2 52 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



because food is expensive there should be more farmers? It is found 

 that lima beans retailing in New York City for $4.80 a bushel paid the 

 Long Island farmer who grew them 30 cents a bushel, after making 

 allowance for commission and freight charges. Surely the additional 

 charges on food due to the middleman is no justification for more men 

 to engage in agriculture. Food is still cheap as it leaves the hands of 

 the farmer. 



Let us also admit the prevalence of unscientific and wasteful meth- 

 ods of agriculture. There is certainly great need of reforming the 

 practise of farming. The abuses of agriculture are so patent, such as 

 the keeping of inferior stock, the neglect of farm machinery in the west, 

 the impoverishment of the soil due to lack of proper rotation of crops 

 and fertilizing, and improper methods of tillage, that public interest 

 has been aroused. But this aspect of agriculture surely does not war- 

 rant the cry of back to the land, but rather a demand for more intelli- 

 gence in production. Indeed, with more scientific farming fewer men 

 would be needed on the land. The increased use of machinery on the 

 farm has already decimated the rural population. It by no means fol- 

 lows from the high cost of farm products at retail or from the evident 

 waste from poor agricultural methods that a relative increase in agri- 

 cultural population is desirable. 



The need of clearness in regard to the real basis for the size of 

 agricultural as compared with urban population is evident. There 

 must be some rather definite relationship between country and city pop- 

 ulations, lying deeper than passing modes of thought or superficial 

 enthusiasms. Is there not a question as to whether there should be a 

 relatively larger agricultural population? May it not even be disas- 

 trous eventually for migration countrywards to be stimulated? That 

 there are acute questions in regard to the farm and life in country 

 must be admitted. But the very common assumption that there should 

 be a movement back to the farm, in the sense of numbers, may be open 

 to doubt. 



May we not first of all dismiss the idea that people leave the farm 

 primarily because of preference for city life ? As a matter of fact the 

 country makes an immense appeal to millions of people who are forced 

 to live in cities to earn a living. The hardships of the farm, such as 

 are not forms of poverty, would hardly deter people from living on 

 farms. Hardships did not prevent the " forty-niners " from seeking 

 gold, nor do hardships of weather, exposure, or isolation successfully 

 oppose the seeking of wealth in any field. 



It may perhaps be safely argued that the number of persons engaged 

 in any occupation bears a very close relation to the economic attractions 

 offered. If the ease of securing gainful employment is greater in city 

 than in country nothing will prevent a transfer of population. If a 

 farmer with a capital of $4,000 can by moving to town get as much for 



