POPULATION
279
POPULATION
economic theories of the day favoured the policy
of laissez faire. To him perhaps more than to any
other writer is due the evil repute of the orthodox
economists, as opponents of legislation in the in-
terests of the poorer classes. In the words of Devas,
" Malthusianism in practice has been a grave dis-
couragement to all works of social reform and humane
legislation, which appeared as foolish sentiment de-
feating its kind aims by encouraging population"
(Political Economy, 2nd ed., p. 198). Malthus de-
clared that the poor created their own poverty by
marrying improvidently, and that any general sys-
tem of poor relief only increased and prolonged the
root evil, overpopulation, from which they suffered
(Essay bk. IV, passim). Although he had a genuine
sympathy for the poor, and believed that the prac-
tice of "moral restraint" in postponing or foregoing
marriage was the one means of bettering their condi-
tion permanently, his teaching received the cordial
approbation of the wealthier classes, because it tended
to relieve them of "responsibility for the condition
of the working classes, by showing that the latter had
chiefly themselves to blame, and not either the negli-
gence of their superiors or the institutions of the
country" (Ingram, "History of Political Economy",
p. 121). His more recent followers among the econo-
mists realize that an improvement in the condition of
the masses is apt to encourage a lower birth-rate, con-
sequently they are not opposed to all measures for im-
provement by legislation. Many of them, however,
have exaggerated the social and moral benefits of a
low birth-rate, and have implicitly approved the im-
moral and destructive practices upon which it depends.
The irony of the situation is that preventive checks,
moral and immoral, have been adopted for the most
part by the rich and comfortable classes, who, in
the opinion of Malthus, were not called upon to
make any personal contribution to the limitation of
population.
The most notable results of the work and teaching of Malthus may be summed up as follows: he con- tributed absolutely nothing of value to human knowledge or human welfare. The facts which he described and the remedies which he proposed had long been sufficiently obvious and sufficiently known. While he emphasized and in a striking way drew at- tention to the possibility of general overpopulation he greatly exaggerated it, and thus misled and mis- directed public opinion. Had he been better in- formed, and seen the facta of population in their true relations, he would have realized that the proper remedies were to be sought in better social and in- dustrial arrangements, a better distribution of wealth, and improved moral and religious education. As things have happened, his teaching has directly or indirectly led to a vast amount of social error, negli- gence, suffering, and immorality.
Neo-Malthusia7nsm. — In a sense this system is the extreme logical outcome of Malthusianism proper. While Malthus would have turned in horror from the practices of the newer theory, his own recommenda- tions were much less effective as a means to the com- mon end of both systems. The Nco-Malthusians realize better than he did, that if population is to be deliberately restricted to the desired extent, other methods than chaste abstention from or postpone- ment of marriage are necessary. Hence they urge married couples to use artificial and immoral devices for preventing conception. Some of the most prominent leaders of this movement were Robert Dale Owen, John Stuart Mill, Charles Bradlaugh, and Annie Besant. With them deserve to be as- sociated many economists and sociologists who im- plicitly advocate the same practices, inasmuch as they glorify an inflefinitely expanding standard of comfort, anil urge limitation of offspring as the one certain means whereby the labour of the poorest
paid workers may be made scarce and dear. Some
of the Neo-Malthusian leaders in England main-
tained that, they were merely recommending to the
poor what the rich denounced but secretly practised.
In common with the older theory from which it derives its name, Neo-Malthusianism assumes that population if unchecked will exceed subsistence, but by subsistence it means a liberal, or even a progres- sively rising, standard of comfort. In all prob- ability this contention is correct, at least, in the latter form; for all the indications are against the supposi- tion that the earth can furnish an indefinitely rising standard of comfort for a population that contin- ues to increase up to the full measure of its physio- logical capacity. On the other hand, the practices and the consequences of the system are far more futile, deceptive, and disastrous than those of Malthusianism. The practices are intrinsically im- moral, implying as they do either foeticide, or the perversion of natural faculties and functions, to say nothing of their injurious effect upon physical health. The condition aimed at, namely, the small family or no children at all, fosters a degree of ego- tism and enervating self-indulgence which lessens very considerably the capacity for social service, altruism, and every form of industrial and intellec- tual achievement. Hence the economists, sociolo- gists, and physicians of France condemn the low birth-rate and the small family as a grave national and social evil. On the industrial side, Neo-Mal- thusianism soon defeats its own end; for increased selfishness and decreased stimulus to labour are naturally followed by a smaller output of product. If the restriction of offspring were confined to the poorer classes, their labour would indeed become scarce relatively to the higher kinds of labour, and their wages would rise, provided that their pro- ductivity were not diminished through deterioration of character. As a fact, however, the comfortable classes adopt the method much more generally than do the poor, with the result that the excessive supply of unskilled labour is increased rather than dimin- ished. Where all classes are addicted to the practice, the oversupply of unskilled labour remains relatively unchanged. The wages of all classes in France are lower than in Germany, England, or the United States (cf. Fifteenth Annual Report of the Com- missioner of Labour). Finally, a constantly rising standard of comfort secured by the practices and in the moral atmosphere of Neo-Malthusianism means not a higher but a lower plane of life; not more genuine culture or loftier morals, but more abundant physical enjoyments and a more refined materialism.
Other Theories of Population. — Rodbertus, Marx, Engels, Bebel, and possibly a majority of the Social- ists who have considered the problem, either deny a general tendency to excessive population, or main- tain that it is realized only in capitalistic society. Under Socialism there would be ample sustenance for the greatest po.ssible increase in population, or, at any rate, for whatever increase that form of society would decide to have. Now it is quite unlikely that a Socialistic organization of production, with its les- sened incentives to inventive and productive energy, would be able to provide means of living adequate to the full capacity of human fecundity; and a univer- sally and continuously rising standard of comfort would be subject to all the physical, moral, and in- tellectual hindrances and consequen'-es which beset the suicidal system of Neo-Malthusianism.
A respectable minority of economists (in this con- nection frequently known as "optimists") have re- jected the Malthusian theory from the beginning. Among the most prominent are, Bastiat in France, List (1789-1840) in Germany, and Henry C. Carey in America. In a general way they all maintained that in proper social and industrial arrangements
