The 2nd Malthus debunking article that David Levy and I have written for Econlib went online this week. Malthus may be the most maligned and misunderstood of all economists. All too many people think there's no difference between T. R. Malthus and Charles Darwin, mistakenly thinking Malthus doomed mankind to a life of poverty and misery. We disagree: Malthus argued that people were able to foresee the consequences of their actions and, accordingly, would limit family size if they were left alone to do so.
You can read the article here. Here's how it's described at the Econlib site:
The dramatic episode that clarified the difference between classical political economy and Darwin's biology began on June 18, 1877, with the trial of two prominent neo-Malthusians, Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant, for the crime of publishing an 'obscene' book, a practical guide to contraception by the American physician, John Knowlton, Fruits of Philosophy. Read abotu this fascinating historical moment, featuring the towering ideas of Malthus,Mill, Darwin, freedom of the press, and more.