INCREASE OF CONTEMPORARY PEOPLES

BY W. RUSSELL TYLOR

MALTHUS, who today is much discussed but little read or understood, startled the world over a century ago, by focusing attention upon the problem of population increase, which, as he indicated, surpassed, in its direct relationship to the welfare of human beings and to all forms of social organization, all other problems. Although Malthus was preceded by both Plato and Aristotle in an appreciation of the importance of the population problem, and contemporaneously by Benjamin Franklin and Adam Smith, nevertheless, with the exception of the past decade or so, the century and a quarter that has elapsed since the first publication of the famous Essay on Population has added comparatively little of fresh significance to the issues as there presented. It is true that Darwin was partly inspired by the Malthusian theory of surplus population and the ensuing struggle for existence in the formulation of his doctrine of organic evolution. It is also noteworthy that Doubleday and Spencer attempted inadequate theories regarding population and human fecundity. But on the whole the population problem, until quite lately, has either been lost sight of or eclipsed by developments of greater immediate import. So true is this that relatively few today are in a position to appreciate the full significance of a recent statement by Professor Fetter of Princeton, when he characterized the subject of population increase as a problem to which there was none second in importance.1

Mankind in the twentieth century finds itself on the threshold of an entirely new horizon. For the first time in the history of the human race have human interests really become world problems. From the standpoint of production and consumption of the basic foods and natural resources the world is already a unit. Politically, the struggle is now on between a unifying 1 Statement before the American Statistical Association at its Chicago meeting in December, 1922.

emancipating internationalism, and conflicting limiting nationalisms. But beneath, abreast and afore of all class, racial, or national issues, is the situation facing a world of men steadily gaining in numbers, potentially unlimited, whereas the land and natural resources of the globe on which they are dependent for their existence, and that too in the face of increasing standards of living, are very definitely limited and exhaustible.

The present century is therefore witnessing a fresh consideration from manifold angles of the ever growing importance of the problems arising from the growth of peoples. Nor is the problem one alone which concerns the sociologists. While it is true that matters of population have been understood to lie primarily within the sociologist's field, and whereas no one, perhaps, has done more than Professor Ross to bring the issues anew to public attention, nevertheless the scope and complexity of the problems involved far transcend the recognized fields of any one group of scientists. Attention today is being focused on various aspects of the population subject not alone by the sociologists and statisticians, but likewise by the economists, by agricultural economists, particularly of the Bureau of Research of the United States Department of Agriculture, by political scientists, historians, anthropologists, and also by biologists, naturalists, eugenists and the geographers.

One factor of major significance gives this generation an incalculable advantage over all previous periods in dealing with the problems of population. This is the maintenance of fairly accurate records of vital statistics by virtually all of the chief national governments, and of very recent date by the International Statistical Bureau at the Hague, as well as by the cities, States, and various governmental divisions or units of the principal peoples of the world. Although the science of demography -the statistical study of human life-is yet young, the enumeration of the vital facts of marriages, births and deaths has been carried sufficiently far to enable the present generation to be guided by their study and to draw definite conclusions based on the facts of population movements. Of like importance is the growth of the statistical bureaus as a whole of the various countries. These bureaus are becoming increasingly equipped

with the facts as to agricultural and other natural products and resources, land utilization, the volume and movement of business and trade, the extent of national and individual wealth and incomes, occupations, classes, etc., as well as the earlier recognized data of population numbers and characters.

The key which unlocks the intricacies of population growth and movements is neither the birth rate nor the death rate, but the excess of births over deaths. This is the rate of natural increase, and signifies the annual excess of births over deaths, that is, the (natural) increase (or decrease if negative) of any people apart from the factor of migration. The rate of natural increase is the difference between the crude birth rate and the crude death rate, respectively defined as the total births and total deaths per 1,000 living at all ages, excluding still births. These crude birth rates and death rates with the resulting rates of natural increase have been analyzed for all the peoples of the globe from whom vital statistics are available, for the most part from the beginning of the last quarter of the last century to date. Publications of the various census bureaus and The Statesman's Year Book have been the source of these data.

It will be appreciated that a rise in the rates of natural increase in a given country over a period of years indicates that the birth rate is increasing faster than the death rate, or that the birth rate is remaining constant while the death rate is falling, or else that the death rate is falling more rapidly than the birth rate. Throughout the world as a whole the last circumstance has been the situation during the past fifty years. That is, both birth rates and death rates have fallen, but, owing principally to the growth of medical knowledge and to sanitary and hygienic measures, the death rates have, for the far greater part, fallen more rapidly than the birth rates. As a result the trends of the rates of natural increase in the various countries, although exhibiting marked fluctuations, have on the whole, but with a few outstanding exceptions, tended to increase or else remain virtually constant throughout this whole period.

An analysis of the rates of natural increase for the various countries and peoples falls naturally into two parts. First, their trend up to 1914, and secondly, their trend since 1914. From

this standpoint the data for England and Wales are especially significant. Since the rates for England and Wales were readily available, beginning with 1841, we can examine their trend over a period of three-quarters of a century previous to the opening of the World War. An examination reveals the astonishing fact that the average rate of natural increase for the forties, 10.2, the average rate for the years 1911-1913, 10.2, and the rate for 1921, 10.3, are the same. This rate alone doubles the population in 69 years, or in a considerably less period of time than that during which it has been maintained and excelled. Throughout the whole period of the war, which however took into account no war casualties except deaths from wounds in the country, the rate rapidly fell to as low as .1 in 1918 when the influenza epidemic was at its height, but it rose even more rapidly at the close and regained its original level at 10.3 in 1921. Scotland's and Ireland's rates of natural increase exhibit a similar fluctuation, only they surpass all former records in 1920. Scotland's 1921 rate, however, maintains more nearly the level of her dominant rate, viz. 12, the average for the period 1886-1905.

This exhibit of the tremendous potency of the population spring when once released from the checks of war and disease is by no means confined to the British Isles. Rather is it characteristic of all the peoples of the world. Although the rate of natural increase for France is and has been by far the lowest of all of the significant peoples, her rebound from the war was greater than England's. Of all the important countries, only Mexico has, so far as we know, a rate lower yet than that of France. In fact, in order to find another rate comparable with that of France in size, we must go as far away as the Mauritius Island, the British possession in the Indian Ocean east of Madagascar. The rates exhibited by British and Dutch Guiana also perhaps approximate France's. These latter low rates are due primarily to relatively high death rates, whereas France's rate is due to a relatively low birth rate. As in the case of England, the trend of the French rate may be observed since early in the last century. The first quoted figure for France is for more than a century ago, viz., 4.6 for the year 1806. The next figure, that of 5.7 for the census year 1831, marks the highest rate France

has ever realized, so far as any statistics indicate. France's rate averaged .9 for the years just preceding the opening of the war, 1908-1913. During the war, the rate for the 77 uninvaded Departments, not including military deaths, fell rapidly to one of the lowest depths reached by any of the warring countries, viz.,-11.9 in 1918. In spite of this tremendous handicap the rate for all France in 1920, within the boundaries of 1919, shot back to a height of 4.1, which surpassed any mark since the early 'seventies. This however dropped again to 3 in 1921. Thus in the case of France, for over a century the rate of natural increase opens and closes the record at practically the same point, as it did in the case of England. Only France's rate in the interim experienced a depressing sag, closely approaching zero, whereas England's rate experienced a pronounced rise during the same period. The marked lowness of the French rate of natural increase has been due not only to a lower birth rate than that of England but also to a higher death rate. In marked contrast with France, the German rate more closely parallels that of England. Germany's rate at the opening of the last quarter of the past century was 12.2. Her before the war rate of 12.4 for the year 1913 practically coincided with her opening rate. During the war the German rate, without AlsaceLorraine, fell almost as low as did the French, reaching—10.5 in 1918. By 1920 it had made the unprecedented spring back to 10.8, after all territory deductions except Upper Silesia-a jump of over 20 points in two years! The rate had risen to 11.2 in 1921, and is evidently approaching the before the war rate, unless interrupted by possible circumstances in view of the French occupation. Germany's before the war rate doubles the population in fifty-two years. Germany has experienced a much higher birth rate than England, but she has also experienced a correspondingly higher death rate.

The rate of natural increase for Austria and the rate for Hungary have paralleled one another, both rising from the opening of the last quarter of the last century to the period just before the Of all the warring countries, so far as is ascertainable, Austria's rate fell the lowest and her recovery has been the least. From a rate of-12.6 in 1918 she had attained by 1920 a rate of

war.