But to make the argument more general and less interrupted by the partial views of emigration, let us take the whole earth, instead of one spot, and suppose that the restraints to population were universally removed.  If the subsistence for man that the earth affords was to be increased every twenty-five years by a quantity equal to what the whole world at present produces, this would allow the power of production in the earth to be absolutely unlimited, and its ratio of increase much greater than we can conceive that any possible exertions of mankind could make it.

Taking the population of the world at any number, a thousand millions, for instance, the human species would increase in the ratio of—­1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, etc. and subsistence as—­1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc.  In two centuries and a quarter, the population would be to the means of subsistence as 512 to 10:  in three centuries as 4096 to 13, and in two thousand years the difference would be almost incalculable, though the produce in that time would have increased to an immense extent.

No limits whatever are placed to the productions of the earth; they may increase for ever and be greater than any assignable quantity, yet still the power of population being a power of a superior order, the increase of the human species can only be kept commensurate to the increase of the means of subsistence by the constant operation of the strong law of necessity acting as a check upon the greater power.

The effects of this check remain now to be considered.

Among plants and animals the view of the subject is simple.  They are all impelled by a powerful instinct to the increase of their species, and this instinct is interrupted by no reasoning or doubts about providing for their offspring.  Wherever therefore there is liberty, the power of increase is exerted, and the superabundant effects are repressed afterwards by want of room and nourishment, which is common to animals and plants, and among animals by becoming the prey of others.

The effects of this check on man are more complicated.  Impelled to the increase of his species by an equally powerful instinct, reason interrupts his career and asks him whether he may not bring beings into the world for whom he cannot provide the means of subsistence.  In a state of equality, this would be the simple question.  In the present state of society, other considerations occur.  Will he not lower his rank in life?  Will he not subject himself to greater difficulties than he at present feels?  Will he not be obliged to labour harder? and if he has a large family, will his utmost exertions enable him to support them?  May he not see his offspring in rags and misery, and clamouring for bread that he cannot give them?  And may he not be reduced to the grating necessity of forfeiting his independence, and of being obliged to the sparing hand of charity for support?