URBAN STERILIZATION 



Effect of City Life in Cutting Down Increase of a Superior Population Is Shown 



by New Figures Native-Born American Stock Fails to Hold Its Own 



in Most Parts of the United States 



THAT the natural increase of city 

 populations is much slower than 

 that of country districts has long 

 been well known. 



If there is a constant removal of 

 country people to the cities, if those 

 who move are more energetic and 

 capable than those who stay on the 

 fann, and if this removal to the city 

 results in a lower birth rate and a 

 higher death rate, it is evident that 

 great cities are a sterilizing agency, 

 selecting the best part of the popula- 

 tion and cutting down its racial con- 

 tribution. Cook^ and others have 

 pointed out the importance of this 

 eugenic problem. 



It has been difficult to find statistics 

 which would show the real size of the 

 problem, but John M. Gillette, pro- 

 fessor of sociology in the University of 

 North Dakota, has lately made several 

 contributions to the study which throw 

 a great deal of light on it. 



First as to the actual extent of migra- 

 tion from country to city. According 

 to the census of 1890, 36.1% of the 

 population of the United States was 

 urban, that is, found in places of more 

 than 2,500 inhabitants. In 1910 the 

 urban population had increased to 

 46.3% of the whole. But this increase 

 is by no means wholly due to migration 

 from country districts, since the cities 

 also grow by their own excels of births 

 over deaths, by foreign immigration, 

 and by incorporation of surrounding 

 suburbs. 



Between 1900 and 1910 llie url)an 



population of the United States made 

 an actual gain of 11,826,000, and 

 Gillette calculates- that 29.8% of this 

 was made up of those who moved from 

 the fann into the city. 



The amount of rural depopulation 

 is therefore considerable, even though 

 less than has sometimes been supposed. 

 The second question is how much the 

 natural increase of these families will 

 be cut down by their removal to the 

 city. 



Natural increase means the excess 

 of births over deaths and is hard to 

 calculate in the United States, because 

 only a few states register births fully. 

 But Dr. Gillette has reached a solu- 

 tion in several indirect ways and is 

 convinced that his figures are not 

 far from the truth. They show the 

 difference to be very large and its 

 eugenic significance of corresponding 

 importance.^ 



"When it is noted," Dr. Gillette says, 

 "that the rural rate is almost twice the 

 urban rate for the nation as a whole, 

 that in only one division does the latter 

 exceed the former, and that in some 

 divisions the rural rate is three times 

 the urban rate, it can scarcely be 

 doubted that the factor of urbanization 

 is the most important cause of lower 

 increase rates. Urban birth rates are 

 lower than rural birth rates, and its 

 death rates are higher than those of 

 the latter." 



Considering the United States in 

 nine geograj^hical divisions. Dr. Gillette 

 .secured the following results: 



* Cook, O. F., Eugenics and Agriculture, Journal of Heredity, vii, pp. 249-254, June, 1916. 



* Gillette, John M., Constnictivc Rural Sociology (2d Edition), p. 89, New York, 1916. 

 *(lillettc, John M., A Study in Social Dynamics: A statistical determination of the rate of 



natural increase and of the factors accounting for the increase of population in the United States. 

 Quarterly publications of the American Statistical Association, n. s. 116, Vol. xv, pp. 345-380. 

 December, 1916. 



268 



