Book 5 — CHAPTER I.

THEORY OF POPULATION.

SECTION CCXXXVIII.

INCREASE OF POPULATION IN GENERAL.

That amid the thousand dangers which threaten the existence of the individual the species may endure, the Creator has endowed every class of organic beings with such reproductive power, and so much pleasure in propagating their kind, that if the action of these were entirely unrestricted, it would soon fill up the earth.[238-1] In the case of the human race, also, the physiological possibility of propagation has very wide limits.[238-2] It would be nothing extraordinary that a healthy pair, living in wedlock from the 20th to the 42nd year of the woman's life, that is, during the whole time of her full capacity to bear children, should rear six children to the age of puberty. This would, therefore, suffice to treble the population in a single generation; provided that all who had grown up should marry. According to Euler,[238-3] when the births were 5 per cent. and the deaths 2 per cent., the population doubled in not quite 24 years; when the increase was 2½ per annum, in 28 years; when 2, in 35 years, and when 1½ per cent. in 47 years.

The United States furnish us with a striking illustration of this doctrine, and on the grandest scale. There the natural increase of the white population, from 1790 to 1840, was 400.4 per cent.; that is in the first decade 33.9 per cent. of the population in 1790; in the second 33.1, in the third 32.1, in the fourth 30.9, in the fifth 29.6 per cent.[238-4] [238-5]

SECTION CCXXXIX.

LIMITS TO THE INCREASE OF POPULATION.

There is certainly one limit which the increase of no organic being can exceed: the limit of the necessary means of subsistence. But, so far as the human race is concerned, this notion is somewhat more extensive, inasmuch as it embraces besides food, also clothing, shelter, fuel, and a great many other goods which are not, indeed, necessary to life, but which are so considered.[239-1] We may illustrate the matter by a simple example in the rule of division. If we take the aggregate of the means of subsistence as a dividend, the number of mankind as divisor; then the average share of each is the quotient. Where two of these quantities are given, the third may be found. Only when the dividend has largely increased can the divisor and quotient increase at the same time (prosperous increase of population). If, however, the quotient remains unchanged, the increase of the divisor can take place only at the expense of the quotient (proletarian increase of population).[239-2] Hence it is to be expected that the quantity of the means of subsistence being given and also the requirement of each individual, the number of births and the number of deaths should condition each other. Where, for instance, the number of church livings has not been increased, only as many candidates can marry as clergymen who held such livings have died. The greater the average age of the latter is, the later do the former marry, in the average, and vice versa. And so, in the case of whole nations, when their economic consumption and production remain unaltered.[239-3] A basin entirely filled with water can be made to contain more only in case it is either increased itself, or a means is found to compress its contents. Otherwise as much must flow out on the one side as is poured in on the other.

And so, everything else remaining stationary, the fruitfulness of marriages must, at least in the long run, be in the inverse ratio of their frequency. (See § 247.)[239-4] [239-5]

In number of Departments One marriage a year for every Children to a marriage One death yearly for every

4 110-120inhabitants 3.7935.4 inhabitants

15 120-130" 3.7939.2 "

23 130-140" 4.1739.0 "

18 140-150" 4.3640.6 "

10 150-160" 4.4340.3 "

9 160-170" 4.4842.7 "

6 170 and more" 4.4846.4 "

SECTION CCXL.

INFLUENCE OF AN INCREASE OF THE MEANS OF SUBSISTENCE.

The sexual instinct and the love for children are incentives of such universality and power, that an increase of the means of subsistence is uniformly[TN 68] followed by an increase in the numbers of mankind. Partout, où deux personnes peuvent vivre commodément, il se fait un mariage. (Montesquieu.) Thus after a good harvest, the number of marriages and births is wont to considerably increase; and conversely to diminish after bad harvests.[240-1] [240-2] [240-3] In the former case, it is rather hope than actual possession which constitutes the incentive to the founding of new families. Hence the greatest increase is not found in connection with the absolutely lowest price of corn, but with those prices which present the most striking contrast to those of a previous bad year.[240-4]

The introduction of the potato has promoted the rapid increase of population in most countries. Thus, the population of Ireland in 1695, was only 1,034,000; in 1654, when the cultivation of the potato became somewhat more common it was 2,372,000; in 1805, 5,395,000; in 1823, 6,801,827; in 1841, 8,175,000. In 1851, after the fearful spread of the potato-rot it fell again to 6,515,000.[240-5] In general, every new or increasing branch of industry, as soon as it yields a real net product is wont to invite an increase of population. Machines, however, have not this effect only when they operate to produce rather a more unequal division of the national income than an absolute increase of that income.[240-6]

Between 1841 and 1850. In 1847 alone.

In Saxony,215,505 214,220

In Holland,222,352 219,280

In Belgium,228,968 224,145

In France,280,330 249,797

Per Metze. No. of Marriages.

In 1851,2.47 florins 336,800

In 1852,2.11 florins316,800

In 1853,3.38 florins283,400

In 1854,4.36 florins258,000

In 1855,4.43 florins245,400 (Czörnig.)

Ten years' average. 1849 alone.

In France,36.19 35.79

In Tuscany,24.42 22.82

In Saxony,24.51 23.08

In Prussia,25.50 23.62

SECTION CCXLI.

EFFECT OF WARS ON POPULATION.

We may now understand why it is that only those wars which are accompanied by a diminution of the sources of the means of support decrease population. The loss in the numbers of mankind produced by wars, hardships, etc., would, as a rule, be readily made up for by increased procreation.[241-1] Thus, for instance, in Holland, the long Spanish war permitted an increase of the population for the reason that the national wealth increased at the same time; while the short war with Cromwell, which curtailed commerce, caused 3,000 houses in Amsterdam alone to remain empty.[241-2] In England and Wales, the population increased during the most frightful war of modern times, from 8,540,000 in 1790, to over 12,000,000 in 1821; in France, from, probably, 26,000,000 or 27,000,000 in 1791, to 29,217,000 in 1817. England, indeed, was itself never the seat of war, and its commerce was increased by the war in some directions as much as it was diminished by it in others. France's own territory was devastated only in the first and in the last years of the war. But the Revolution had, on the whole, once the storms of the Reign of Terror were over, not only more equally divided the means of subsistence in France, but it had developed them in a higher degree.[241-3] [241-4]

It cannot even be unconditionally predicated of emigration, that it hinders the increase of population. As soon as people have begun to calculate upon emigration, as a resort for themselves in case of distress, or upon the emigration of others, by which they would be left a larger field for action at home, a number of marriages is contracted and a number of children born; which would otherwise not have been the case. Most men, especially when young and enamoured, hope for the realization of all their wishes. Favorable chances, open to a great number of men alike and which every one thinks himself competent to calculate, are commonly over-estimated by the majority.[241-5] (See § 259.)

SECTION CCXLII.

COUNTER TENDENCIES TO THE INCREASE OF POPULATION.

The extension of economic production is always a labor; the surrender of one's ordinary means of subsistence to new comers, a sacrifice; but, on the other hand, the procreation of children is a pleasure. Hence it seems to be incontestably[TN 69] true that the powers of increase of population, considered from an entirely sensuous point of view, tend to go beyond the bounds of the field of food. Malthus gave expression to this fact by saying that population had a tendency to increase in a geometrical progression, but the means of subsistence, even under the most favorable conditions, only in an arithmetical progression.[242-1] If the word "tendency" be correctly understood in the sense in which Malthus employed it, so that the reality appears as the product of several and partly opposite tendencies, [242-2] the first half of his allegation can scarcely be contested.[242-3] If a father has three sons, and each of the three three in turn, the love of procreation and the power of procreation, all being in the normal condition of health, are precisely three times as great in the second generation as in the first, and nine times as great in the third, etc. The second half of Malthus's principle is more open to doubt. If it be true, as has been asserted, that man's means of subsistence consist solely of animals and plants, and these, as well as man, increase in a geometrical ratio, and usually even with a much larger multiplier, yet it is here, surprisingly enough, overlooked that their natural increase is interrupted by the consumption of them by man. On the other hand, it is true that even raw material, by means of more skillful technic processes (§ 134, 157), and the values by which man ennobles them, may always increase in a greater ratio than a merely arithmetical one. (§ 33).[242-4] But, that, in the long run, the means of subsistence should keep pace with the extreme of sensuous desire and of physiological power, is utterly incredible. Hence, the latter tendency is limited by others.

A. And indeed, firstly, by repressive counter-tendencies. As soon as there is a larger population in existence than can be supported, the surplus population must yield to a mournful necessity; in a favorable case, to that of emigration, but usually to hunger, disease and misery generally.

"The earth," says Sismondi, "again swallows the children she cannot support." It is the weakest especially who are elbowed off the bridge of life, over which we pass from birth to the normal death from old age, because there is not room enough on it for all. Hence the frightful mortality among the poorer classes and in childhood. Now it is the absence of a healthy habitation,[242-5] or of proper clothing, or, in the case of children, of rational superintendence[242-6] which sows the germs of a thousand diseases; and now the absence of proper care, rest etc., which intensifies these diseases. Every bad harvest is wont, when its consequences are not alleviated by a high and healthy civilization, to increase mortality. (§ 246, 9). Thus, in Sweden, during the second half of the 18th century, the average yearly mortality was = 1:39-40. On the other hand, in the bad year 1771 = 1:35.7; 1772 = 1:26.7, and in 1773, as an after consequence, 1:19.3. In this last, although it was a fertile year, there were only 48 births to every 100 deaths.[242-7] Among nations low down in civilization, the repressive counter tendency may assume a very violent character. How many cases of murder, human sacrifice, and even war, have been occasioned by over-population and famine.

B. Secondly, by preventive counter tendencies.[242-8] The person who believes himself unable to support children refrains from begetting them. This, we may call one of the most natural of duties. We might even say that the person who begets a child which he knows he is not in a condition to support, is guilty of a grievous[TN 70] sin against civil society, and of a still more grevious one against his poor child. Strange! To beget a child with countless wants, with an immortal soul! That is certainly an act the most pregnant with consequences which any ordinary man can perform in his life; and yet how thoughtlessly it is performed by the majority!

This counter-tendency is to be found only in the case of man. Plants and animals yield to the sexual instinct regardless of everything.[242-9] Where there is no question whatever of having food enough to support children, as is the case with the better-to-do classes, the dread of losing the decencies of life, or of "losing caste," acts as a preventive[242-10] [242-11] to the founding a family, or increasing the numbers of one. Unfortunately, abstinence from the procreation of children may be exercised not only in accordance with the moral law,[242-12] but also, in contravention of it.[242-13] There is a necessary connection between human reason and human freedom and the possibility of misusing them. And it is certainly the inevitable fate of man either to place a morally rational check on the sexual impulse, or to be forcibly held within the limits of the means of subsistence, since they cannot be over-stepped by him—through the agency of vice and misery.[242-14] [242-15]

The Arrondissement Had a yearly population mortality of 1 in every Locations non imposées.[TN 71]

II,710.07

III,67 0.11

I,66 0.11

IV,62 0.15

XI,61 0.19

VI,58 0.21

V,64 0.22

VII,59 0.22

X,49 0.23

IX,50 0.31

VIII,46 0.32

XII,44 0.38

SECTION CCXLIII.

OPPONENTS OF MALTHUS.

Of Malthus' opponents, John Stuart Mill has said, that a confused notion of the causes which, at most times and places, keep the actual increase of mankind so far behind their capacity for increase, has every now and then given birth to some ephemeral theory, speedily forgotten; as if the law of the increase of population were a different one under different circumstances, and as if the fecundity of the human species, by direct divine decree, was in keeping with the wants of society for the time being.[243-1]

The majority of such theories are based, on the proof that Malthus' description of one stage of civilization is not true of another, although the great discoverer, who, with his admirable many-sidedness, had investigated the law of population in and throughout all the stages of civilization, had, as a rule, himself given due weight to all of this. The objection of unwarranted generalization applies to Malthus much less than to the majority of his opponents. Since, for instance, in young colonies, even the natural forces, which are in themselves limited or exhaustible, afford a wide field of operation for a long time; many American writers have supposed that labor alone was the source of wealth, and that, to say the least, wealth should increase in the same ratio as mankind; and even in a still greater ratio, since the division of labor grows easier as population increases in density.[243-2] But here it is forgotten that in every instance of economic production, there are many factors engaged, each one of which can take the place of another only up to a certain point. There are others, especially Grahame and Carey,[243-3] who allude to the possibility of emigration, which is still so far from being exhausted. But Malthus had nothing to say of the impossibility of emigration. He spoke only of the great difficulties in its way. (III. ch. 4.) There are many writers who would wish simply to ship emigrants off, like a great many doctors who send their patients away to die! (§ 259 ff.) When Sadler says that human prolificacy, circumstances remaining the same, is inversely as the density of population, he uses, to say the least, a very inaccurate mode of expression.[243-4] The grain of truth hidden in this assertion does certainly not come from Gray's theory, that in the higher stages of civilization, the better living usual is a hinderance to the increase of population, and that the prevailing influence of large cities increases mortality;[243-5] but from influences, or, to speak more correctly, from free human considerations, on which no one has thrown so much light as Malthus. And indeed, where is the man who has better understood or more warmly recommended the "aristocratic" impulse which should, in well ordered civil society, hold the sexual instinct in equilibrium?[243-6] Malthus himself pleasantly derides his opponents, who, to explain how the same rifle, charged with the same powder and provided with the same ball, produces an effect varying with the nature of the object at which it is fired, prefer, instead of calculating the force of resistance of the latter, to take refuge in a mysterious faculty by virtue of which the powder has a different explosive force, according to the greater or less resistance the ball meets when it strikes.[243-7] The peculiarity of Godwin's polemics may be inferred from the fact that he considered it very doubtful whether the population of England had increased during the four preceding generations; and that he traces the increase of the population of the United States to the influence of emigration almost exclusively, and allows the desertion of whole English regiments in 1812 ff. to play a part in accounting for that increase.[243-8]

Malthus has been accused of rejoicing over the evils which are wont to decimate surplus population; but the same charge might be brought against those physicians who trace the diseases back to the causes that produce them. He has also been branded as the enemy of the lower classes, spite of the fact that he is the very first who took a scientific interest in their prosperity.[243-9] As John Stuart Mill has said, the idea that all human progress must at last end in misery was so far from Malthus' mind, that it can be thoroughly combated only by carrying Malthus' principles into practice.[243-10]

Inhabitants per English sq. mileNumber of children to a marriage

The Cape0015.48

The United States0045.22

Russia in Europe0234.94

Denmark0734.98

Prussia100 4.70

France150 4.22

England160 3.66