The Fertility of the Unfit Part 2

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 a.n.a.lyst 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 distinguis.h.i.+ng 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 s.e.xual 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 s.e.xual system suffers, and the less vigorous his s.e.xual instincts.

And the converse of this is also true, for examples of those with great s.e.xual 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 quant.i.ty, and _vice versa_.

But to what extent does this affect fertility? s.e.xual 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 s.e.xual vitality, and allowing him to claim that, with the progress of "individuation," there is a decline in s.e.xual 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 s.e.xual 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 s.e.xual 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 s.e.xual instinct, attendant upon, and resulting from a high and increasing intellectual power and activity.

The fact is, that the s.e.xual instinct is so immeasurably in excess of the maximum power of procreation in the female, that an enormous reduction in s.e.xual 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 s.e.xual 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 a.n.a.logies, we might expect a weakening of the desire for marriage, coincident with the general development of intellect in the race.