In the first place, the meaning of the word "overpopulation" should be
clearly understood. The word does not mean a very large number of
inhabitants in a country. If that were its meaning the Malthusian fallacy
could be disproved by merely pointing out that poverty exists both in
thinly populated and in thickly populated countries. Now, in reality,
overpopulation would occur whenever the production of the necessities
of life in a country was insufficient for the support of all the inhabitants.
For example, a barren rock in the ocean would be overpopulated, even
if it contained only one inhabitant. It follows that the term
"overpopulation" should be applied only to an economic situation in
which the population presses on the soil. The point may be illustrated
by a simple example.
Let us assume that a fertile island of 100 acres is divided into 10 farms,
each of 10 acres, and each capable of supporting a family of ten. Under
these conditions the island could support a population of 1,000 people
without being overpopulated. If, however, the numbers in each family
increased to 20 the population would _press on the soil_, and the island,
with 2,000 inhabitants, would be an example of overpopulation, and of
poverty due to overpopulation.
On the other hand, let us assume that there are only 1,000 people on the
island, but that one family of ten individuals has managed to gain
possession of eight farms, in addition to their own, and that the other
nine families are forced to live on one farm. Obviously, 900 people
would be attempting to live under conditions of dire poverty, and the
island, with its population of 1,000, would now offer an excellent
example, not of overpopulation, but of human selfishness.
My contentions are that poverty is neither solely nor indeed generally
related to economic pressure on the soil; that there are many causes of
poverty apart altogether from overpopulation; and that in reality
overpopulation does not exist in those countries where Malthusians
claim to find proofs of social misery due to a high birthrate.
If overpopulation in the economic sense occurred in a closed country,
whose inhabitants were either unable or unwilling to send out colonies,
it is obvious that general poverty and misery would result. This might
happen in small islands, but it is of greater interest to know what does
happen.
Section 5. NO EVIDENCE OF OVERPOPULATION
In a closed country, producing all its own necessities of life and
incapable of expansion, a high birth-rate would eventually increase the
struggle for existence and would lead to overpopulation, always
provided that, firstly, the high birth-rate is accompanied by a low
death-rate, and secondly, that the high birth-rate is maintained. For
example, although a birth-rate was high, a population would not
increase in numbers if the death-rate was equally high. Therefore, a
high birth-rate does not of necessity imply that population will be
increased or that overpopulation will occur. Again, if the birth-rate fell
as the population increased, the danger of overpopulation would be
avoided without the aid of a high death-rate. For a moment, however,
let us assume that the Malthusian premise is correct, that a high
birth-rate has led to overpopulation, and that the struggle for existence
has therefore increased. Then obviously the death-rate would rise; the
effect of the high birth-rate would be neutralised; and beyond a certain
point neither the population nor the struggle for existence could be
further increased. On these grounds Neo-Malthusians argue that
birth-control is necessary precisely to obviate that cruel device whereby
Nature strives to restore the balance upset by a reckless increase of
births; and that the only alternative to frequent and premature deaths is
regulation of the source of life. As a corollary to this proposition they
claim that, if the death-rate be reduced, a country is bound to become
overpopulated unless the births are artificially controlled. Fortunately it
is possible to test the truth of this corollary, because certain definite
observations on this very point have been recorded. These observations
do not support the argument of birth controllers.
(a) In the Suez Canal Zone In the Suez Canal Zone there was a high
death-rate chiefly owing to fever. According to Malthus it would have
been a great mistake to lower this death-rate, because, if social
conditions were improved, the population would rapidly increase and
exceed the resources of the country. Now, in fact, the social conditions
were improved, the death-rate was lowered, and the subsequent events,
utterly refuting the above contention, are thus noted by Dr. Halford
Ross, who was medical officer in that region:
"During the years 1901 to 1910, health measures in this zone produced
a very considerable fall in the death-rate, from 30.2 per thousand to
19.6 per thousand; the infant mortality was also reduced very greatly,
Continue reading on your phone by scaning this QR Code
Tip: The current page has been bookmarked automatically. If you wish to continue reading later, just open the
Dertz Homepage, and click on the 'continue reading' link at the bottom of the page.