December 1, 1966

Population Explosion A Myth

Though this column may be occasionally in error, it is never in doubt. Thus, I was somewhat dismayed by two completely opposite reactions to a piece I wrote a few weeks ago about inflation.

One kind reader wrote in to say I was right that inflation could lead to serious economic trouble. He was sure that the "population explosion" made the situation increasingly worse as more and more people competed for existing goods.

Then, a friend said I was wrong about inflation because the "population explosion" was creating an ever growing market to sustain prosperity.

It is curious, is it not?, that the much talked about -- and feared accelerating increase in population could be both cause and cure of our economic problems.

Both persons thought I had been remiss in not emphasizing the effect of population on inflation. As I look back on my recent effort I realize I did not speak of population growth because it did not occur to me, and it did not occur to me because in my mind the population "explosion" is only a modern myth.

The fear of an uncontrolled increase in people has been a controversy since 1798 when Thomas Malthus published his "Essay on the Principles of Population." A political economist with a theological background, Malthus held that population grew at a geometrical (doubling) rate while the means of subsistence increased at an arithmetical (steady) rate. This imbalance, said Malthus, made the condition of the poor more and more hopeless. Only war, famine, disease and stringent birth control would save the world, he contended.

His theory, now labeled Malthusian, is the progenitor of the "population explosion" idea. Its general acceptance throughout the world is a motivating factor in the official and public outcry for birth control measures.

At the current growth rate the world's population would multiply at least sixfold in a century. Recent history suggests, however, that the rate will be cut by people acting in their own private interest. Official efforts to discourage — or encourage — the production of children have little effect.

One of the most interesting scholars on this subject is Prof. Kingsley Davis. When he was associated with the University of California at Berkeley he made a detailed study of world population for a special issue of Scientific American devoted entirely to ecological problems. His conclusions are contrary to Malthus and enjoy the support of reality, rather than theory.

The essential fact about the present population growth is that it results mostly from a decrease in deaths rather than from an increase in births. More precisely: the rate of decrease in deaths is accelerating while the rate of increase in births is slowing

Ironically, the benefits of health have drastically compounded the economic problems of the world's undeveloped countries. Under the humanitarian auspices of the United Nations and the United States, modern medicine can be transported overnight to primitive peoples. A few pounds of DDT and penicillin can have tremendous impact on the growth rate of an impoverished nation.

In India, for example, a high birth rate was necessary to overcome the staggering loss of babies by disease. Since World War II an intensive health campaign has dramatically improved the life expectancy of children. Now, without offsetting deaths, the birth rate surplus is seriously threatening a major famine — and one which the other nations of the world will be powerless to alleviate.

As a class the non-industrial nations since 1930 have been growing in population about twice as fast as the industrial ones. When we think of it, we are astonished that the world's poorest and already overcrowded nations are generating additions to the population at the highest rate.

Prof. Kingsley. points out that the underveloped countries have about 69 percent of the world's adults and some 80 percent of the children. This situation alone tends to make the world constantly more underdeveloped and advancement doubly difficult.

"How can we account for the paradox that the world's poorest regions are producing the most people?" Kingsley asks. "One is tempted to believe that the underdeveloped countries are simply repeating history; that they are in the same phase of rapid growth the West experienced when it began to industrialize and its death rates fell. If that is so, then eventually the developing areas will limit their population growth voluntarily as the West did."

A disquieting difference between today's population growth and that of the last century is the speed with which it is taking place. The peak of the industrial nations' natural increase rarely rose above 15 per 1,000 population per year. The highest rate in Scandinavia was 13, in England 14, and even in Japan it was slightly less than 15. The U.S. may have hit a figure of 30 in the early 19th century, but if so it was with the help of heavy immigration of young people and with the encouragement of an empty continent.

In contrast, in the present underveloped countries the natural increase per 1,000 population is everywhere extreme. In the decade 1950-1960 it averaged 31 in Taiwan, 27 in Ceylon, 32 in Malaya, 32 in Mexico, 34 in El Salvador and 37 in Costa Rica. At an annual increase of 30 per 1,000 a population will double itself in 23 years!

It is significant that a people will control its population growth in accordance with prosperity rather than poverty. Malthus was right in that population tends to increase at a rate independent of the food supply. He and other economists of the day had not yet learned there is a stronger deterrent to large families than war, famine and disease.

Prosperity — and the human desire to enjoy it ---rapidly dampened the birth rate in the Western countries. In an urban society that is complicated by large and expensive families, the parents keep the family circle small. The need for many family members to share the hard labor of farm and herd life no longer exists. The cost of rearing and educating children is now the major burden. A large family divides family wealth rather than enhances it and deprives individual members of the benefits of modern society.

A dramatic example of this "prosperity effect" is Japan. As a feudal nation, Japan's birth rate increased in geometrical ratio, but well within the available food supply. Starting in 1920 it began to industrialize and modernize. The death rate fell sharply and the imbalance with births caused the population to soar.

Finally the benefits of industrialization began to lead the Japanese people to limit the birth rate so they could enjoy their hard won improvements.

Today, the Japanese government pursues a birth control policy more energetically than any other country. Registered abortions rose from some unknown but fractional figure at the turn of the century to 12 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in 1949 to 50 in 1955. Young people are postponing marriage from their teens to their twenties. Families are limited to one or two children.

The rates for childbearing for women in various ages are so low that, if they continue indefinitely, the Japanese population will not be able to replace itself!

India is in the throes of its industrial revolution and exhibits all the indications of a self-limiting factor to its population growth.

The question seems to be can the Indian people accomplish naturally a task that has been complicated by well-meaning interference with nature.

The answer may be a catastrophic one, but it is certain that Malthus' nightmare of a population explosion will not occur.

Author: Lindsey Williams