The argument is not merely economic, it arises out of the very nature of man. His roots are struck deep in the soil. To uproot, much more to cut off, is a dangerous operation. Civilization will tend to lose much of its reality, if there is not a reasonable pro portion of human beings concerned with basic work, under good conditions, upon the land. The need of our time is spiritual and mental dynamic working through men of fine physique. Such is the dynamic which rises out of life and work on the land.
In common with almost all other nations of the western world the United States has been growing more and more largely urban,. At no time, however, has the rural population actually declined (all people living in places having less than 2500 are rural by census definition). Since the census did not distinguish the rural farm from the rural-nonfarm population until 1920 the gains or losses in each are not known prior to that time but the rapid gain in the total rural population as late as 1900-10 precludes the possibility that there was any decline in farm population prior to 1910. It has been estimated that the farm population declined by about 460,00o between 1910 and 1920. Between 1920 and 1930 the census showed a decline of 1,201,127. But alongside this decline of farm population the decade 1920-30 showed that another movement was developing. The rural-nonfarm population grew at a pace almost two-thirds as rapid as the urban population. This group increased by 3,615,333 or 18% during the decade. This growth was in part a growth in the village population in the neighbourhood of larger cities—a true suburban growth—and in part a movement of city workers into the open country where they could have an acre or two of land and yet be within easy driving distance of the factories and offices where they worked. This movement towards suburbs seems likely to become more important in the future with the further improvement of roads and the extension of urban utilities into the surrounding territory.
These changes make it possible for a man not only to till more acres than his father but also to till them more effectively. At the same time the increasing efficiency of factories as compared with the village blacksmith, weaver, shoemaker, and tailor has destroyed the self-sufficiency of the rural community and made it an integral part of a larger economic whole. It has lost many of its jobs to the city factory, office and store. It is not sur prising then that farm boys and girls have followed their jobs to the factories, offices and stores to swell city populations.
It must also be remembered that man's consumption of agricul tural products is relatively fixed while his consumption of fabri cated goods may apparently increase almost without limit. Under a given system of agricultural production the proportion of the population needed on the farm is, therefore, relatively fixed. The remainder can work at trades, in factories and in commerce. With farming as it is in the United States today it appears that less than 20% of the population can supply the necessary agri cultural products. Under the present industrial system most of the rest will live in or near cities or towns for there are the fac tories and stores, etc., which supply most of the goods demanded by the community. The increase in rural nonfarm population re ferred to above may continue and may even be accelerated as peo ple find out how easy it is to avoid city crowding and yet retain city jobs; but it seems improbable that there will be any increase in farm population unless unemployment becomes permanent or the relation of the prices of farm products to other goods becomes far more favourable. People leave farming primarily because they can make a better living at other work.
As to other causes of rural depopulation often cited, viz., de sire for the excitement of the city, the loneliness of the farm, etc., we must recognize that they have some influence but that they are of minor importance. If good jobs were available in rural communities many of the young people would stay there. In looking to the future one can but wonder what the universal distribution of cheap electricity, and the general use of the auto mobile and aeroplane may mean in the development of rural in dustry and living. With the passing of the steam-driven machine and the development of easy transportation everywhere will we see a reversal of the cityward movement which has been going on ever since the onset of the industrial revolution? (W. S. T.) RURAL EDUCATION. "Learn by doing." This well worn phrase, so applicable to education in all its phases, applies with redoubled force to rural education, both with respect to the teacher and the taught. The curriculum of the rural primary school, while consistent with that of the town school in some respects, must be based very largely upon environment. For this purpose the basic subject would appear to be nature study. In rural areas the pupils are in the midst of nature's great labo ratory, and have all necessary material at hand. A systematic study of nature will inculcate the habit of observation and the pupils will be trained to think and to inquire. Consequently, by the time the pupils reach the age of years, they should be well grounded in the subjects of the primary school curriculum— reading, writing and arithmetic—and should be interested in and observant of their environment, and be ready to study more sys tematically the applications of their observations.