CHAPTER XIII!
!
!INCREASE OF THE BIRTH-RATE OF THE SUPERIOR!
!
It is at once
evident that a decline, rather than an increase, in the
birth-rate of
some sections of the population, is wanted. There are some strata at the bottom
that are a source of weakness rather than of strength to the race, and a source
of unhappiness rather than of
!happiness to
themselves and those around them. These should be reduced in number, as we have
shown at some length earlier in this book.
!The other parts
of the population should be perpetuated by the best, rather than the worst. In
no other way can the necessary leaders be secured, without whom, in commerce,
industry, politics, science, the nation is at a great disadvantage. The task of
eugenics is by no means what it is sometimes supposed to be: to breed a
superior caste. But a very important part of its task is certainly to increase
the number of leaders in the race.
As every one
knows, race suicide is proceeding more rapidly among the native whites than
among any other large section of the population; and it is exactly this part of
the population which has in the past
!furnished most
of the eminent men of the world.
It has been
shown in previous chapters that eminent men do not appear wholly by chance in
the population. The production of eminence is largely a family affair; and in
America, "the land of opportunity" as
well as in older
countries, people of eminence are much more interrelated than chance would
allow. It has been shown, indeed, that in America it is at least a 500 to 1 bet
that an eminent person will be
!rather closely
related to some other eminent person, and will not be a sporadic appearance in
the population.[118]
Taken with other
considerations advanced in earlier chapters, this means that a falling off in
the reproduction of the old American best strains means a falling off in the
number of eminent men which the United States will produce. No improvement in
education can prevent a serious loss,
!for the strong
minds get more from education.
The old American
stock has produced a vastly greater proportion of eminence, has accomplished a
great deal more proportionately, in modern times, than has other any stock
whose representatives have been coming in large numbers as immigrants to these
shores during the last generation. It is, therefore, likely to continue to
surpass them, unless
!it declines too
greatly in numbers. For this reason, we feel justified in concluding that the
decline of the birth-rate in the old American stock represents a decline in the
birth-rate of a superior element.
There is another
way of looking at this point. The stock under discussion has been, on the
whole, economically ahead of such stocks as
are now
immigrating. In competition with them under equal conditions, it appears to
remain pretty consistently ahead, economically. Now,
although we
would not insist on this point too strongly, it can hardly be questioned that
eugenic value is to some extent correlated with economic success in life, as
all desirable qualities tend to be correlated together. Within reasonable
limits, it is justifiable to
!treat the
economically superior sections of the nation as the eugenically superior. And
it is among these economically superior sections of the nation that the
birth-rate has most rapidly and dangerously fallen.
The constant
influx of highly fecund immigrant women tends to obscure the fact that the
birth-rate of the older residents is falling below
!par, and
analysis of the birth-rate in various sections of the community is necessary to
give an understanding of what is actually taking place.
In short, the
birth-rate of the old American stock is now so low that that stock is dying out
and being supplanted by immigrants. In order that the stock might even hold its
own, each married
!woman should
bear three to four children. At present the married women of the old white
American race in New England appear to be bringing two or less to maturity.
Dr. Cattell's
investigation of the families of 1,000 contemporary
American men of
science all of which were probably not complete however, shows that they leave,
on the average, less than two surviving children.
!Only one family
in 75 is larger than six, and 22% of them are childless. Obviously, as far as
those families are concerned, there will be fewer men of inherent scientific
eminence in the next generation than in this.
!The decline in
the birth-rate is sometimes attributed to the fact that people as a whole are
marrying later than they used to; we have already shown that this idea is, on
the whole, false. The idea that people as a whole are marrying less than they
used to is also, as we have shown, mistaken. The decline in the general birth-rate
can be attributed to only one fact, and that is that married people are having
fewer children.
A. Hill[124]
found, from the 1910 census figures, that one in eight of the native-born wives
is childless, as compared with one in five
!among the
Negroes, one in nineteen among the foreign born. Childlessness of American
wives is therefore a considerable, although not a preponderant factor, in this
decline of the birth rate.
!Dr. Hill
further found that from 10 marriages, in various stocks, the following numbers
of children could be expected:
Native-born women 27
Negro-born women 31
English-born
women 34
Russian-born women 54
French
Canada-born women 56
!Polish-born
women 62
!The women of
the old American stock are on the whole more sterile or, if not sterile, less
fecund, than other women in the United States. Why?
In answer,
various physiological causes are often alleged. It is said
that the
dissemination of venereal diseases has caused an increase of sterility; that
luxurious living lowers fecundity, and so on. It is impossible to take the time
to analyse the many explanations of this sort which have been offered, and
which are familiar to the reader; we must content ourselves with saying that
evidence of a great many kinds, largely statistical and, in our opinion,
reliable, indicates that physiological causes play a minor part in the decrease
of the
!birth-rate.[125]
!Or, plainly,
women no longer bear as many children, because they don't want to.
This accords
with Dr. Cattel's inquiry of 461 American men of science; in 285 cases it was
stated that the family was voluntarily limited, the cause being given as health
in 133 cases, expense in 98 cases, and various in 54 cases. Sidney Webb's
investigation among "intellectuals"
in London showed
an even greater proportion of voluntary limitation. The exhaustive
investigation of the Galton Laboratory of National Eugenics leaves little room
for doubt that in England the decline in the
birth-rate began
about 1876-78, when the trial of Charles Bradlaugh and the Theosophist leader,
Mrs. Annie Besant, on the charge of circulating "neo-Malthusian"
literature, focused public attention on the
!possibility of
birth control, and gradually brought a knowledge of the means of contraception
within reach of many. In the United States statistics are lacking, but medical
men and others in a position to form opinions generally agree that the
limitation of births has been steadily increasing for the last few decades; and
with the propaganda at present going on, it is pretty sure to increase much
more rapidly during the next decade or two.
And in so
explaining the cause of the declining birth-rate among
native-born
Americans, we have also found the principal reason for the differential nature
of the decline in the nation at large, which is
the feature that
alarms the eugenist. The more intelligent and well-to-do part of the population
has been able to get and use the
!needed
information, and limit its birth-rate; the poor and ignorant has been less able
to do so, and their rate of increase has therefore been more natural in a large
percentage of cases.
It is not
surprising, therefore, that many eugenists should have advocated wider
dissemination of the knowledge of means of limiting births, with the idea that
if this practice were extended to the lower classes, their birth-rate would
decrease just the same as has that of
!the upper
classes, and the alarming differential rate would therefore be abolished.
!Against this it
might be argued that the desired result will never be wholly attained, because
the most effective means of birth control involve some expense, and because
their effective use presupposes a certain amount of foresight and self-control
which is not always found among the lower strata of society.
Despite certain
dangers accompanying a widespread dissemination of the knowledge of how to
limit births, it seems to be the opinion of most eugenists that if free access
to such information be not permitted that
at least such
knowledge ought to be given in many families, where it would be to the
advantage of society that fewer children be produced. Such a step, of course,
must be taken on the individual responsibility of a doctor, nurse or other
social worker. A propaganda has arisen during recent years, in the United
States, for the repeal of all laws which prohibit giving knowledge about and
selling contraceptives.
Whether or not
it succeeds in changing the law it will, like the
!Bradlaugh-Besant
episode, spread contraception widely. This propaganda is based largely on
social and economic grounds, and is sometimes unscientific in its methods and
avowed aims. But whatever its nature may be, there seems little reason (judging
from analogy in European countries) to believe that it can be stopped.
The "infant
mortality movement" also has an effect here which is rarely recognised. It
is a stock argument of birth control propagandists that a high birth-rate means
a high rate of infant mortality; but A. O. Powys has demonstrated that cause
and effect are to some extent reversed in this statement, and that it is
equally true that a high rate of infant mortality means a high birth-rate, in a
section of the population where birth control is not practiced. The explanation
is the familiar fact
!that conception
takes place less often in nursing mothers. But if a child dies early or is
bottle-fed, a new conception is likely to occur much sooner than would
otherwise be the case. By reducing infant mortality and teaching mothers to
feed their babies naturally, the infant mortality movement is thereby reducing
the birth-rate in the poorer part of the population, a eugenic service which to
some extent offsets the dysgenic results that, as we shall show in the last chapter,
follow the "Save the Babies" propaganda.
With the spread
of the birth control and infant mortality movements one may therefore look
forward to some diminution of the differential element in the birth-rate,
together with a further decline in that
!birth-rate as a
whole.
Such a
situation, which seems to us almost a certainty within the next decade or two,
will not change the duty of eugenics, on which we have been insisting in this
chapter and, to a large extent, throughout the present book. It will be just as
necessary as ever that the families which are, and have been in the past, of
the greatest benefit and value to the country, have a higher birth-rate. The
greatest task of eugenics, as we see it, will still be to find means by which
the birth-rate among such families can be increased. This increase in the
birth-rate among superior people must depend largely on a change in public
sentiment. Such a change may be brought about in many ways. The authority of
religion may be invoked, as it is by the Roman Catholic and Mormon
churches[127]
whose communicants are constantly taught that fecundity is a virtue and
voluntary sterility a sin. Unfortunately their appeal fails
to make proper
discriminations. Whatever may be the theological reasons for such an attitude
on the part of the churches, its practical eugenic
!significance is
clear enough.
Nothing can be
more certain than that, if present conditions continue, Roman Catholics will
soon be in an overwhelming preponderance in the eastern United States, because
of the differential birth-rate, if for no other reason; and that the Mormon
population will steadily gain ground in the west. Similarly, it is alleged that
the population of France is gradually assuming the characteristics of the
Breton race, because that race is the notably fecund section of the population,
while nearly all
the other
components of the nation are committing race suicide (although not so rapidly
as is the old white stock in New England). Again, the
role of religion
in eugenics is shown in China, where ancestor worship leads to a desire for
children, and makes it a disgrace to be childless.
A process
analogous to natural selection applies to religions much as it does to races;
and if the Chinese religion, with its requirement of a high birth-rate, and the
present-day American Protestant form of the Christian religion, with its lack
of eugenic teaching, should come into
direct
competition, under equal conditions of environment, it is obvious that the
Chinese form would be the eventual survivor, just because its adherents would
steadily increase and those of its rival would as steadily decrease. Such a
situation may seem fanciful; yet the leaders
of every church
may well consider whether the religion which they preach is calculated to fill
all the needs of its adherents, if it is silent on
!the subject of
eugenics.
The influence of
economic factors on the birth-rate is marked. The child, under modern urban
conditions, is not an economic asset, as he was on the farm in earlier days. He
is an economic liability instead.
!And with the
constant rise of the standard of living, with the increase of taxation, the
child steadily becomes more of a liability. Many married people desire
children, or more children, but feel that they can not have them without
sacrificing something that they are unwilling to sacrifice.
!Analysis of
this increase in the cost of children, reveals not less than five main elements
which deserve attention from eugenists.
!It costs more
to clothe children than it used to. Not only does clothing of a given quality
cost more now than it did a decade or two ago, but there are more fabrics and
designs available, and many of these, while attractive, are costly and not
durable. Compliance to fashion has increasingly made itself felt in the
clothing of the child.
!It costs more
to feed them than it used to. Not only has food for everyone increased in
price, but the standards for feeding children have been raised. Once children
were expected to be content with plain fare; now it is more frequently the
custom to give them just what the rest of the family eats.
The cost of
medical attention has increased. All demand more of the doctors now than they
did in the last generation. The doctors are able to do more than they formerly
could, and particularly for his children,
!every man wants
the best that he can possibly afford. Hence medical attendance for a child is
constantly becoming more costly, because more frequent; and further, the amount
of money which parents spend on medical attendance for their children usually increases
with any increase in their income.
The cost of
domestic labor is greater. Most kinds of domestic service have more than
doubled in price within the memory of relatively young people. Moreover, it is
gradually being realised that a high standard is desirable in selecting a nurse
for children. As a fact, a children's
nurse ought to
have much greater qualifications than the nurse whose duty is to care for sick
adults. If a mother is obliged to delegate part
of the work of
bringing up her children to some other woman, she is beginning to recognise
that this substitute mother should have superior ability; and the teachers of
subconscious psychology have emphasised the importance of giving a child only
the best possible intellectual surroundings. Ignorant nursemaids are
unwillingly tolerated, and as the number of competent assistants for mothers is
very small, the cost is correspondingly high. An increase in the number of
persons trained for such work is to be anticipated, but it is likely that the
demand for
!them will grow
even more rapidly; hence there is no reason to expect that competent domestic
help will become any less costly than it is now.
The standards of
education have risen steadily. There is perhaps no other feature which has
tended more to limit families. Conscientious parents have often determined to
have no more children than they could afford to educate in the best possible
way. This meant at least a
!college
education, and frequently has led to one and two-child families. It is a motive
of birth control which calls for condemnation. The old idea of valuable mental
discipline for all kinds of mental work to be gained from protracted difficult
formal education is now rejected by educational psychologists, but its
prevalence in the popular mind serves to make "higher education"
still something of a fetish, from which marvellous results, not capable of
precise comprehension, are anticipated. We do not disparage the value of a
college education, in saying that parents should not attach such importance to
it as to lead them to limit their family to the number to whom they can give 20
years of education without pecuniary compensation.
The effect of
these various factors in the increasing cost of children
!is to decrease
fecundity not so much on the basis of income of parents, as on the basis of
their standards. The prudent, conscientious parent is therefore the one most
affected, and the reduction in births is greatest in that class, where eugenics
is most loth to see it.
The remedy
appears to be a change in public opinion which will result in a truer idea of
values. Some readjustments in family budgets are called for, which will
discriminate more clearly between expenditure that is worth while, and that
which is not. Without depriving his children of
the best medical
attention and education, one may eliminate those invidious sources of expense
which benefit neither the children nor anyone else,--overdressing, for
instance. A simplification of life would
!not only enable
superior people to have larger families, but would often be an advantage to the
children already born.
On the other
hand, the fact that higher standards in a population lead to fewer children
suggests a valuable means of reducing the birth-rate of the inferior. Raise
their low standards of living and they will reduce their own fertility
voluntarily (the birth control movement
furnishing them
with the possibility). All educational work in the slums therefore is likely to
have a valuable though indirect eugenic outcome. The poor foreign-speaking
areas in large cities, where immigrants live huddled together in squalor,
should be broken up. As these people are given new ideas of comfort, and as
their children are educated in American ways of living, there is every reason
to expect a decline in their birth-rate, similar to that which has taken place
among the
!native-born
during the past generation.
This elevation
of standards in the lower classes will be accomplished without any particular
exertion from eugenists; there are many agencies at work in this field,
although they rarely realise the result of their
!work which we
have just pointed out.
But to effect a
discriminating change in the standards of the more intelligent and better
educated classes calls for a real effort on the part of all those who have the
welfare of society at heart. The difficulties are great enough and the
obstacles are evident enough; it
is more
encouraging to look at the other side, and to see evidences that the public is
awakening. The events of every month show that the ideals of eugenics are
filtering through the public mind more rapidly than some of us, a decade ago,
felt justified in expecting. There is a growing recognition of the danger of
bad breeding; a growing recognition in some quarters at least of the need for
more children from the superior part
of the
population; a growing outcry against the excessive standards of luxury that are
making children themselves luxuries. The number of those who call themselves
eugenists, or who are in sympathy with the aims of eugenics, is increasing
every year, as is evidenced by the growth of
such an
organisation as the American Genetic Association. Legislators show an eager
desire to pass measures that as they (too often wrongly) believe will have a
eugenic result. Most colleges and universities are teaching the principles of
heredity, and a great many of them add definite instruction in the principles
of eugenics. Although the
ultimate aim of
eugenics--to raise the level of the whole human race--is perhaps as great an
undertaking as the human mind can conceive, the American nation shows distinct
signs of a willingness to grapple with it. And this book will have failed in
its purpose, if it has not
!convinced the
reader that means are available for attacking the problem at many points, and
that immediate progress is not a mere dream.
!One of the
first necessary steps is a change in educational methods to give greater
emphasis to parenthood.
Perhaps the time
is not so far distant when babies will be considered an integral part of a
girl's curriculum. If educators begin systematically
to educate the
emotions as well as the intellect, they will have taken a long step toward
increasing the birth-rate of the superior. The next step will be to correlate
income more truly with ability in such a way as to make it possible for
superior young parents to afford children earlier. The child ought, if
eugenically desirable, to be made an asset rather than a liability; if this can
not be done, the parents should at least not be penalised for having children.
In this chapter, emphasis has been laid on the need for a change in public
opinion; in future
!chapters some
economic and social reforms will be suggested, which it is believed would tend
to make superior parents feel willing to have more children.
!
Fertility Fitness – Increase your chance of Pregnancy | Manchester
No comments:
Post a Comment