To the student of the progress of the human race the consideration of
the state of public opinion regarding the Birth-rate of nations is of
great interest. To the careful observer there is evident the gradual
evolution of intelligent public opinion on this subject even in the
comparatively short space of time in which the present generation has
played its part on the great stage of human development.
Public opinion on this subject during the period named may be said to
have passed through three general stages. These stages are, of course,
more clearly defined among the peoples of the most prosperous and
intelligent countries, as for instance, in Western Europe and America,
and particularly in England, France, and the United States. While the
peoples of certain of these countries have passed through these stages
somewhat more rapidly than have others, still it is perceived that each
of these peoples have in the main followed the same general course.
The first stage of this evolution of popular opinion may be said to have
been begun about 1850, and to have ended about 1880. In this stage the
ideal of a large and rapidly increasing birth-rate became a popular
fetich before which all men and women were supposed to fall down and
render worship. In this period public opinion manifested great
satisfaction and joy in the evidences of a high and rapidly increasing
birth-rate. It was held that this increasing birth-rate tended toward
the success and glory of the particular nation, and incidentally to the
race as a whole. The idea of QUANTITY was elevated to the throne of
public favor, and the question of QUALITY was ignored or overlooked.
This period was one of an unusual expansion of industry, and the rising
birth-rate was regarded as a token that the world was destined to be
exploited and eventually governed by the people of those nations who
were able to demonstrate the greatest efficiency in industrial pursuits,
and who at the same time were wise enough to increase their respective
populations by an increasing birth-rate. The populace were excited by
the idea of the dominance and prosperity of their own countrymen, while
the leaders of industry were delighted with the idea of an increasing
supply of laborers which would tend to keep down the rate of wages which
otherwise would have reached proportions which would have interfered
with competition with other countries. At the same time, the militarists
were secretly delighted by the signs of an increasing supply of military
material with which to build up gigantic armies.
A writer on the state of public opinion on this subject during this
period has well said: "It seemed to the more exuberant spirits that a
vast British Empire, or a mighty Pan-German, might be expected to cover
the whole world. France, with its low and falling birth-rate, was looked
down at with a contempt as a decadent country inhabited with a
degenerate population. No attempt to analyze the birth-rate, to
ascertain what are really the biological, social, and economic
accompaniments of a high birth-rate, made any impression on the popular
mind. They were drowned in a general shout of exultation."
But this period of uncritical optimism was followed by a natural
reaction. The pendulum stopped in its course, and soon began to swing in
the opposite direction. Here, about 1880, the second stage may be said
to have begun. Public opinion began to manifest a subtle change, and
this mental attitude was accompanied by a physical manifestation in the
form of a decreasing birth-rate. The rate of births began to fall
rapidly, and has continued to fall steadily since that time.
The writer above quoted from says of this second period: "In France the
birth-rate fell slowly, in Italy more rapidly, and in England and
Prussia still more rapidly. As, however, the fall began earliest in
France, the birth-rate was lower there than in the other countries
named. For the same reason it was lower in England than in Prussia,
although England stands in this respect at almost exactly the same
distance from Prussia today (1917) as thirty years ago, the fall having
occurred at the same rate in both countries. It is quite possible that
in the future it may become more rapid in Prussia than in England, for
the birth-rate of Berlin is lower than the birth-rate of London, and
urbanization is proceeding at a more rapid rate in Germany than in
England."
It is not difficult to arrive at the psychological reason underlying
this great change in public opinion, as manifested in this second stage.
In the first place, the wonderful era of world-expansion was arrested,
by natural causes well understood by students of sociology. The
ambitious dreams of world-empires were rudely interrupted. Moreover,
public opinion was being affected by a quiet education along the lines
of sociology and economics.
The working classes began to perceive, on the one hand, the tendency of
overpopulation to hold down, or even decrease, the scale of wages. The
evils of over-production, and of under-consumption were dimly perceived.
And, on the other hand, the capitalists began to perceive that another
factor was at work--one which they had failed to include in their
optimistic calculations. Instead of the cheaper wage rate which they had
expected by reason of the over-abundance of human material, they found
that the growth of popular education in the democratic countries had
caused the working classes to demand greater comforts of life, and to
oppose the cheapening of human labor. And at the same time, the masses
began to revolt against the idea of raising children to become "cannon
fodder" for ambitious autocratic rulers. The masses began to protest
against selling their labor and their lives so cheaply.
These changed viewpoints of the working classes began to result in
attempts on their part to form associations to resist the tendency on
the part of capitalists to force down the scale of wages to fit the
increased population. Trade unions flourished and became powerful, and
the same impulse carried many into the ranks of socialism, and still
beyond into the fold of anarchism and syndicalism. And, here note this
significant fact, with these new perceptions and these new movements
among the masses, THE BIRTH-RATE BEGAN TO FALL RAPIDLY.
The writer above quoted from says of this period: "The pessimists were
faced by horrors on both sides. On the one hand, they saw that the
ever-increasing rate of human production which seemed to them the
essential condition of national, social, even moral progress, had not
only stopped but was steadily diminishing. On the other hand, they saw
that, even so far as it was maintained, it involved, under modern
conditions, nothing but social commotion and economic disturbance. There
are still many pessimists of this class alive among us even today, alike
in England and Germany, but a new generation is growing up, and this
question is now entering another phase."
It would seem that the race is now well started in the third period,
phase, or stage of this conception of the birth-rate. Even the Great War
is not likely to seriously interrupt its ultimate progress, though
conditions in all civilized countries will unquestionably be disturbed
by the unusual conditions now prevailing and caused by the great
conflict. The spirit of this third stage seems to be that the Truth is
to be found between the two extremes, viz.: (1) the extreme of passive
optimism of the first stage; and (2) the extreme of passive pessimism of
the second stage. It realizes that there is excellent ground for hope in
better things; but it equally realizes that hope alone is vain, and will
accomplish nothing unless it is accompanied with and directed by a clear
intellectual vision manifested in individual and social action based on
that clear intellectual vision.
The writer above quoted from says of this developing period: "It is
today beginning to be seen that the old notion of progress by means of
reckless multiplication is vain. It can only be effected at a ruinous
cost of death, disease, poverty, and misery. We see this in the past
history of Western Europe, as we still see it in the history of Russia.
Any progress effected along that line--if 'progress' it can be
called--is now barred, for it is utterly opposed to those democratic
conceptions which are ever gaining greater influence among us. Moreover,
we are now better able to analyze demographic phenomena, and are no
longer satisfied with any crude statements regarding the birth-rate. We
realize that they need interpretation. They have to be considered in
relation to the sex-constitution and the age-constitution of the
population, and ABOVE ALL, THEY MUST BE VIEWED IN RELATION TO THE INFANT
MORTALITY RATE.
"The bad aspect of the French birth-rate is not so much its lowness as
that it is accompanied by a high infantile mortality. The fact that the
German birth-rate is higher than the English ceases to be a matter of
satisfaction when it is realized that German infantile mortality is
vastly greater than English. A HIGH BIRTH-RATE IS NO SIGN OF A HIGH
CIVILIZATION. BUT WE ARE BEGINNING TO FEEL THAT A HIGH INFANTILE
DEATH-RATE IS A SIGN OF A VERY INFERIOR CIVILIZATION. A LOW BIRTH-RATE
WITH A LOW INFANT DEATH-RATE NOT ONLY PRODUCES THE SAME INCREASE IN
POPULATION AS A HIGH BIRTH-RATE WITH A HIGH DEATH-RATE, WHICH ALWAYS
ACCOMPANIES IT (FOR THERE ARE NO EXAMPLES OF A HIGH BIRTH-RATE WITH A
LOW DEATH-RATE), BUT IT PRODUCES IT IN A WAY WHICH IS FAR MORE WORTHY OF
OUR ADMIRATION IN THIS MATTER THAN THE WAY OF RUSSIA AND CHINA WHERE
OPPOSITE CONDITIONS PREVAIL."
The evolutionary process which all students of sociology clearly
perceive to have been underway in the matter of the attitude of public
opinion toward the birth-rate, and which is now underway with increased
impetus, is perceived to be a natural process. It is a natural process
which has been underway from the beginning of the living world. For a
long time it operated and manifested along unconscious and instinctive
lines of activity, but now it has emerged into the light of human
consciousness and manifests along the lines of conscious, voluntary, and
deliberate human action.
In its present state of evolutionary progress human thought along these
lines has found expression in what is generally known as "Birth
Control." The process which has been working slowly through the ages,
attaining every new forward step with waste and pain, is henceforth
destined to be carried out voluntarily, in the light of human reason,
foresight, and self-restraint. The rise of Birth Control may be said to
correspond with the rise of social and sanitary science in the first
half of the nineteenth century, and to be indeed an essential part of
that movement.
The new doctrine of Birth Control is now firmly established in all the
most progressive and enlightened countries of Europe, notably in France
and England; in Germany, where formerly the birth-rate was very high,
Birth Control has developed with extraordinary rapidity during the
present century. In Holland its principles and practice are freely
taught by physicians and nurses to the mothers of the people, with the
result that there is in Holland no longer any necessity for unwanted
babies, and this small country possesses the proud privilege of the
lowest death-rate in Europe.
In the free and enlightened Democratic communities on the other side of
the globe, in Australia and New Zealand, the same principles and
practice are generally accepted, with the same beneficent results. On
the other hand, in the more backward and ignorant countries of Europe,
Birth Control is still little known, and death and disease flourish.
This is the case in those eight European countries which come at the
bottom of the list of the Birth Control scale, and in which the
birth-rate is the highest and the death-rate the heaviest--the two rates
maintaining such a constant correspondence as to lead to the inevitable
conclusion that they are associated as cause and effect.
But even in the more progressive countries Birth Control has not been
established without a struggle, which has frequently ended in a
hypocritical compromise, its principles being publicly ignored or denied
and its practice privately accepted. For, at the great and vitally
important point in human progress which Birth-Control represents, we see
really the conflict of two moralities. The morality of the ancient world
is here confronted by the morality of the new world.
The old morality, knowing nothing of science and the process of Nature
as worked out in the evolution of life, contented itself with assuming
as a basis the early chapters of Genesis in which the children of Noah
are represented as entering an empty earth which it is their business
to populate diligently. So it came about that for this morality, still
innocent of eugenics, recklessness was almost a virtue. Children were
held to be given by God; if they died or were afflicted by congenital
disease, it was the dispensation of God, and, whatever imprudence the
parents might commit, the pathetic faith still ruled that "God will
provide."
But in the new morality it is realized that in these matters Divine
action can only be made manifest in human action, that is to say through
the operation of our own enlightened reason and resolved will. Prudence,
foresight, self-restraint--virtues which old morality looked down upon
with benevolent contempt--assume a position of first importance. In the
eyes of the new morality the ideal woman is no longer the meek drudge
condemned to endless and often ineffectual child-bearing, but the free
and instructed woman, able to look before and after, trained in a sense
of responsibility alike to herself and to the race, and determined to
have no children but the best.
Such were the two moralities which came into conflict during the
nineteenth century. They are irreconcilable and each firmly rooted, one
in ancient religion and tradition, the other in progressive science and
reason. Nothing was possible in such a clash of opposing ideas but a
feeble and confused compromise such as we find still prevailing in
various countries of Old Europe. This is not a satisfactory solution,
however inevitable, and is especially unsatisfactory by the consequent
obscurantism which placed difficulties in the way of spreading a
knowledge of the methods of Birth Control among the masses of the
population. For the result has been that while the more enlightened and
educated have exercised a control over the size of their families, the
poorer and more ignorant--those who should have been offered every
facility and encouragement to follow in the same path--have been left,
through a conspiracy of silence, to carry on helplessly the bad customs
of their forefathers. This social neglect has had the result that the
superior family stocks have been tampered by the recklessness of the
inferior stocks.
In America, we find the two moralities in active conflict today. Until
recently America has meekly accepted at the hand of Old Europe the
traditional prescription. On the surface, the ancient morality had been
complacently, almost unquestionably, accepted in America, even to the
extent of tacitly permitting the existence of a vast extension of
abortion, under the surface of society--a criminal practice which ever
flourishes where Birth Control is neglected.
But today, a new movement is perceptible in America. It would seem that,
almost in a flash, America has awakened to the true significance of the
issue. With that direct vision of hers, that swift practicality of
action, and above all, that sense of the democratic nature of all social
progress, we see her resolutely beginning to face this great problem. In
her vigorous tongue she is demanding "What is all this secrecy about,
anyway? Let us turn on the Light!" And the best authorities agree that
America's answer to the demand will be of the greatest importance, and
of immense significance to the whole world.
In concluding this portion of our discussion, I ask my readers to
consider the following quotations from writers who have touched upon the
question of the stimulation of the birth-rate by the State, for the
purpose of military policy. These quotations speak for themselves, and
need but little comment.
The first authority, a German, whose name has escaped me for the moment,
laments the falling birth-rate in his country, and urges his own nation
to stimulate it by offering bounties; he says: "Woe to us if we follow
the example of the wicked and degenerate people of other nations. Our
nation needs men. We have to populate the earth, and to carry the
blessings of our Kultur all over the world. In executing that high
mission we cannot have too much human material in defending ourselves
against the aggression of other nations who are jealous of us and our
achievements and progress. Let us promote parentage by law; let us
repress by law every influence which may encourage a falling birth-rate;
otherwise there is nothing left us but speedy national disaster,
complete and irremediable."
Havelock Ellis, an Englishman, says: "In Germany for years past it has
been difficult to take up a serious periodical without finding some
anxiously statistical article about the falling birth-rate, and some
wild recommendations for its arrest. For it is the militaristic German
who of all Europeans is most worried by this fall; indeed Germans often
even refuse to recognize it. Thus today we find Professor Gruber
declaring that if the population of the German Empire continues to grow
at the rate of the first five years of the present century, it will have
reached 250,000,000 at the end of the century. By such a vast increase
in population, the Professor complacently concludes, 'Germany will be
rendered invulnerable.' But Gruber's estimate is entirely fallacious.
German births have fallen, roughly speaking, about 1 per 1,000 of the
population, every year since the beginning of the century, and it would
be equally reasonable to estimate that if they continue to fall at the
present rate (which we cannot, of course, anticipate) births will
altogether have ceased in Germany before the end of the century. The
German birth-rate reached its climax forty years ago (1871-1880) with
40.7 per 1,000; in 1906 it was 34 per 1,000; in 1909 it was 31 per
1,000; in 1912 it was 28 per 1,000; in an almost measurable period of
time, in all probability before the end of the century, it will have
reached the same low level as that of France, when there will be but
little difference between the 'invulnerability' of France and of
Germany, a consummation which, for the world's sake, is far more
devoutly to be wished than that anticipated by Gruber."
Writers of Teutonic sympathies have asserted that the aggressive
attitude of Germany at the beginning of the Great War was to be
legitimately explained and apologized for on the ground that the War was
the inevitable expansive outcome of the abnormally high birth-rate of
Germany in recent times. Dr. Dernburg, the German statesman, said not
very long ago: "The expansion of the German nation has been so
extraordinary during the past twenty-five years that the conditions
existing before the war had become insupportable." Another writer has
said: "Of later years there has arisen a movement among German women for
bringing abortion into honor and repute, so that it may be carried out
openly and with the aid of the best physicians. This movement has been
supported by lawyers and social reformers of high position."
Thus, it would seem that a birth-rate stimulated by unusual
circumstances or by deliberate State encouragement, seemingly draws upon
it the operation of natural laws which tend to increase its death-rate
by War, as well as by an increased number of abortions, and an increased
death-rate. It would seem as natural laws operate to bring down the
population to normal by war if the other factors do not operate
sufficiently rapidly and efficiently.
Havelock Ellis makes the following interesting statement: "If we survey
the belligerent nations in the war we may say that those who took the
initiative in drawing it on, or at all events were most prepared to
welcome it, were Germany, Austria, Serbia, and Russia--all nations with
a high birth-rate, and in which the fall of the birth-rate has not yet
had time to permeate. On the other hand, of the belligerent peoples of
today, all indications point to the French as the people most
intolerant, silently but deeply, of the war they are so ably and
heroically waging. Yet the France of the present, with the lowest
birth-rate, was a century ago the France of a birth-rate higher than
that of Germany today, and at that time the most militarist and
aggressive of nations, a perpetual menace to Europe."
Finally, let us quote Havelock Ellis once more; he says: "When we
realize these facts we are also enabled to realize how futile, how
misplaced and how mischievous it is to raise the cry of 'Race Suicide.'
It is futile because no outcry can affect a world-wide movement of
civilization. It is misplaced because the rise and fall of the
population is not a matter of birth-rate alone, but of the birth-rate
combined with the death-rate, and while we cannot expect to touch the
former we can influence the latter. It is mischievous because by
fighting against a tendency which is not only inevitable but altogether
beneficial, we blind ourselves to the advance of civilization and risk
the misdirection of our energies. How far this blindness may be carried
we see in the false patriotism of those who in the decline of the
birth-rate, fancy they see the ruin of their own particular country,
oblivious of the fact that we are concerned with a phenomenon of
world-wide extension. The whole tendency of civilization is to reduce
the birth-rate. We may go further, and assert with the distinguished
German economist, Roscher, that the chief cause of the superiority of a
highly civilized state over lower stages of civilization is precisely a
greater degree of forethought and self-control in marriage and
child-bearing. Instead of talking about Race Suicide, we should do well
to observe at what an appalling rate, even yet, the population is
increasing; and we should note that it is everywhere the poorest and
most primitive countries, and in every country (as in Germany) the
poorest regions, which show the highest birth-rate."
The same authority says: "One last resort the would-be patriotic
alarmist seeks when all others fail. He is good enough to admit that a
general decline in the birth-rate might be beneficial. But, he points
out, it affects social classes unequally. It is initiated, not by the
degenerate and unfit, with whom we could well dispense, but by the very
best classes in the community, the well-to-do and the educated. One is
inclined to remark, at once, that a social change initiated by its best
social class is scarcely likely to be pernicious. Where, it may be
asked, if not among the most educated classes, is any process of
amelioration to be initiated? We cannot make the world topsy-turvy to
suit the convenience of topsy-turvy minds. All social movements tend to
begin at the top and to permeate downwards. This has been the case with
the decline of the birth-rate, but it is already well marked among the
working classes, and has only failed to touch the lowest stratum of all,
too weak-minded and too reckless to be amenable to ordinary social
motives. The rational method of meeting this situation is not a
propaganda in favor of procreation--a truly imbecile propaganda, since
it is only carried out and only likely to be carried out, by the very
class which we wish to sterilize--but rather by a wise policy of
regulative eugenics. We have to create the motives, and it is not an
impossible task, which will act even upon the weak-minded and reckless
lowest social stratum."