Development of Science
Scientific Theories & Social Environment
March 16, 2026
Dr. Virinchi Virivinti
In the previous essay, we saw how, within the domain of biology itself, a gradual, internally coherent evolution of ideas over time ultimately matured into Darwin’s theory. In this essay, let us move a step further and examine whether scientific fields such as biology are, in any way, influenced by the socio-economic conditions or ideas of their respective periods.
This question becomes important because it is well known that, in the development of his theory of evolution, Darwin was significantly influenced by the writings of the economist Thomas Robert Malthus on population. Therefore, it is worth discussing whether the socio-economic factors of a given era influence individuals, thinkers, scientists, and even their scientific ideas. Historians of science like Robert M. Young have explained, from a materialistic conception of the history of science, that Darwin’s ideas are connected to the socio-economic competitive environment of Victorian Britain. Let us try to look at this perspective.
Thomas Robert Malthus (1766–1834) was a British political economist and also a pastor. In 1798, he wrote An Essay on the Principle of Population. In broad terms, his central argument was: “Population grows geometrically, whereas food resources grow slowly; therefore, competition for resources is inevitable.” Darwin read this book in 1838. The idea in Malthus—that competition for resources in society ensures that only the stronger survive—became, in a way, the inspiration for Darwin’s concept of natural selection. This naturally raises an important question: Do scientific ideas arise purely from observations of nature? Or are the language and metaphors through which they are expressed also shaped by the socio-economic environment of the time in which they emerge?
In the late 18th century, in Britain, Adam Smith, in his book The Wealth of Nations (1776), provided a theoretical framework for the emerging laissez-faire market economy. Industrialization was just beginning and demanded reduced government control and increased market freedom. Rural agrarian life gradually declined, giving way to small industries and increased urbanization. Migration from villages to cities increased. With the rapid growth of textile mills and small industries, the agrarian labor force transformed into an industrial working class. Traders and industrial capitalists entered the social structure. A sharp division emerged between wealthy industrial owners and poor laborers, leading to a significant rise in economic inequality. In response to these changes, Romantic poets turned back to nature. Poets like William Wordsworth and John Keats, sensing the loss of rural life and natural beauty, glorified nature in their poetry.
In this context, intense discussions were taking place among the intellectual class about productivity, markets, competition, poverty, population, and the distribution of resources. It was in this milieu that Malthus proposed his theory that population growth increases competition for resources. He believed that excessive government assistance to the poor would only lead to further population growth and worsen the problem. Therefore, he argued that poverty cannot be completely eliminated through state intervention. This view reflected the laissez-faire economic ideology of the time. Darwin, who read Malthus, extended this idea of competition into the biological world, developing it into the principle of natural selection, expressed as the “struggle for existence.”
However, it is important to note that although Darwin lived in this socio-economic environment, some historians have tended to equate his scientific ideas entirely with the economic values of laissez-faire capitalism. There are differing opinions on this matter. Personally, Darwin was a humanistic thinker. He strongly criticized slavery and emphasized that cooperation among humans also plays an important role in evolution. In this sense, as a biologist, he stood apart from the dominant economic values of his time. Therefore, taking all this into account, we can say that while the core principles of the theory developed within biology itself, the language and metaphors used to describe them were, to some extent, influenced by contemporary socio-economic thought. These parallels are not merely accidental; each era reinterprets science through its own ideological lens.
Furthermore, the subsequent developments and modifications in evolutionary theory also reflect the socio-economic environments of their times. For instance, Richard Dawkins’ concept of the Selfish Gene, which emphasizes the primacy of individual genes, has been interpreted by some as resembling the individual-centered competitive ethos of contemporary neoliberalism. Similarly, John Maynard Smith’s development of evolutionary game theory—focusing on strategies, cooperation, competition, and equilibrium among organisms—has been compared to market strategies and economic decision-making models of the modern era. The argument that “scientific theories do not arise in a vacuum” gains support from such observations.
However, a subtle question arises here: Is the influence of social conditions limited only to the language and metaphors of science, or does it extend to the scientific theories themselves? This is a complex issue. In this context, Stephen Jay Gould, who was ideologically closer to leftist and socialist perspectives, showed a tendency to explain evolution in terms of cooperation, randomness, and structural constraints. His strong criticism of Dawkins’ gene-centered view also lends support to the idea that socio-economic influences shape scientific interpretation. Hypothetically, if Darwin were alive today and proposed his theory of evolution, the core biological principles might remain the same, but the language used to describe them would likely be different. Therefore, these descriptions should be seen as windows through which we view social perspectives via science, rather than as criteria to judge the validity or morality of scientific research itself.
In Malthus’s agrarian era, humans were seen primarily as consumers of natural resources. Hence, population growth was perceived as a strain on resources. In the industrial age, humans came to be seen as labor power. Today, in a neoliberal economic order, humans are increasingly viewed as forces that expand markets. For the first time in history, the global population has exceeded seven billion. Interestingly, in this market-driven era, there is also a growing belief that larger populations can benefit markets—this is the idea of the “demographic dividend.”
For a long time, population was considered one of the main causes of poverty and underdevelopment in countries like India. But today, the perspective has shifted: if a country has a large working-age population (15–64 years), it gains sufficient labor force, expands markets, increases production, boosts consumption and savings, and attracts investment—thereby fostering economic growth. This is what is referred to as the demographic dividend.
In societies that develop and improve their living conditions, the dependent population—mainly children and the elderly—tends to decrease. This happens because fertility rates decline in developed societies. Factors such as delayed marriages, the choice to have fewer or no children, dual-income households, and the decline of joint family systems make raising many children more difficult. At the same time, improved healthcare increases the number of elderly people who are not dependent on others. This allows the working-age population to contribute more effectively. Such a situation is described as a demographic dividend phase.
Currently, India, with one of the largest youth populations in the world, is eager to reap these benefits. This phase is expected to continue until around 2050. After that, the current youth population will age, prompting considerations about increasing birth rates even now.
Countries like Japan, South Korea, and China, which are experiencing aging populations, are also focusing on increasing population growth based on market logic. China, which once enforced a strict “one-child policy,” is now reversing its stance and encouraging higher birth rates. In India, fertility rates are declining more rapidly in southern states compared to northern ones, leading to growing awareness in the south about the need to increase population.
The Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, N. Chandrababu Naidu, has also, based on this market logic, encouraged higher birth rates by offering incentives and additional benefits to those who have more children. This reflects how market logic influences population policies today. However, a crucial point must be noted: the demographic dividend does not depend merely on the size of the youth population, but on their skills. It is not just a population economy, but also a knowledge and skill economy.
Therefore, before assuming that increasing the youth population alone will automatically bring economic benefits, it is important to consider how skilled that population is. The Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) has warned that the proportion of skilled workers in India’s workforce is alarmingly low. While skilled labor constitutes about 80% in Japan, 68% in the UK, and 52% in the USA, in India it is only around 3–5%, which is far below the global average. This is a deeply concerning situation.
Rising unemployment, school dropouts, declining standards of higher education, increasing poverty, and the shrinking middle class—all these factors threaten to turn India’s anticipated demographic dividend into a heavy liability. Without immediate efforts to create employment, improve education quality, and enhance skill development, simply increasing population will not help; instead, as Malthus predicted, it will increase pressure on resources.
Before celebrating India’s large youth population as a strength surpassing China, there must be preparedness to address the inequalities and economic crises that may arise from an unskilled population. Otherwise, this trend could push society into greater danger. This is because neoliberal policies tend to reduce welfare and promote privatization of resources, thereby increasing economic inequality. In such a framework, population itself is never seen as a problem; the market defines both the problem and the solution. As unskilled population grows and private markets expand, inequalities may deepen and turn into social crises—this is a major concern among social thinkers.
In Malthus’s time, population was seen as a problem that strained resources and even served as a conceptual basis for evolutionary theory. But with the development of industrial and market-based societies, the same population has been reinterpreted as labor power, productive force, and a driver of market expansion. In other words, social theories that seek to understand the fundamental nature of human beings redefine the concept of “man” and population theories according to changing economic structures, production relations, and social needs. They also provide the vocabulary for scientific discourse.
Thus, the evolution of ideas from Malthus to the concept of demographic dividend represents a fascinating intellectual and scientific history. Science, economic systems, and social philosophy have been deeply intertwined in shaping our understanding of the world.
However, today, with the rise of artificial intelligence and machine capabilities that surpass human skills in precision, and as the demographic dividend transitions into a knowledge economy, an intriguing question remains: how will future economists and biologists redefine concepts like the “struggle for existence” and “survival of the fittest”? At present, this remains an open and unresolved question.
