88 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 



of things absolutely necessary, the want of something beyond this 

 comes to be strongly felt by the individual members of the community. 

 Whatever be this passion or desire it makes a demand upon the exist- 

 ing body of goods, or upon the current production of wealth, which at 

 once antagonizes the strong and urgent disposition to the consumption 

 of wealth in the support of an increasing population. Whether this 

 change in the character of consumption shall be made or not is a 

 question upon the answer to which depends the whole economic future 

 of the community. 



Until an adequate and sufficiently persistent check upon popula- 

 tion has been secured the economist who fully appreciates the con- 

 sequences of overpopulation can hardly fail to recognize almost every 

 economic want, whatever its origin or its object, as better than none. 

 It has been from this point of view that the English writers have 

 insisted so strongly that cheap food is a thing to be deprecated. Pro- 

 fessor Thorold Rogers says: "A community which subsists habitually 

 on dear food is in a position of peculiar advantage, when compared 

 with another which lives on cheap food, one, for instance, which lives 

 on wheat, as contrasted with another which lives on rice or potatoes: 

 and this, quite apart from the prudence or incautiousness of the 

 people." 



These economists recognize the strong probability, the almost 

 certainty, that a people will carry their increase closely up to the 

 limits of subsistence according to the kind of food they use, whatever 

 that may be. It may be the lowest and cheapest, like rice in India 

 and potatoes in Ireland. The failure of the crop means starvation, 

 no adequate reserve being expected to be provided on a sufficient scale 

 by the population of any country. If the kind of food be higher and 

 dearer, the masses may, in the event of a failure of the crops concerned, 

 fall back for the time upon the lower and cheaper. 



But suppose this danger of the increase of numbers, fast following 

 up subsistence, crowding all the time upon the limits of food, to be 

 once for all past. Suppose we have a community which will accept 

 the opportunity of living upon cheap food and apply the saving to 

 the permanent enlargement of their capital, or to other forms of 

 enjoyment, to dress, to better lodgings, to luxuries, perhaps to expen- 

 ditures upon education and culture. What harm, then, in cheap food, 

 be it potatoes or rice or the Indian corn of America ? Surely none. 

 The more is saved from the cost of food the more can be spent upon 

 making homes ample and comfortable, healthful and decent ; the more 



