bookssland.com » Other » Birth Control - Halliday G. Sutherland (summer reading list .TXT) 📗

Book online «Birth Control - Halliday G. Sutherland (summer reading list .TXT) 📗». Author Halliday G. Sutherland



1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 22
Go to page:
the nineteenth century, to 20.6, during the first ten years of the twentieth century. In America, amongst the descendants of the New England Puritans a decay of religion and morals has also been accompanied by a dwindling birthrate. The decline of the original New England stock in America has been masked to some extent by the high birthrate amongst the immigrant population; but nevertheless it is apparent in the Census Returns for 1890, when a population of 65,000,000 was expected and only 62,500,000 was returned. Moreover, there is ample evidence in history that, wherever the Christian ideal of a family has been abandoned, a race is neither able to return to the family life of healthy pagan civilisations nor to escape decay. During the past fifty years in England family life has been definitely weakened by increased facilities for divorce amongst the rich, by the discouragement of parental authority amongst the poor, and by the neglect of all religious teaching in the schools. And thus, in the words of Charles Devas, “We have of late years, with perverse ingenuity, been preparing the way for the low birthrate of irreligion and the high death-rate of civil disorder.” [49] The birthrate in England and Wales reached its highest point, 36.3, in 1876, and has gradually fallen to 18.5 in 1919. During the first two quarters of that year the rate was the lowest yet recorded. During the pre-war year, 1913, the rate was 24.1.

In conclusion, the following statements by a Protestant writer are of interest:

 

“Judging from a number of figures which cannot be quoted here, owing to

considerations of space, it would seem that the English middle-class

birthrate has fallen to the extent of over 50 per cent. during the

last forty years; and we have actual figures showing that the

well-to-do artisan birthrate has declined, _in the last thirty years,

by 52 per cent.!_ Seeing that the Protestant Churches draw their

members mainly from these very classes, we have not far to seek for an

explanation of the empty Sunday Schools….”

 

“Under these circumstances it is not in the least necessary for

Protestant ministers and clergymen to cast about them for evidence of

Jesuit machinations wherewith to explain the decline of the Protestant

Churches in this country! Let them rather look at the empty cradles in

the homes of their own congregations!” [50]

The author of the above-quoted paragraphs thus attributes the decline both of the birthrate and of the Protestant Churches to the general adoption of artificial birth control. With that explanation I disagree, because it puts the horse behind the cart. When the Protestant faith was strong the birthrate of this country was as high as that of Catholic lands. The Protestant Churches have now been overshadowed by a rebirth of Rationalism, a growth for which they themselves prepared the soil: and diminished fertility is the natural product of a civilisation tending towards materialism. Although the practice of artificial birth control must obviously contribute towards a falling birthrate, it is neither the only nor the ultimate cause of the decline. The ultimate causes of a falling birthrate are more complex, and the decline of a community is but the physical expression of a moral change. That is my thesis.

[Footnote 35: Evening Standard, October 12, 1921.]

[Footnote 36: “The Declining Birthrate” in The Month, August 1916, p. 157, reprinted by C.T.S. Price 2_d_.]

[Footnote 37: “Religious Belief as affecting the Growth of Population,” The Hibbert Journal, October, 1914, p. 144.]

[Footnote 38: The Secretary of the Malthusian League. Vide The Declining Birthrate, 1916, p. 99.]

[Footnote 39: The Month, August 1916, p. 157, C.T.S.: 2_d_.]

[Footnote 40: The Hibbert Journal, October 1914, p. 147.]

[Footnote 41: The Hibbert Journal, October 1914, p. 150.]

[Footnote 42: “Race-suicide and Dr. Bell,” America, October 29, 1921, p. 31.]

[Footnote 43: Daily Chronicle, April 25, 1910.]

[Footnote 44: Eighty-second Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England and Wales, 1919, p. 89.]

[Footnote 45: Ibid., p. xxvi.]

[Footnote 46: The Hibbert Journal, October 1914, p. 141.]

[Footnote 47: The Family and the Nation, 1909, pp. 139, 142.]

[Footnote 48: Quoted in Universe, October 22, 1921.]

[Footnote 49: Charles S. Devas, Political Economy, 2nd edition, 1901, p. 193.]

[Footnote 50: Meyrick Booth, B. Sc., Ph.D., The Hibbert Journal, October 1914, pp. 142 and 152.]

CHAPTER V

IS THERE A NATURAL LAW REGULATING THE PROPORTION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS?

 

Section 1. THE THEORY OF THOMAS DOUBLEDAY REVIVED

In 1837 Thomas Doubleday [51] maintained that the rising birthrate of his own time was closely connected with the fall in the standard of living, and his argument implied that, in order to check the excessive birthrate, it was necessary to improve the condition of the mass of the people. Four years later he published The True Law of Population, wherein he stated that when the existence of a species is endangered—

 

“A corresponding effort is invariably made by Nature for its

preservation and continuance by an increase of fertility, and that this

especially takes place whenever such danger arises from a diminution of

proper nourishment or food, so that consequently the state of depletion

or the deplethoric state is favourable to fertility, and that, on the

other hand, the plethoric state, or state of repletion, is unfavourable

to fertility in the ratio of the intensity of each state.”

By a series of experiments on plants Doubleday discovered that “whatever might be the principle of manure, an overdose of it invariably induced sterility in the plant.” Although his formula is deficient in that food is selected as the one factor in environment which influences fertility, and although it may be an overstatement to claim that fertility varies in exact proportion to abundance or to scarcity, nevertheless his formula contains an important truth which literally knocks the bottom out of the whole Malthusian case.

It is a sad reflection that, while the falsehoods of Malthus have been blindly accepted for the greater part of a century, the work of Doubleday was almost lost in oblivion. His shade has now been recalled to the full centre of the stage, and for this the credit is due to Mr. C.E. Pell. His recent book [52] is a stimulating essay on the declining birthrate, and contains much evidence that supports the main contention of Doubleday. Although it is impossible to agree with all the deductions made by Mr. Pell, he has nevertheless done a public service by restating the problem of the birthrate in a new way, by effectively bursting the Malthusian bubble, and by tabulating fresh evidence against the birth-controllers.

 

Section 2. MR. PELL’S GENERALISATIONS CRITICISED

Mr. Pell defines the law of births and deaths in two generalisations. The first is: “We have seen that it is a necessary condition of the success of the evolutionary scheme that the variation of the inherited potential degree of fertility between species and species must bear an inverse proportion to their capacity for survival.” [53] At first glance this statement appears hard to be understood; but it is obviously true—because it means that a species that is well adapted to its environment can survive with a low degree of fertility, whereas a species that is not well adapted to its environment requires a high degree of fertility in order to survive. Mr. Pell considers that a “capacity for survival” is synonymous with “nervous energy”; but, as our total knowledge of nervous energy is limited to the fact that it is neither matter nor any known force, the change in words does not mark a real advance in knowledge.

The second generalisation is that “the variation of the degree of animal fertility in response to the direct action of the environment shall bear an inverse proportion to the variation of the survival capacity under that environment.” [54] Here Mr. Pell and I part company. I have already (Chapter III) disputed the causal connection between birthrate and death-rate which Mr. Pell here asserts. His generalisation is made by assuming that birthrates and death-rates rise and fall together: that conditions which produce a high death-rate will also produce a high birthrate and that conditions which cause a low death-rate will also cause a low birthrate; that the increase or decline of a population is due to the direct action of the environment; and finally that “the actual degree of fertility is decided by the direct action of the environment.” [55] On that last rock Mr. Pell’s barque sinks. The mistake here is analogous to the old Darwinian fallacy, abandoned by Huxley and by Romanes, that natural selection is a creative cause of new species. Even if the hypothesis of evolution—and it is merely a hypothesis—be accepted, the only view warranted by reason is that variation of species and their actual degree of fertility may be produced, not by the direct action of environment, but by the reaction of species to their environment—a very different story.

There is no statistical evidence to prove a uniform correspondence between birthrates and death-rates, and it is improbable that there should be a physical law of nature whose operations cannot be demonstrated by mathematical proof. Moreover, we know that the same conditions which cause a high birthrate may cause a low death-rate. In the case of the first settlers in a new country the death-rate is low because the diseases of civilisation are absent and the settlers are usually young, whereas the birthrate is high. If fifty young married couples settle on the virgin soil of a new country it is probable that for many years an enormous birthrate, of over 100, will coexist with a low death-rate.

In reality a high birthrate may coexist with a low death-rate, or with a high death-rate. For example, there is a difference between natural and artificial poverty, the first being brought about by God, or, if any reader prefers to have it so, by Nature, and the second being made by man. Under conditions of natural poverty small groups of people in an open country are surrounded by land not yet cultivated: whereas artificial poverty means a population overcrowded and underfed, living in dark tenements or in back-to-back houses, breathing foul air in ill-ventilated rooms seldom lit by the sun, working long hours in gas-lit workshops for a sweated wage, buying the cheapest food in the dearest market, and drugged by bad liquor. In either case their existence is threatened, although for very different reasons, and the birthrate rises; but under conditions of natural poverty the death-rate is low, whereas in slums the death-rate is high.

 

Section 3. THE LAW OF DECLINE

It would appear, then, that under conditions of hardship the birthrate tends to rise, and that in circumstances of ease the birthrate tends to fall. If the existence of the inhabitants in a closed country is threatened by scarcity, the birthrate tends to rise. For example, “In some of the remote parts of the country, Orkney and Shetland, the population remained practically stationary between the years 1801 and 1811, and in the next ten years, still years of great scarcity, it increased 15 per cent.” [56]

The governing principle may be expressed in the following generalisation. When the existence of a community is threatened by adversity the birthrate tends to rise; but when the existence of a community is threatened by prosperity the birthrate tends to fall. By adversity I mean war, famine, scarcity, poverty, oppression, an untilled soil, and disease: and by prosperity I mean wealth, luxury, idleness, a diet too rich—especially in flesh meat—and over-civilisation, whereby the physical laws of nature are defied. Now the danger of national decline owing to prosperity can be avoided by a nation that observes the moral law, and this is the most probable explanation of the fact that in

1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 22
Go to page:

Free e-book «Birth Control - Halliday G. Sutherland (summer reading list .TXT) 📗» - read online now

Comments (0)

There are no comments yet. You can be the first!
Add a comment