74 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



that the birth rate among college women who marry is practically the 

 same as among their non-college sisters, cousins and intimate friends. 

 Moreover, if the failure of the involuntary nervous system to work 

 properly is responsible for the diminishing birth rate, why is not the 

 phenomenon localized in place of diffused? Amid the quiet retreats 

 of rural life as well as amid the rush of cities, among skilled mechanics 

 and even among day laborers subjected to comparatively little mental 

 or nervous strain as well as among business men and other brain work- 

 ers the birth rate has fallen. The phenomenon is far more wide-spread 

 than the explanation offered by the biologist would lead us to expect. 

 The excessive use of the nervous system can neither cause its own un- 

 doing, or cause the under-development or atrophy of the generative 

 organs in any considerable portion of the population. 



The economist further objects to the explanations of the biologist 

 and of the medical expert on the ground of their complexity. "When 

 asked for a bill of particulars, they are at a loss to give any reply that 

 is at once simple and clear. The undernutrition of the reproductive or- 

 gans plus the failure of the involuntary regulatory machinery to func- 

 tion properly offers a complex rather than a simple explanation. More- 

 over, the matter is still further complicated by adding the influence of 

 sexual diseases. Besides, the argument from analogy seems a trifle 

 fanciful. An explanation of the difference between the birth rates in 

 France and Germany, in Germany and India, in France and French 

 Canada, or again in the different portions of the population of any 

 given country in terms of the will seems much more simple and clear 

 than in terms of one or all of the several explanations offered as an 

 alternative. The variations in the birth rate due to a scanty or an 

 abundant harvest, or to any of the various forms of adversity and 

 prosperity, are more readily traceable to volitional conduct than to 

 physiological changes. 



Finally, the economist objects that the biologist unwarrantedly as- 

 sumes that the birth rate is determined in a purely mechanical fashion. 

 ISTo provision is made for the action of anything but physical and chem- 

 ical forces. Elsewhere in human affairs the will guided by intelligence 

 plays an important role. In so vital a matter as the birth rate, is it 

 reasonable to absolve it from a due measure of responsibility ? For the 

 biologist rules out even a will that acts in a predetermined manner. 

 A man enjoys a certain freedom in selecting an occupation, in spend- 

 ing his money, in imitating the dress of others, and in selecting his 

 friends, but is the victim of fate as to the size of his family. Hope and 

 fear are thus debarred from influencing the will in one of the most im- 

 portant domains of life. Such a view looks upon man as purely a 

 creature of circumstances, utterly powerless to respond in any volun- 

 tary way to the forces that buffet him about. The position of the econ- 



