the exchange.
There are in Society as many strata236, if I may use the expression, as there are degrees in the scale of remuneration. The worst remunerated of all labour is that which approximates most nearly to brute force. This is an arrangement of Providence which is just, useful, and inevitable. The mere manual labourer soon reaches that limit to his exactions of which I have just spoken, for everybody can perform this kind of muscular automatic labour; and the limit to his compliance is also soon reached, for he is incapable of the intelligent labour which his own wants require. Duration and intensity, which are attributes of matter, are the sole elements of the remuneration of this species of unskilled material labour; and that is the reason why it is usually paid by the day. All industrial progress consists in this, namely, in replacing in each product a certain amount of artificial, and, consequently, onerous237 utility, by the same amount of natural, and, therefore, gratuitous utility. Hence it follows that if there be one class of society more interested than another in free competition, it is the labouring class. What would be the fate of these men if natural agents, and new processes and instruments of production, were not brought continually, by means of competition, to confer gratuitously, on all, the results of their co-operation? The mere day-labourer knows not how to make available in the production of the commodities he has occasion for, heat, gravitation, or elasticity238; [p419] nor can he discover the processes, nor does he possess the instruments, by which these forces are rendered useful. When such discoveries are new, the labour of inventors, who are men of the highest intelligence, is well remunerated; in other words, that labour is the equivalent of a large amount of rude unskilled labour; or, again, to change the expression, his product is dear. But competition interposes, the product falls in price, the co-operation of natural agents is no longer profitable to the producer, but to the consumer, and the labour which has made them available approximates, as regards remuneration, to that labour which is estimated by mere duration. Thus, the common fund of gratuitous wealth goes on constantly increasing. Products of every kind tend, day after day, to become again invested,—and they are in reality invested,—with that condition of gratuitousness240 which characterizes our supply of air, and light, and water. The general level of humanity thus continues to rise, and to equalize itself; and, apart from the operation of the law of population, the lowest class of society is that whose amelioration is virtually the most rapid. We have said, apart from the operation of the law of population; and this brings us back to the subject we are now examining.
Figure to yourself a basin into which an orifice which is constantly enlarging admits a constantly increasing supply of water. If we look only to this circumstance, we conclude that the level of the water in the basin is continually rising. But if the sides of the basin are flexible, and capable of contracting and expanding, it is evident that the height of the water will depend on the manner in which this new circumstance is combined with the other. The level of the water will sink, however great may be the supply running into the basin, if the capacity of the basin itself is enlarged still more rapidly. It will rise, if the circle of the reservoir is enlarged only proportionally and very slowly, higher still if it remain fixed, and highest of all if it is narrowed or contracted.
This is a picture of the social class whose destinies we are now considering, and which constitutes, it must be allowed, the great mass of mankind. The water which comes into the basin through the elastic239 orifice represents their remuneration, or the objects fitted to supply their wants and to sustain life. The flexibility of the sides of the basin represents the movement of population. It is certain92 that the means of existence overtake our population in a constantly increasing progression, but then it is equally certain that their numbers may increase in a still superior progression. The life of this class, then, will be more or less happy, more or less [p420] comfortable, according as the law of limitation, in its moral, intelligent, and preventive form, shall circumscribe151, to a greater or less extent, the absolute law of multiplication. There is a limit to the increase of the numbers of the working class. That limit is the point at which the progressive fund of remuneration becomes insufficient242 for their maintenance. But there is no limit to their possible amelioration, because of the two elements which constitute it, the one, wealth, is constantly increasing, and the other, population, is under their own control.
What we have just said with reference to the lowest social grade, the class of mere manual labourers, is applicable also to each of the superior grades, when classified in relation to one another, in an inverse proportion, so to speak, to the rudeness and materiality of their occupations. Taking each class simply by itself, all are subjected to the same general laws. In all there is a struggle between the physiological power of multiplication, and the moral power of limitation. The only respect in which one class differs from another is with reference to the point where these two forces meet, the height to which the limit between the two laws may be raised by remuneration or be fixed by the habits of the labourers—this limit we have denominated the means of existence.
But if we consider the various classes, no longer each by itself, but in their reciprocal relations, I think we can discern the influence of two principles acting241 in an inverse sense, and this without doubt is the explanation of the actual condition of mankind. We have shown how all the economic phenomena, and especially the law of competition, tend to an equality of conditions. Theoretically this appears to us incontestable. Seeing that no natural advantage, no ingenious process, none of the instruments by which such processes are made available, can remain permanently243 with producers, as such; and seeing that the results of such natural advantages or discoveries, by an irresistible244 law of Providence, tend to become the common, gratuitous, and, consequently, equal, patrimony of all men, it is evident that the poorest class is the one which derives245 the greatest relative profit from this admirable arrangement of the laws of the social economy. Just as the poor man is as liberally treated as the rich man with reference to the air he breathes, in the same way he becomes equal to the rich man, as regards all that portion of the value of commodities which progress is constantly annihilating246. Essentially, then, the human race has a very marked tendency towards equality. I do not speak of a tendency of aspiration247, but a tendency of realization248. And yet equality is not realized, or is realized so slowly, that in comparing two distant [p421] epochs we are scarcely sensible of the progress. Indeed we are so little sensible of it, that many able men deny it altogether, although in this they are certainly mistaken. Now, what is the cause which retards this fusion24 of classes on a common and progressive level?
In searching for the cause we need not, I think, look farther than the various degrees of foresight which each class exercises as regards the increase of population. The law of limitation, as has been already said, in as far as it is moral and preventive, we have under our own control. Man, as we have also said, is perfectible, and in proportion to his progress in improvement, he pays a more intelligent regard to this law. The superior classes, then, in proportion as they are more enlightened, are led to make greater exertions249, and submit to greater sacrifices, in order to maintain their respective numbers on a level with the means of existence which their position in society demands.
Were we sufficiently far advanced in statistics, we should probably have this theoretical deduction converted into certainty, and have it proved by fact that marriages are less hasty and precocious250 among the higher than among the lower classes of society. If it be so, it is easy to see that in the general market, to which all classes bring their respective services, and in which labour of every kind is the subject of exchange, unskilled labour will be supplied in greater abundance than skilled labour; and this explains the continuance of that inequality of conditions, which so many, and such powerful, causes of another kind tend constantly to efface251.
The theory which we have now briefly252 explained leads us to the practical conclusion that the best forms of philanthropy, the best social institutions, are those which, while acting in accordance with the Providential plan, as revealed to us by the social harmonies—I mean the plan of progressive equality—shall cause to descend among all ranks of society, and especially the lowest ranks, knowledge, discretion, morality, and foresight.
I say institutions, because, in fact, foresight results as much from the necessities of position as from resolutions purely253 intellectual. There are certain organizations of property, or, I should rather say, of industry, which are more favourable254 than others to what economists call a knowledge of the market, and, consequently, to foresight. It seems certain, for example, that métayage is much more efficacious than fermage93 (the latter necessitating255 [p422] the employment of day labourers) in interposing a preventive obstacle to the exuberance256 of population among the lower classes. A family of métayers is in a much more likely situation than a family of day-labourers to experience the inconveniences of hasty marriages and improvident multiplication.
I have also used the expression, “forms of philanthropy.” In fact, almsgiving may effect a local and present good, but its influence must be limited even where it is not prejudicial to the happiness of the labouring classes; for it does not develop, but, on the contrary, may paralyze, that virtue which is most fitted to elevate the condition of the labourer, namely, foresight. To disseminate257 sound ideas, and, above all, to induce those habits which mark a certain degree of self-respect, is the greatest and most permanent good which we can confer upon the lower orders.
The means of existence, we cannot too often repeat, do not constitute a fixed quantity; they depend upon the state of manners, of opinion, and of habits. Whatever rank a man holds in the social scale, he has as much repugnance258 to descend from the position to which he has been accustomed as can be felt by men of an inferior grade. Perhaps there is even greater suffering in the mind of the aristocrat259, the noble scions260 of whose house are lost among the bourgeoisie, than in that of the citizen whose sons become manual labourers, or in that of manual labourers whose children are reduced to pauperism261. The habit, then, of enjoying a certain amount of material prosperity and a certain rank in life, is the strongest stimulant262 to the exercise of foresight; and if the working classes shall once raise themselves to the possession of a higher amount of enjoyment71, and be unwilling263 again to descend in the social scale, then, in order to maintain themselves in that position, and preserve wages in keeping with their new habits, they must employ the infallible means of preventive limitation.
It is for this reason that I regard as one of the finest manifestations of philanthropy the resolution which appears to have been taken in England by many of the proprietors264 and manufacturers, to pull down cottages of mud and thatch265, and substitute for them brick houses, neat, spacious266, well lighted, well aired, and conveniently furnished. Were such a measure to become general, it [p423] would elevate the tone of the working classes. It would convert into real wants what are nowadays regarded as comparative luxuries; it would raise that limit which we have denominated the means of existence, and, by consequence, the standard of remuneration, from its present low rate. And why not? The lower orders in civilized267 countries are much above the lower orders among savages. They have raised themselves so far; and why should they not raise themselves still more?
We must not, however, deceive ourselves on this subject; progress can be but very slow, since to some extent it must be general. In certain parts of the world it might perhaps be realized rapidly if the people exercised no influence over each other; but this is not so. There is a great law of solidarity268 for the human race, in progress as well as in deterioration. If in England, for example, the condition of the working classes were sensibly improved, in consequence of a general rise of wages, French industry would have more chances of surpassing its rival, and by its advance would moderate the progressive movement manifested on the other side of the Channel. It would seem that, beyond certain limits, Providence has not designed that one people should rise above another. And thus, in the great aggregate of human society, as in its most minute details, we always find that admirable and inflexible forces tend to confer, in the long-run, on the masses, individual or collective advantages, and to bring back all temporary manifestations of superiority to a common level, which, like that of the ocean when the tide flows, is always equalizing itself and always advancing.
To conclude, perfectibility, which is the distinctive269 characteristic of man, being given, and the action of competition and the law of limitation being known, the fate of the human race, as regards its worldly destinies, may be thus summed up:—1st, Simultaneous elevation270 of all the social ranks, or of the general level of humanity; 2d, Indefinite approximation of conditions, and successive annihilation of the distances which separate classes, as far as consistent with absolute justice; 3d, Relative diminution of the numbers of the lowest and highest orders, and extension of intermediate classes. It may be said that these laws must lead to absolute equality. No more than the constant approximation of asymptotical lines can finally load to their junction271. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This chapter, the greater part of which was written in 1846, does not perhaps express with sufficient clearness the author’s opposition272 to the ideas of Malthus. [p424]
Bastiat explains here very clearly the unperceived and naturally preventive action of individual motive,—the progressive desire for happiness, the ambition of men to better their condition; and the habit which causes each to regard the competence273 he has gained as a necessity,—an inferior limit of the means of existence, below which no one would willingly see his family reduced. But this is in some measure the negative view of the law. It only shows that in every society founded upon the institutions of property and family, population ceases to be a danger.
It remains274 to be shown that population is in itself a force, and to prove the necessary increase of productive power which results from the density275 of population. This, as the author has himself said (p. 113), is the important element neglected by Malthus, and which discloses harmony, where Malthus discovered discordance276.
From the premises indicated in the chapter on Exchange, premises which he proposed to himself to develop in treating of population, the conclusion which Bastiat wished to draw was decidedly anti-Malthusian. We find it stated in one of the last notes which he wrote, and he recommends its being insisted on:—
“In the chapter on Exchange it has been demonstrated that, in a state of isolation277, man’s wants surpass his faculties278, and that, in the social state, his faculties surpass his wants.
“This excess of faculties over wants proceeds from exchange, which is—association of efforts—separation of occupations.
“Thence an action and a reaction of causes and effects, in a circle of progress which is infinite.
“The superiority of faculties over wants, creating for each generation an excess of wealth, permits it to rear a more numerous offspring. A generation more numerous implies a better and more marked separation of occupations, and a new degree of superiority given to faculties over wants.
“This exhibits an admirable harmony.
“Thus, at a given epoch, the general aggregate of wants being represented by 100, and that of faculties by 110, the excess of 10 is thus divided,—5, for example, goes to the amelioration of men’s condition, to the provoking of wants of a more elevated character, to the development of self-respect, etc.,—and 5 to the augmentation of their numbers.
“The wants of the second generation are 110,—namely, 5 more in quantity, and 5 more in quality.
“But for that very reason (for the double reason of the more complete physical, intellectual, and moral development, and of the greater density of population, which renders production more easy), the faculties have also increased in power. They will be represented, for example, by the figures 120 or 130.
“New excess, new division, etc.
“And let us not fear the trop plein. The elevation of wants, which is nothing else than the sentiment of dignity, is a natural limit. . . . .”
Editor.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
longing
|
|
| n.（for）渴望 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
vindicating
|
|
| v.澄清（某人/某事物）受到的责难或嫌疑( vindicate的现在分词 )；表明或证明（所争辩的事物）属实、正当、有效等；维护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
credible
|
|
| adj.可信任的，可靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
transparent
|
|
| adj.明显的，无疑的；透明的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
conscientious
|
|
| adj.审慎正直的，认真的，本着良心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
fixed
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
inquiries
|
|
| n.调查( inquiry的名词复数 )；疑问；探究；打听 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
providence
|
|
| n.深谋远虑，天道，天意；远见；节约；上帝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
logic
|
|
| n.逻辑(学)；逻辑性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
economist
|
|
| n.经济学家，经济专家，节俭的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
rendering
|
|
| n.表现，描写 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
homage
|
|
| n.尊敬，敬意，崇敬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
ardent
|
|
| adj.热情的，热烈的，强烈的，烈性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
mechanism
|
|
| n.机械装置；机构，结构 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
onward
|
|
| adj.向前的，前进的；adv.向前，前进，在先 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
contemplating
|
|
| 深思，细想，仔细考虑( contemplate的现在分词 )； 注视，凝视； 考虑接受（发生某事的可能性）； 深思熟虑，沉思，苦思冥想 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
melancholy
|
|
| n.忧郁，愁思；adj.令人感伤（沮丧）的，忧郁的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
animated
|
|
| adj.生气勃勃的，活跃的，愉快的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
fecundity
|
|
| n.生产力；丰富 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
prolific
|
|
| adj.丰富的，大量的；多产的，富有创造力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
multiplication
|
|
| n.增加，增多，倍增；增殖，繁殖；乘法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
profusion
|
|
| n.挥霍；丰富 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
fusion
|
|
| n.溶化；熔解；熔化状态，熔和；熔接 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
undoubtedly
|
|
| adv.确实地，无疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
precarious
|
|
| adj.不安定的，靠不住的；根据不足的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
maturity
|
|
| n.成熟；完成；(支票、债券等)到期 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
premature
|
|
| adj.比预期时间早的；不成熟的，仓促的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
prematurely
|
|
| adv.过早地，贸然地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
socialists
|
|
| 社会主义者( socialist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
prudence
|
|
| n.谨慎，精明，节俭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
foresight
|
|
| n.先见之明，深谋远虑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
endued
|
|
| v.授予，赋予（特性、才能等）( endue的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
premises
|
|
| n.建筑物，房屋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
chastisement
|
|
| n.惩罚 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
hideous
|
|
| adj.丑陋的，可憎的，可怕的，恐怖的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
pestilence
|
|
| n.瘟疫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
benevolence
|
|
| n.慈悲，捐助 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
expedients
|
|
| n.应急有效的，权宜之计的( expedient的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
dictated
|
|
| v.大声讲或读( dictate的过去式和过去分词 )；口授；支配；摆布 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
interpretations
|
|
| n.解释( interpretation的名词复数 )；表演；演绎；理解 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
condemn
|
|
| vt.谴责，指责；宣判(罪犯)，判刑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
celebrated
|
|
| adj.有名的，声誉卓著的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
converse
|
|
| vi.谈话，谈天，闲聊；adv.相反的，相反 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
consolatory
|
|
| adj.慰问的，可藉慰的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
physiology
|
|
| n.生理学，生理机能 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
afflicted
|
|
| 使受痛苦，折磨( afflict的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
physiologist
|
|
| n.生理学家 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
controvert
|
|
| v.否定；否认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
impiety
|
|
| n.不敬；不孝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
optimists
|
|
| n.乐观主义者( optimist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
virulence
|
|
| n.毒力，毒性；病毒性；致病力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
deliberately
|
|
| adv.审慎地；蓄意地；故意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
philosophical
|
|
| adj.哲学家的，哲学上的，达观的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
contraction
|
|
| n.缩略词，缩写式，害病 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
domain
|
|
| n.(活动等)领域，范围；领地，势力范围 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
emancipate
|
|
| v.解放，解除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
eluding
|
|
| v.（尤指机敏地）避开( elude的现在分词 )；逃避；躲避；使达不到 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
restriction
|
|
| n.限制，约束 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
aphorism
|
|
| n.格言，警语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
advancement
|
|
| n.前进，促进，提升 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
diffusion
|
|
| n.流布；普及；散漫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
postulates
|
|
| v.假定，假设( postulate的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
acquiesce
|
|
| vi.默许，顺从，同意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
prolix
|
|
| adj.罗嗦的；冗长的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
delusive
|
|
| adj.欺骗的，妄想的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
epoch
|
|
| n.(新)时代；历元 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
enjoyments
|
|
| 愉快( enjoyment的名词复数 )； 令人愉快的事物； 享有； 享受 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
enjoyment
|
|
| n.乐趣；享有；享用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
gratuitous
|
|
| adj.无偿的，免费的；无缘无故的，不必要的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
patrimony
|
|
| n.世袭财产，继承物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
injustice
|
|
| n.非正义，不公正，不公平，侵犯（别人的）权利 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
economists
|
|
| n.经济学家，经济专家( economist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
larcenies
|
|
| n.盗窃（罪）( larceny的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
77
isolated
|
|
| adj.与世隔绝的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
restrictions
|
|
| 约束( restriction的名词复数 )； 管制； 制约因素； 带限制性的条件（或规则） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
manifestations
|
|
| n.表示，显示（manifestation的复数形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
retards
|
|
| 使减速( retard的第三人称单数 )； 妨碍； 阻止； 推迟 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
vice
|
|
| n.坏事；恶习；[pl.]台钳，老虎钳；adj.副的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
exertion
|
|
| n.尽力，努力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
aggregate
|
|
| adj.总计的，集合的；n.总数；v.合计；集合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
engrossed
|
|
| adj.全神贯注的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
inverse
|
|
| adj.相反的，倒转的，反转的；n.相反之物；v.倒转 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
countless
|
|
| adj.无数的，多得不计其数的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
nourishment
|
|
| n.食物，营养品；营养情况 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
destitute
|
|
| adj.缺乏的；穷困的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
akin
|
|
| adj.同族的，类似的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
oysters
|
|
| 牡蛎( oyster的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
bestowed
|
|
| 赠给，授予( bestow的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
parsimony
|
|
| n.过度节俭，吝啬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
calf
|
|
| n.小牛，犊，幼仔，小牛皮 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
boundless
|
|
| adj.无限的；无边无际的；巨大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
extraneous
|
|
| adj.体外的；外来的；外部的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
faculty
|
|
| n.才能；学院，系；(学院或系的)全体教学人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
physically
|
|
| adj.物质上，体格上，身体上，按自然规律 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
physiological
|
|
| adj.生理学的，生理学上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
stationary
|
|
| adj.固定的，静止不动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
unlimited
|
|
| adj.无限的，不受控制的，无条件的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
deducting
|
|
| v.扣除，减去( deduct的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
contingent
|
|
| adj.视条件而定的；n.一组，代表团，分遣队 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
scourge
|
|
| n.灾难，祸害；v.蹂躏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
retarded
|
|
| a.智力迟钝的，智力发育迟缓的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
sustenance
|
|
| n.食物，粮食；生活资料；生计 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
antagonism
|
|
| n.对抗，敌对，对立 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
cultivation
|
|
| n.耕作，培养，栽培（法），养成 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
trifling
|
|
| adj.微不足道的；没什么价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
conclusive
|
|
| adj.最后的，结论的；确凿的，消除怀疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
alleges
|
|
| 断言，宣称，辩解( allege的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
allege
|
|
| vt.宣称，申述，主张，断言 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
inquiry
|
|
| n.打听，询问，调查，查问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
diminution
|
|
| n.减少；变小 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
repression
|
|
| n.镇压，抑制，抑压 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
imputation
|
|
| n.归罪，责难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
dealing
|
|
| n.经商方法，待人态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
latitude
|
|
| n.纬度，行动或言论的自由(范围)，(pl.)地区 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
superfluous
|
|
| adj.过多的，过剩的，多余的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
phenomena
|
|
| n.现象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
canine
|
|
| adj.犬的，犬科的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
cubs
|
|
| n.幼小的兽，不懂规矩的年轻人( cub的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
deduction
|
|
| n.减除，扣除，减除额；推论，推理，演绎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
frightful
|
|
| adj.可怕的；讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
statistical
|
|
| adj.统计的，统计学的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
census
|
|
| n.(官方的)人口调查，人口普查 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
strictly
|
|
| adv.严厉地，严格地；严密地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
territorial
|
|
| adj.领土的，领地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
equilibrium
|
|
| n.平衡，均衡，相称，均势，平静 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
declamation
|
|
| n. 雄辩，高调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
eloquence
|
|
| n.雄辩；口才，修辞 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
devoted
|
|
| adj.忠诚的，忠实的，热心的，献身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
derive
|
|
| v.取得；导出；引申；来自；源自；出自 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
vitality
|
|
| n.活力，生命力，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
stifled
|
|
| （使）窒息， （使）窒闷( stifle的过去式和过去分词 )； 镇压，遏制； 堵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
hardier
|
|
| 能吃苦耐劳的，坚强的( hardy的比较级 )； （植物等）耐寒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
devour
|
|
| v.吞没；贪婪地注视或谛听，贪读；使着迷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
havoc
|
|
| n.大破坏，浩劫，大混乱，大杂乱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
slaughter
|
|
| n.屠杀，屠宰；vt.屠杀，宰杀 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
lulled
|
|
| vt.使镇静，使安静（lull的过去式与过去分词形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
brute
|
|
| n.野兽，兽性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
inevitably
|
|
| adv.不可避免地；必然发生地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
inevitable
|
|
| adj.不可避免的，必然发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
intensity
|
|
| n.强烈，剧烈；强度；烈度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
accomplished
|
|
| adj.有才艺的；有造诣的；达到了的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
allied
|
|
| adj.协约国的；同盟国的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
circumscribed
|
|
| adj.[医]局限的：受限制或限于有限空间的v.在…周围划线( circumscribe的过去式和过去分词 )；划定…范围；限制；限定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
circumscribe
|
|
| v.在...周围划线，限制，约束 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
inadequate
|
|
| adj.(for,to)不充足的，不适当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
modesty
|
|
| n.谦逊，虚心，端庄，稳重，羞怯，朴素 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
intimidates
|
|
| n.恐吓，威胁( intimidate的名词复数 )v.恐吓，威胁( intimidate的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
enchants
|
|
| 使欣喜，使心醉( enchant的第三人称单数 )； 用魔法迷惑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
embellishes
|
|
| v.美化( embellish的第三人称单数 )；装饰；修饰；润色 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
stigmatizes
|
|
| v.使受耻辱，指责，污辱( stigmatize的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
158
transgression
|
|
| n.违背；犯规；罪过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
erring
|
|
| 做错事的，错误的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
succumbs
|
|
| 不再抵抗（诱惑、疾病、攻击等）( succumb的第三人称单数 )； 屈从； 被压垮； 死 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
rigid
|
|
| adj.严格的，死板的；刚硬的，僵硬的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
etiquette
|
|
| n.礼仪，礼节；规矩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
necessitate
|
|
| v.使成为必要，需要 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
intervention
|
|
| n.介入，干涉，干预 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
166
brutal
|
|
| adj.残忍的，野蛮的，不讲理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
167
indigence
|
|
| n.贫穷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
168
deducted
|
|
| v.扣除，减去( deduct的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
169
materialist
|
|
| n. 唯物主义者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
170
exalting
|
|
| a.令人激动的，令人喜悦的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
171
dominion
|
|
| n.统治，管辖，支配权；领土，版图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
172
exalted
|
|
| adj.(地位等)高的，崇高的；尊贵的，高尚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
173
repudiate
|
|
| v.拒绝，拒付，拒绝履行 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
174
eligible
|
|
| adj.有条件被选中的；(尤指婚姻等)合适(意)的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
175
improvident
|
|
| adj.不顾将来的，不节俭的，无远见的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
176
embody
|
|
| vt.具体表达，使具体化；包含，收录 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
177
inadequacy
|
|
| n.无法胜任，信心不足 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
178
replenish
|
|
| vt.补充；(把…)装满；(再)填满 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
179
subdue
|
|
| vt.制服，使顺从，征服；抑制，克制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
180
renounce
|
|
| v.放弃；拒绝承认，宣布与…断绝关系 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
181
chaste
|
|
| adj.贞洁的；有道德的；善良的；简朴的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
182
maternity
|
|
| n.母性，母道，妇产科病房；adj.孕妇的，母性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
183
sordid
|
|
| adj.肮脏的，不干净的，卑鄙的，暗淡的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
184
discretion
|
|
| n.谨慎；随意处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
185
celibacy
|
|
| n.独身(主义) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
186
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
187
generalization
|
|
| n.普遍性，一般性，概括 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
188
repudiates
|
|
| v.（正式地）否认( repudiate的第三人称单数 )；拒绝接受；拒绝与…往来；拒不履行（法律义务） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
189
serenity
|
|
| n.宁静，沉着，晴朗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
190
banished
|
|
| v.放逐，驱逐( banish的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
191
susceptible
|
|
| adj.过敏的，敏感的；易动感情的，易受感动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
192
deterioration
|
|
| n.退化；恶化；变坏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
193
descend
|
|
| vt./vi.传下来，下来，下降 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
194
civilisation
|
|
| n.文明，文化，开化，教化 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
195
repulsive
|
|
| adj.排斥的，使人反感的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
196
ascetic
|
|
| adj.禁欲的；严肃的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
197
formerly
|
|
| adv.从前，以前 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
198
lodging
|
|
| n.寄宿，住所；(大学生的)校外宿舍 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
199
appease
|
|
| v.安抚，缓和，平息，满足 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
200
savages
|
|
| 未开化的人，野蛮人( savage的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
201
paupers
|
|
| n.穷人( pauper的名词复数 )；贫民；贫穷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
202
aspires
|
|
| v.渴望，追求( aspire的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
203
shuns
|
|
| v.避开，回避，避免( shun的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
204
infinitely
|
|
| adv.无限地，无穷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
205
neutralize
|
|
| v.使失效、抵消，使中和 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
206
engender
|
|
| v.产生，引起 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
207
vouchsafed
|
|
| v.给予，赐予( vouchsafe的过去式和过去分词 )；允诺 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
208
disorder
|
|
| n.紊乱，混乱；骚动，骚乱；疾病，失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
209
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
210
descended
|
|
| a.为...后裔的，出身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
211
induction
|
|
| n.感应，感应现象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
212
scarcity
|
|
| n.缺乏，不足，萧条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
213
afflicting
|
|
| 痛苦的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
214
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
215
distressing
|
|
| a.使人痛苦的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
216
controversy
|
|
| n.争论，辩论，争吵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
217
misery
|
|
| n.痛苦，苦恼，苦难；悲惨的境遇，贫苦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
218
inflexible
|
|
| adj.不可改变的，不受影响的，不屈服的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
219
essentially
|
|
| adv.本质上，实质上，基本上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
220
recapitulate
|
|
| v.节述要旨，择要说明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
221
datum
|
|
| n.资料；数据；已知数 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
222
attained
|
|
| （通常经过努力）实现( attain的过去式和过去分词 )； 达到； 获得； 达到（某年龄、水平、状况） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
223
incapable
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能做某事的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
224
accurately
|
|
| adv.准确地，精确地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
225
algebra
|
|
| n.代数学 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
226
flexibility
|
|
| n.柔韧性，弹性，（光的）折射性，灵活性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
227
unison
|
|
| n.步调一致，行动一致 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
228
elucidates
|
|
| v.阐明，解释( elucidate的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
229
gratuitously
|
|
| 平白 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
230
divers
|
|
| adj.不同的；种种的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
231
esteem
|
|
| n.尊敬，尊重；vt.尊重，敬重；把…看作 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
232
stipulate
|
|
| vt.规定，（作为条件）讲定，保证 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
233
appreciation
|
|
| n.评价；欣赏；感谢；领会，理解；价格上涨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
234
compliance
|
|
| n.顺从；服从；附和；屈从 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
235
advantageous
|
|
| adj.有利的；有帮助的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
236
strata
|
|
| n.地层（复数）；社会阶层 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
237
onerous
|
|
| adj.繁重的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
238
elasticity
|
|
| n.弹性，伸缩力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
239
elastic
|
|
| n.橡皮圈，松紧带；adj.有弹性的；灵活的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
240
gratuitousness
|
|
| n.gratuitous（免费的，无偿的，无报酬的，不收酬劳的）的变形 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
241
acting
|
|
| n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
242
insufficient
|
|
| adj.(for，of)不足的，不够的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
243
permanently
|
|
| adv.永恒地，永久地，固定不变地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
244
irresistible
|
|
| adj.非常诱人的，无法拒绝的，无法抗拒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
245
derives
|
|
| v.得到( derive的第三人称单数 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
246
annihilating
|
|
| v.（彻底）消灭( annihilate的现在分词 )；使无效；废止；彻底击溃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
247
aspiration
|
|
| n.志向，志趣抱负；渴望；(语)送气音；吸出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
248
realization
|
|
| n.实现；认识到，深刻了解 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
249
exertions
|
|
| n.努力( exertion的名词复数 )；费力；（能力、权力等的）运用；行使 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
250
precocious
|
|
| adj.早熟的；较早显出的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
251
efface
|
|
| v.擦掉，抹去 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
252
briefly
|
|
| adv.简单地，简短地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
253
purely
|
|
| adv.纯粹地，完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
254
favourable
|
|
| adj.赞成的，称赞的，有利的，良好的，顺利的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
255
necessitating
|
|
| 使…成为必要，需要( necessitate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
256
exuberance
|
|
| n.丰富；繁荣 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
257
disseminate
|
|
| v.散布；传播 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
258
repugnance
|
|
| n.嫌恶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
259
aristocrat
|
|
| n.贵族，有贵族气派的人，上层人物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
260
scions
|
|
| n.接穗，幼枝( scion的名词复数 )；（尤指富家）子孙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
261
pauperism
|
|
| n.有被救济的资格，贫困 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
262
stimulant
|
|
| n.刺激物，兴奋剂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
263
unwilling
|
|
| adj.不情愿的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
264
proprietors
|
|
| n.所有人，业主( proprietor的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
265
thatch
|
|
| vt.用茅草覆盖…的顶部；n.茅草(屋) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
266
spacious
|
|
| adj.广阔的，宽敞的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
267
civilized
|
|
| a.有教养的，文雅的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
268
solidarity
|
|
| n.团结；休戚相关 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
269
distinctive
|
|
| adj.特别的，有特色的，与众不同的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
270
elevation
|
|
| n.高度；海拔；高地；上升；提高 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
271
junction
|
|
| n.连接，接合；交叉点，接合处，枢纽站 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
272
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
273
competence
|
|
| n.能力，胜任，称职 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
274
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
275
density
|
|
| n.密集，密度，浓度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
276
discordance
|
|
| n.不调和，不和，不一致性；不整合；假整合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
277
isolation
|
|
| n.隔离，孤立，分解，分离 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
278
faculties
|
|
| n.能力( faculty的名词复数 )；全体教职员；技巧；院 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |