Evening star., 1941-08-27
Population Increase
Called Peril to Nation
Says Economic Changes
Connot Solve Problem
Of Unchecked Birth Rote

Of Unchecked Birth Rote
| To the Editor Of The Star:
We have read with interest Clarence
Armstrong; criticism of our letter in
The Star which advocated stationary
| population after our numbers had in
creased some 25,0Oo,o00 40 or so years
hence.
We are quite willing to stand by the
data in both letters and let your readers
decide the issue for themselves. But as
| our critic agrees with us that this ques-
ton of population growth is Of vital i'm
| portance to every American, individually
and collectively, 1t is worth considering
further.
Our critic says of our letter: HE ap-
| pears to take the position that any in
| crease in population would swell the
ranks Of the unemployed and under
privileged"
We do not take the position that any
increase in population would swell the
ranks Of the unemployed. A grossly over
populated country such as Germany
and still live at miserably low standard
of living.
AS regards the underprivileged, when
we are told by Dr. I. S. Falk of the Social
Security Board that "two-thirds of the
children of this Nation-its future citi-
zens-are growing up in the least
fortunate third of our families" it should
be evident that at the present time at
least increase in population is swelling
the ranks of the underprivileged.
How would our critic solve this problem
Of the radically uneven distribution OF
children and consequently wealth also by
any juggling Of economic systems?
We agree with our critic that at the
present time we healthfully could sup
port the $4,000, 900 who are now living at
level of living below the requirements
Tor health and efficiency. Our position as
stated is that there is no evidence to
prove that this country needs a larger
number of people than it has at the
present time.
We are not complaining about 25,-
100000 increase over the present total of
1872, ,00O,0 900. which would result even with
q decrease of Is per cent in the birth
rate. But we do say it is dangerous to
the welfare of the American people to
increase much above 153,000,000, or to
try to prevent the birth rate from de-
creasing about Is per cent.
When the farmers, manufacturers or
even statesmen tell us that they can
provide for a much greater increase
than 5,000,0 900 in 40 years." as our critic
says, we humbly ask for their evidence
Let them start out with the $4,000 900
underprivileged we have at the present
time. Let them improve their condition
If they are so capable.
When we caution against greater in
crease than 25,0O0,OO0 people in the
future we are accused of being pop
ulation defeatist." We dare say that
there were those who cautioned China,
India, Germany, Japan and Italy against
increasing the population too far, but
they were cried down by the ultra
optimists. The masses of the unfortunate
population now know all too well where
they have been led; namely, to war for
conquest to be followed by famine and
pestilence.
OF course. the American people are
now riding on the crest of the wave.
having made themselves rich Quick by
recklessly exploiting their irreplacable
mineral resources and creating dan
gerous problems of soil erosion. But
let not the great masses of the Ameri-
can people deceive themselves that it
cant happen here" Let them call
upon these population boosters to pro-
duce the goods for the $4,000, 900 under
privileged before they talk about what
they "can do" Let them do it!
Back in 1923, when Hitler was writing
or planning his book "Mein Kampf"
and joining Mussolini in calling for
expansion of population, the record will
show that we were cautioning that the
population boosters in Germany, Japan
and Italy could lead only to these
countries going to war for conquest of
other peoples natural resources. We
were told that we were a population
defeatist" then, and that science and
Invention would work wonders. Science
and invention have worked wonders in
many fields, but so far they have not been
able to produce as much food per acre
as the Chinese have done with their
crude tools.
Our critic tells us that we should not
forget that the most prosperous periods
we have had have been when our popu-
lation was increasing the fastest" In
the first place. 1t is one thing to in
crease the population fast when the
geographical frontier is rapidly expand
ing or when we can capitalize on the
rapid expansion of the geographical
frontier in the recent past. But that is
no longer the case. The geographical
frontier disappeared in $780, and the
more intensified exploitation of our re-
sources during the past so years has
made us rich, but this can't continue,
This appears to be our critics solu-
ton to our national problems today and
in the future: I'VE must adopt a pro-
gram aimed at restricting savings, espe-
cially the saving of large amounts of
money and do things to encourage those
making such savings to spend the money
instead" In other words, it appears