sex and marriage

Chapter 23 Population
The main purpose of marriage is to replenish the world's population.There are many marriage institutions that are too conscientious for this purpose, and many marriage institutions are too ineffective.It is from this point of view that I have discussed sexual morality in this chapter.

In nature, the first condition for a large mammal to maintain life is a large area.Therefore, the total number of large wild mammals is very small.Yes, although there are a lot of cattle and sheep, this is caused by human factors.Humans outnumber any other large mammal.certainly.This is due to our survival skills.The invention of the bow and arrow, the domestication of ruminants, the development of agriculture, and the advent of the Industrial Revolution all greatly increased the number of people surviving per square mile.It is estimated that the development of the economy is ultimately for the same purpose, and most of the other developments are also for this purpose.Human intelligence is used more for the development of population than for any other single purpose.

As Carl Saunders has pointed out, population numbers usually don't change much, and the population growth that occurred in the nineteenth century was a highly accidental phenomenon.We might say that something similar happened in the days when Egypt and Babylon used water conservancy and agricultural methods.But throughout history, this situation probably never happened again.The census of the population before the nineteenth century is speculative, but on this point people are completely unanimous.Population spikes are therefore a rare and accidental phenomenon.As for the present population, in most civilized countries, the population tends to remain constant.It only means that these countries have escaped from the extraordinary state and returned to the ordinary habits of human beings.

Carl Sanders, in his book on population, makes it clear that automatic control has worked in almost all ages and places to keep population constant .This automatic control is more effective than reducing the population by mass death.Here, perhaps he is exaggerating a bit.In India and China, for example, high death rates seem to be the main reason why populations do not increase rapidly.China lacks such statistics, but India does.In India, despite its high birth rate, population growth has been slightly slower than in Britain, as Carl Saunders himself has pointed out.This was mainly due to the mass death of children, plague and other serious diseases in India.I believe that if we can get statistics for China, we will find a similar situation in China.However, apart from these important special cases, Carl Sanders' theory is undoubtedly correct on the whole.

Various methods of population control have been used, the simplest of which is the slaughter of infants.Where religion does not interfere, this method is most commonly used.Sometimes this method is so popular that when people accept Christianity, they ask that Christianity should not interfere with the slaughter of babies.The Duke Hobo had once clashed with the tsarist government for refusing to join the army, on the grounds that human life was sacred.They later came into conflict with the Canadian government because they endorsed the slaughter of babies.

certainly.Other methods are also common.In many ethnic groups, women are not allowed to have sexual intercourse not only during pregnancy, but also during breastfeeding, and this situation often lasts for two or three years.No doubt this would greatly restrict the reproductive powers of women, especially among savage peoples, who age more rapidly than civilized peoples.The aborigines of Australia practiced an extremely painful operation that could greatly destroy male reproductive capacity, thereby achieving the purpose of restricting fertility.We know from Genesis that at least one definite method of birth control was known and practiced in ancient times.The Jews, however, disapproved of this method because their religion was anti-Malthusian.Through these methods, human beings have avoided the famine caused by excessive reproduction, and also avoided the disaster of extinction.

Nevertheless, famine also played a considerable role in reducing the population.But, under very primitive conditions, the effects of famine may not be as great as in a less developed agricultural society. From 1846 to 1847, there was a very serious famine in Ireland.Ireland's population has not reached pre-famine levels since.In Russia, famines are common, and the famine in 1921 is still fresh in the memory of each of us. When I was in China in 1920, much of the country was suffering a famine as severe as the famine in Russia the following year.However, the victims of the disaster in China received much less sympathy than those in the Volga, because their suffering was not caused by communism.The above facts show that the growth of population will sometimes reach or even exceed the limit of food supply.However, this has mainly occurred in those areas where the food supply has plummeted.

Wherever Christianity is practiced, all methods of limiting population growth, except those of sexual abstinence, are to be abolished.Slaughtering babies is of course prohibited, as is induced abortion, and all contraceptive measures are prohibited.Yes, those priests, monks, and nuns were celibate, but I don't think there were more of them in medieval Europe than there are unmarried women in England today, so they didn't do much to control population growth. important role.If one compares the Middle Ages with ancient times, the population death rate caused by famine and plague in the Middle Ages may be greater.In fact, population growth is very slow.In the 18th century, the rate of population growth increased only slightly, but in the 19th century, the situation changed dramatically, and the rate of population growth reached unprecedented levels.According to statistics, in 1066, in England and Wales, there were 26 people per square mile; in 1801, the number increased to 153; by 1901, the number increased to 561.Thus, population growth in the nineteenth century was nearly four times faster than it had been between the Norman raids and the beginning of the nineteenth century.The population growth of England and Wales does not tell the truth, for during this period the British nation was plundering large territories formerly inhabited by a few barbarians to start their colonies.

Population growth has little to do with birth rate growth.The growth of the population is due to the reduction of the death rate, partly due to the progress of medicine, but mainly due to the prosperity brought about by the industrial revolution.From 1841, when Britain began to record the birth rate, until 1871 and 1875, the birth rate was almost stable, and it reached the highest point of 35% in the later period.During this period, two major events occurred.First, the Education Act was promulgated in 5; second, in 1870, Bredlow prosecuted for promoting the new Malthusian doctrine.So from this point on, the birth rate began to decline, slowly at first and then catastrophically.Education regulations were the main reason for this, because having children was no longer a favorable economic motive, and Bradlow provided the means to do so. During the five years from 1878 to 1911, the birth rate dropped to 1915%. In the first quarter of 5, the birth rate fell to 23%.The UK population, although slowly recovering due to improvements in health care, will soon plateau.The French population has long been in a constant state, as we all know.

Birth rate declines are widespread and rapid throughout Western Europe, except in countries as backward as Portugal.The decline in the birth rate is more pronounced in the cities than in the countryside.At first, this condition existed only among the wealthy, but it has now spread to all classes throughout the cities and industrial areas.The birth rate among the poor is higher than that among the rich.But if you compare birth rates in the poorest areas of London today with those in the wealthiest areas a decade ago, the former are much lower than the latter.It is well known (although some would not admit it) that this is the reason for the practice of abortion and the use of contraception.We have no reason to say that this method of keeping the population constant should cease to be used.It is likely that this method will continue to be used until the population begins to decline, and may even eventually lead to the extinction of most civilized peoples.

For our discussion of this question to be effective, we must understand our purpose.In any given state of economic technology, there exists what Carl Sanders called an optimal population density, that is, the population density that would give everyone the highest economic income.If the population falls below or above this density, then the basic level of economic well-being decreases.All in all, with each step of economic technology improvement, the optimal population density will also increase.In hunting days one man per square mile was more suitable, but in a developed industrial country several hundred men per square mile are not too much to worry about.There is every reason, however, to say that England has been overpopulated since the war in Europe.We dare not say that France has the same situation, let alone the United States.

But in France, or in any country of Western Europe, the growth of the population probably will not raise their average income.So, from an economic point of view, we have no reason to want population growth.Those who have such hopes are often motivated by national militarism, so that the population growth they hope for is not sustainable, because once they get the war they dream of, this desire will disappear.So the real position of these people is that, rather than using contraception to control population growth, it is better to do so through death on the battlefield.No one who has given much thought to the matter has ever held such a view, and those who do so are therefore delusional.Leaving aside those arguments connected with war, we are glad to see that the methods of birth control are bringing the populations of civilized nations to a steady state.

However, if the population really decreases, the situation will become different, because the uncontrolled reduction of the population means the ultimate extinction of human beings, and we don't want to see the most civilized peoples from the world disappeared.Therefore, we can vigorously promote the use of contraceptives only after we have adopted a series of measures to control the use of contraceptives within the range that can keep the current number basically unchanged.I don't think this is difficult to do.The main reason why people limit the development of families is economic, so by reducing the expenses of children, or, if necessary, making children the source of income for parents, the birth rate will increase.However, in today's nationalistic world, such an approach is extremely dangerous because it can be used as a means of securing military superiority.It's not hard to imagine.What would it be like if the major military states were multiplying their populations among armed peoples under the slogan "the guns must have the balls."Thus, an international government is absolutely necessary if we want civilization to survive.If such a government would effectively maintain world peace, it must issue regulations to limit the population growth of all military states.

The standoff between Australia and Japan is ample evidence of the importance of this issue.Japan's population is growing very rapidly, while Australia's is growing rather slowly.This situation creates a confrontation that is extremely difficult to ease, since both sides have their own obvious reasons for arguing.I don't think birth rates in the United States and throughout Western Europe will lead to population growth in the short term unless governments take concrete steps to do so.However, as long as those military powers still exist, it is impossible for other countries to confront each other solely by birth.Therefore, any international authority that is to successfully carry out its mandate must pay attention to population issues and insist on family planning in countries that do not comply.Otherwise, world peace cannot be guaranteed.

All in all, the population problem is a double problem.We must prevent the population from growing too fast, but also from declining population.The former danger is old and exists today in many countries, such as Portugal, Spain, Russia and Japan.The latter danger is of recent origin and is present mainly in the countries of Western Europe.The United States would be in danger of doing the same if it relied solely on fertility to achieve population growth.Immigration has so far increased the population of the United States satisfactorily, although the birth rate among native-born Americans is rather low.This new problem of depopulation is unacceptable to our traditional habits of thinking.Both moralizing and laws against birth control propaganda are challenged by this new problem.The use of contraceptives has become such a part of the common custom of all civilized nations that it will be difficult to abolish.Moreover, the habit of avoiding sexual questions is so ingrained in government and among so-called dignitaries that we cannot hope to abolish it all at once.However, this is a highly undesirable habit.So I think we should hope that these young people, now that they have gained important positions, can do better than their parents in this regard.We hope that in the future they will frankly acknowledge the inevitability of the spread of contraception and its justification without causing actual population decline.Therefore, trying to reduce the economic burden of children on the country until the birth rate can reach a level that can maintain the current population is the appropriate step for any country facing actual population decline.

On this issue, our existing moral code should make some salutary changes.There are around 200 million more women than men in the UK.These women, bound by law and custom, are still unable to bear children, which is undoubtedly a great loss for many of them.If our customs were tolerant of unmarried mothers and given them sufficient financial security, I believe that many women who are still celibate will have children.Strict monogamy is based on the assumption that there are roughly equal numbers of men and women.If this is not the case, it is a very cruel thing for those who are forced to be celibate by statistics.Since we believe that the birth rate should be increased, such cruelty is unjustifiable both to society and to individuals.

With the progress of civilization, it becomes more possible to control those forces that the predecessors regarded as natural forces through the correct laws of the government.Population growth is one of these forces.Since the birth of Christianity, the growth of population has been governed by blind instinct.Now, we should hurry to control the growth of population.But, as mentioned above, on the population issue where the state is responsible for raising children, the beneficial intervention should be the intervention of the international government, not the intervention of competing militarisms.

(End of this chapter)