It appears then that we can extract no guarantee of progress either
from the nature of Man or from the nature of human institutions. There
is no _law_ of progress, if by law be meant a superior power able to
coerce the creatures that are said to ‘obey’ it. Neither can we extract
from history any proof of the superiority of civilized man over his
uncivilized ancestors. Such progress as has been attained has been
achieved only by the active co-operation of the progressive organisms:
every step has been fought for, and progress has ceased whenever
effort ceased, or was switched off into different directions.
Consequently, modern man has no right to ‘boast himself far better
than his fathers’--in intrinsic quality. Intrinsically, _i.e._ apart
from the effects of culture and social training, it is probable that
he is slightly _inferior_ in capacity to his own ancestors, while
very markedly inferior to the great races of antiquity (like the
Greeks) in their hey-day. Nor is there any reason to suppose that his
moral nature has changed materially. Modern man may be a little tamer
and better-tempered, because he has been herded together much more
closely than primitive man, and city life, even in slums, demands,
and produces, a certain ‘urbanity.’ For many generations those who
would not pack tight and could not stand the strain of constantly
exhibiting ‘company manners’ and accommodating their action to those
of their fellows, must have fled away into the wilds, where they could
be independent, or have eliminated themselves in other ways, _e.g._ by
committing murder. It is probable that the social history of Iceland,
settled as it was by unbridled individualists who would not brook any
form of organized government, might throw some light on this process of
taming the individual.
Nevertheless there is little doubt that, in the main, humanity is
still Yahoo-manity. Alike in mentality and in _moral_, modern man is
still substantially identical with his palæolithic ancestors. He is
still the irrational, impulsive, emotional, foolish, destructive,
cruel, credulous, creature he always was. Normally the Yahoo in him
is kept under control by the constant pressure of a variety of social
institutions; but let anything upset an established social order, and
the Yahoo comes to the front at once. The history of the past fifty
years abundantly proves that man is still capable of atrocities equal
to any in his record. Not only have we lived through the greatest
political and the deadliest natural convulsion, the Great War and the
Tokio earthquake, but the Russian Revolution has outdone the French and
Landru the legendary Bluebeard, while for mingled atrocity and baseness
the murders of Rasputin and of Alexander of Serbia are unsurpassed in
history. The painful truth is that civilization has not improved Man’s
moral nature. His moral habits are still mainly matters of custom, and
the effect of moral theories is nugatory everywhere. Thus civilization
is not even skin deep; it does not go deeper than the clothes.
V
Clearly it is risky to expose the inelastic nature of so stubbornly
conservative a creature to new conditions at a rapid rate. He may not
be able to adapt himself quickly enough, and his old reactions, which
did little or no harm before, may become extremely dangerous. Yet this
is just what has happened. Science has exposed the palæolithic savage
masquerading in modern garb to a series of physical and mental shocks
which have endangered his equilibrium. It has also enormously extended
his power and armed him with a variety of delicate and penetrating
instruments which have often proved edge tools in his hands and which
the utmost wisdom could hardly be trusted to use aright. Under these
conditions the fighting instinct ceases to be an antiquated foible,
like the hunting instinct, and becomes a deadly danger. No wonder the
more prescient are dismayed at the prospect of the old savage passions
running amok in the full panoply of civilization!