THE POPULATION QUESTION.
_The Teaching of Aristotle and Plato.--The teaching of Malthus.--His
assailants.--Their illogical position.--Bonar on Malthus and his
work.--The increase of food supplies held by Nitti to refute
Malthus.--The increase of food and the decrease of births.--Mr.
Spencer's biological theory.--Maximum birth-rate determined by female
capacity to bear children.--The pessimism of Spencer's law.--Wider
definition of moral restraint.--Where Malthus failed to anticipate the
future.--Economic law operative only through Biological law._
Births, deaths, and migration are the factors which make up the
population question.
The problem has burned in the minds of all great students of human life
and its conditions.
Aristotle says (Politics ii. 7-5) "The legislator who fixes the amount
of property should also fix the number of children, for if they are too
many for the property, the law must be broken." And he proceeds to
advise (ib. vii. 16-15) "As to the exposure and rearing of children, let
there be a law that no deformed child shall live, but where there are
too many (for in our State population has a limit) when couples have
children in excess and the state of feeling is adverse to the exposure
of offspring, let abortion be procured."
The difficulty of over-population was conspicuous in the minds of
Aristotle and Plato, and these philosophers both held that the State had
a right and a duty to control it.
But some States were almost annihilated because they were not
sufficiently populous, and Aristotle attributes the defeat of Sparta on
one celebrated occasion to this fact. He says:--"The legislators wanting
to have as many Spartans as they could, encouraged the citizens to have
large families, and there is a law at Sparta, that the father of three
sons should be exempt from military service, and he who has four, from
all the burdens of the State. Yet it is obvious that if there were many
children, the land being distributed as it is, many of these must
necessarily fall into poverty."
The problem in the mind of the Greek philosophers was this.
Over-population is a cause of poverty; under-population is a cause of
weakness. Defectives are an additional burden to the State. How shall
population be so regulated as to established an equilibrium between the
stability of the State, and the highest well-being of the citizens?
The combined philosophy of the Greeks counselled the encouragement of
the best citizens to increase their kind, and the practice of the
exposure of infants and abortion.
A century of debate has raged round the name of Malthus, the great
modern analyst of the population problem. He published his first essay
on population in 1798, a modest pamphlet, which fed so voraciously on
the criticism supplied to it, that it developed into a mighty
contribution to a great social problem, second only in time and in
honour to the work of his great predecessor in economic studies, Adam
Smith.
Malthus's first essay defined and described the laws of multiplication
as they apply only to the lower animals and savage man. It was only in
his revised work, published five years later, that he described moral
restraint as a third check to population.
Adverse criticism had been bitter and severe, and Malthus saw that his
first work had been premature. He went to the continent to study the
problem from personal observation in different countries. He profited by
his observation, and by the writings of his critics, and published his
matured work in 1803.
The distinguishing feature about this edition was the addition of moral
restraint as a check, to the two already described, vice and misery.
Malthus maintained that population has the power of doubling itself
every 25 years. Not that it _does_ so, or _had done_ so, or _will do
so_, but that it is _capable_ of doing so, and he instanced the American
Colonies to prove this statement.
One would scarcely think it was necessary to enforce this distinction,
between what population has done, or is doing, and what it is capable
of doing. But when social writers, like Francesco Nitti (Population and
the Social System, p. 90), urge as an argument against Malthus's
position that, if his principles were true, a population of 176,000,000
in the year 1800 would have required a population of only one in the
time of our Saviour, it is necessary to insist upon the difference
between _increase_ and the _power of increase_.
One specific instance of this doubling process is sufficient to prove
the _power of increase_ possessed by a community, and the instance of
the American Colonies, cited by Malthus, has never been denied.
A doubling of population in 25 years was thus looked upon by Malthus as
the normal increase, under the most favourable conditions; but the
checks to increase, vice, misery, and moral restraint are operative in
varying degrees of intensity in civilized communities, and these may
limit the doubling to once in 50, or once in 100 years, stop it
altogether, or even sweep a nation from the face of the earth.
The natural increase among the lower animals is limited by misery only,
in savage man by vice and misery only, and in civilized man by misery,
vice, and moral restraint.
Misery is caused by poverty, or the need of food or clothing, and is
thus proportionate to the means of subsistence. As the means of
subsistence are abundant, misery will be less, the death-rate lower,
and _caeteris paribus_ the birth-rate higher. The increase will be
directly proportional to the means of subsistence.
Vice as a check to increase, is common to civilized and savage man, and
limits population by artificial checks to conception, abortion,
infanticide, disease, and war. The third check, moral restraint, is
peculiar to civilized man, and in the writings of Malthus, consists in
restraint from marriage or simply delayed marriage.
Bonar says (Malthus and his Work, p. 53), "Moral restraint in the pages
of Malthus, simply means continence which is abstinence from marriage
followed by no irregularities."
These checks have their origin in a need for, and scarcity of
food,--food comprising all those conditions necessary to healthy life.
The need of food is vital and permanent. The desire for food, immediate
and prospective, is the first motive of all animal activity, but the
amount of food available in the world is limited, and the possible
increase of food is estimated by Malthus at an arithmetical ratio.
Whether or not this is an accurate estimate of the ratio of food
increase is immaterial. Malthus's famous progressions, the geometrical
ratio of increase in the case of animals, and the arithmetical ratio of
increase in the case of food, contain the vital and irrefutable truth of
the immense disproportion between the power of reproduction in man and
the power of production in food.
Under the normal conditions of life, the population tends constantly to
press upon, and is restrained by the limits of food. The true
significance of the word _tends_ must not be overlooked, or a similar
fallacy to that of Nitti's will occur, when he overlooked the
significance of the term "power to multiply." It is perfectly true to
say, that population _tends_ to press upon the limits of subsistence,
and unrestrained by moral means or man's reason actually does so.
Some social writers appear to think that, if they can show that
production has far outstripped population, that, in other words,
population for the last fifty years at least has _not_ pressed upon the
limits of food, Malthus by that fact is refuted.
Nitti says (Population and the Social System, p. 91), "But now that
statistics have made such great progress, and the comparison between the
population and the means of subsistence in a fixed period of time is no
longer based upon hypothesis, but upon concrete and certain data in a
science of observation it is no longer possible to give the name of law
to a theory like that of Malthus, which is a complete disagreement with
facts. As our century has been free from the wars, pestilences and
famines which have afflicted other ages, population has increased as it
never did before, and, nevertheless, the production of the means of
subsistence has far exceeded the increase of men."
And later on (p. 114) he says "Malthus's law explains nothing just as it
comprehends nothing. Bound by rigid formulas which are belied by history
and demography, it is incapable of explaining not only the mystery of
poverty, but the alternate reverses of human civilization."
Nitti's conclusions are based largely on the fact that while food
supplies have become abundant and cheap, birth-rates have steadily and
persistently declined.
No-one who has studied the economic and vital statistics of the last
half century can fail to be impressed with the change that has come over
the relative ratios of increase in population and food.
Bonar says (Malthus and his Work, p. 165), "The industrial progress of
the country (France) has been very great. Fifty years ago, the
production of wheat was only half of what it is to-day, of meat less
than half. In almost every crop, and every kind of food, France is
richer now than then, in the proportion of 2 to 1. In all the
conveniences of life (if food be the necessaries) the increased supply
is as 4 to 1, while foreign trade has become as 6 to 1."
In a remarkable table prepared by Mr. F.W. Galton, and quoted by Mr.
Sydney Webb in "Industrial Democracy," it is clearly shown, that, while
the birth-rate and food-rate (defined as the amount of wheat in Imperial
quarters, purchased with a full week's wages) gradually increased along
parallel lines between 1846 and 1877, the former suddenly decreased from
36.5 per thousand in 1877 to 30 per thousand in 1895, the latter
increasing from .6 to 1.7 for the same period.
The remarkable thing about the facts that this table so clearly
discloses is that with a gradual increase of the means of subsistence
from 1846 to 1877 there is also a gradual increase in the proportion of
births to population. But at the year 1877 there, is a very sudden and
striking increase in food products, and the purchasing power of the
people coincides exactly with a very sudden and striking decrease in the
birth-rate of the people. The greater the decrease in the birth-rate,
the greater the increase in the people's purchasing power. Now, what has
brought about this change in the ratios of increase in population and in
food respectively?
Some serious factor, inoperative during the thirty years prior to 1877
must have suddenly been introduced into the social system, to work such
a marvellous revolution during the last twenty years.
Some economic writers find it easy here to discover a law, and declare
that the birth-rate is in inverse ratio to the abundance of food.
(Doubleday quoted by Nitti, Population and the Social System, p. 55).
Other economic writers of recent date attribute this great change in
ratio of increase to economic causes. Only a few find the explanation in
biological laws.
Herbert Spencer is the champion of the biological explanation of a
decreasing birth-rate.
With the intellectual progress of the race there is a decadence of
sexual instinct. In proportion as an individual concentrates his
energies and attention on his own mental development, does the instinct
to, and power of, generation decrease.
It may be true, it certainly is true, that if an individual's energies
are concentrated in the direction of development of one system of the
body, the other systems to some extent suffer. A great and constant
devotion to the development of the muscular system will produce very
powerful muscles, and great muscular energy, with a strong tendency to,
and pleasure in exercise. It is true also, that time and energy are
monopolized in this creation of muscle, and that less time and energy
are available for mental pursuits and mental exercise.
Up to a certain point muscular exercise aids mental development, but
beyond that point concentration of effort in the direction of muscular
development starves mental growth.
On the other hand, if the education and exercise of the mind receive
all attention, the muscular system will suffer, and to some extent
remain undeveloped. Or generally, one system of the body can be highly
developed only at the expense of some other system, not immediately
concerned.
It is true that the more an individual concentrates his efforts on his
own intellectual development, the more his sexual system suffers, and
the less vigorous his sexual instincts.
And the converse of this is also true, for examples of those with great
sexual powers are numerous.
In plant life, this same law is also in operation. If one system in a
plant, the woody fibre for instance, takes on abundant growth, the fruit
is starved and is less in quality and quantity, and _vice versa_.
But to what extent does this affect fertility? Sexual power and
fertility are not synonymous terms.
The vast profusion of seed in plant and animal life, would allow of an
enormous reduction in the amount produced, without the least affecting
fertility. Even admitting the application of Spencer's law to sexual
vitality, and allowing him to claim that, with the progress of
"individuation," there is a decline in sexual instinct, would the
fertility of the race be affected thereby?
To have any effect at all on the birth-rate, the instinct would have
either to be killed or to be so reduced in intensity as to stop
marriage, or to delay it till very late in life.
When once marriage was contracted sexual union once in every two years,
would, under strictly normal conditions, result in a very large family.
For according to Mr. Spencer's theory, it is the instinct that is
weakened not the power of the spermatozoa to fertilize.
Evidence is wanting, however, to show that there is a decrease in the
sexual power of any nation.
France might be flattered to be told that her low birth-rate is due to
the high intellectual attainments of her people, and that the rapidly
decreasing birth-rate is due to a rapid increase of her intellectual
power during recent years.
Ireland and New Zealand would be equally pleased could they believe that
their low, and still decreasing birth-rate is due to the lessening of
the sexual instinct, attendant upon, and resulting from a high and
increasing intellectual power and activity.
The fact is, that the sexual instinct is so immeasurably in excess of
the maximum power of procreation in the female, that an enormous
reduction in sexual power would require to take place before it would
have any effect on the number of children born.
The number of children born is controlled by the capacity of the human
female to bear children, and one birth in every two years during the
child-bearing period of life is about the maximum capacity.
A moderate diminution in the force of the sexual instinct might lead to
a decrease in the marriage rate, but it would require a very serious
diminution bordering on total extinction of the instinct to exert any
serious effect on the fecundity of marriage.
All that can be claimed for this theory of population is, that,
reasoning from known physiological analogies, we might expect a
weakening of the desire for marriage, coincident with the general
development of intellect in the race.
There are as yet no facts to prove that such weakening has taken or is
taking place, nor are there facts to prove that population has in any
way suffered from this cause.
If such a law obtained, and resulted in a diminished birth-rate, the
future of the race would be the gloomiest possible. An inexorable law
would determine that there could be no mental evolution, for the best of
the race would cease to propagate their kind. All who would arrive at
this standard of mental growth would become barren. And against this
there could be no remedy.
One of the main contentions of this work is that the best have to a
large extent ceased to propagate their kind, but it is not maintained
that this is the result of a biological law, over which there is no
control. It can be safely claimed that to Malthus's three checks to
population--vice, misery, and moral restraint, the demographic phenomena
of a century have added no other. The third check, however, moral
restraint, must be held to include all restraint voluntarily placed by
men and women on the free and natural exercise of their powers of
procreation.
Malthus used the term "moral" in this connection, not so much in
relation to the _motive_ for the restraint, but in relation to the
result, viz., the limitation of the family. The "moral restraint" of
Malthus meant to him, restraint from marriage only, chiefly because of
the inability to support a family. It implied marriage delayed until
there was reasonable hope that the normal family, four in number, could
be comfortably supported, continence in the mean time being assumed.
Bonar interpreting Malthus says (p. 53) that impure celibacy falls under
the head of "vice," and not of "moral restraint."
To Malthus, vice and misery, as checks to population, were an evil
greatly to be deplored in civilized man, and not only did he declare
that moral restraint obtained as a check, but he also declared it a
virtue to be advocated and encouraged in the interest of society, as
well as of the individual.
His moral restraint was delayed marriage with continence. He trusted to
the moral force of the sexual passion in a continent man to stimulate to
work, to thrift, to marriage; to work and save so that he may enter the
marriage state with a reasonable prospect of being able to support a
wife and family.
Malthus never anticipated the changes and developments of recent years.
He advised moral restraint as a preventive measure in the hope that vice
and misery, as checks would be superseded, and that no more would be
born into the world than there was ample food to supply. He believed
that moral restraint was the check of civilized man, and as civilization
proceeded, this check would replace the others, and prevent absolutely
the population pressing upon the limits of subsistence.
He saw in moral restraint only self-denial, constant continence, and
entertained not a doubt, that the generative instinct would be cheated
of its natural fruit. The passion for marriage is so strong (thought
Malthus) that there is no fear for the race; it cannot be
over-controlled.
The gratification of the sexual instinct, and procreation were the same
thing in the mind of Malthus.
But this is not so.
A physiological law makes it possible, in a large proportion of strictly
normal women, for union to take place without fertilisation. If it were
possible to maintain an intermittent restraint in strict conformity with
this law, it would control considerably the population of the world.
It is easier to practice intermittent than to practice constant
restraint.
It is just here that Malthus failed to anticipate the future. Malthus
believed that "moral restraint" would lessen the marriage rate, but
would have no direct effect on the fecundity of marriage.
A man would not put upon himself the self-denial and restraint, which
abstinence from marriage implied, for a longer period than he could
help.
The greater the national prosperity, therefore, the higher the
birth-rate. But prosperity keeps well in advance of the birth-rate; in
other words, population, though it still _tends_ to, does not actually
_press_ upon the food supply.
If the moral restraint of Malthus be extended so as to include
intermittent moral restraint within the marriage bond, then, under one
or other, or all of his three checks, vice, misery, and moral restraint,
will be found the explanation of the remarkable demographic phenomena of
recent years.
_Misery_ will cover deaths from starvation and poverty, the limitation
of births from abortion due to hardship, from deaths due to improper
food, clothing, and housing; and emigration to avoid hardship.
_Vice_ will cover criminal abortions, limitation of births from
venereal disease, deaths from intemperance, etc., and artificial checks
to conception. Malthus included artificial checks of this kind under
vice (7 ed. of Essay, p. 9.n.), though they have some claim to be
considered under moral restraint. But the question will be referred to
in a later chapter.
_Moral restraint_ will cover those checks to conception, voluntarily
practised in order to escape the burden and responsibility of rearing
children--continence, delayed marriage, and intermittent restraint.
No other checks are directly operative.
Misgovernment and the unequal distribution of wealth and land affect
population indirectly only, and can only act through one or other or all
of the checks already mentioned.