CONCLUSION
In view of all these records I cannot think that any unbiassed person will be able to avoid the conclusion that large numbers and national efficiency are not to be secured by a high birth-rate, especially in the lower strata of society. High birth-rates to-day invariably mean high general and infantile death-rates, and, when accompanied by humanitarian legislation, a serious process of reversed selection.
The explanation of this apparent paradox lies in the fact, which never seems to be properly understood, that the population of the world and of nearly all countries is constantly being kept in check by insufficiency of food. A French statistician, M. Hardy, has calculated (and his figures, though challenged by great authorities, have now been accepted) that if the total food production of the world were fairly distributed among its inhabitants, the ration of proteids available for each would only be two-thirds of that recognised as necessary for efficiency. Mr. Seebohm Rowntree has shown that large numbers of families in our own country—the richest in the world—have deficiencies of protein in their diet by amounts up to 40 per cent., and over 2,500,000 adult male workers have wages of 25s. a week or less, upon which with the present cost of living and rent in towns it is impossible to bring up more than three children properly. As a result, whenever families are large a considerable proportion of the children die, and of those who survive many grow up stunted and incapable of assimilating a good training. The over-crowding caused by large families with an ever decreasing margin for rent is also a potent cause of disease and of immorality—the latter evil being further greatly intensified by the economic difficulties in the way of marriage that are the chief bar to the prevention of those terrible diseases for which the Royal Commission, presided over by our Chairman, is investigating a remedy.
That the rate of increase of population of a country depends in almost every case upon its power of feeding its people by its own or imported food, and not upon its birth-rate, is a matter which statesmen will have to recognise; and those who are anxious for the increase of the population of our country and Empire, should turn their attention to the acceleration of food production instead of deploring the declining birth-rate. No intelligent person will claim that the food producing possibilities of the world are exhausted, but it does appear difficult to increase them at more than a very slow rate (probably at present not more than 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. in a decade); and the world’s population cannot increase faster than the food does. Irrigation in India has been followed by an increase in population far greater than before, and encouragement of agriculture or of the industries which bring food to this country is the only means by which our increase of population can be accelerated. No shuffling of the incidence of taxation, and no humanitarian schemes, will affect it—except prejudicially by favoring the increase of the inefficient rather than the efficient. Nor will emigration, the panacea of the orthodox Imperialist, solve the problem. We do not want effective producers to leave us, and these are the only people our colonies really desire. Our town-bred weaklings are frequently less fitted to succeed in the Colonies than at home, as the experience of Canada appears to testify. It has been said that “no Empire can survive which is rotten at the core”; and if we persist in the policy of encouraging the excessive reproduction of the poor, of taxing the capable for their support, of keeping about a third of our men and women unmarried, and of seeing many of our best emigrate for want of decent prospects at home, we need not be surprised if our Imperial efficiency diminishes.
On the other hand, if we consider the example of Holland we may be assured that a further fall in the birth-rate among the poorer classes will be accompanied by an immediate and progressive improvement in their conditions, by a checking of the output of physical and mental defectives, and by a gain in the national efficiency, and probably also in the rate of increase of our population. As the Bishop of Ripon said at the Church Congress of 1910: “If the diminution of the birth-rate could be shown to prevail among the unfit, we might view the phenomenon without apprehension, and we might even welcome the fact as evidence of the existence of noble and self-denying ideals.” There is no reason why the death-rate in any part of our Empire should be higher than the 9 per thousand of New Zealand, where poverty as we know it scarcely exists. The birth-rate of Great Britain can therefore fall to 20 per thousand before our normal natural increase of 11 per thousand is reduced. As this paper is being concluded, the Registrar-General’s figures for 1913 have come to hand, and show that the fall of the birth-rate in the last three years has been accompanied by a recovery in the natural increase to 10.8 per thousand.
DIAGRAMS OF INTERNATIONAL VITAL STATISTICS
Prepared by Charles V. Drysdale, D.Sc., 1911
In the accompanying diagrams white strips imply birth-rates, shaded strips death-rates, and black strips infantile mortality, or deaths of children under one year. The amount of the white strip visible above the shaded strip is, of course, the excess of birth over death-rate, or the rate of natural increase of population.
Fig. [1].—Shows the relation between birth and death-rates and infantile mortality in various countries in 1901–05.
Fig. [2].—Relation between birth-rate and corrected death-rates in various countries. (This shows that France is healthier than appears in Fig. [1].)