A Deadly Danger.

New Zealand Illustrated Magazine, 1 May 1901, Page 615

A Deadly Danger.

A reply to "The Extinction of the Colonial" by W. G. McDonald, New Zkalanu Illustrated Magazine, March. 1901.

By Ohas. Owen

«^l||;\|||^R. McDONALD'S semi-scientific MBiyß article on "The Extinction of J/Wi_lllll c on ' ft^ " i s an attempt to r^fl^r* deal, from a purely optimistic point of view, with what promises to be one of the most burning questions of the future. Unfortunately, any value the article might have is entirely discounted by most illogical reasoning, and what is worse, by a false ethical standpoint, and by rather cheap sneers at a body called " The Purity Brigade," among whom are many leader-writers of the Press. No attempt is made to deal with an evil. It is rather treated as the natural outcome of civilisation, a thing destined to benefit the race, and help the slowly-grinding processes of evolution. Quality not quantity, cries Mr. McDonald, while he quotes Professor Geddes and G. A. Thompson in support of what is called neo-Malthusianism. This is their summary of the, ad vantages of checking the growth of population : — (1) Pi'evention of a too rapid rate of increase ; (2) possibility of earlier marriages bringing about a diminution of vice ; (3) an increase in the fitness of the race by lessening the (propagation of unfit types, and the exhaustion of the mothers by too frequent child-bearing ; (4) a heightened standard of comfort.

Such are the advantages the neoMalthusians urge in support of their philosophy, and some of them are false advantages, while the others are immoral if gained by immoral means. It is quite unnecessary to explain what neo-Malthu-sianism means, but at present, as is even tacitly admitted by Mr. McDonald, its teaching is bearing fruit in the practical

shape of checking tho growth of populutiou by artificial means. Mr. McDonald Hays morbid delicacy makes inquiry difficult, and certainly the fungus has not yet got sufficient root to render all feelings of modesty dead. Still there is little doubt that certain trades in New Zealand could toll an extraordinary story which, while not answering the above quoted summary, would definitely show the effects of its plausible teaching, effects so apparent that they have crept into the everyday knowledge of the whole youth of the colony. Although this article can do nothing to practically check the evil, it may open tho eyes of those who read it to the wortlilessuess of any justification given in " The Extinction of the Colonial," or for that matter of any general justification whatever for interfering with the most sacred of the laws of nature, a law sacred from the distant time when the stern God of the Israelites first blessed man with the injunction to ' : be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it." However, to take the summary in order : — (1) Prevention of a too rapid rate of increase. This is tho old Malthusian fallacy. Political evils such as the unjust distribution of land and wealth conspire to make it appear true, together with the herding of people to the great centres of population ; but to the more observant it is apparent that the world is not overpopulatcd, and so far as human history is capable of teaching, it is doubtful if Nature's law of natural increase ■will ever, in the case of man, outgrow Nature's power to provide for what, according to that law, is produced. At anyrate in

New Zealand there is at present no necessity for such a philosophy. We have room for thousands, so has Australia, to say nothing of Africa and America. For many years to come, as far, indeed, as it is necessary for politician or economist to look ahead, there will be work for willing hands on the untouched lands of the world, returning a rich harvest just to the extent that the work is devoted to productive objects. How immoral then is the philosophy which says to the greatest colonising race there is : " Keep your family as low as possible," " break Nature's law for the sake of a man's short-sighted fear that increase may outrun the power to support it."

So much for expediency. Argument No. 2 turns away from that plea, and urges the morality of neo-Malthusianism. The idea of the morality of a philosophy whose teaching produces immoral actions, and that in men and women who would be above temptation in other ways, whose lives, except for that, are stainless, high-minded, and pure. These are the words. (2) Possibility of earlier marriages bringing about a diminution of vice. Here is an open advocacy of the use of artificial means, for surely the wise men of science who have enunciated these principles will not ask their fellow creatures to believe that those who were incapable of self-control unmarried are going to change when indulgence is made right and proper, aud are going to practice that lofty ethical " prudence after marriage," which Mr. McDonald speaks of. At anyrate few will be found inclined to accept in this practical world the general possibility of such self-control, and therefore the second argument will to most readers advocate " mechanical prudence." The use of artificial means in order to bring about the diminution of vice ! There is no need to comment on this. To any person, whose moral outlook is at all normal, it will speak its own condemnation. Even Mr. McDonald considers that " mechanical prudence " lowers, what he learnedly calls the " monogarnic state." to the level of " legalised prostitution." Mr. McDouald must surely also believe that

vice is lessened by being made legal, or he speaks from such a peculiar ethical standpoint that he supports the third illogical and untrue plea that such a philosophy will provide — (3) An increase in the fitness of the lace by lessening the propagation of unfit types, and the exhaustion of the mothers by too frequent child-bearing.

This statement must be divided into two, for the factors which are to increase the fitness of the race have no possible connection with each other. To take the lessening the propagation of unfit types first ! How is neo-Malthusianism going to accomplish this ? It seems to have for its object the restriction of a family to three, four, or five children as the case may be. Therefore it will say that it lessens the propagation of unfit types by this amount. Universally applied, it lessens the fit in an equal ratio, and by the end of a generation the halt, lame and mentally weak will exist in just the same proportion as before. But perhaps there may be anticipated a legal statute permitting the marriage of unfit types provided they have no children.

Its second beneficent intention to lessen the exhaustion of the mothers by too frequent child-bearing is equally weak. To begin with, it is assuming what is false as a basis of reason. Comparing the mother of the past with the mother of to-day, it is very easy to see the worthlessness of the plea of exhaustion. Malthus propounded a very subtle doctrine, and neo-Malthusians are making it capable of practical application. At least so these arguments would lead one to believe. However, the use of preventative measures has only come into vogue among English-speaking peoples within the last thirty or forty years. How does the mother of to-day compare with the mother of thirty years ago ? Englishwomen in the past brought up large families of eight and ten children without any appearance of exhaustion. Did our race in those centuries when history was in making, and when the foundations of large Empires were being laid across the then strange seas, or in that nearer past when Waterloo was won, show

signs that its mothers were exhausted ?

Nothing can controvert Nature's methods when they can be studied from the times of great Empires to the present, and come out of the ordeal triumphant. No, to reach the real plea of the neo-Malthusians, all the specious arguments about expediency and morality, the improvement of the race and so forth must be set on one side, and the last selfish one of (4) a heightened standard of comfort, printed alone and in big letters for everyone to digest. That is the real cause of the decrease of population. Men and women are growing so degenerate under the influence of civilisation that they view the work of raising a family as an unnecessary trammel upon their liberty. No thought enters their head about the good of the race. Children interfere with the enjoyment of society, and pi'oduce a thousand irksome duties. That is the plain truth about the matter, and to prate about expediency and morality is simple hypocrisy. Nothing will stop the evil except legislation, and that is a difficult remedy. Still could the " mechanical prudence " be done away with there is no doubt that the " Purity Brigade " and the pessimists would be quite willing to

allow Mr. McDonald his "ethical prudence after marriage," a tiling that lias been in existence .siueo man first trod the earth ; it can even befonnd among the laws of Moscm. Population would survive that. What it cannot survive, as has been shown in France, is the dastardly extinction of the race by '' mechanical prudence," and if those doctrines continue to be popular, the}' will bear fruit in many bitter and unforeseen punishments. " The mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly small."

Evolution will certainly step in, and with that relentless lopping of unused or misused limbs for which it is famous, it will wipe the desire for maternity from women's hearts. They will becomothe coldealculating creatures of Zola's Fecondite. Truly Mr. McDonald will then have his quality. There will be no redeeming feature as there is in Fecondite through the triumphant maternity of Marianne. Mr. McDonald might with advantage study the problems suggested by the novel side by side with the philosophy of Professor Geddes and G. A. Thompson, the greatest authorities on sex. He might modify his opinions in spite of the plausible fascination of an "ethical prudence."