I left the link in place so that those who wish to check what I am saying will be able to look at it for themselves.

Rate of Increase.- Civilised populations have been known under favourable conditions, as in the United States, to double their numbers in twenty-five years; and, according to a calculation, by Euler, this might occur in a little over twelve years.* At the former rate, the present population of the United States (thirty millions), would in 657 years cover the whole terraqueous globe so thickly, that four men would have to stand on each square yard of surface. The primary or fundamental check to the continued increase of man is the difficulty of gaining subsistence, and of living in comfort. We may infer that this is the case from what we see, for instance, in the United States, where subsistence is easy, and there is plenty of room. If such means were suddenly doubled in Great Britain, our number would be quickly doubled. With civilised nations this primary check acts chiefly by restraining marriages. The greater death-rate of infants in the poorest classes is also very important; as well as the greater mortality, from various diseases, of the inhabitants of crowded and miserable houses, at all ages. The effects of severe epidemics and wars are soon counterbalanced, and more than counterbalanced, in nations placed under favourable conditions. Emigration also comes in aid as a temporary check, but, with the extremely poor classes, not to any great extent.

* See the ever memorable Essay on the Principle of Population, by the Rev. T. Malthus, vol. i. 1826. pp. 6, 517.

There is great reason to suspect, as Malthus has remarked, that the reproductive power is actually less in barbarous, than in civilised races. We know nothing positively on this head, for with savages no census has been taken; but from the concurrent testimony of missionaries, and of others who have long resided with such people, it appears that their families are usually small, and large ones rare. This may be partly accounted for, as it is believed, by the women suckling their infants during a long time; but it is highly probable that savages, who often suffer much hardships, and who do not obtain so much nutritious food as civilised men, would be actually less prolific. I have shewn in a former work,* that all our domesticated quadrupeds and birds, and all our cultivated plants, are more fertile than the corresponding species in a state of nature. It is no valid objection to this conclusion that animals suddenly supplied with an excess of food, or when grown very fat; and that most plants on sudden removal from very poor to very rich soil, are rendered more or less sterile. We might, therefore, expect that civilised men, who in one sense are highly domesticated, would be more prolific than wild men. It is also probable that the increased fertility of civilised nations would become, as with our domestic animals, an inherited character: it is at least known that with mankind a tendency to produce twins runs in families.*(2)

The quote that you used is describing practices of previous civilizations and some civilizations of his time. He was definitely NOT putting it forth as admirable. In fact he later writes that this practice is "perverted". Now, why would he call it perverted if he was advocating the practice.

Not only did you malign Darwin with your quotemine but you did it is such a transparent manner as to assure it would be uncovered by anyone with the ability to read. At this point I can't determine if you are so deluded that you were blind to the context of your quote, you are so ignorant of the English language that you didn't understand the context, or you are so sure you have fooled the laypeople here that you took your foolishness to a new low.

You have no problem producing obvious falsehoods to support your lame attacks at the theory of evolution and to insult and demean anyone who believes the theory is correct. You purposely misrepresent the posts of others. You delight in putting people down. You present youself as an authority in subject areas that you, quite obviously, know little about.