Probably in few fields of social or ethical thought has there been as much loose reasoning, as great a lack of information, and as much seeming aversion to grapple with fundamentals, as in matters involving what is popularly, vaguely, and often erroneously known as Malthusianism. Many of the prevalent views of population are as naïve as those of the Middle Ages; and with the volcanic outburst of militarism in Europe in 1914 there inevitably comes a pronounced recrudescence of Mercantilist and Cameralist views of population-an overweening desire and a seeming national necessity for earlier marriage, higher birth rates, and larger families, to fill up the hideous gaps made by enemy shells. Whether the nature of human ambition, the drive of international competition, is such that the military argument for a high birth rate, regardless of costs, will retain perpetual validity is perhaps the deepest phase of the population question, upon the outcome of which the world's economic and social destiny hangs. Certainly the pressure of population, which Plato regarded as the first cause of soldiers, war, and conquest, and which to-day is at least one of the causes of rivalry for markets, colonies, and power, must receive the most serious sort of study by those who hope to see a real impetus toward international peace resultant upon the present European struggle. Not a few ardent social workers and reformers, many socialists, and most individualistic optimists are either supremely oblivious of the real population problems or think it sufficient to brush aside what they contemptuously refer to as Malthusianism. This habit of mind is more likely to be prevalent in a new country than an old one.

Controversy over the population question has for a century and a quarter pivoted on the theory of Malthus, under various interpretations and misinterpretations. The central thought of Malthus and of most economists since his day, that nature sets a much closer limit on man's power of producing wealth, and particularly subsistence, than upon the power of multiplying his kind, has been a stumblingblock to idealists of all types. The earlier years of the nineteenth century brought forth a copious and curious literature of criticism and attempted refutation of

Malthus's theory. Whether as left by Malthus it has undergone, from this and later criticism, any vital revision must be left to the student's own judgment. The truth, falsity, or finality of Malthus's thought is, however, an academic matter. One should seek a true insight into the forces which govern population phenomena of all kinds and which may delimit and condition, or, on the other hand, may stimulate and further, social progress. Gradually sociology and psychology have been drawn upon to supplement the earlier statement of the problem. New elements are recognized, or at least given clearer definition and altered. emphasis. Various sociological and psychological modifications of the Malthusian analysis have therefore been proposed, and have in part found acceptance. While there is still a plentiful lack of agreement as to the nature and force of the laws of human increase, it is certain that we understand the various elements of the problem much better than was formerly possible. Meanwhile it has increased in complexity and takes on exceedingly diverse practical aspects at different times and places, now one factor, and now another, calling for emphasis.

The declining birth rate in England, France, and the cities. of Germany, to mention the striking European instances, the decreased number of children in American families, and the fact that the size of the family varies with social and economic status ("differential birth rate") have created a new situation which Malthus did not face, and one which has been taken to disprove his theories. Search for the causes of the falling birth rate has led into psychological and sociological fields and discovered influences and forces little active and hence unnoticed in Malthus's time. The checks that he recognized collectively as prudential, and which he regarded as chiefly economic in character, are now seen to be far more complex than he supposed. The rise of democracy, the modern woman movement, and the increasing emphasis on parental responsibility, for instance, are essentially new psychological forces, the significance of which as possible bulwarks against overpopulation it is of the greatest importance to examine.

1 In the second and subsequent editions.

The problem is now recognized, too, as a question of the quality, as well as the quantity, of population. The eugenics idea, whether or not it prove capable of development into a new "science," the foundation for a new population policy, — the conscious improvement of the human stock, has opened our eyes to some very present evils and dangers. It is unfortunate that our knowledge of the laws of heredity, which is the basis of eugenics, is so uncertain and fragmentary, and that the progress of investigation must necessarily be slow. Otherwise we might look for a rapid and at the same time sure progress of both theoretical and practical eugenics. Even with the advance of genetic psychology and experimental genetics much doubt must continue to exist with regard to the relative influence of environment and heredity. The laymen may well await the verdict of time, also, as to the validity of the methods of investigation used by the biometricians of the Pearson school in England, and of Mendelism, upon which as a working hypothesis the investigations of the Eugenics Record Office,1 and most other American work, are being carried out. Meanwhile it is desirable to know what the problems of eugenics are, and what the difficulties in the way.

Another matter of more recent study is the high rate of infant mortality. From no rational point of view is it possible to regard the production of feeble-minded children and other defective and hopelessly inefficient elements of the population in any other way than as a dangerous and unnecessary waste of human energy. A high infant death rate must be looked at in the same light, as must, of course, a high death rate among children or youth of whatever age. It involves a useless expenditure of vital and social energy, which is at least in large part preventable. France and England have been ahead in the study of the causes and prevention of infant mortality, but vigorous work is now being done in the United States by the American Association for the Study and Prevention of Infant Mortality and by the Federal Children's Bureau. It should be a matter of shame to Americans that our states have been so slow to establish adequate registration

1 Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island.

laws that even to-day we have to work with dishearteningly inadequate statistical information as to the probable infant death rate in American communities.1

With the gradual abatement of infant mortality and of the general death rate, brought about by the advance of medical and sanitary science, we should have to look for a rapid increase in the population in all Western countries, were there not some evident tendency for the number of children born in a given population to decline also. Whether the birth rate is likely to continue to diminish, regardless of social and economic conditions, or whether its continued decline will be sharp enough to counterbalance the falling death rate, are questions upon which opinions may differ. The net growth ("natural increase ") of a population, barring the effects of emigration and immigration, is of course the excess of the birth rate over the death rate in any given time.

An increasing population brings with it concentration into cities, overcrowding, poor housing, increased competition for work, and constantly heavier demands on the power of agriculture to produce subsistence. Nevertheless, many people look upon a large and constantly increasing population as a national necessity, whatever may be the tendency toward poverty, high cost of living, and internal dissension that may arise from it. There is felt, always, the menace of foreign armies and navies. For England "The Hun is at the gate!" for Germany hordes of Cossacks cloud the eastern horizon, for France, with her stationary population, German militarism proves a not unreal peril, and for us is the "Yellow Peril" - whether real or imaginary no one can surely say. Does it not behoove every nation, then, which desires to preserve its power and independence to see to it that it not only has full coffers and the latest models in ordnance but a plentiful population from which to draft soldiers and taxes? Because the ideal of international peace seems to some chimerical, because they look for a continuance of greedy and unscrupulous international struggle for markets, because the danger of foreign

1 See Birth Registration, an Aid in Protecting the Lives and Rights of Children. United States Children's Bureau, Monograph No. 1, 2d ed., 1914.

military aggression seems continuous and great, a certain type of thinker sees no other logical or ethical population policy than to encourage in every possible way the production of large families. He looks with dismay on what is popularly called race suicide. On the other hand, others minimize these dangers, pin their faith to the gradual triumph of reason, arbitration, and peace, but perceive the real national dangers to lie within. They wish defense against what seems to them a rising tide of poverty, neglect, overcrowding, undernutrition, criminality, and increasing volume of mental defect, especially feeble-mindedness; and they see no fundamentally adequate defense against these and kindred evils except a retardation in the rate of population growth. Many a sober and experienced social worker has uttered a fervent wish for a cessation of the flood of unneeded babies, born of worn-out mothers and destined to swell the ranks of the inefficient and the unemployed. The ethical issue is thus sharply drawn between Neo-Cameralism and Neo-Malthusianism.

For the United States the population problem is complicated by immigration. Formerly the prevalent American sentiment was favorable to the open door, that American resources, then seemingly exhaustless, might be thrown open on equal terms to all the peoples of the earth-or at least of Europe. By welcoming the oppressed of all lands we could not only do ourselves a good turn, but we could relieve the pressure of poverty from Land's End to Calabria. Thus were we to help the masses of Europe toward our own high standard of living. Most foreignborn Americans very naturally still hold to this view. Immigration is at bottom a phenomenon of individualism. The immigrant comes from economic, less often from other, motives, which have to do with his own individual, or his family's, interests. The American workman opposes his coming, in great measure from equally individualistic motives - fear of his competition in the labor market. The history of immigration, of course, shows a variety of causes for the movement, which, however, boil down to two desire to better one's economic condition, and to escape political persecution. The latter motive, except in the case of the Jews, and perhaps of the Poles, has ceased to be of importance.