literature upon the subject of venereal diseases, and to the reduction
of their incidence that has been brought about by the institution of
special departments for the treatment of these diseases in the large
towns.
It is clear, however, that all arguments relating to the individual
are limited in their appeal to those in whose minds the conception
of morality is somehow related to that of individual harmony and
happiness and to the ideal of the general good. To those for whom the
word ‘morality’ has an ulterior meaning, unconnected with the affairs
of this world and relevant, solely, to the destiny of the individual
soul――I refer, here to those who enlist the ‘Will of God’ of which they
are the self-constituted interpreters, on their side――no argument can
be of any avail. Since the subject is thus removed from the sphere of
practical controversy, no further discussion is possible, and the only
thing to hope is that with the passage of time such persons will become
less numerous.
* * * * *
Consideration of the arguments bearing upon the individual, it is
submitted, points to the desirability of (1) the Ministry of Health
giving the subject recognition and sanction, and (2) limiting the
publicity that now attaches to it.
(_b_) _The Race._ Turning now from the individual to the race, we
enter on a more difficult part of the subject. Adhering to our
original conception of the question we find that the solution (if it
is to be accepted as such) of the quantitative difficulty, and of
the qualitative problem described as ‘economic’ in nature, are one
and the same. The remedy for that aspect of the qualitative problem
distinguished as ‘dysgenic’ is different and must be considered
separately.
The quantitative difficulty reduces itself to this. Admitting the
greater fertility to-day of those whose occupations are manual, or who
have no occupation at all (in other words, of the less select type) and
admitting that _at the present moment_ the country is overpopulated,
how are we to be certain that we are not within sight of more
prosperous times when unemployment will disappear? And how are we to
feel assured that the dissemination of knowledge of Birth Control will
not, in the long run, lead to a disastrous decline in the birth rate,
producing an irretrievable diminution in our numbers?
The practical difficulty is here to prophesy what will be the optimum
population (i.e., that at which average return of labour per individual
would be greatest) for a given country fourteen years ahead――at the
time, that is, when the children born to-day would enter the labour
market. And here we are in the realm of almost pure guesswork, and
probably no economist could be found who would venture upon more than a
tentative speculation. What the optimum is at the moment remains even a
disputed question. There is reason to suppose that unemployment returns
are not necessarily a trustworthy guide to the figure. A consensus of
opinion however exists (including that of Mr. Baldwin) that _at the
moment_ our numbers are above their optimum, though expectations vary
almost infinitely as to what the optimum will be in a few years. Those
who hope for a boom in trade are satisfied with the present condition.
Others who do not anticipate such an event, would more willingly see
an alteration brought about. In the absence of any definite knowledge,
the best we can do is not to try to look too far ahead but to consider
the solution of our problems as we find them to-day. _At the moment_
the indisputable facts of the problem in this country are that we are
over-populated, that contraception is practised too much by the upper
and middle classes――perhaps even by the skilled working classes――and
not enough by the improvident unskilled masses at the bottom of the
social edifice.
The outstanding question is whether, as a result of a reduction of
our numbers to a point somewhere in the neighbourhood of the economic
optimum for this country――by which reduction the existing burden of
taxation, an increasing element of which is now devoted to charity
and relief, will be correspondingly diminished――our upper and middle
classes would be enabled to produce more children, and to continue to
produce enough to maintain our numbers in the neighbourhood of their
optimum.
The answer to this question depends on a further question. To what
extent is the relative sterility of the professional and skilled
working classes attributable to the heavy taxation now imposed on them,
and to the rise in the cost of living due to the war, and to what
extent is it the result of a preference shown by many people for a more
or less luxurious life, with few or no children, to a simpler life with
several children? In other words, to what extent is it attributable to
an economic factor and to what extent to motives of selfishness?
To what extent does that quality of self-interest play a part which
prompts a woman to refuse to breastfeed her baby because she is afraid
of the effects thereof upon her figure, which causes her to abstain
from having children because she dislikes the discomfort and deformity
preliminary to, and the actual pains of, childbirth, or which makes her
value amusements and expensive forms of pleasure and recreation more
highly than the experience of maternity? To what extent is the relative
infertility of the upper and middle classes accounted for by the kind
of egotism which induces the husband to go in for entertaining, for
a motor, and a house with several servants, and generally to live
in comparative affluence rather than do without his superfluities
and bring up a family of children? This attitude nowadays certainly
plays a part. Dissatisfaction with the elementary pleasures of life,
the craving after artificial stimuli and new sensations, have always
been, and probably will always remain, the surest way to decadence in
a race, and as such should be combated. It is more in the interest of
the race that the professional and artisan classes should produce
plenty of good children than that the families of the very poor should
be restricted. The argument is sometimes advanced by complacent and
wealthy individuals that the working classes should be encouraged to
reproduce freely in order to keep up the country’s numbers. The dirty
work is thrown, so to speak, on the shoulders of those least qualified
to discharge it. It must appeal to the sense of justice of everyone
that if the maintenance of numbers of the race is to be conceived as
a burden (which of course it should not), the burden should be borne
equally by all classes.
The writer, who has had occasion to witness the results of
over-multiplication among the very poor, feels that it is only in
fairness to them that they should be equipped with every possible
means of improving their lot. At present one of the most important of
such means is the creation of facilities by the Ministry of Health
for the giving of information to those mothers who need it about how
they may limit their families and space their children. The immediate
social results of such a measure would unquestionably be good. The
remote results are more open to doubt. And it is this doubt which
renders it of the utmost importance to add that every form of pressure
and persuasion be brought to bear on the other classes, to make them
realize that it is morally incumbent on them, in the interests of the
country and of the race, to have as many children as they can possibly
afford, even at the expense of the minor luxuries of life.
Up till now no such pressure has been exerted, and most people regard
it as a matter of moral indifference, whether, when married, they have
children or not. The problem as to whether the general public, once it
has been educated to realize the national importance of the question
of having children, would act upon it and thereby avert the threat of
a dwindling population is again one of great difficulty. Admittedly,
the example set us by France is not encouraging. What is the likelihood
of our following in her footsteps? It is a delicate and important
question. The writer is of the opinion that our national character
differs from that of the French in a way that would make us more
responsive to such an appeal for children than the French have shown
themselves to be. But again we are in the realm of conjecture, and each
person is entitled to his opinion.
The fact remains, however, that as long as the advertisement now given
to Birth Control is permitted to continue, its practice will become
yearly more prevalent. Its spread will certainly not be limited by an
attitude of official negativism towards it while the propaganda is
allowed to continue unchecked.
* * * * *
There remains the other process above distinguished as ‘dysgenic,’ the
effect of which upon the quality of the race is probably as detrimental
as the one just considered, namely, the nurture and perpetuation of the
morally and physically unfit. This tendency can only possibly be met by
some form of Eugenic legislation. The existing opposition to anything
of the sort in this country probably springs from a deep-seated
dislike of bureaucratic interference in people’s private lives, and is
associated with a failure to realize the harmful consequences of the
existing order. It is of interest, however, to observe that in America,
where, in practice if not in theory, individual liberty is valued less
highly than in this country, various enactments have been passed with
a definitely Eugenic object. Thus in the State of Nebraska marriage
is forbidden to anyone afflicted with venereal disease, and all
applications for marriage licenses have to be accompanied by affidavits
of freedom from such disease. Nobody acquainted with the nature of the
infant mortality produced by congenital syphilis can fail to approve of
this measure.
In 1895 the State of Connecticut forbade the marriage of epileptics
and feeble-minded persons, under penalty of three years’ imprisonment.
Everyone possessing knowledge of the Neurological Out-patients’
Department of any large hospital must realize the existing prevalence
of epilepsy and appreciate how this hereditary disease may incapacitate
and stultify its victims. Montana provides for the sterilizing of
idiots, epileptics, feeble-minded and insane persons, which measure
must again commend itself to those aware of how prolific such types can
be if left unwatched. In males, sterilization can be effected by a very
minor operation, the use of X-rays for this purpose being a procedure
with regard to which there is still medical controversy.
The principle might even be extended to individuals who, by a record of
crime or misdemeanour, prove themselves to belong to a type which the
nation does not want perpetuated. The sterilization of the male leaves
quite undisturbed his sexual function, though it destroys his power
of reproduction. The infringement which it therefore involves of the
liberty of the individual is far less than that made by the State when
it takes it upon itself to hang a man. Yet the social benefit arising
from the two measures cannot be compared. Though it is difficult at
this stage to define the details of Eugenic legislation it seems likely
that the physical and moral standard of the race could broadly be
raised by such a qualitative Birth Control.
The number of emigrants which we are in a position to send to the
Dominions each year is limited by difficulties of transport, and could
never amount to more than a fraction of our present unemployment
figure. There is further the important consideration that the Dominions
themselves do not relish the idea of our regarding them as dumping
grounds for our superfluous undesirables. The type of emigrant they
want is a courageous, hardworking, physically healthy type, capable of
initiative, of withstanding hardships without grumbling, and of making
a good citizen. Such do not tend to become unemployed here, though,
under very adverse circumstances, they often may. A decrease of our
population need not therefore be opposed to our Imperial interests
if, in the process, we raise the standard of the race and improve our
national stock.
* * * * *
What will be the bearings of such enlightened Birth Control upon
the future? It will affect the Individual directly in his immediate
relation to his family, and it will influence him indirectly through
its effect upon the community as well as through the international
relationships of the country to which he belongs. The international
implications will be considered first, since they are the most
far-reaching.
The most obvious of these is the connexion between unrestricted
increase of population and wars. To what extent was the late war due
to this cause, and to what extent has the world learnt from it the
necessity of regulating such increase?
The causes of the late war were complex and are not yet wholly
understood. A fact however stands out clearly now that we contemplate
it in retrospect and now that changes in international feelings have
forced upon us a consideration of the point of view of our late
enemies. It is that the causes now recognized are essentially different
from what those causes were represented to be in the war propaganda of
the various belligerents.
It is to the interests of each belligerent to place the whole blame
for a war upon its enemies and completely to exculpate itself. Thus
in the late war both sides were convinced that they were fighting
for Righteousness, Liberty, Justice, Law and Order, Civilization,
etc., against enemies inspired by cruelty, subtlety, insatiable greed,
jealousy and lust for world-power. When, however, we contemplate
the war after a lapse of several years through an aftermath of much
suffering and disillusionment, we realize that it was the product
of historical causes and racial antipathies and of certain social
and economic phenomena rather than of any unequal partition of moral
qualities.
Before the war, Great Britain was the most powerful nation in the world
and was naturally jealous of any other nation that coveted, or aspired
to usurp, her enviable status.
Russia found herself in a condition of acute social instability,
momentarily threatened by the event which in 1917 cast her beyond the
pale of western civilization. To Russia the war came as a happening
which could dissipate the revolutionary ferments, mobilize her
refractory workers into the army, and, through the tremendous appeal of
a national crusade, sidetrack the forces of anarchy in precisely the
way that those forces were sidetracked in Ireland in 1914. Had the war
been won quickly――as there were grounds for hoping when it began――the
Czar would probably still be on the throne of an enlarged and yet more
powerful Russia.
By the events of the last hundred years Germany had been elevated
from a position of relative unimportance to that of the most highly
organized and perfectly industrialized power in the world. In achieving
this promotion she had earned the venomous hatred, born of her
humiliation, of France, and the slowly growing, disquieting suspicion
of Great Britain.
Conscious of her growing industrial strength, becoming restive within
the frontiers which confined her swelling population, aware of the
hostility of her neighbours, and never allowed to forget that her
kingdom had been built upon the sword, the youthful soul of Germany
found, in her Emperor, a fitting symbol for her aspirations. He was the
creation of her mood, and together with the party of which he was the
mouthpiece led her to her downfall.
It would not be a fair statement to assert that population pressure in
Germany was the cause of the war. It was unquestionably a part-cause
and a predisposing cause, as it was of migration in prehistoric times
and of most wars since. But it was here complicated by other factors
both inside and outside Germany.
The universal desire to avert a similar catastrophe in the future has
materialized in the League of Nations. It is hoped that through its
agency many precipitating causes of war will be eliminated. By it
provocation will be made more difficult and commitment more perilous.
But the essential predisposing cause, that of over-multiplication,
remains unassailed. Like some dull-witted monster it is left to wax in
strength and malignancy within its fetters, till at last, no longer to
be denied, it will break all bounds, turn, and rend the world. From the
late war no lesson as to the importance of population control has been
learnt. Will another war be necessary to teach us this lesson?
Earlier in the book reference was made to the possibility of a war
between Japan and either America or ourselves. Though this contingency
is being thought out in detail by the naval authorities of all three
countries, care is taken in diplomatic circles to assert that such
practical measures as the equipment of Singapore imply no unfriendly
or suspicious attitude toward Japan. Few people, however, are deceived
by these utterances. The mutual fear and distrust is growing and will
probably continue to grow. There is little doubt, that, if this war
comes about, its essential cause, the increase of Japanese in excess
of the power of maintenance of their country, will be obscured by
that outburst of vilification of the enemy and glorification of self
which is now demanded by popular sentiment in the conduct of wars. Yet
this cause will remain here incomparably the most important of the
predisposing causes. After such a war will there remain any vestige of
civilization to profit from the hard-won lesson?
The principal aim of Soviet Russia to-day is the spread of her
communistic principles throughout the world. The chief obstacles
to this are the firmly entrenched and powerful capitalism of the
United States, and the more diffused and essentially more vulnerable
capitalistic organisations of the British Empire. These last the
Russians are doing their best to undermine now. A second world war
would give them a long-coveted opportunity. Realizing that prolonged
wars and the social unrest that follows them are the soil from which
revolutions most readily spring, Russia would probably associate
herself with Japan. The secret treaty between the two countries whose
aspirations and political ideals have otherwise little in common, gives
a premonition of this. By the time a war comes it is possible that the
exploitation of China by Japan will be more complete, and the effects
of anti-foreign propaganda, carried on by Russia, more far-reaching.
The increase of anti-British feeling in India, also stimulated by
Russia, will co-operate to unify Asia and European Russia in a solid
block, determined to shake off the yoke of the Western Powers and of
America.
Such a war could never be conclusive, however prolonged. The vast
length of the fighting front, the colossal numbers of active
belligerents, and the enhanced destructiveness of war would probably
lead, after initial successes, to a collapse of the organized fighting
forces of the West. The seeds of revolution in Europe, by then more
deeply sown, would germinate, and the present social order would come
to an end. The continent would then embark upon a new phase of its
history, with the first chapter steeped in the bloodshed of revolution,
and founded upon the ruins of our industrial civilization. The centre
of civilization might then shift to the southern hemisphere where
to-day there is less to destroy.
The fact remains that if the price that humanity will have to pay for
learning to regulate its over-multiplication is to be a second world
war――the much talked of war, this time, between East and West――it is
doubtful if there will be left a civilization capable of learning the
lesson. It seems worth while, therefore, to try to put the principle
into effect before we are taught its necessity in such a way. To this
there are at present two obstacles, namely the nature of certain
religions and the criterion of national evaluation that is still
prevalent.
The first obstacle rests in the fact that two powerful religions have
not adapted themselves to the changes of human relationships imposed
by the unification through science of the human race. These religions
remain with their eyes fixed either on the next world or on the
exclusive welfare of the tribe.
By the Catholic Church a mode of behaviour is imposed calculated to
achieve salvation in the next world irrespective of its effects on
this one. Omitting from consideration, as probably unjust, the motive
of wishing to increase the number of its adherents, with which the
Roman Catholic Church has been charged by reason of its attitude
towards Birth Control, there remains a motive arising from a theory
of a relation between salvation in the next world and certain modes
of behaviour in this. Contraception is condemned because it is held
to incur damnation. It is not condemned because it leads to social
injustice, to wars, to human suffering. The point is that it is still
condemned in spite of its leading away from these things. It is
therefore devoutly to be hoped that in the event of the population of
any Catholic country at any time in the future expanding to proportions
that threaten the peace of the world, the Pope will see his way to
modify the Church’s attitude in the matter before it is too late.
Failure to do so would result in the depressing spectacle of the leader
of the religion of ‘Peace and Goodwill’ among men deliberately refusing
to take a step to avert war.
The second type of religion is represented in Japan and is tribal in
the sense that it is avowedly concerned with the glorification of the
Japanese, irrespective of the consequences to the world that this may
involve. In its object of elevating Japan to the status of a first
class power the cult of revived Shinto has succeeded admirably and has
proved itself, in several wars, to be a splendid fighting creed. The
present increase of the population of Japan by 700,000 a year is wholly
in accordance with its precepts. Again we may devoutly hope that it
will not overreach itself and plunge Japan, as well as the rest of
us, into a world war after which we would probably cease to exist as
civilized countries. It is, of course, obvious that a modification of
Japanese policy where Birth Control is concerned would be welcomed with
inexpressible relief by the rest of the world.
The militancy of Mohammedanism will probably have little effect on the
future of the world, because Mohammedan countries are at present poorly
organized for extensive modern war. The Church of England is more
concerned with the social and international implications of religion
than any other, and the above remarks have little relevance to it.
If, therefore, the cataclysm above contemplated is to be averted
the first necessity would seem to be a revision of the standards of
existing religions, in consideration of the unification of the human
race, so as to accord with a formula of something of this sort: That
is good and morally right which will promote the general happiness and
goodwill of humanity, and the harmony of the world. It is clear that
action leading to the limitation of over-multiplication would in this
sense be good and in accordance with religion.
* * * * *
The second obstacle to the realization of a control of population is
the standard by which the merit of a nation is now generally appraised,
and to which most nations aspire. This merit is largely estimated in
terms of power of offence and defence. This is a bad criterion and
should be altered for a better one which will now be considered.
Earlier in the book reference was made to a biological argument against
contraception, consideration of which was deferred. This argument holds
that in so far as reproduction is a primary biological function, a
thwarting of that function is not only unnatural but anti-biological.
This view has a certain plausibility but does not stand close scrutiny.
The criterion of biological value or fitness is essentially racial, not
individual. That is biologically good which will improve or benefit the
race, that is bad which will harm or weaken it.