Vol. 8, 1922 
STATISTICS: PEARL AND BURGER 
75 
upon only two occasions during the three quarters of a century. These 
were in 1847-1849 and 1890-1892. These fluctuations, which only slightly 
affected the even upward trend of the curve were due to the influenza 
pandemics of 1847-8 and 1890-1891. The broad result is perfectly clear 
and outstanding. The population of England and Wales is today biolog- 
ically fitter and possessed of greater purely biological survival value as a 
whole population than it was three quarters of a century ago. Whether 
it is a mentally, morally or anthropmetrically fitter population does not 
now concern us. We are dealing at the moment solely with the fact that, 
taking the people of England and Wales as a whole, slightly over 2 babies 
were born for every death in a year in 1920, as against 1.4 babies per death 
in a year in 1838-1839. The question of a differential fertility among 
different social classes we shall discuss farther on in the paper. 
Now this result, which is beyond any question a fact, will strike anyone 
informed as to the sociological and eugenical literature of the last two dec- 
ades as curiously at variance with the pessimistic tenor of that literature, 
taken as a whole. It has been pronounced from high places that the 
general trend of the British people was biologically downwards, that they 
were in fact becoming biologically dangerously near to a decadent race. 
Abundant quotations in support of this contention could be cited, were 
space available and were it necessary. This gloomy view has had its 
foundation solely upon the fact that, since the quinquennium 1875-1880, 
the birth rate in England and Wales has been falling rather rapidly, as is 
clearly shown in figure 1. This fact has been brought out by Elderton^ 
in great detail. 
But from a purely biological view-point, what matters a falling birth 
rate if the death rate falls even more rapidly, so that the net survivorship 
at any instant of time is constantly getting higher? To this it will, of 
course, be answered at once by those who view with alarm the declining 
birth rate that the real crux of the matter is in the differential change in 
fertility. Nowadays the "best" people do not produce their due share 
of progeny, while the "worse" people over-produce. If one accepts the 
man-made definitions of "best" and "worst" this is plainly true for some 
civilizations at least. In the American population, however, as one of us^ 
has recently shown, the element probably least desirable racially, the 
negro, has the lowest survival value as a group (vital index generally less 
than 100). But is old Dame Nature ever really interested in any test of 
"best" and "worst" except survival? There is no evidence as yet that she 
is. Measured by this test the population as a whole of England and Wales 
is today biologically more vigorous than it Was in 1838. This is a plain 
fact. Whether this fact is, sociologically or eugenically considered, a 
bad thing or a good thing, is something more than a purely biological 
problem, and as such we are content to leave it to the discussion of others. 
