Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria College, Wellington, N.Z. Vol. 15, No. 11. June 26, 1952
Hunger a Stimulus
Hunger a Stimulus
Overpopulation did not cause starvation; it was the reverse. Then followed biological proofs of this argument, fluently presented. Lack of liver protein in laboratory rats and bulls had lead to an increase in fertility. In pioneering 'Australia the birth increase per annum had been 60 per cent; with higher standard of living it had decreased to 18 per cent. De Castro, mentioned before, had written a book "The Geography of Hunger" for those who wanted more information, stating this theory at greater lengths. There was also the psychological factor: as the nutritional appetite was denied the sex appetite increased.
The essential solution to Asia's problems then was to increase the food supply. Robert Salter in his book "Freedom from Want" had pointed out that the available land could be better utilised as was shown by war. In the United States the increased food production would have fed fifty million more people. England had increased her food production from a third of her wants to 48 per cent, and between 1940-1949 milk production had Increased by 25 per cent. Finally, there was the never-ceasing resources of the sea which had yet to be tapped.
There were the usual good number of speakers from the floor. Tim Beaglehole said it was easy enough for the negative to call for more food, but as nobody wished to produce it in the place of rearmaments, it would be better to limit the population of Asia than to try to feed it. He would like to air his farming knowledge. On his uncle's farm lambing was best when they had plenty to eat. Miss Hoskins was interested only in rams and bulls but we should consider both sexes.
Editor's Note: We presume the following report to be substantially correct us it was handed to us by Mr. Patterson's publicity manager (Mr. Patterson himself).
John Patterson, who spoke for the affirmative, said that as he was unable to refute Miss Hoskins' arguments, he would have to accept them. It seemed to him, however, that she was on the wrong side of the platform. Miss Hoskins' argument boiled down to this: the more you eat, the less fertile you are. What was this but another form of birth control? Mr. Patterson agreed that education in birth control was the solution to Asia's population problems, but it was not education of the Asians that was needed. They knew already that they should eat all the food they could get. No. the people who should be educated were those who lived in the more well-fed countries. They should be taught to put their faith in Miss Hoskins' method rather than in the crude physical and chemical devices that they were accustomed to use themselves. So they might be brought to realise that their only hope lay in pumping protein as fast as they could into the Asians.
Mr. Andrews, although not a biologist, said that he knew that experts knew very little about fertility. It was even suggested that nicotine acid reduced it. (Mr. Garrett, safety married for some time, lit a cigarette here.) He had been in Bombay and had personal experience of the high death-rate. At any rate Muo-Tse-Tsung would soon liquidate the Chinese population problem.
John McLean, attired in kilt and sporran (Voice: What's underneath?) He had been studying figures from England stating that the professional classes had the smallest families. Did this mean that the miners eat less? No. It was that they weren't as well educated.
Referring to "Private Mactavish" Mr Brockey sided with Dr. Kinsey. Professor Russell. Dr. Joad and Aldous Huxley; that birth control meant depletion of intellect.
Nancy Pearce, although not a scientist or biologist, asked for the historical viewpoint to be considered. (She works in the War History Department.) Birth control was as sanitary as using a toothbrush, "Now to get on to my own case," (Miss Hoskins: "Is there a Dr. Kinsey in the house?")
John Gatley, a new speaker with great promise, pointed out that the negative had not shown how to utilise the land for all this food production.
Doug Foy, the best speaker of the evening, spoke too fast for this reporter to get his argument, but his whirlwind fashion left a nice draught behind. He did advocate shiploads of contraceptives be sent to Japan. (Voice: Liberty ships)
Hector MacNeill continued the united front of Catholics and Communists, started in the last debate, by speaking for the negative. In any case American germ warfare would soon wipe out Asia.
Although he had not heard much of the debate Pip Piper wished to follow in Mr. MacNeill's footsteps. (Voice: "Was it a headquarter's decision, Pip?) He was interested in the title. (Voice: "We've got further than that since 8 o'clock.") Was there a population problem?
Jim Milburn pointed out that in the West sex was wrapped in a sugar coating of morality with a religious flavour. Birth control was not practised in Asia largely because it was contrary to their religions. We must free them from religious ideology which keeps the dead hand of the past on the progress of the future.
John Cody committed an act of political suicide first by not speaking on Mr. MacNeill's side, and, secondly, by addressing the audience: "Ladles and gentlemen, Mr. Curtln. Mr. O'Brien and lesser breeds within—the law." He illustrated the saying of Manfucius: "Alt comes to him who waits" by pointing out that Confucius was the tenth son of a tenth son.
The moral side of the issue, which was related to the natural law of man which made him instinctively wish to preserve his species, and so was opposed to birth control, was explained by Ron Barbes.
Margaret: Turbott said that if matter was indestructible we should let things rip. It was just a matter of changing the chemical formula.
Mr. O'Shea asked did the Russians practice birth control?
The Catholic attitude was that natural, not artificial means of birth control should be used, said Meida O'Reilly. She thus approved continence not continuance.
In summing up Mr. Lennane described his side's case as humanitar ian. Mr. Garrett stigmatised it as hopelessly idealistic.
The Judge found that the negative documented their case far better, and that the fundamental question was whether money would go to food to stop a future war or to rearmament to tight it. He placed Mr. Foy first as presenting the best argument. Mr. Milburn and Mr. Garrett, second, equal.
—Pinky.