Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 12.djvu/324

 POPULATION

278

POPULATION

living can be increased only in an arithmetical ratio. During the nineteenth centurj- this ratio was con- siderably exceeded in many countries (cf. Wells, "Recent Economic Changes"). Malthus's vievr on this point was based upon a rather Umited knowl- edge of what had been happening before his time. He did not foresee the great improvements in pro- duction and transportation which, a few years later, so greatly augmented the means of subsistence in every civilized country. In other words he compared the potential fecundity of man, the limits of which were fairly well known, with the potential fertility of the earth and the potential achievements of human invention, neither of which was known even approid- mately. This was a bad method, and its outcome in the hands of Malthus was a false theorv-.

Even if we discard the mathematical formula- tion of the theorj', and examine it in its more moderate form, as merely asserting that population tends to outrun subsistence, we find that the theory cannot be proved. The facts adduced by Malthus in support of his contention related to the insufficiency of the food supply in many countries at many different times. Now it is true that barbarous peoples and peoples dependent upon fishing and hunting for a living have frequently lacked subsistence, especially when they were unable or unwilhng to emigrate; but such has not often been the case for any consider- able time among civilized nations. Want of food among the latter has usually been due to a bad in- dustrial organization and a bad distribution, rather than to the poverty of nature, or the unproductive- ness of man. Even to-day a large proportion of the inhabitants of every coimtrj- is insufficiently nour- ished, but no intelligent person attributes tiiis con- dition to an absolute excess of population over sub- sistence or productiveness. Since Malthus did not give sufficient attention to the e\-ils of distribution, he failed to prove that his theory was generally true, even of the time before he wrote; since he clid not suspect the great improvements in production that were soon to take place, he was still less able to show tliat it would be universally vaUd. ^\Tiile admitting the weakness of his argument, some of his later followers insist that the theorj- is true in a general way. Population, if unchecked by a prudential regiilation of marriages and births, can and in all probabifity often will outrun subsistence, owing to the law of diminishing returns (cf. Hadley, "Eco- nomics").

Although Malthus seems to have had some knowl- edge of this law, he did not use it as the basis of his conclusions. Now the "law of diminishing returns" is simply the phrase by which economists describe the well-known fact that a man cannot go on in- definitely increasing the amount of capital and labour that he expends upon a piece of land, and continue to get profitable returns. Sooner or later a point is reached where the product of the latest increment of expenditure is less than the expenditure itself. This point has already been reached in many re- gions, whence a part of the population is compelled to move to other land. \Mien it has been reached everjTvhere, population will universally exceed subsistence. Stated in this form, Malthusianism seems to be irrefutable. Xevertheless the law of diminishing returns, like all economic laws, is true only in certain conditions. Change the condi- tions, in this case, the methods of production, and the law is no longer operative. With new productive processes, further ex-penditures of labour and capital become profitable, and the point of diminishing re- turns is moved farther away. This fact has received frequent illustration in the history of agriculture and mining. While it is true that new methods are not always discovered as soon as they are needed, and that men often find it more profitable to expend their

additional resources upon new lands than upon the old, it is also true that we can set no definite Umita to the inventive power of man, nor to the potential fertihty of nature. .Absolutely speaking, no one is warranted in asserting that these two forces wUl not be able to modify indefinitely the conditions in which the law of diminishing returns operates, so that sub- sistence will keep pace with population as long as men have standing room upon the earth. On the other hand, we cannot prove that if population were to increase up to the full limit of its jjhysiological possi- bilities, it would always be sufficiently provided for by the fertihty of nature and the inventiveness of man. We are deahng here with three unknown quantities. Upon such a basis it is impossible either to establish a social law, or conclusively to refute any particular generalization that may be set up. In the third place, the Malthusian theory, even if true, is of no practical use. The assurance that population, if unchecked, will inevitably press upon subsistence does not terrify us, when we realize that it always has been checked, by celibacy, late marriages, war, natural calamities, and other forces which are not due to scarcity of subsistence. The practical question for any people is whether these non-scarcity checks are likely to keep population within the limits of that people's productive resources. So far as the nations of the Western world are concerned, this question may be answered in the affirmative.

The use of preventive checks, such as postpone- ment of marriage, abortion, and artificial sterility have become so common that the birth-rate has al- most everjTvhere decreased within the last half- centurj-, and there is no indication of a reaction in the near future. During the same period the rate of food production has considerably increased. iMore- over, the decline in the birth-rate has been most pronounced among those classes whose subsistence is most ample, thus suggesting the probability that it ■nill become equallj' prevalent among the poorer classes as soon as their plane of liWng is raised. The contingency that men may some day become so care- less of the higher standards of comfort as to give up the present methods of restriction is too remote to justify anxiety on the part, of this generation. Let us assume, however, that, under the influence of religion and mor.al teaching, all the immoral preven- tives of population were discarded. Even so, we have no reason to doubt that the lav\-ful checks, such as virtuous celibacy both temporary and permanent, and the decrease of fecundity that seems to be a necessary incident of modern life, particularly in cities, would be sufficient to keep the world's inhabi- tants well within the bounds of its productive powers. So far as we can see at present, the Malthusian theory, even if true in the abstract and h}-pothetically, is so hypothetical, assumes the absence of so many factors which are always likely to be present, that it is not deserving of serious attention, except as a means of intellectual exercise. .\s a law of popula- tion, it is about as valuable as many of the other laws handed down by the classical economists. It is about as remote from reality as the "economic man".

.\nd yet, this theor\' met with immediate and al- most universal acceptance. The book in which it was expounded went through six editions while Malthus was living, and exerted a remarkable in- fluence upon economics, sociology, and legislation during the first half of the nineteenth century. .Aside from a section of the Socialists, the most important group of writers rejecting the Malthusian theory have been Catholic economists, such as Liberatore, Devas, Pesch, Antoine (cf. Pesch. "Lehrbuch der Nationalokonomie", II, 59S). Being pessimistic and individualistic, the teaching of Malthus agreed thoroughly with the temper and ide;us of his time. Distress was deep and general, and the political anil