Produced by Bryan Ness and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
THE SOCIAL DIRECTION OF HUMAN EVOLUTION
THE SOCIAL DIRECTION OF HUMAN EVOLUTION
AN OUTLINE OF THE SCIENCE OF EUGENICS
BY
WILLIAM E. KELLICOTT
PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGY, GOUCHER COLLEGE
[Illustration]
NEW YORK AND LONDON
D. APPLETON AND COMPANY
1919
COPYRIGHT, 1911, BY
D. APPLETON AND COMPANY
Printed in the United States of America
PREFACE
This small volume is based upon three lectures on Eugenics delivered
at Oberlin College in April, 1910. In preparing them for publication
many extensions and a few additions have been made in order to present
the subject more adequately and to include some very recent results of
eugenic investigation.
Few subjects have come into deserved prominence more rapidly than has
Eugenics. Biologists, social workers, thoughtful students and
observers of human life everywhere, have felt the growing necessity
for some kind of action leading to what are now recognized as eugenic
ends. Hitherto the lack of guiding principles has left us in the dark
as to where to take hold and what methods to pursue. To-day, however,
progress in the human phases of biological science clearly gives us
clews regarding modes of attack upon many of the fundamental problems
of human life and social improvement and progress, and suggests
concrete methods of work.
The present essay does not represent an original contribution to the
subject of Eugenics. It is not a complete statement of the facts and
foundations of Eugenics in any particular. It is rather an attempt to
state briefly and suggestively, in simple, matter-of-fact terms the
present status of this science. While Eugenics is a social topic in
practice, in its fundamentals, in its theory, it is biological. It is
therefore necessary that the subject be approached primarily from the
biological point of view and with some familiarity with biological
methods and results. The control of human evolution--physical, mental,
moral--is a serious subject of supremest importance and gravest
consequents. It must be considered without excitement--thoughtfully,
not emotionally.
It is hardly necessary to add that no one can speak of the subject of
Eugenics without feeling the immensity of his debt to Sir Francis
Galton and to Professor Karl Pearson. From the writings of these
pioneers I have drawn heavily in this essay. The recent summary of the
Whethams, and Davenport's valuable essay on Eugenics have also served
as the sources of quotation.
W. E. K.
Baltimore, Md., November, 1910.
CONTENTS
PAGE
I.--THE SOURCES AND AIMS OF THE SCIENCE OF EUGENICS 3
II.--THE BIOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF EUGENICS 49
III.--HUMAN HEREDITY AND THE EUGENIC PROGRAM 133
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
FIG. PAGE
1.--Increase of population in the United States and the
principal countries of Europe from 1800 to 1900 26
2.--Relative and absolute numbers of prisoners in the
United States from 1850 to 1904 30
3.--Recorded measurements of the stature of 1052 mothers 57
4.--Model to illustrate the law of probability or "chance" 59
5.--Plinth to illustrate the difference between variability
(fluctuation) and variation (mutation) 64
6.--Curves illustrating the relation between the pure
line and the species or other large group 67
7.--Diagram showing the course of color heredity in
the Andalusian fowl 83
8.--Diagram showing the course of color heredity in
the guinea-pig 85
9.--Diagram illustrating the relation of the germ cells
in a simple case of Mendelian heredity 92
10.--Diagram illustrating the phenomenon of regression 107
11.--Diagrams showing the relation between order of
birth and incidence of pathological defect 125
12.--Coefficients of heredity of physical and psychical
characters in school children 144
13.--Family history showing brachydactylism. Farabee's data 151
14.--Family history showing polydactylism 155
15.--Mother and daughters showing "split hand" _Facing_ 156
16.--Two family histories showing "split foot" _Facing_ 158
17.--Family history showing congenital cataract 159
18.--Family history showing a form of night blindness 161
19.--Family history showing a form of night blindness 163
20.--Family history showing Huntington's chorea 165
21.--Family history showing deaf-mutism 167
22.--Family history showing feeble-mindedness 169
23.--Family history showing angio-neurotic oedema 170
24.--Family history showing tuberculosis 171
25.--Family history showing infertility 175
26.--Family history showing ability 177
27.--Family history showing ability 179
28.--History of three markedly able families 183
29.--History of _Die Familie Zero_ 185
I
THE SOURCES AND AIMS OF THE SCIENCE OF EUGENICS
I
THE SOURCES AND AIMS OF THE SCIENCE OF EUGENICS
"Bravas to all impulses sending sane children to the next age!"
Eugenics has been defined as "the science of being well born." In the
words of Sir Francis Galton, who may fairly be claimed as the founder
of this newest of sciences, "Eugenics is the study of the agencies
under social control, that may improve or impair the racial qualities
of future generations, either physically or mentally."
The idea of definitely undertaking to improve the innate
characteristics of the human race has been expressed repeatedly
through centuries--fancifully, seriously, hopefully, and now
scientifically. Since the times of Theognis and of Plato the student
of animate Nature has been aware of the possibility of the degradation
or of the elevation of the human race-characters. The conditions under
which life exists gradually change: the customs and ideals of
societies change rapidly. Times inevitably come when, if we are to
maintain or to advance our racial position, we find it necessary to
change in an adaptive way our attitude toward these changing social
relations and conditions of life. If we neglect to do this we go down
in the racial struggle, as history so clearly and so repeatedly warns
us.
In the opinion of many biologists and sociologists such a time has
now arrived. The suspension of many forms of natural selection in
human society, the currency of the "rabbit theory" of racial
prosperity--based upon the idea of mere numerical increase of the
population, the complacent disregard of the increase of the pauper,
insane, and criminal elements of our population, the dearth of
individuals of high ability--even of competent workmen, all are
resulting in evil and will result disastrously unless deliberately
controlled. It is hoped that this control, though at first conscious,
"artificial," may later become fixed as an element of social custom
and conscience and thus operate automatically and the more
effectively. The result will be not only the restoration of our race
to its original vigor, mental and physical, but further the carrying
on of the race to a surpassing vigor and supremacy.
The aim of Eugenics is the production of a more healthy, more
vigorous, more able humanity. Again in the words of Galton "The aim of
Eugenics is to represent each class ... by its best specimens; that
done to leave them to work out their common civilization in their own
way.... To bring as many influences as can be reasonably employed to
cause the useful classes in the community to contribute more than
their present proportion to the next generation"; and further, we
might add, to cause the useless, vicious classes to contribute to the
next generation less than their present proportion.
With this definition of Eugenics and preliminary statement of its aims
before us we may proceed to a somewhat fuller statement of the facts
within this field. First let us consider the relation of the science
of Eugenics to its parent sciences, biology and sociology, then after
mentioning some of the steps in the development of the present
eugenic movement, we may describe some of the conditions which give us
human beings pause and lead us to appreciate the necessity for a
reconsideration of much that enters into our present social
organization and conduct.
Shortly before the publication of "The Origin of Species," Darwin was
asked by Alfred Russell Wallace whether he proposed to include any
reference to the evolution of man. Darwin's reply was: "You ask
whether I shall discuss man. I think I shall avoid the whole subject,
as so surrounded with prejudices; though I fully admit that it is the
highest and most interesting problem for the naturalist." This
prejudice which Darwin knew would preclude a just consideration of the
subject of man's origin and evolution, grew out of the former and long
current conception of the position occupied by man in the whole scheme
of Nature--of "Man's Place in Nature."
This conception, happily obsolete now among thinkers, though
occasionally seen lurking in out of the way corners shaded from the
light of modern philosophy and science, placed Man and the rest of
the universe in separate categories. Man was one, all the rest
another. It was for Man's benefit or pleasure that the rains
descended, that the corn grew and ripened, that the sun shone, the
birds sang, the landscape was spread before the view. For Man's
warning or punishment the lightning struck, comets appeared, disease
ravaged, insects tormented and destroyed. It was certainly very
natural that Man should regard himself as a thing apart, particularly
since he was able to control and to regulate Nature, and to take
tribute from her so extensively. But the scientist regarded man
differently; from him the world learned to recognize man as an
integral factor in Nature--as one with Nature, possessing the same
structures, performing the same activities, as other animals; subject
to much the same control and with much the same purposes in life and
in Nature as other living things. There is to-day no necessity to
enlarge upon this view. As Ray Lankester puts it: "Man is held to be a
part of Nature; a being, resulting from and driven by the one great
nexus of mechanism which we call Nature."
But the echoes of the older naive view of Man and his Nature sounded
long after the rational scientific conception had become dominant. It
is not so very long ago that psychology was little more than human
psychology; nor has sociology long since gone outside the purely human
for explanations of the facts of human society. Nowadays, however,
psychology has a firm comparative basis and sociology finds much that
is illuminating and helpful in the purely biological aspects of the
human animal. Very naturally, then, we have had social science
studying man as Man, with a capital M: biological science studying man
as a natural animal.
But now that modern trend of scientific synthesis which has brought
forth a Physical-Chemistry and a Chemical-Physiology and a
Bio-Chemistry, is combining the purely social and the purely
biological studies of man into a new Bio-Sociology. And as one phase
of this new partnership we have the subject of Eugenics--the science
of racial integrity and progress, built upon the overlapping fields of
Biology and Sociology.
We can trace the idea, perhaps better the hope, of Eugenics from the
modern times of ancient Greece. Plato laid stress upon the idea of the
"purification of the State." In his Republic he pointed out that the
quality of the herd or flock could be maintained only by breeding from
the best, consciously selected for that purpose by the shepherd, and
by the destruction of the weaklings; and that when one was concerned
with the quality of his hunting dogs or horses or pet birds, he was
careful to utilize this knowledge. He drew attention to the necessity
in the State for a functionary corresponding to the shepherd to weed
out the undesirables and to prevent them from multiplying their kind.
Plato stated clearly the essential idea of the inheritance of
individual qualities and the danger to the State of a large and
increasing body of degenerates and defectives. He called upon the
legislators to purify the State. But the legislators paid no heed. The
able-bodied and able-minded continued to be sacrificed to the God of
War; the degenerates and defectives--not fit to fight--were the ones
left at home to become parents of the next generation. And to-day
Greece remains an awful warning.
We cannot describe or even enumerate the wrecks of the many plans for
race improvement that are strewn from Plato to our day. Sporadic,
emotional, visionary, often it must be confessed suggested by
possibilities of material gain to the "leader"--they have all passed.
They failed because they were unscientific; because there was
available no solid foundation of determined fact upon which to build.
One need suggest only the Oneida Community, as it was originally
planned, or the Parisian society of _L'Elite_--in both of which the
selection of mates was to be carefully controlled--or some of the
fantasies of Bernard Shaw, to indicate the character of these
failures. Only recently have we become able to suggest the possibility
of race improvement by scientific methods, and only very recently has
the possibility appeared in the light of a necessity, the alternative
being the universal reward of the unsuccessful.
The present eugenic movement may be said to date from 1865 when
Francis Galton showed that mental qualities are inherited just as are
physical qualities, and pointed out that this opened the way to an
improvement of the race in all respects. The data in support of this
pregnant conclusion were included in Galton's work on "Hereditary
Genius" published in 1869, when he again emphasized definitely the
possibility and desirability of improving the natural qualities of the
human race. His suggestions fell upon the stony ground of ignorance
even of the most elementary facts of heredity. The subject was raised
again in his "Inquiries into the Human Faculty" in 1883, and the word
"Eugenics" was then coined. The ground was still non-receptive.
Then followed a period of rapid increase in our knowledge of heredity
in animals and plants and in 1901 Galton returned again to the
subject, this time in a more direct and elaborate way, and his Huxley
Lecture of that year before the Anthropological Institute was upon
"The Possible Improvement of the Human Breed under the Existing
Conditions of Law and Sentiment." This time he received a real
hearing, partly on account of recent disclosures regarding the state
of human society and its trends in Great Britain, chiefly because
there was at last a real scientific basis for such a proposal. In this
lecture, after declaring that the possibility of human race culture is
no longer to be considered an academical or impractical problem,
Galton proceeded to show that we have a sufficient biological
knowledge of man to furnish a working basis. We know of man's
variability and heredity--that some men are worth more than others in
the community, and that individual traits are also family possessions.
This he followed up with definite suggestions as to possible means of
the "augmentation of favored stock."
The then recently organized Sociological Society of London took up the
subject enthusiastically, and in 1904 and 1905 Galton was invited to
deliver addresses before the Society upon this topic. In his first
address he spoke upon "Eugenics: its Definition, Scope, and Aims."
This proved to be a statement of the elementary principles of the
subject--a sort of eugenic creed. Here Galton struck fire. The reading
of his paper was followed by very extended discussion and criticism,
and he received some enthusiastic support. A few of these enthusiastic
supporters brought forth, on the spur of the moment, wonderful,
visionary schemes for eugenic progress; much of the adverse criticism
went wide of the mark; and, on the whole, Galton must have felt that
at least he had demonstrated fully one need for which he had spoken,
that of developing a race of able thinkers. Galton's second address
before the same society the year following was partly directed at some
of this hasty criticism and partly devoted to the setting forth of the
possibly ultimate place of the ideals of race improvement in the
conscience of the community, and to showing how the whole subject is
fraught with "the greatest spiritual dignity and the utmost social
importance."
The subject was now fairly launched. Magazine articles appeared on
"The New National Patriotism," "Breeding Better Men," _et cetera_.
Meanwhile the bio-sociologist settled down to work. And during the
five years that have since passed an immense amount of knowledge has
been gained, and a large number of excellent workers recruited.
Interest in the subject is now general, and its importance recognized
as vital. Karl Pearson, known as a good fighter, is Galton's "beak and
claws," performing for him much the same kind of service that Huxley
performed for Darwin nearly fifty years ago. Galton himself has
established a Eugenics Laboratory under the direction of Professor
Pearson in the Biometric Laboratory of the University of London and
has endowed a Research Fellowship and Research Scholarships. This
laboratory is publishing a series of Memoirs and a series of Lectures
upon eugenic topics. The University of London is publishing, with the
assistance of the Drapers' Company, a series of "Studies in National
Deterioration." A periodical, _The Eugenics Review_, is established
and appearing regularly. A Eugenics Education Society has been founded
to popularize and disseminate the technical information contained in
the memoirs and special papers. England remains the seat of greatest
activity and interest, but much is being done now in this country. In
America the subject is largely under the auspices of the American
Breeders Association, which has organized an extremely efficient
Committee on Eugenics with which a large number of biological and
medical workers are cooeperating. This committee has cooeperated in the
establishment of a Eugenics Record Office, at Cold Spring Harbor,
under the direction of H. H. Laughlin. Relevant facts are beginning to
pour in from many directions; eugenic ideals are being given practical
expression, and the science is rapidly gaining headway.
It may be asked: "Well, what is it all about; are we as a nation not
doing well--well enough?" Is it not true, as some have suggested, that
this eugenic movement is but one more expression of England's
temporary national hysteria transferred to this country? In answer to
such queries let us state some of the conditions which have suggested
to so many sober thinkers and observers that the time is arriving, has
in fact arrived, when we must begin to think of the future of our
communities and nations and of our race, rather than contentedly to
read of and meditate upon the great achievements of our past, or to
parade with self-satisfied air through our glass houses of Anglo-Saxon
supremacy. Even were we unthreatened, were we amply holding our own,
the mere fact of the possibility of a natural increase of human
capacity would make it a practical subject of the utmost importance.
We may be sure that somewhere a nation will avail itself of such a
possibility as the increase of inherent native talent, physical,
mental, moral, and will tend to become a strong and dominant people.
Why should not _we_ be that people?
It seems that the facts that lead us to think of the future in this
matter are of two quite distinct classes. First, we have a great mass
of data relative to the composition of our societies and to the
changing character of our population, social data of deep significance
when broadly viewed and thoughtfully considered. Second, there are
certain biological considerations, which all apart from existing
social conditions should warn us to be on the lookout. First let us
review briefly some of the latter, some of those biological
considerations which lead us to regard thoughtfully the problem of
the future evolution of man and his societies.
As with other species of animals, each of us comes into the world
equipped with a physical constitution and a few simple fundamental
instincts. But unlike all other animals, the possession of these alone
does not enable us to take and maintain our positions in the community
life. Man's life to-day is subject to a great social heritage which,
unlike his natural heritage, can be realized only as a result of his
own activity and acquisition. Civilized man is the result of Nature
plus Nurture. Civilization has been defined as "the sum of human
contrivances which enable human beings to advance independently of
heredity." The knowledge of fact, historic and scientific, of
literature, of art, of custom, and manner, and all that goes to make
up the culture and education which are the distinctive traits of our
human lives--all this is no possession of ours when we make our first
bow to society. Nor do these things become ours through a simple
process of growth and development while we remain the passive
subjects. All of these things represent the active individual
acquirement of the racial accumulation of tradition and learning--what
the biologist would call the results of modification. Our troubles
begin when we realize that in the acquisition of this load each
generation does not begin where the preceding left off, not at
all--but we begin where our parents did. The first thing we do toward
advancing our places in the world is to absorb what we can of the same
kind of thing our forbears absorbed, learn over again their lessons,
repeat their experiences; and then we proceed straightway to increase
the difficulties for the next generation by writing more books,
discovering more facts, making a little more history, and so it goes:
the load of tradition increases with every successive generation, and
so it has gone since the beginning of man's civilization. It is
declared that the modern schoolboy knows more than did Aristotle. We
cannot resist the inquiry, Has the modern schoolboy better native
ability than had Aristotle? Here is the whole point of this matter;
are we any better endowed mentally now that the amount to be mentally
absorbed and accomplished is so many times greater? Has our capacity
for mental accumulation kept pace with the amount to be accumulated,
and with the necessity for such accumulation as a fitting for human
life of the civilized variety?
Madison Bentley has recently put it nicely in this way. Does talent
grow with knowledge? "May we not suppose that the men and women of
some distant glacial age, who dwelt upon the ice, wore the skin of the
seal, and ate raw fish, had as much brain and as generous a measure of
talent as have their remote descendants who wear sealskins, and eat
ices and caviar?" He continues that we have little or nothing to show
that the hereditary or innate growth of the mind has kept pace with
the growing social heritage; that as regards mental endowment we begin
where our distant ancestors began. The chief difference between us and
them is that we proceed at once to burden ourselves with information
and obligation which for them did not exist. To compass our languages,
sciences, histories, arts, the complicated social, political, moral
regime, we are supplied with virtually the same minds that primitive
man used for his primitive needs. Is it any wonder, he asks, that
"education" is the central problem for our or any other advanced
civilization?
The biologist asks whether it is not high time to look beyond this
artificial bolster of education, to the possibility of actual
improvement of the innate mental abilities of man. The student of
heredity and evolution looking at this problem has two contributions
to make. First, if the mental capabilities of the present race are too
limited, increase them; if our minds are too weak to carry the burdens
which now must be carried, do not give up the task--strengthen the
racial mind. Second, if we should seem to be in danger of developing a
stock which is well fitted and able to carry the load of mental
acquirement and to push on intellectually, but which is at the same
time physically deficient, weak, or sterile, or susceptible to
disease, do not let the intellectual capabilities diminish, but build
up the physical constitution to a higher supporting level. These are
not idle suggestions nor whimsical schemes. The biologist makes them
knowing that these things are possible; not only possible, they must
be accomplished. We are foolishly building our civilization in the
form of an inverted pyramid of individually acquired characteristics.
This structure can be made stable only by supplying a broader basis of
innate ability which can safely carry the load. This is the first
biological warning to sociology.
The second warning we may put in the form in which Ray Lankester in
his "Kingdom of Man" has recently presented it so strikingly and which
we may abstract freely and with some interpolation. "In Nature's
struggle for existence, death ... is the fate of the vanquished, while
the only reward to the victors ... is the permission to reproduce
their kind--to carry on by heredity to another generation, the
specific qualities by which they triumphed." The _origin_ of man,
partly, at any rate, by such a process of natural selection, is one
chapter in his history. Another begins with the development of his
mental qualities, which are of such unprecedented power in Nature.
These qualities so dominate all else in his "living" activities that
they largely cut him off from the general operations of natural
selection. Perhaps the only direction in which natural selection is
the chiefly operative factor in human evolution to-day is in the
development of immunity from infectious disease. Just as man is a new
departure in the unfolding scheme of the world, so his presence and
characteristics lead to new methods of evolution, of survival, and the
like. Knowledge, reason, self-consciousness, will, are new processes
in Nature, and it is these which have largely determined the direction
of man's history. Nature's discipline of death is more or less
successfully resisted by the will of man. Man is Nature's Rebel.
"Where Nature says 'Die'! Man says 'I will live.'" By his wits and his
will man has overcome many of Nature's bounds and difficulties without
changing, as other organisms would, his innate characteristics. Not
only this but man has obtained control of his surroundings and at
every step of his development he has receded farther from the rule of
Nature. Now "he has advanced so far and become so unfitted to the
earlier rule, that to suppose that Man can 'return to Nature' is as
unreasonable as to suppose that an adult animal can return to its
mother's womb."
But at present man puts into operation no real substitute for natural
selection. "The standard raised by the rebel man is not that of
fitness to the conditions proffered by extra-human Nature, but is one
of ideal comfort, prosperity, and conscious joy of life--imposed by
the will of man and involving a control, and in important respects a
subversion, of what were Nature's methods of dealing with life before
she had produced her insurgent son." Progress in the control of Nature
has been going on with enormous rapidity during the last two centuries
particularly--the "nature searchers" have placed almost limitless
power in the hands of men. And yet the builders of society and
governments and nations have failed to profit by this increase in
natural knowledge. In our social and national organization we remain
fixed in the old paths of ignorance. Lankester says: "I speak for
those who would urge the conscious and deliberate assumption of his
kingdom by Man--not as a matter of markets and of increased
opportunity for the cosmopolitan dealers in finance--but as an
absolute duty, the fulfillment of Man's destiny." The purpose of his
essay is "to point out that civilized man has proceeded so far in his
interference with extra-human Nature, has produced for himself and for
the living organisms associated with him such a special state of
things, by his rebellion against natural selection and his defiance of
pre-human dispositions, that he must either go on and acquire firmer
control of the conditions, or perish miserably by the vengeance
certain to fall on the half-hearted meddler in great affairs." Man is
a fighting rebel who at every forward step lays himself open to the
liabilities of greater penalties should his attack prove unsuccessful.
Moreover, while emancipating himself from the destructive and
progressive methods of Nature, man has accumulated a new series of
dangers and difficulties with which he must incessantly contend and
which he must finally control. Man has taken a tremendous
step--created desperate conditions by the exercise of his
will--further control is essential in order that he should escape from
final misery and destruction.
Nor is this idle, academic invective. The biologist knows that this is
true. It is not idle, for man has the means at his command--it is
merely a question of their employment. This, then, is the second
biological warning to sociology and to statecraft.
Now we may return to consider briefly the nature of those social data
which we suggested force us to think seriously of the problem of man's
future.
As a primary datum we may note the increasing population of the
countries of Europe and North America (Fig. 1). The countries whose
population is increasing most rapidly are the United States, Russia,
and the German Empire. We know that one important factor of the
increase in this country is that of immigration, but this is not
sufficient to account for the total. There is continued multiplication
of the native population, and of the immigrant after he is here. We
wish only to point out in connection with this diagram the steady
trend of the population upward, and the fact that obviously somewhere
there must be a limit. This cannot go on without end.
[Illustration: FIG. 1.--INCREASE OF POPULATION IN THE
UNITED STATES AND THE PRINCIPAL COUNTRIES OF EUROPE
FROM 1800 TO 1900 (From "Statistical Atlas," Twelfth
Census of the United States.)]
An extremely pertinent fact here has been disclosed by Pearson and is
based upon very extensive observations among several different classes
and nations. It is this--that one fourth of the married population of
the present generation produce one half of the next generation. The
death rate and the ratio of unmarried to married being what they are,
this relation may be stated in this way--twelve per cent of all the
individuals born in the last generation produced one half of the
present generation. "This is not only a general law, but it is
practically true for each class in the community." This conclusion is
based upon data from the English, Danish, and Welsh peoples of
professional, domestic, commercial, industrial, and pastoral classes,
and the per cent of married persons found to be producing one half of
each generation varies from twenty-three to twenty-seven with an
average of twenty-five per cent. We must ask at once--what is the
source of this fourth which is contributing double its quota to the
next generation? Is this twenty-five per cent drawn proportionately
from all classes of society or are some groups contributing
relatively more than others? Is there any relation between this
superfertility and the possession of desirable or undesirable
characteristics? We may answer at once--there is a distinct and
positive relation between civic undesirability and high fertility. We
shall return to this subject at the close of the next chapter; only
the bare fact is to be mentioned at this time.
It is a matter of common notice and remark that to-day, in England at
any rate, there is a dearth of youthful ability. It exists in
commerce, science, literature, politics, the bar, the church. We
cannot dismiss as merely fashionable the statements that the able
classes are not replacing themselves, that men of ability are less
able than formerly. Whether or not this is also the condition in
America to-day, we know that it soon will be the condition unless
steps are taken to bring about a positive relation between civic
desirability and ability and the numerical production of offspring.
Let us turn to data of a somewhat different kind. The United States
Census Reports for the decades from 1850 to 1900 (1904) include data
relative to the number of prisoners in this country. The returns for
1904 omitted certain classes previously enumerated so that for
comparative purposes the figures given have to be corrected. On the
corrected basis these reports show that the total number of prisoners
in the United States increased from 6,737 in 1850 to about 100,000 in
1904, while the total population increased during the same time only
from twenty-three to eighty millions (Fig. 2). The ratio of prisoners
to the total population is of course the significant relation here,
and this increased from 29 per 100,000 in 1850 to 125 per 100,000 in
1904. Not all of this increase can be attributed to more rigid
enforcement of the law or raised standards of morality; there is some
reason for thinking that whatever change there has been in these
respects has tended to have the opposite effect. We should note, in
considering such data as these, that the penologist generally assumes
that of the total number of offenders, actually only about ten per
cent are in prison at any one time.
During the last century, in France, many parts of Germany, and in
Spain the increase in criminality was terrifying. In the United
States the number of murders and homicides per million of the entire
population has nearly trebled in the last fifteen years (Fig. 2). The
average for the five years from 1885 to 1889 inclusive was 38.5 per
million, and for the five years from 1902 to 1906 it became 110 per
million.
[Illustration: FIG. 2.--Relative and absolute numbers of
prisoners in the United States from 1850 to 1904.
- - - - Number of prisoners per 100,000 of total population.
------- Total number of prisoners (figures to the right are
to be read as thousands here).
-.-.-.- Number of murders and homicides per million of the
total population.]
England's "defective" classes during the 22 years between 1874 and
1896 increased from 5.4 to 11.6 per thousand of the total; that is,
more than doubled in that brief period. Rentoul has collected careful
information regarding the number of insane or mentally defective and
degenerate in Great Britain. In England the number of "officially
certified" insane, which is far less than the actual number, increased
from one to every 319 of the total population, to one to 285, in the
nine years preceding 1905. In Ireland comparison of the years 1851 and
1896--a period of 45 years intervening--shows an increase in the
corresponding ratio from 1:657 to 1:178. The census of 1901 showed in
Great Britain 484,507 mental defectives of all kinds; this is one to
85 of the total population, and probably if the whole truth were known
the ratio would approximate 1:50, according to Rentoul's calculation.
The ratio of known insane just doubled in the decade preceding 1901.
The Scottish Commission reports an increase in insane of 190 per cent
since 1858, the total population increasing meanwhile by only 52 per
cent.
The worst side of these British statistics follows. In 1901, of the
60,000 and more, idiots, imbeciles, and feeble-minded, nearly
19,000--roughly one third--were married and free to multiply;
and as for that matter a great many of those unmarried are known
to have been prolific. In 1901, of the 117,000 lunatics, nearly
47,000--considerably more than one third--were married. 65,700 idiots
and lunatics legally multiplying their kind and worse! Rentoul rightly
says: "The hand that wrecks the cradle wrecks the nation."
In the United States the census of 1880 reported 40,942 insane in
hospitals, and 51,017 not in hospitals--a total of 91,959 known
insane. In 1903 the number in hospitals had increased to 150,151. The
number not in hospitals was not given and cannot be determined
accurately, but it is conservatively estimated as certainly not less
than 30,000, and probably it is far greater than this. In many states
it is known that about one fourth of the insane are not in hospitals.
But taking the total of 180,000 as a conservative figure, the ratio of
known insane in the total population was 225 per 100,000 in 1903 as
compared with 183 per 100,000 in 1880.
The methods of the collection of such data vary in different countries
so that the results are not comparable. In a single country there is
less, though still some, lack of uniformity, so that the exact rate of
increase in the ratio of the insane is still somewhat doubtful.
Moreover, it is doubtless true that some of this apparent increase
results from improved methods in the collection of data, and from more
complete registration of these defectives. But suppose we disregard
entirely the idea of an increase in the ratio of these defectives, the
bare fact of the existence of nearly 200,000 insane in this country is
sufficiently alarming; and it is disgraceful to any nation, because it
is unnecessary. The Superintendent of the Ohio Institution for the
Feeble Minded wrote in 1902: "Unless preventive measures against the
progressive increase of the defective classes are adopted, such a
calamity as the gradual eclipse, slow decay and final disintegration
of our present form of society and government is not only possible,
but probable."
The latest census reports for the United States give data relative to
the dependents and defectives in institutions. The numbers not in
institutions can only be guessed at. But from the available sources we
can gain an approximate conception of the numbers in our country
to-day as follows:--insane and feeble minded, at least 200,000; blind,
100,000; deaf, and deaf and dumb, 100,000; paupers in institutions,
80,000, two thirds of whom have children, and are also physically or
mentally deficient, and to say that one half of the whole number of
paupers are in institutions is to give a ridiculously low estimate;
prisoners, 100,000, and several hundred thousand more that should be
prisoners; juvenile delinquents, 23,000 in institutions; the number
cared for by hospitals, dispensaries, "homes" of various kinds, in the
year 1904 was in excess of 2,000,000. From these figures we get a
rough total of nearly 3,000,000. Must we define a civilized and
enlightened nation as one in which only one person in every thirty can
be classed as defective or dependent?
It is needless to continue descriptions of this kind. The foregoing
are representative data; they are published by the volume. It is
always the same story--rapid increase of the unfit, defective, insane,
criminal; slow increase, even decrease of the fit, normal, or gifted
stocks. It is with such conditions in mind that Whetham writes:
"Although this suppression of the best blood of the country is a new
disease in modern Europe, it is an old story in the history of nations
and has been the prelude to the ruin of states and the decline and
fall of empires."
The ultimate aim of Sociology is doubtless the working out of the laws
according to which stable communities are formed and maintained, and
in which each component individual may enjoy and contribute the
maximum of pleasure and profit. So the primary purpose of Statecraft
is to produce a nation which shall be stable and enduring. This is all
familiar ground. The objects of the nation's immediate activities and
concern, protection from enemy, development of commerce and
manufacture, agriculture, and education, all these are for the real
purpose of establishing and promoting national integrity. No nation
exists long without ideals and traditions, without teachers, artists,
poets, and yet the primary condition of the existence of all these is
a great body of citizens characterized by physical and mental
soundness--vigor and sanity. In searching for guiding principles in
their great endeavors the sociologist and statesman have sought aid
from many sources. But, as Pearson points out, Philosophy has thus far
given no law by the aid of which we can understand how a nation
becomes physically and mentally vigorous. Anthropology has done little
to show wherein exists human fitness as a social organism. Political
Economists object that they are not listened to with respectful
consideration in legislative chambers. History is the favorite hunting
ground of the statesman searching for guidance; but unfortunately
history teaches chiefly by example and analogy, rarely by true
explanation. And just as some gifted persons are able to give an apt
Biblical quotation touching any occurrence whatever, so, many
statesmen can cite some historical analogue which they offer as
evidence for their views, whatever they are. These men are sincere, in
their ignorance of the nature of scientific proof. Finally, although
the Statesman still holds rather aloof, the Sociologist comes now to
the Biologist, inquiring whether by any chance he may be in possession
of data or guiding principles which may be somehow of service in the
building of stable societies. The Biologist does not send him away
without contribution. The Sociologist makes known his needs, the
Biologist displays his possessions, and it is at once evident to both
that they have much in common, and that each is able to supply the
other with some needed wares. Each may learn from the other; and best
of all, the Biologist seems to have information which can be of the
greatest service in their common work of building sound societies.
And the biologist is grateful to the sociologist for reminding him
that he, too, has sacred duties in this direction. He is too often
forgetful that the real aim of his own, as of any science, is to be
useful in real human life. It is pleasing to the biologist to feel
that he is at last in possession of facts of value to the student of
human society, for to him his debt is great. From the sociologist he
has drawn the inspirations which have led to some of his greatest
discoveries. It was Malthus who suggested to Darwin the great
principle of the struggle for existence among men which Darwin so
successfully applied to other organisms, and used so profitably in
building up his great theory of natural selection. It was from the
sociologist that the biologist derived his idea of the physiological
division of labor which has proved so fruitful a conception; and from
the same source he has drawn many of his conceptions of organic
individuality.
We might suggest here some of the topics upon which biology has
information of value in this bio-social field; many of these we shall
discuss later on from our present and special point of view. First of
all come the facts regarding the variability and variation of human
beings, not alone in physical characteristics, but in respect to
psychic traits as well. Here as in all organisms we must distinguish
between true variations and bodily modifications; that is, we must be
careful to make, as far as possible, the biological distinction
between innate and acquired traits, particularly in considering
mental characteristics. Next must come consideration of the facts of
heredity. This is undoubtedly the field of greatest importance to the
Eugenist; facts of no other kind are of equal significance in
determining the course of eugenic practice. We now have a fairly
extensive working basis here from which to discuss heredity in man.
The various phases of human selection should be noticed, in particular
that known as selective fertility or differential fertility in
different social groups or classes. Another evolutionary factor of
importance here is that of "isolation" in the many and varied forms
which it assumes in human society, especially those which result from
assortative and preferential mating, and from the operation of social
convention, restrictions in marriage, and the like.
Before discussing any of these subjects let us offer here just a word
of caution to the enthusiast. The results gained in one field of
science cannot be transferred _in toto_ to another field and there be
found to fit. Biology has learned much from Physics and Chemistry, but
the biological applications of the laws of these sciences must be
carried out with the greatest care. Such transference has often been
premature and attended by results retardative to progress in the field
of Biology. Any formula borrowed from one science and applied in
another must be rigorously tested under the new conditions. The
indiscriminating application of biological laws in the field of
sociology may result in confusion and retardation in the progress of
both sciences, or at any rate in their practical applications. As
Thomson points out in writing on this topic, human society is not only
a complex of individual activities of a strictly biological character,
but also and further it involves an integration and regulation of
those activities which are not yet, at least, susceptible of concrete
biological analysis. Thomson says: "The biological ideal of a
healthful, self-sustaining, evolving human breed is as fundamental as
the social ideal of a harmoniously integrated society is supreme." The
great danger here lies in forgetting the fundamental and general
character of the biological principles. The ideals of biology and
sociology need not coincide, often they do not, but they must not
conflict. In practice Eugenics must be largely a social matter; but in
its theory, its fundamentals, it must be largely biological.
The coming together of biology and sociology, and their common search
for guiding principles in their common endeavor is likely to have
results of several kinds. It is likely to bring out more clearly than
has yet been done the distinction, in human life and society, between
that which is fundamentally biological or animal, and that which is
distinctly social. Such information will prove of especial value later
when the time comes for the suggestion and carrying out of a definite
eugenic program, when the time comes for the real eugenic organization
of society. And further the close _rapprochement_ of the two subjects
will doubtless result in mutual aid and suggestion in the development
of each subject in its own stricter field, outside the limits of their
common meeting ground.