Skip to main content

Full text of "The next age of man"

See other formats



Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2009 




Author  of 

The  New  Decalogue  of  Science 

The  Fruit  of  the  Family  Tree 



Copyright,  192V 
By  The  Bobbs-Mbbbill  Company 



CORNWALL,   N.    T. 



Biologist,      biometrician,      historiometer — ^lover      of 

truth — of  whom  a  renowned  scientist  said:  **I  have 

watched  his  genius  for  twenty  years  and  have  never 

known  him  to  be  wrong." 


This  book  is  tlie  outcome  of  a  telegram  that  I  re- 
ceived on  one  occasion  from  Dean  Carl  E.  Seashore, 
asking  me  to  deliver  an  address  on  *^Some  Aspects  of 
Eugenics''  to  the  Graduate  School  of  the  University 
of  Iowa.  The  address  had  the  good  fortune  to  be 
kindly  received  by  the  scientific  men  present.  At  the 
urgent  suggestion  of  a  number  of  friends  I  have  rather 
reluctantly  enlarged  the  discussion  into  a  book.  This 
does  not  mean  that  all  of  my  scientific  friends  have 
agreed  with  its  major  premises.  They  have  not.  They 
have,  however,  believed  that  I  had  presented  some 
aspects  of  man's  probable  future  on  this  earth  which 
merited  more  extended  discussion.    Hence  this  book. 

If  I  am  wrong,  no  praise  from  friends  or  critics  will 
make  me  right ;  if  I  am  right,  no  adverse  criticism  will 
make  me  wrong.  The  effort  to  improve  man's  organic 
constitution  is  the  most  difficult  and  complex  problem 
to  which  human  intelligence  has  ever  addressed  itself. 
It  would,  therefore,  not  be  surprising  if,  during  the 
first  one  or  two  hundred  years,  we  should  all  be  wrong. 
As  long,  however,  as  men  seek  the  truth  by  critical 
methods,  instead  of  by  mystical  contemplation,  the 
truth  will  ultimately  come  out  of  their  very  errors. 
Should  this  entire  volume  be  wrong,  it  will  never- 
theless be  of  service  in  getting  that  much  of  the  dis- 
cussion out  of  the  way,  and  making  its  error  manifest. 

Eugenical  truth  is  the  highest  truth  men  will  ever 
know.  The  climax  of  all  natural  processes  is  the  evolu- 
tion of  man.  And  if  man  can,  by  the  use  of  the 
intelligence  which  that  evolution  has  given  him,  aid  in 


his  further  evolution,  it  will  certainly  be  the  highest 
achievement  which  the  powers  given  him  by  nature 
will  ever  enable  him  to  make.  Eugenics  will  not  solve 
aU  the  problems  of  society;  but  it  hopes  to  aid  intro- 
ducing a  race  that  can  solve  them. 

My  own  belief  is  that  biology  and  psychology  have 
recently  placed  in  our  hands  new  and  powerful  instru- 
ments and  agencies  by  which  man  can  greatly  accel- 
erate his  own  evolution,  and  that  these  discoveries  of 
science  are  going  to  usher  in  a  new  age  of  man. 
Human  nature,  I  think,  has  profoundly  changed  within 
the  past  ten  or  fifteen  thousand  years.  I  believe  we 
are  better  men  than  have  ever  lived;  also  that  human 
nature  is  going  to  change  even  more  rapidly  in  the 
comparatively  near  future  than  it  has  ever  changed  in 
the  past.  Beyond  question,  there  is  going  on,  all 
around  us,  a  rising  tide  of  degeneracy;  but  right  in 
fhe  midst  of  it,  I  am  convinced,  there  is  also  going  on 
a  rising  tide  of  biological  capacity.  I  believe  that 
civilization  has  in  the  past  ten  or  fifteen  thousand 
years  been  slowly  evolving  a  naturally  civilized  man; 
and  that  science  is  about  to  place  in  our  hands  dis- 
coveries which  will  greatly  increase  this  process  in 
rapidity  of  action  and  definiteness  of  result.  There 
are,  here  and  there,  people  who  are  naturally  good, 
naturally  sane,  healthy,  intelligent  and  long-lived. 
These  people  are  naturally  happy  and  naturally  civ- 
ilizable.  I  believe  that  through  the  use  of  the  new 
instrumentalities  of  science  these  people  are  going,  in 
the  course  of  no  great  time,  to  constitute  the  main  body 
of  the  population. 

To  maintain  the  foregoing  thesis  is  the  aim  of  this 

My  thanks  are  due  to  Dean  Seashore  for  hav- 
ing stimulated  me  to  lay  the  foundations  of  the  book. 
The  World* s  Work,  Collier's  Weekly  and  the  Metro- 


politan  Newspaper  Syndicate  have  kindly  permitted 
me  to  draw  upon  articles  of  mine  which  they  have 
published.  Mr.  Alfred  A.  Knopf,  publisher,  and  Dr. 
^iaymond  Pearl,  Director  of  the  Institute  of  Biological 
Research  of  Johns  Hopkins  University,  have  extended 
to  me  exceptional  courtesies  in  the  matter  of  using 
extracts  from  Doctor  Pearl's  researches.  I  am  grate- 
ful to  Dr.  J.  McKeen  Cattell,  also,  for  permission 
to  make  quotations  from  the  various  Journals  of 
the  Science  Press.  Prof.  Karl  Pearson,  Director 
of  the  Galton  Laboratory  of  London,  has  personally 
extended  me  the  privilege  of  making  extracts  from  the 
Annals  of  Eugenics  and  other  publications  from  his 
laboratory.  I  have  acknowledged,  in  my  dedication, 
my  indebtedness  to  Frederick  Adams  Woods.  Mrs. 
Wiggam  has  done  an  enormous  amount  of  reading  and 
correlating  of  technical  material  for  me.  Without  her 
assistance  the  volume  would  not  have  been  possible. 
The  public  has  been  extraordinarily  kind  in  its  re- 
ception of  my  previous  writings.  I  can  here  express 
only  feebly  my  profound  sense  of  gratitude,  as  it  is 
beyond  my  physical  power  to  reply  to  all  of  the  many 
grateful  readers  who  have  so  kindly  written  me.  My 
hope  is  that  this  present  volume  will,  at  least,  not  de- 
crease this  interest  and  generosity. 

A.  E.  Wiggam. 
New  York  City, 
January  15th,  1927. 



I     Can  We  Remain  Civilized  f 15 

II     The   Modern   Man,   His  World  and  His 

Problem .     77 

III  The  Four  Corner  Stones  of  Race 

Progress 119 

IV  Are  We  Winning  the  Human  Race?     .  221 
V    Who  Makes  Progress? 267 

VI     Our  Vanishing  Leaders  .      .      .     .     .      .  305 

VII     The  Next  Age  of  Man   .      .      .,    ■..■     .     .  347 
Index      .....■•     .     ....  403 




When  some  disgruntled  genius  of  the  jungle,  dis- 
satisfied with  the  lack  of  soap,  newspapers  and  under- 
wear, got  up  the  idea  of  civilization,  he  unwittingly  let 
the  ** so-called  human  race''  in  for  a  host  of  unexpected 
troubles.  He,  no  doubt,  held  out  to  his  fellows  a  glit- 
tering prospect  of  wealth,  comfort,  loafing,  rapid 
transit,  limousines,  pullmans,  medicines,  hospitals, 
welfare  workers,  radio,  airplanes,  chewing  gum  and 
telephones;  a  vote,  a  college  education,  and  three 
square  meals  a  day  for  everybody;  and  the  Salvation 
Army  to  take  care  of  the  unfit.  It  took  him  several 
thousand  years  to  put  the  scheme  over;  there  have 
been  a  good  many  hitches  in  the  program,  and,  indeed, 
quite  a  sizable  portion  of  the  human  race  is  not  **sold" 
on  the  idea  yet. 

But  on  the  whole  he  has  made  good  on  his  pros- 
pectus. When  we  compare  the  foregoing  inventory 
of  his  present  stock  in  trade  and  his  rather  conspic- 
uous state  of  solvency  to-day  with  the  impressive 
absence  in  the  jungle  of  these  modem  conveniences — 
commonly  referred  to  nowadays  as  ** necessities'* — ^we 
are  forced  to  admit  that  he  has  made  no  small  success 
of  his  enterprise.  True,  there  is  still  a  bit  of  dissatis- 
faction here  and  there  as  to  the  ** distribution"  of 



these  so-called  *  ^  goods, '^ — some  asserting  that  they 
receive  too  little  of  the  chewing  gum,  loafing  and  col- 
lege education,  and  too  much  attention  from  the  Sal- 
vation Army;  but  on  the  whole,  things  seem  better 
since  philosophy,  science,  art  and  education  were 
invented  than  they  were  prior  to  these  creations  of  the 
intelligence  and  sense  of  the  aesthetic. 

Indeed,  there  have  been  several  occasions,  notably 
in  Babylon,  Greece,  Eome  and  other  centers  of  art, 
philosophy  and  trade,  when  it  seemed  as  though  **  prog- 
ress" had  come  to  stay,  and  from  then  on  all  anybody 
would  have  to  do  would  be  merely  to  get  on  it  and 
ride;  in  fact,  in  tw^o  or  three  instances  it  has  seemed 
as  though  mankind  were  just  about  to  ride  into  the 
millennium.  But  in  every  instance  a  monkey-wrench 
has  been  thrown  into  the  machinery  by  parties  un- 
known— at  least,  historians  and  philosophers  are  still 
busy  trying  to  identify  the  culprits.  Some  have 
insisted  it  was  the  crowd  that  changed  the  trade  routes 
and  ** economic  conditions";  some  that  it  was  the 
busybody  who  devised  birth  control  and  sold  it  to  the 
fit  at  so  high  a  price  that  it  could  not  be  purchased  by 
the  unfit;  others,  that  it  was  the  moron  who  invented 
democracy;  while  still  others  have  laid  a  good  deal  on 
the  doorstep  of  the  peace-loving  Chinese  who  invented 

But  whatever  caused  the  breakdown  of  the 
machinery,  sometimes  it  has  been  so  complete  that 
it  has  looked  as  though  the  w^hole  idea  would  have  to 
be  given  up.  Especially  at  the  close  of  the  Roman 
effort  it  hardly  seemed  worth  while  trying  again.  But 
new  blood  came  in  from  the  outside — ^peoples  who  had 
not  yet  had  a  chance  to  try  one  of  these  new-fangled 
civilized  joy  rides — and,  barring  a  few  considerable 
setbacks  such  as  the  Thirty  Years'  War,  the  World 
War,  the  rise  of  the  bootleggers  to  opulence  and  social 


distinction,  and  similar  discouragements,  things  have 
at  last   begun  to  look  a  bit  hopeful  again. 

However,  the  very  success  of  the  enterprise  has 
given  leisure,  opportunity  and  stimulus  to  a  few  here- 
tofore unoccupied  minds  known  as  biologists,  psy- 
chologists and  biometricians,  to  inquire  whether  there 
may  not  be  forces  seated  in  the  very  nature  of  human 
nature  which  have  been  important  and  possibly  de- 
cisive factors  in  determining  both  the  rise  and  disso- 
lution of  the  societies  of  the  past.  They  are  also 
inquiring  whether  these  forces  may  not  be  corralled 
and  made  to  work  both  for  the  organic  improvement 
of  man  and  the  success  of  the  social  undertaking 
instead  of,  as  heretofore,  sometimes  against  them.  If 
this  should  turn  out  to  be  feasible,  these  students  be- 
lieve that  we  could  develop  a  culture,  a  system  of 
education,  a  set  of  social  ideals  and  taboos,  a  political 
and  economic  organization  which  would  make  luxury, 
art,  ease,  w^ealth,  gaiety,  liberty  and  beauty  just  as 
natural  and  healthful  an  environment  for  man  and 
one  which  would  work  just  as  powerfully  for  his  con- 
tinuous improvement  in  energy,  sanity  and  moral 
character,  as  did  the  jungle  with  its  soil  constantly 
soaked  with  his  own  blood. 

In  short,  human  intelligence  has  at  last  turned  itself 
to  an  enthusiastic  consideration  of  the  question  which 
the  inventors  of  civilization  entirely  overlooked.  This 
oversight,  the  biologists  believe,  has  been  a  prime 
cause  of  a  great  deal  of  the  trouble  that  has  beset  the 
human  pathway.  That  question  is,  whether  social 
processes  can  not  be  devised  which  will  work  in  har- 
mony with  those  organic  evolutionary  processes  by 
which  man  has  climbed  from  his  humble  beginnings 
to  his  present  high  estate.  For  the  thing  which  strikes 
the  historian  who  has  been  schooled  in  biological  and 
psychological  fact  and  theory  is  that  these  two  pro- 


cesses  have  to  a  considerable  extent  always  run  coun- 
ter to  each  other.  And  he  is  beginning  to  believe  that 
unless,  in  the  future,  civilization  can  be  founded  upon 
new  organizing  principles,  these  two  processes-  will 
always  conflict  and  will,  periodically,  completely  can- 
cel each  other  and  hurl  man  back  into  the  melee  of 
natural  selection  from  which  he  has  so  painfully 

In  considering  this  situation,  perhaps  the  most 
astonishing  thing  that  strikes  us — especially  since  we 
have  come  to  penetrate  some  of  the  deeper  levels  of 
the  natural  human  trends — is  that  so  rude  a  barbarian, 
endowed  with  so  many  tendencies  at  complete  variance 
with  culture  and  social  life,  should  have  ever  made 
such  a  gentleman  out  of  himself  as  he  has.  No  one,  I 
think,  can  contemplate,  for  example,  such  a  fact  as  one 
which  Mr.  Madison  Grant  points  out — ^namely,  that  of 
the  wild,  blood-drinking  Nordic  coming  out  of  the 
snows  of  the  north  into  Normandy,  and  from  there, 
within  only  one  hundred  and  fifty  years,  entering 
England  as  the  finest  gentleman  the  world  up  to  that 
time  had  ever  seen — without  feeling  profound  surprise 
that  such  a  thing  was  possible  to  that  sort  of  human 

Yet,  with  this  and  a  thousand  other  similarly  aston- 
ishing social  feats  to  his  credit,  man  has  never  quite 
succeeded  in  producing  a  sufficient  proportion  of 
gentlemen  and  socially  minded  persons  in  any  of  his 
communities  to  keep  these  communities  going  per- 
manently. A  result  was,  as  Stanley  Hall  asserted 
shortly  before  his  death,  that  **man  has  never  yet 
demonstrated  that  he  can  remain  permanently  civil- 
ized.'' As  a  consequence,  a  few  students  are  beginning 
to  wonder  whether  this  may  not  have  been  because 
man's  civilizations  have  been  *' rigged"  biologically  so 
that,  as  they  became  more  and  more  complex  and 


needed  more  and  more  intelligence  and  social  capacity 
to  man  them,  they  have  failed  to  evolve  a  type  of  man 
better  adapted  and  more  richly  endowed  by  nature  for 
carrying  them  on  than  was  the  crude,  uncouth  bar- 
barian who  began  the  undertaking.  These  students 
are  at  last  beginning  to  believe  that  if  man  is  to  remain 
permanently  civilized  he  must  build  a  civilization 
which  will  by  its  own  processes  evolve  a  naturally  civ- 
ilized man,  a  man  whose  very  inborn  aptitudes  and 
temperament  are  better  adapted  to  a  civilized  life  than 
those  of  his  badly  mannered  forbears. 


Indeed,  on  the  very  face  of  it  this  seems  a  far- 
fetched theory;  certainly  one  opposed  to  our  experi- 
ence with  probability — even  to  expect  that  a  jungle  dis- 
cipline would  evolve  a  creature  who  would  be  naturally 
at  home  in  drawing  rooms,  colleges  and  machine  shops. 
No  one  who  still  believes  to  any  extent  in  Darwinian 
selection  as  a  factor  in  evolution  will  doubt  that 
drawing  rooms,  colleges,  machine  shops  and  other  civ- 
ilized contrivances  began,  the  moment  they  were 
instituted,  to  select  out  for  preservation  those  breeds 
especially  adapted  to  carrying  on  that  kind  of  life.  But 
this  process  has,  somehow,  either  never  worked  rapidly 
enough,  or  else  has  never  had  long  enough  time  in 
which  to  work,  to  produce  enough  naturally  parlor- 
bred,  hand-fed — that  is,  naturally  social — ^men,  to 
make  them  the  chief  part  of  the  population. 

It  is  easily  evident  that  the  hard,  cooperative  work 
and  the  demands  upon  sheer  intelligence  and  moral 
character  which  civilization  necessitates  run  consider- 
ably against  the  grain  in  man's  natural  constitution. 
For  example,  as  suggested  by  Prof.  Gr.  W.  T.  Pat- 
rick of  Iowa  University,  only  by  the  hardest  kind  of 


work  can  we  collect  a  score  of  people  to  contemplate 
a  superlative  work  of  art.  At  the  same  time,  witH 
moderate  effort  we  can  get  one  hundred  and  fifty  per- 
sons out  to  hear  a  public  student  debate  or  an  oratori- 
cal contest;  with  a  little  more  effort  we  can  get  a 
couple  of  thousand  to  witness  a  tennis  match;  while 
with  no  effort  at  all  we  can  get  twenty  thousand  to 
witness  a  baseball  game,  a  hundred  thousand  to 
witness  a  football  game,  and  a  hundred  and  fifty 
thousand  to  witness  a  prize-fight — ^with,  at  the  same 
time,  the  whole  population  of  America,  young  and  old. 
Christian  and  Jewish,  rich  and  poor,  maimed,  halt  and 
blind,  hanging  on  the  radio,  listening  to  every  blow 
that  is  given  and  either  mentally  or  financially  wager- 
ing on  the  result.  It  strongly  indicates  that  the  masses 
of  men  are  civilized  only  because  a  few  leaders  have 
forced  them  to  behave  themselves.  It  seems  pretty 
evident  from  the  analysis  of  human  traits  now  emerg- 
ing from  the  laboratories  that  civilization  is  a  scheme 
got  up  by  a  comparatively  few,  and  that  it  has  been 
with  only  indifferent  success  forced  on  the  many.  For 
the  average  man  has  nothing  to  do  with  progress  ex- 
cept to  hold  it  back.  His  leaders  supply  him  with 
plenty  of  propaganda  and  ready-made  slogans,  so  that 
he  imagines  he  really  has  something  to  do  with  what 
is  going  on.  And  the  saddest  thing  which  strikes  a 
biologist  when  he  discovers  the  disastrous  effect  of 
civilization  on  man's  natural  constitution — ^his  inborn 
strength,  intelligence  and  moral  character — is  that 
even  these  leaders  have  always  mistaken  the  social 
progress  which  they  were  creating  for  natural  prog- 
ress in  the  inborn  characteristics  of  man.  They  have 
supposed  that  if  they  could  improve  man's  surround- 
ings, his  manners  and  education,  this  would  not  only 
cause  an  improvement  in  his  nature,  but  would  be  in 
itself  an  actual  improvement  in  man's  natural  traits 
and  capacity.    As  I  shall  show  later,  a  slight  mechan- 


ical  difficulty  in  the  egg-cell  from  which  human  beings 
are  born  renders  this  supposition  extremely  doubtful. 
Indeed,  what  actually  happens  to  the  human  form  and 
mind  divine  in  a  state  of  civilization — as  a  biologist 
views  it,  at  least — I  think  I  can  throw  into  easy  relief 
by  a  very  simple  parable. 


A  certain  man  had  two  ears  of  wheat,  the  grains 
large  in  size,  of  equal  vigor  and  freedom  from  disease. 
He  planted  the  grains  from  one  in  rich,  mellow  soil 
and  the  others  in  hard,  sterile  soil.  He  gave  them 
equal  care  and  cultivation.  They  each  received  an 
equal  amount  of  air,  moisture  and  sunshine.  At  the 
end  of  the  season  those  planted  in  the  rich  soil  yielded 
him  both  a  richer  harvest  and  much  larger  ears.  He 
congratulated  himself  that  he  had  discovered  a  simple 
and  easy  method  of  improving  the  inborn  quality  of  his 
whole  race  of  wheat ;  that  is,  the  method  of  providing 
an  improved  environment. 

The  results  of  the  improved  environment  were  so 
immediate  and  unmistakable  that  he  failed  to  inquire 
what  had  gone  on  inside  the  plants  themselves. 

Being,  however,  of  an  experimental  turn  of  mind, 
he  saved  all  the  grains  from  both  lots  for  seed,  just 
as  we  save  all  human  beings  for  reproduction.  He 
therefore  planted  all  the  w^heat  from  both  lots  again 
in  the  same  sort  of  ground  as  before,  those  from  the 
rich  soil  back  in  the  rich  soil  and  the  others  in  the  poor 

At  the  end  of  a  few  seasons,  however,  he  began  to 

*  I  have  used  wheat  to  illustrate  the  foregoing  parable  on  the  advice 
of  Edward  M.  East,  Professor  of  Genetics,  Harvard  University.  Prof. 
East  advises  me  that  there  are  a  few  genetical  and  practical  difficulties, 
some  of  them  not  yet  completely  understood,  which  rather  over-simplify 
the  application  of  this  parable  to  human  evolution.  He  believes  that 
the  broad  general  principles  of  the  parable  are  applicable  with  these 
reservations.     The  writer  intends  only  to  draw  an  illustrative  analogy. 


suspect  that  something  was  going  wrong  with  his 
stocks.  He  found  among  those  grown  continuously  in 
the  rich  soil  an  enormous  number  of  little  grains.^  He 
was  unable  to  account  for  this,  as  he  had  started'  out 
only  with  large  ones.  True,  there  w^ere  still  many 
good-sized  grains  from  the  rich  soil,  but  what  dis- 
couraged him  was  the  increasing  number  of  little  ones. 
When  he  considered  the  general  average  size  of  this 
entire  stock  he  found  it  greatly  reduced  from  that  of 
the  original  lot.  He  also  found  that  disease  had  set 
in  among  them,  while  the  ones  from  the  poor  soil 
seemed  strangely  unaffected  by  disease.  He  concluded 
that  his  soil  J  not  his  seed,  was  deteriorating,  and  also 
that  he  had  not  expended  sufficient  time  and  skill  in 


He  therefore  bought  expensive  fertilizers,  and  re- 
doubled his  efforts  at  tillage.  But  his  fertilizers 
brought  him  only  a  new  disappointment.  For  a  time 
they  did  give  him  a  few  extraordinarily  large  speci- 
mens, but  even  these  were  not  free  from  disease.  In- 
deed, both  the  fertilizers  and  the  extra  efforts  at  cul- 
tivation seemed  only  to  promote  both  the  amount  of 
disease  in  his  rich-soil  wheat  and  to  increase  the  num- 
ber of  small,  puny  grains.  One  thing  also  that  had 
stnick  him  all  along  about  his  poor-soil  wheat  was 
that,  while  at  first  the  hard  environment  decreased  its 
average  size,  yet  the  plants  remained  free  from  dis- 
ease and,  as  time  went  on,  gradually  improved  slightly 
in  size  and  quality. 

He  now  had  two  pictaires  before  him.  First,  the 
rich  soil  had  given  him  size  and  abundance,  all  mixed 
with  disease  and  littleness,  with  a  gradual  tendency 
of  his  whole  stock  toward  general  degradation.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  hard,  forbidding  soil  had  appar- 
ently preserved  the  vitality  of  his  stock  and  kept  it 


free  from  disease,  but  had  given  him  very  little  in  the 
way  of  food. 


AH  this  experience  led  our  farmer  to  take  a  new 
tack.  He  selected  a  large,  general  random  sample  of 
his  rich-soil  wheat  and  planted  the  grains  in  the  poor 
soil,  and  at  the  same  time  he  transferred  a  similar 
sample  from  the  lot  bred  in  the  meagre  ground  to  the 
rich  and  stimulating  environment. 

To  his  amazement,  the  whole  picture  was  instantly 
reversed.  The  wheat  from  the  poor  soil,  when  trans- 
ferred to  the  rich  environment,  leaped  up  at  once  to 
great  size  and  vigor,  and  even  exceeded  its  original 
size  of  years  before,  when  he  began  his  experiment. 
The  seeds  were  practically  all  healthy  and  of  good  pro- 
portions, while,  on  the  other  hand,  those  taken  from 
the  comfortable  environment  and  put  into  the  hard, 
ruthless  soil  had  become  so  weakened  that  they  scarcely 
survived  at  all. 

At  last  there  dawned  on  his  mind,  from  this  ex- 
pensive experience,  a  new  idea.  From  the  new  lot, 
hardened  by  their  long  experience  in  sterile  soil,  which 
had  weeded  out  their  weaklings,  their  diseased  and 
unfit,  and  which  he  had  now  tried  for  a  season  in  his 
rich  soil  and  found  to  respond  magnificently  to  luxury 
and  cultivation,  he  selected  not  a  random  sample,  but 
the  finest,  healthiest  and  largest  specimens  he  could 
find,  and  saved  them  for  seed.  The  remainder  he  used 
for  his  own  food  or  sent  to  the  market. 

The  next  season  he  planted  his  selected  seeds  in  his 
most  luxurious  soil  and  gave  them  every  possible  care 
and  nourishment.  Wlien  the  harvest  came  he  found 
himself  richly  rewarded  for  his  use  of  intelligence. 
The  crop  from  his  selected  seeds  was  the  finest  and 
largest  and  the  freest  from  disease  that  he  had  ever 
grown.    His  fame  went  abroad  and  his  neighbors  cam^ 


to  purchase  seed.  The  superstitious  actually  believed 
that  he  had  been  somehow  blessed  by  Heaven  or  that 
some  special  god  of  wheat  had  bestowed  his  favors  on 
this  particular  breed. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  what  the  farmer  had  done  in 
his  first  experiment  was  to  defy  nature's  laws  by  pre- 
serving all  his  weaklings  for  seed.  He  thus  gave  them 
as  good  a  chance  as  the  strong  and  healthy;  in  good 
soil  they  reproduced  their  wealmess  and  spread  it 
throughout  the  entire  race.  Thus,  his  very  efforts  to 
improve  the  environment  had  been  the  chief  cause  of 
his  racial  disaster.  But  in  his  second  experiment  the 
farmer  had  obeyed  nature's  laws  in  two  directions: 
First,  he  had  selected  out  his  weaklings  and  prevented 
them  from  reproduction;  and  second,  he  had  given 
those  which  he  selected  for  seed  the  finest  possible 
opportunity  and  encouragement  for  individual  devel- 
opment. Still  further  he  continued  this  educational 
process  with  the  children  and  grandchildren.  In  this 
way  he  secured  all  the  benefit  of  his  best  heredity  and 
his  wonderful  environment  combined. 


Now,  men  are  not  different  from  wheat.  Biologists 
can  find  very  little  difference  either  in  the  breeding 
mechanism  or  in  the  physiological  processes  of  repro- 
duction of  wheat  and  of  men.  There  are  differences  in 
detail  but  none  in  general  process.  Every  plant  which 
the  farmer  had  planted  in  stern,  austere  soil  had  had 
to  fight  for  its  life.  The  ones  that  were  naturally  more 
vigorous,  those  that  possessed  a  superior  heredity  of 
strength  or  rapidity  of  growth  or  resistance  to  drouth 
or  excessive  rain  or  cold,  won  out.  The  small  grains 
and  the  weaklings  never  got  a  proper  start,  or  if  they 
did  they  were  killed  off.  But  in  the  warm,  opulent  and 
stimulating  environment  of  the  rich,  mellow  soil,  all 


sorts  of  grains  survived — the  good,  bad  and  indifferent 
alike — and  unfortunately  they  also  reared  offspring. 
In  time  the  weak  were  crossed  with  the  strong.  Thus 
the  weakness  spread  even  to  the  largest  and  most  ro- 
bust specimens ;  the  entire  race  became  degraded,  and 
feebleness  and  disease  perpetuated  themselves. 


Just  SO  it  is  when  men  are  in  a  state  of  brute  sav- 
agery. Strange  and  contradictory  as  it  may  seem, 
they  progress  constantly  in  their  mental,  moral  and 
physical  qualities.  For  the  jungle  administers  a 
racial  discipline  to  man  which  is  bound  even  to-day  to 
excite  the  unqualified  admiration  and  esteem  of  the 
most  ardent  advocate  of  eugenics.  The  weak  and  the 
witless  quickly  pay  their  debt  to  nature.  The  fool  lit- 
erally perishes  by  his  own  folly;  the  wages  of  sin  and 
departure  from  tribal  custom  and  morality  is  instant 
death.  The  beasts  of  the  field,  the  birds  and  the  in- 
sects of  the  air  make  their  hourly  raids  and  select  out 
the  less  agile,  the  less  cooperative  and  the  less  cour- 
ageous. The  microbial  diseases  take  their  yearly  toll 
and  leave  only  those  who  by  nature  lack  a  lethal  sus- 
ceptibility to  these  invisible  and  therefore  mysterious 

In  a  wonderful  picture  of  these  early  days  when 
man  was  beginning  his  long  and  toilsome  journey  from 
brutedom  to  culture.  Doctor  Ales  Hrdlicka,  our 
American  anthropologist,  says:  ** Humankind  is  the 
greatest  accomplishment  of  this  world.  What  is  its 
meaning?  ...  It  had  a  long,  laborious  and  difficult 
infancy,  reaching  far  back  into  the  Ice  Age.  What 
almost  endless  sacrifices  man  was  obliged  to  make  be- 
fore he  became  sufficiently  apt  to  cope  with  adver- 


sities  and  have  a  sufficient  surplus  of  progeny  to 
enable  him  to  multiply  and  to  spread  to  the  more  dis- 
tant parts  of  the  earth!  His  progress,  his  evolution 
were  hard  earned,  and  every  step  was  paid  for  t(T  the 

When  we  try  to  picture  this  helpless,  naked  crea- 
ture in  that  day,  and  think  of  the  long  red  gantlet  of 
evolution  which  he  has  successfully  run,  following 
always  the  loftiest  vision  within  him  toward  some  un- 
known goal,  there  should  certainly  be  no  reluctance,  to 
our  imaginations,  in  picturing  the  heights  of  inteDi- 
gence  and  character  to  which  he  yet  may  climb. 
Archeology  and  anthropology  have  made  it  a  definite 
certainty  and  not  a  theory  that  man's  life  in  that  far- 
away time  was  simply  a  bare-handed  fight  against  a 
whole  universe  which  seemed  hostile  to  his  every  step. 
Women  who  could  not  succeed  at  childbirth  always 
died,  and  their  offspring,  who  would  naturally  inherit 
this  disability,  perished  with  them.  To-day  we  keep 
such  women  alive  and  save  their  offspring  by  surgical 
interference  with  nature.  The  halt,  the  maimed  and 
the  blind,  instead  of  being  invited  to  tribal  feasts,  had 
to  rustle  for  themselves.  Every  man  for  himself  and 
the  devil  take  the  hindmost,  was  the  unmitigated  law. 


When  we  think  to-day  of  our  feeble  efforts  to  make 
men  good  in  their  natural  qualities  by  Sunday  schools, 
jails,  prohibitions  and  copybook  maxims,  our  strivings 
seem  puny  indeed  compared  with  those  gigantic  and 
bloody  methods  by  which  nature  disciplined  a  terrified 
and  foolish  creature  into  organic  courage  and  moral 
health.  Vice  constantly  purified  the  race,  because  it 
killed  its  votaries.  No  fatted  calf  was  prepared  for 
the  prodigal.    He  starved  upon  the  husks  of  his  own 


folly.  Thieves,  violators  of  sex  morals  and  those  who 
defied  the  tribal  law  were  executed  without  chance  of 
appeal  to  any  higher  court.  The  anti-social  man  who 
would  not  cooperate  with  his  fellows  paid  the  penalty 
of  his  foolhardiness  and  died  alone.  There  were  no 
sentimental  women  to  carry  flowers  to  the  murderer, 
and  no  sentimental  Governor,  bidding  for  votes  in  the 
next  election,  to  grant  a  reprieve.  Nature  lay  in  wait 
day  and  night  to  enter  the  weak  spot  in  every  man's 
armor  and  when  she  found  it,  without  mercy  she  shot 
her  shaft  to  the  death.  As  Prof.  F.  C.  S.  SchiUer, 
the  philosopher,  of  Oxford,  has  suggested,  when  you 
see  in  the  museum  to-day  the  adult  skull  of  some  pre- 
historic human  being,  you  may  feel  considerable 
assurance  that  its  original  inhabitant  was  a  pretty 
smart  man  since,  in  the  good  old  days  of  natural  selec- 
tion probably  no  fool  ever  lived  long  enough  to  leave 
an  adult  skull. 


But  this  new  thing,  civilization,  at  once  reversed — 
just  as  the  rich  soil  did  with  the  wheat — nearly 
every  purifying  agency  which  had  worked  such  amaz- 
ing benefit  upon  the  body,  the  mind  and  the  character 
of  the  savage.  Particularly,  under  this  new  regime 
the  strong,  the  intelligent  and  the  sympathetic  had  to 
devote  their  time  and  energies  to  caring  for  the  weak, 
the  witless  and  the  incompetent.  The  naturally  civ- 
ilized thus  expended  their  energies  in  taking  care  of 
the  naturally  uncivilized  and  in  giving  them  a  chance 
to  breed,  the  very  privilege  which  nature  had  denied 
them  in  the  jungle. 


By  the  very  process  by  which  morality  and  sym- 
pathy   exercise    their    natural    functions    they   bred 


immorality  into  the  race.  Indeed,  I  think  it  highly 
probable  that  the  greatest  social  as  well  as  biological 
disaster  which  civilization  has  worked  upon  man's 
natural  constitution,  especially  upon  his  moral  health, 
has  been  that  it  caused  the  man  of  great  powers  of 
social  cooperation  and  rich  moral  emotion  to  take 
care  of  the  man  with  little  cooperative  interest  and 
social  passion — to  such  an  extent  that  the  cooperative 
man  did  not  have  enough  surplus  energy  left  to  re- 
produce his  generous  nature  in  an  abundant  brood  of 
children,  while  the  non-social  and  the  non-cooperative 
man  was  by  this  very  process  especially  set  up  in  busi- 
ness as  a  going,  breeding  concern.  It  was  precisely  as 
though  the  glorious  thoroughbreds  in  some  famous 
stable  were  put  to  the  plough  to  do  the  labor  of  the 
fields,  while  the  scrubs  and  mongrels  were  kept  in  lux- 
urious idleness  and  given  the  privilege  of  reproduc- 
tion. The  very  softness  of  human  sympathy  and 
cooperativeness,  which  have  been  two  of  the  chiefest 
agencies  in  making  civilization,  are  also  two  of  the 
chiefest  agencies  in  breeding  out  the  hard,  robust  and 
virile  virtues.  In  this  way  gentleness  keeps  bru- 
tality alive,  and  the  milk  of  human  kindness  congeals 
in  the  racial  veins.  If  the  reader  has  any  doubt  upon 
this  point  and  believes  that  it  is  merely  a  fanciful 
theory,  I  beg  him  to  contemplate  the  history  of  the 
Ishmaelite  family  in  America  as  worked  out  by  Doctor 
Arthur  Estabrook  of  the  Carnegie  Institution.  A  few 
generations  ago,  down  in  Old  Virginia,  this  family  was 
composed  of  but  two  members.  Old  Man  Ishmael  and 
his  wife,  helpless,  anti-social,  thriftless  incompetents. 
By  the  finest  thing  in  civilization,  kind-heartedness, 
the  Ishmaelites  were  kept  alive;  not  only  that,  they 
were  given  a  better  chance  to  reproduce  their  kind 
than  the  school  teachers,  preachers,  business  men, 
skilled  mechanics,  doctors  and  lawyers  who  tried  to 


teach  their  empty  brains  to  clothe  and  shelter  their 
filthy  bodies  and,  by  expensive  legal  procedures,  pre- 
vent them  from  being  hanged.  There  were  two  of 
them  then;  there  are  nearly  twelve  thousand  now! 

Perhaps  until  modern  times  this  tendency  of  co- 
operativeness  to  breed  non-cooperativeness,  of  social 
coherence  to  breed  social  incoherence,  has  not  had 
extensive  sway;  but  since  the  rise  of  humanitarianlsm 
it  has  been  one  of  the  outstanding  features  of  both 
social  and  racial  evolution.  Social  capacity  is  caring 
on  an  immense  scale  for  social  incapacity  and  giving 
the  latter  nearly  all  the  aces  in  the  biological  deck. 
Human  sympathy  is  thus  steadily  waging  war  against 
itself  and  by  its  own  exercise  is  steadily  weeding  out 
its  own  agents.  At  the  very  least,  the  modem  stage 
is  set  for  just  such  a  biological  fiasco. 


Man  has  come,  therefore,  in  these  burgeoning  years 
of  the  twentieth  century  to  the  point  where  a  critical 
examination,  by  the  biologists,  psychologists,  educa- 
tors and  statesmen,  of  the  natural  agencies  which  have 
made  him  what  he  is — and  which,  if  they  could  only  be 
understood  and  controlled  might  make  him  something 
better  than  he  is  or  than  he  otherwise  could  be — seems 
one  of  the  most  worthwhile  as  well  as  adventurous 
enterprises  to  which  the  intelligence  and  social  capac- 
ity which  he  has  already  attained  could  possibly 
devote  themselves.  This  is  the  field  of  hope  and  in- 
quiry to  which  the  prophetic  genius  of  Sir  Francis 
Galton  gave  the  happily  born  name  ** Eugenics." 


Both  the  sentiment  and  the  science  of  eugenics — 
for,  fifty  years  after  its  christening,  eugenics  can  now 
safely  be  called  a  science — are  bound  to  meet  with 


opposition,  especially  from  those  whose  biological  edu- 
cation has  been  limited  to  a  few  pleasant  week-ends  of 
diverting  reading  in  the  less  technical  literature  of^the 
subject.  Mr.  Clarence  Darrow,  for  example — who 
occasionally  adds  greatly  to  the  gaiety  of  biologists 
by  his  interesting  speculations  on  heredity  in  man, 
especially  as  to  what  heredity  would  be  if  it  were 
something  different  from  what  biologists  know  very 
well  that  it  is — warns  us  with  apparently  great  per- 
sonal alarm  that  any  effort  to  improve  man's  natural 
strength,  sanity  and  character  would  be  a  dangerous 
undertaking  because,  as  he  says,  it  would  be  *' tinker- 
ing with  the  human  germ-plasm." 

And,  in  order  to  show  that  man  has  already  reached 
even  a  higher  level  of  intelligence  and  moral  character 
than  is  good  for  him,  Mr.  Darrow  relates  that  he  would 
much  prefer  to  have  the  Jukes  family  as  his  neigh- 
bors— with  their  charming  array  of  murderers,  thieves, 
pilferers  and  others  addicted  to  similar  forms  of  social 
diversion — ^than  the  Edwards  family  with  their  array 
of  debaters,  theologians,  scientists,  diplomats  and 
college  presidents,  all  of  whom  Mr.  Darrow  seems  to 
view  as  disturbers  of  intellectual  and  social  peace. 


To  prefer  the  Jukeses  to  the  Edwardses  as  neigh- 
bors is  a  perfectly  natural  sentiment  for  a  criminal 
lawyer.  The  Jukes  would  no  doubt  occupy  his  time 
pleasantly  both  day  and  night.  Only  one  drawback 
suggests  itself.  That  is  that  Mr.  Darrow  might  miss 
the  cantankerous  Edwardses  while  carrying  on  his 
favorite  in-  and  out-door  sport  of  debating  the  ques- 
tion, ^^  Resolved,  That  Life  Is  Not  Worth  Living. '^ 
I  believe  there  is  no  record  that  any  of  the 
descendants  of  Max  Jukes  have  been  celebrated  for 


their  powers  of  dialectic — that  science  as  well  as  art 
of  applying  logical  principles  to  discursive  reasoning 
which  Aristotle  defines  as  *Hhe  method  of  arguing 
with  probability  on  any  given  problem  and  of  defend- 
ing a  tenet  without  inconsistency."  While  I  can 
readily  understand  Mr.  Darrow's  indisposition  to  take 
up  his  residence  in  a  neighborhood  of  Fundamentalist 
theologians,  yet  the  very  cantankerousness  of  the 
Edwardses  to  which  Mr.  Darrow  so  seriously  objects 
might  be  the  very  thing  he  would  need  most  to  make 
life  worth  living  among  the  Jukeses.  Far  be  it  from 
me  to  detract  from  Mr.  Darrow's  sources  of  either 
neighborly  solace  or  professional  activity,  yet  I  gen- 
uinely fear  that  the  absence  of  any  opportunity  to 
exercise  his  well  known  passion  and  skiU  in  forensic 
combat,  a  species  of  dialectological  endeavor  in  which 
the  Edwardses  have  always  been  ready  to  take  on  all 
comers,  would  leave  him  at  times  lonesome  and  dis- 
consolate, chafing  like  the  stabled  war  horse  when  he 
hears  the  sound  of  the  distant  fray. 


However,  whatever  may  be  Mr.  Darrow's  social 
and  intellectual  preferences,  it  is  precisely  the  unfor- 
tunate circumstance  that  civilization  is  itself  a  gigan- 
tic and  never-ending  tinkering  with  the  human  germ- 
plasm  which  makes  eugenics  a  superlative  necessity 
for  keeping  that  very  civilization  as  a  going  concern. 

It  is  a  source  of  surprise  that  so  obvious  a  thing  as 
this  should  escape  the  notice  of  Mr.  Darrow's  robust 
and  salubrious  intelligence. 

As  an  instance,  you  cannot  even  get  up  a  church 
sociable  and  introduce  two  young  persons  to  each 
other  who  fall  in  love  and  subsequently  marry  and 
rear  a  family  of  children  endowed  with  certain  physi- 


cal,  mental  and  tempermental  characteristics — two 
young  persons  who  but  for  your  interference  would 
have  married  other  individuals  and  reared  children  of 
quite  different  mental,  temperamental  and  physical 
traits — without  tinkering  with  the  human  germ-plasm. 
It  would  seem  that  Mr.  Darrow,  with  his  enormous 
experience,  would  be  the  first  to  reflect  that  you  can- 
not place  a  man  on  trial  for  his  life  and,  by  the  elo- 
quence of  one  lawyer  hang  him,  or  by  the  eloquence  of 
another  set  him  free  to  rear  a  brood  of  similar  kind, 
without  having  directly  and  boldly  done  precisely 
what  Mr.  Darrow  is  afraid  eugenics  will  do — namely, 
tinkered  with  the  human  germ-plasm. 

We  could  multiply  these  examples  endlessly.  You 
cannot  invent  an  automobile  by  which  young  people 
enormously  extend  the  number  of  their  acquaintances, 
without  affecting  the  destiny  of  the  race.  For  in- 
stance, when  I  was  a  boy  in  southern  Indiana  some 
thirty-five  or  forty  years  ago,  a  country  lad  who  was 
acquainted  with  more  than  a  dozen  young  women  from 
whom  to  choose  his  wife  was  a  far-traveled  man  and  a 
gay  Lothario  to  boot.  But  nowadays  even  a  farm  boy 
in  that  same  region  goes  to  a  dance  one  night  at 
Greensburg,  twenty  miles  distant,  the  seat  of  the  next 
county,  another  dance  the  following  night  at  Colum- 
bus or  Madison,  neighboring  county  seats,  and  perhaps 
he  spends  Sunday  with  a  young  lady  in  Louisville  or 
Indianapolis,  sixty  or  seventy  miles  away. 


For  the  geographical  area  of  man's  lovemaking  has 
always  been  limited  by  the  distance  which  he  could 
travel  after  early  supper,  the  time,  as  long  as  possible, 
which  he  would  spend  with  his  lady  love,  and  his  get- 
ting back  home  unobserved  before  daylight.    Primi- 


tive  man  had  to  walk.  Next  came  the  ox-cart,  which 
did  not  increase  the  distance  but  gave  the  added  thrill 
of  a  joy-ride.  Next  came  the  horse  and  saddle,  and 
next  the  horse  and  buggy.  To-day  it  is  the  automobile 
and  to-morrow  it  will  be  the  airplane.  Perhaps  when 
radio  and  the  transmission  of  speaking  likenesses 
have  become  more  developed,  the  area  of  the  humblest 
man's  courtship  will  be  the  entire  surface  of  the  globe. 
Whether  all  this  will  enable  him  to  make  a  wiser  choice 
than  Max  Jukes  or  Richard  Edwards,  or  than  Mr. 
Darrow  or  I  made — something  which  in  our  cases 
would  probably  be  impossible  to  human  intelligence — 
no  man  can  say.  And  whether  all  of  this  is  tinkering 
the  human  germ-plasm  up,  or  tinkering  it  down — 
again,  no  man  knows. 


This  tinkering  process  which  so  alarms  Mr.  Darrow 
extends  throughout  our  whole  industrial,  educational 
and  political  life.  When  we  organize  a  department 
store  or  factory  or  public  school  or  college,  and  place 
human  beings  under  different  conditions  for  making 
their  living  and  place  them  under  a  new  psychology 
and  set  up  new  ideals  and  taboos,  we  tinker  decisively 
with  man's  organic  destiny.  When  we  vote  one-third 
of  the  taxpayers'  money  as  they  do  in  Massachusetts, 
or  one-fourth  as  they  do  in  New  York,  or  from  one- 
tenth  to  one-fifth  as  they  do  in  many  other  states,  in 
order  to  take  care  of  people  so  little  adapted  to 
civilized  life  that  they  cannot  take  care  of  themselves, 
we  again  tinker  with  the  germinal  stream. 

We  have  always,  for  instance,  treated  the  tariff  in 
this  country  as  though  it  were  purely  a  political  ques- 
tion. Recently,  it  is  true,  we  have  begun  to  realize 
vaguely  that  it  is  also  an  economic  question,  to  be 


settled  by  statistical  inquiry  and  control.  But  it  is 
likewise  a  very  large  eugenical,  that  is,  biological 
question.  This  is  because  high  and  low  tariff  affect 
living  conditions,  social  life,  educational  progress,"  and 
these  in  turn  affect  marriage  rates,  birth  rates,  home 
building,  death  rates,  the  development  of  art,  of 
religious  institutions,  and  of  a  hundred  other  things, 
all  of  which  are  powerful  agencies  working  to  change 
the  mental  and  physical  constitution  of  man. 


Just  now,  it  seems  to  me,  some  of  our  candidates 
for  doctors'  degrees  in  our  universities  could  render  us 
an  immense  service  by  undertaking  a  large  coopera- 
tive research  into  the  motives  of  migration.  I  don't 
know,  but  I  think  they  would  find  that  the  motives 
which  induce  the  migrants  to  leave  one  country  and 
go  to  another  are  the  things  which  select  out  certain 
types  of  physique  and  mentality  and  which  are  very 
large  factors  in  determining  the  tone,  the  temper  and 
the  tempo  of  the  civilization  in  the  land  where  they 
cast  their  new  lot.  I  imagine  they  would  find  that  in 
this  country  down  to  about  1850  the  freedom  mo- 
tive was  the  dominant  motive  in  selecting  the  types 
that  up  to  that  time  had  settled  America.  First  the 
motive  of  religious  freedom  and  then  later  the  motive 
of  political  freedom — both  of  them  highly  complicated 
with  the  adventure  motive — were  certainly  powerful 
agencies  in  the  migration  throughout  that  period. 
And  I  believe  they  would  find  that  these  motives  and 
this  general  temper  flooded  all  the  events  and  gave 
color  to  the  institutional  life  and  the  fundamental  legal 
and  social  documents  of  our  country.  Next  came  the 
home-seeking  motive  which  peopled  the  West  and 
Northwest  with   a   splendid  home-loving  type,   and 


which  several  researches  have  indicated  brought  a 
slightly  less  intelligent,  although  possibly  a  more 
easily  civilizable  population  than  were  the  early  ad- 
venturers, deists,  nonconformists  and  dissenters. 
Since  the  early  eighties  the  job-hunting  motive  has 
probably  been  dominant  in  determining  the  breeds 
that  have  contributed  to  the  blood  of  the  nation.  This 
motive  has  probably  brought  us  far  less  intelligence 
and  moral  character  and  capacity  for  national  de- 
velopment tlian  did  any  of  the  previous  contributions. 
We  have  never  even  examined  how  much  our  own 
idealisms  might  be  tinkering  with  the  national  germ- 
plasm  and  determining  the  inborn  nature  of  the  breeds 
for  the  happiness  and  development  of  which  our  na- 
tional polity  has  been  set  up.  Until  very  recently  we 
actually  advertised  that  we  were  the  asylum  for  the 
oppressed  of  all  nationalities,  colors  and  conditions. 
We  overlooked  the  fact  that  this  might  attract 
especially  men  who  had  allowed  themselves,  either 
from  their  lack  of  intelligence  or  from  a  peculiar  type 
of  temperament,  to  be  oppressed  by  hereditary  tyrants 
in  their  own  land;  and  that  men  of  this  sort  miglit 
allow — indeed,  might  desire — that  they  be  equally 
oppressed  by  political  bosses  in  their  new  habitat. 
For  the  newer  developments  in  our  knowledge  of 
human  personality  clearly  show  that  some  men  are 
contented  and  happy  only  when  they  are  oppressed 
and  dominated,  provided  the  dominating  is  done  by 
the  right  kind  of  man.  There  may  be  whole  races  of 
which  this  is  true,  and  for  whom  such  a  thing  as  a 
government  operated  by  the  people  is  not  only  im- 
possible but  the  surest  way  to  unhappiness.  On  this 
point  I  am  entirely  agreed  with  by  my  friend,  Dr. 
H.  Poster  Bain,  Secretary  of  the  American  Institute  of 
Mining  and  Metallurgical  Engineers,  who  has  had  to 
deal  with  many  peoples  and  governments.    He  said  to 


me  recently  that,  in  his  judgment,  for  a  great  many 
peoples  ''the  best  form  of  government  is  a  benevolent 
despotism  tempered  by  the  fear  of  assassination." 


I  am  merely  citing  these  examples  as  they  come 
casually  to  my  mind,  not  to  show  how  much  we  know 
about  the  biology  of  man  and  the  biological  effects  of 
civilization,  but  how  appallingly  little  we  know — at 
least  how  little  we  know  that  is  significant.  True,  we 
know  a  great  many  isolated  facts  about  man  and  his 
history  and  his  nature.  But  in  respect  of  any  synthe- 
tized  social  and  political  concepts  of  biological  valid- 
ity, I  think  we  are  very  much  in  the  position  of  the 
village  gossip.  On  this  point,  I  have  often  been  deeply 
impressed  with  the  astounding  number  of  facts  which 
the  village  gossip  and  the  man  in  the  street  carry  in 
their  heads.  I  have  also  often  been  equally  impressed 
with  the  comparatively  few  facts  which  the  scientific 
man  carries  in  his  head;  many  a  scientist  can  tell  you 
the  work  of  a  lifetime  in  a  few  minutes.  However,  the 
reason  the  gossip  does  not  rise  to  intellectual  effective- 
ness is  because  he  cannot  pick  out  any  significant 
relationships  among  the  vast  number  of  facts  which 
rattle  about  in  his  brain.  The  scientist  purposely  nar- 
rows his  field  of  interest  and  places  only  a  few  facts 
under  long  and  intensive  observation.  As  a  result  of 
this  procedure  he  is  able  finally  to  pick  out  among  his 
few  facts  relationships  which  are  highly  significant 
and  which  move  the  mind  forward  to  new  perspectives 
and  more  effective  points  of  view. 

And,  to  my  mind,  there  is  to-day  no  profounder 
need  in  our  civilization,  and  none  that  would  repay 
larger  returns  for  the  investment  of  immense  sums  of 
money  by  our  socially-minded  men  of  wealth,  than  the 


institution  of  extensive  researches  in  these  new  fields 
of  scientific  adventure.  I  sometimes  feel,  indeed,  that 
some  of  the  money  already  devoted  to  research  might 
be  employed  to  more  useful  ends.  At  least,  in  running 
over  a  pretty  large  number  of  the  dissertations  offered 
every  year  in  our  universities  by  candidates  for  the 
degree  of  doctor  of  something  or  other  I  am  not  deeply 
impressed  that  all  of  them  are  immediately  essential 
to  social  welfare  or  have  even  greatly  advanced  pure 

On  this  point  President  Glenn  Frank,  of  Wisconsin 
University,  told  me  recently  of  one  graduate  student 
who  had  devoted  his  three  years  of  intellectual  effort 
to  a  study  of  **The  French  Negatives  of  the  Eleventh 
Century.'*  This  intellectual  pioneer  discovered  that 
the  French  people  had  two  ways  of  saying  **no''  in 
the  eleventh  century  which  they  do  not  utilize  to-day. 
Perhaps  since  the  war  these  expressions  of  dissent 
have  been  revived,  and  one  suspects  that  a  number  of 
new  ones  have  been  invented.  President  Frank  also 
called  my  attention  to  Stephen  Leacock's  penetrating 
statement  that  a  great  many  candidates  for  doctors' 
degrees  ** spend  three  years  studying  a  frog's  hind  leg 
or  the  first  thirty  minutes  of  the  Reformation." 

However,  we  dare  not  make  light  of  any  thought- 
ful investigation,  even  though  we  cannot  see  that  it 
has  added  any  immediate  fruit  to  the  tree  of  knowl- 
edge. Personally,  I  strongly  agree  with  Prof.  William 
Wheeler  of  Harvard,  our  best  man  on  ants,  who  said 
in  effect  recently,  that  he  would  be  willing  to  lock  a 
research  student  up  in  a  room  for  three  years  and 
feed  and  water  him  through  a  hole  in  the  wall  in  order 
that  he  might  devote  all  his  mental  energies  without 
distraction  to  a  study  of  the  fourth  cell  from  the  end 
of  the  caudal  appendage  of  the  embryo  of  the  chip' 
munk.    Such  research  should  by  all  means  be  fostered, 


since  there  is  never  any  telling  what  may  come  out  of 
pure  knowledge,  even  though  it  emanate  from  the  end 
of  an  embryonic  chipmunk's  tail. 

But  if  any  research  student  is  looking  for  fruitful 
themes  of  a  more  immediately  practical  nature  for  his 
doctor's  dissertation,  he  will  surely  find  them  galore 
in  the  field  of  eugenics,  because  the  question.  Where 
is  all  this  tinkering  with  man's  biological  constitution 
carrying  him  as  an  organic  being?  is  still  in  the  field 
of  apprehension  and  theory.  As  mere  samples  of 
problems  upon  which  the  need  of  new  light  is  very 
urgent,  the  following  are  a  few  which  at  this  moment 
come  floating  through  my  mind: 


What  are  the  effects  of  child-labor  legislation  upon 
the  birth  rate? 

What  are  the  marriage  ideals  of  college  students? 
Is  lovemaking  subject  to  education? 
What  will  be  the  effects  of  birth  control  ? 
Does  medical  science  chiefly  prolong  the  reproductive 
period   of  the   weak,   and   thus   lead   toward   racial 

Do  orphans  and  adopted  children  tend  to  resemble 
their  foster  parents  or  their  real  parents  the  more? 
Is  our  industrial  life  developing  mental  and  tempera- 
mental types  in  our  population? 

Are    we    developing    mechanical    types,    commercial 
types,  professional  types,  and  the  like? 
What   are   the    economic    and   biological    origins    of 
genius  ? 

What  are  the  relationships  of  heredity  and  environ- 


How  high  is  the  correlation  between  intellect  and 
moral  character,  between  beauty  and  brains,  between 
parental  instinct  and  intelligence,  and  how  high  is  the 
correlation  between  all  of  these  and  health  and 
longevity  ? 

What  could  be  learned  about  the  causes  that  have 
made  history,  by  the  application  of  statistical  and 
biometrical  methods  of  study? 

By  a  few  moments'  reflection  I  could  easily  list  a 
hundred  other  questions,  the  answers  to  which  are 
indispensable  to  any  sound  eugenical  program.  I 
mentioned  the  last  question  above,  referring  to  a  study 
of  historical  causation,  for  the  simple  reason  that  a 
student  of  exact  scientific  method  gains  very  little 
knowledge  from  reading  most  of  the  histories  so  far 
written.  True,  he  fills  his  head  with  a  great  many 
facts,  but  both  he  and  the  author  are  very  little  better 
off  than  the  village  gossip  in  being  able  to  pick  out 
any  significant  causal  relations  among  these  facts.  As 
an  example,  one  rises  from  a  perusal  of  Oswald 
Spengler's  ponderous  and  much-heralded  volume,  the 
Decline  of  the  West  with  a  feeling  that  neither  the 
reader  nor  the  author  knows  very  much  more  than  he 
did  before  as  to  whether  the  *  *  West ' '  is  going  down  or 
going  up.  The  author  evidently  picks  out  the  in- 
stances that  support  his  own  theory.  He  institutes 
no  comparative  method  among  all  the  instances  both 
for  and  against  his  theory,  which  would  enable  us 
really  to  tell  whether  there  is  any  common,  continuous 
thread  of  causation  that  runs  through  them  all.  In- 
deed, I  have  the  impression  that  if  we  could  really  get 
at  the  causal  relationships  among  the  facts  covering 
any  ten-year  period  of  human  history,  and  really  know 
why  during  those  ten  years  men  and  nations  behaved 
as  they  did,  it  would  be  of  more  eugenical  value  in  tell- 


ing  us  how  to  proceed  with  a  social  program  that 
would  elevate  man  in  his  inborn  nature  than  at  least 
ninety  per  cent,  of  the  four  hundred  thousand  volumes 
said  to  have  been  written  on  human  history. 


These  suggestions,  while  frankly  intended  to  be 
merely  argumentative  and  in  no  sense  comparative,  I 
think  nevertheless  throw  into  clear  relief  the  fact  that 
practically  all  questions  are  eugenical  questions,  all 
happenings  are  eugenical  happenings.  Indeed,  the 
biologist  believes,  in  my  opinion,  that  thei^e  is 
scarcely  a  breeze  that  blows,  scarcely  a  sun  that  rises 
or  sets,  and  scarcely  a  star  that  shines  on  the  human 
pathway,  that  does  not  somehow  affect  the  mental  and 
physical  constitution  of  every  living  thing,  including 
man.  If  those  who  doubt  the  truth  of  evolution  could 
only  live  ever  so  briefly  in  contemplation  of  the  beat- 
ing, pulsing,  throbbing  thing  we  call  life,  they  would 
never  again  believe  that  life  itself  could  possibly  be  a 
static  thing,  but  must  from  its  own  nature  be  a  mani- 
festation of  ceaseless  evolution,  weaving  itself  by  its 
own  dynamics  into  ever-new  forms  of  virtue  and 
beauty  and  working  toward  goals  larger  than  its  own 
immediate  being. 

And  until  men  come  to  accept  evolution  as  the 
central  fact  in  their  own  world  wisdom  and  outlook, 
there  is  very  little  use,  I  think,  in  talking  to  them 
about  measures  for  elevating  their  own  evolutionary 
status — the  measures  which  we  call  eugenics. 


To  my  own  mind,  one  of  the  chief  obstacles  to  the 
popular  acceptance  of  the  fact  of  evolution — a  fact 
which  seems  so  perfectly  obvious  to  a  biologist — ^has 
been  the  failure  of  the  biologists  themselves  to  answer 


the  question  which  the  average  man  justly  advances; 
namely,  that  he  cannot  see  how  one  species  can  possi- 
bly change  into  another,  since  he  has  never  seen  such 
a  thing  take  place.  The  late  Mr.  Bryan  was  deeply 
troubled  on  this  point.  Owing  to  the  simplicity  of  his 
mind,  demonstrated  by  his  childlike,  lifelong  inability 
to  draw  logical  general  conclusions  from  any  set  of 
facts,  he  constantly  demanded  that  the  biologists 
show  him  examples  of  one  species  changing  into  some- 
thing else.  As  Professor  Conklin,  of  Princeton, 
pointed  out,  Mr.  Bryan  demanded  that  the  biologists 
should  oblige  him  by  changing  a  monkey  or  an  ass 
into  a  man  while  he  waited.  This  could  not  be  done 
on  such  short  notice,  although  Professor  Conklin  sug- 
gested that  Mr.  Bryan  had  often  witnessed  the  reverse 
of  this  process. 

As  a  simple  matter  of  fact,  evolution  does  not 
transform  dogs  into  horses,  and  man  has  not  evolved 
from  a  monkey.  These  things  do  not  take  place  in 
evolution  and  never  have  taken  place.  It  is  largely 
the  fault  of  the  biologists  that  the  average  man  sup- 
poses that  there  are  an  enormous  number  of  separate, 
distinct,  unit  species  of  plants  and  animals,  unchange- 
able in  themselves.  It  is  perfectly  natural  that  he 
cannot  see  how,  if  these  discrete  separate  species  exist, 
they  can  yet  somehow  be  changed  into  each  other. 
Dogs  and  horses,  monkeys  and  men,  do  not  seem  to 
him  to  be  the  same  sorts  of  creatures,  and  he  cannot 
explain  to  his  own  mind  the  ^^leap"  from  one  species 
to  the  other.  It  is  no  wonder  that  he  does  not  readily 
swallow  such  a  conception  unless  he  can  see  it  backed 
up  by  actual  experiments. 


On  this  point  I  urge  the  layman  to  read  the  clear 
and  simple  account  of  what  the  theory  of  evolution 


really  is  and  why  scientific  men  believe  it  is  true, 
which  Mr.  Henshaw  Ward  has  recently  given  us  in 
his  enchanting  book  entitled  Evolution  for  John  Doe. 
As  the  biologist  sees  nature  there  are  no  such  things 
as  species  in  the  sense  in  which  the  word  *  *  species ' '  is 
used  in  popular  speech.  There  is  in  reality  only  one 
species  of  plant  and  animal  life  in  the  world,  and  that 
species  is  simply  organic  life  itself.  Pine  trees,  for 
example,  do  not  ** evolve  into"  corn,  nor  do  thistles 
*^ evolve  into"  figs.  True,  if  one  studies  pine  trees  he 
notes  that  there  seem  to  be  many  different  kinds;  but 
he  also  finds  as  he  goes  back  into  finer  and  finer  differ- 
ences among  pines  that  he  comes  to  a  point  where  he 
cannot  himself  tell  where  to  place  these  differences, 
whether  in  this  species  or  that.  He  comes  to  a  point 
where  his  pines  merge  into  other  conifers  and  conifers 
merge  into  other  types  of  trees  and  these  into  still 
others;  and  as  he  goes  further  and  further  into  his 
problem  he  at  last  comes  to  a  point  where  he  cannot 
tell  whether  the  thing  he  is  studying  should  be  called 
a  plant  or  an  animal.  When  he  reaches  this  stage  Ke 
realizes  that  an  animal  is  merely  what  he  and  his 
colleagues  decide  to  call  an  animal,  and  a  plant  is 
merely  what  they  decide  to  call  a  plant.  He  then  sees, 
as  Mr.  Ward  has  finely  expressed  it,  that  **a  species 
is  a  mere  opinion." 

Of  course,  when  two  phases  or  types  of  life  have 
gone  on  for  a  long  time,  each  weaving  itself,  by  the 
evolutionary  urge  within  and  the  forces  of  the  environ- 
ment without,  into  new  and  more  remote  patterns  from 
the  common  parent  stem,  there  comes  a  time  when 
the  stupidest  intelligence  can  say  that  one  is  a  bear 
and  the  other  is  a  hippopotamus.  When  two  kinds  of 
life  have  traveled  a  long,  long  way,  each  on  its  own 
evolutionary  path,  as  bear  and  hippopotamus  and 
monkey  and  man  have  done,  the  man  in  the  street  is 


perfectly  justified  in  believing  that  they  cannot 
*4eap''  across  from  one  path  to  the  other.  Neither 
can  they  go  back  around  by  way  of  the  original  start- 
ing point  and  join  each  other.  But  the  biologist  has 
collected  sufficient  evidence  as  he  has  picked  up  the 
bones  and  fossils  of  many  kinds  of  life  and  has  traced 
them  back,  each  along  its  own  pathway,  to  make  him 
believe  that  all  these  forms  did  have  a  common  start- 
ing point.  He  believes  this  because  as  his  mind  goes 
back  and  back  along  the  route  of  differentiation  he 
finds  the  differences  becoming  less  and  less;  and  just 
because  he  believes  the  universe  is  a  logical  thing  he 
sees  no  escape  except  to  believe  that  these  differences 
would  finally  entirely  disappear  and  the  many  forms 
of  life  merge  into  one. 


Mr.  Bryan  did  not  know  these  things,  or  if  he  did 
he  lacked  the  mental  power  to  see  them  as  a  logical 
whole.  The  universe,  to  Mr.  Bryan,  was  a  piecemeal 
affair  and  not  a  grand  and  inspiring  unitary  and 
never-ending  process.  Mr.  Bryan  did  not  even  know 
that  evolution  takes  place  very  little  if  at  all,  in  the 
bodies  of  plants  and  animals  but  in  the  eggs  and 
sperms — that  is,  the  germ-cells.  Indeed,  evolution 
probably  all  takes  place  not  in  the  germ-cell  as  a  whole 
but  in  the  hereditary  units  called  ** genes"  (pro- 
nounced ** jeans'^)  inside  the  germ-cell.  Morgan  and 
his  students,  and  Jennings,  Muller,  Blakesley  and 
many  others  have  adduced  evidence  that  these  genes 
are  themselves  subject  to  change.  And  if  these  genes 
can  be  proved  to  change  and  if  they  can  be  shown  to 
be  the  chemical  units  which  develop  into  the  visible 
characters  and  traits  of  plants  and  animals,  why, 
then,  the  case  for  evolution  is  absolutely  won.    Edu- 


cated  men  can  no  longer  debate  the  question,  even 
though  we  never  found  the  fossil  remains  or  the  bones 
of  a  single  plant  or  animal  that  formerly  existed  on  the 

For  if  there  are  in  the  egg  of  a  hen,  for  instance, 
certain  physical  bodies  (that  is,  genes)  which  are  the 
original  cause  of  her  later  exhibiting  in  her  body,  let 
us  say,  black  feathers  or  a  red  comb;  and  if  we  can 
prove  that  these  original  genes  undergo  change,  either 
from  some  inner  urge  or  from  some  outer  influence,  it 
is  obvious  that  the  hen  herself  will  undergo  change. 
And  if  this  change  is  inherited,  then  there  has  come  a 
real  change  in  this  species  of  hen.  A  new  species  of 
hen  is  evolving.  And  w^hen  these  changes  have  be- 
come numerous  enough  the  hen  would  easily  be  de- 
scribed both  by  scientists  and  by  the  common  man  as 
being  some  other  kind  of  animal. 

Evidence  is  constantly  accumulating  to  indicate 
that  these  genes  do  change,  and  that  is  in  reality  all 
an  educated  man  needs  to  make  him  believe  that  he  is 
living  in  an  evolutionary  world — that  he  is  himself  a 
part  of  a  great  life  process  working  toward  ends  be- 
yond his  ken.  Evolution  needs  no  other  evidence,  al- 
though there  is  a  vast  body  of  quite  other  evidence  of 
the  truth  of  evolution,  overwhelming  in  volume  and 
constantly  growing  in  coherence  and  logical  cogency. 
The  problem  of  the  ** missing  link''  no  longer  troubles 
the  scientific  mind,  and,  indeed,  need  not  trouble  the 
common  man.  There  are  a  thousand  missing  links. 
The  biologist  cares  little  about  that.  If  for  example, 
a  man  coming  through  the  forest  should  find  a  single 
link  of  a  chain  and  then  a  little  farther  on  should  find 
another;  if  he  should  go  down  across  the  valley,  and 
upon  the  next  hillside  should  find  several  others,  and 
on  the  opposite  side  of  the  hill  still  others,  all  of  the 
same  character  and  all  trending  in  the  same  general 


direction,  surely  he  would  be  a  dull  wit  indeed  if  he 
did  not  conclude  that  they  had  at  one  time  been  con- 
tinuous, linked  together  in  one  common  chain. 

So  it  is  with  evolution.  And  until  we  can  convince 
the  common  man  of  the  fact  of  evolution,  make  him 
feel  it  as  the  very  breath  of  his  daily  life  and  feel  that 
he  is  himself  a  part  of  a  growing,  developing,  evolving 
species  of  being,  I  fear  we  cannot  convince  him  of  the 
profound  ethical  and  religious  significance  of  the  thing 
we  call  eugenics.  For  eugenics  must  lay  hold  of  men's 
moral  emotions,  appeal  to  their  aesthetic  senses,  enter 
into  their  art,  their  education,  their  literature,  and 
must  form  one  of  the  great  sources  of  religious  inspira- 
tion, or  else  men  will  not  act  from  eugenical  considera- 
tions in  devising  social  undertakings  or  building  their 
political  institutions. 


As  a  concrete  illustration  of  how  important  it  is 
to  induce  men  in  general  to  appreciate  the  fact  and 
the  meaning  of  evolution  and  to  apply  all  science  to 
their  social  undertakings,  let  us  for  a  moment  consider 
two  of  the  greatest  problems  of  our  time,  prohibition 
and  tuberculosis.  We  have  handled  the  latter  almost 
entirely  as  if  it  were  merely  a  problem  of  bringing 
health  and  comfort  to  the  individual,  and  we  have 
looked  upon  the  former  almost  entirely  as  a  moral 
problem.  True,  the  use  of  alcohol  has  of  late  been 
considered  as  a  problem  of  personal  health;  but  per- 
sonal health  in  this  instance  has  been  looked  upon 
almost  altogether  from  the  standpoint  of  moral 
obligation.  It  is  a  curious  thing,  that  to  breathe  fresh 
air  and  to  eat  food  with  the  proper  amount  of  iron 
or  vitamins  in  it,  and  the  like,  does  not  appeal  to  the 
average  man  as  a  moral  obligation.  But  it  seems  very 
easy  to  appeal  to  him  to  refrain  from  alcohol,  not  be- 


cause  alcohol  puts  his  stomach  or  his  liver  out  of 
order,  but  because  if  he  does  upset  his  stomach  and 
liver  with  it,  and  it  gives  him  a  little  pleasure  besides, 
it  is  a  gross  moral  sin.  If,  however,  his  stomach- and 
liver  are  thrown  into  just  as  bad  a  condition  from 
lack  of  iron  or  vitamins  this  does  not  appear  to  him 
as  a  moral  sin,  but  as  a  question  of  comfort  and 

As  a  simple  matter  of  fact,  one  duty  is  just  as  pro- 
found morally  as  the  other,  and  neither  will  ever  be 
seen  in  its  larger  meanings  until  man  sees  that  the  real 
moral  sanction  that  lies  behind  his  every  act  is  not 
only  its  immediate  effect  upon  his  personal  happiness 
and  his  social  institutions  but  its  ultimate  effect  upon 
the  race  at  large.  The  prime  thing  about  prohibition 
has  been  that  men  rushed  into  a  vast  program  which, 
for  all  we  know,  might  wreck  the  very  course  of  human 
evolution,  without  ever  setting  their  scientists  at  work 
to  find  out  what  has  been  and  what  may  be  the  effect 
of  either  alcohol  or  the  absence  of  alcohol  on  the 
natural  character  and  constitution  of  human  beings. 
No  one  really  knows  to-day  whether  the  drinking  of 
alcohol  by  a  parent  really  affects  his  offspring  or  not. 
But,  certainly,  what  evidence  we  have  practically  all 
tends  toward  the  conviction  that  alcohol  has  been  an 
agent — ^possibly  a  very  considerable  agent — in  im- 
proving man  both  in  his  physical  constitution  and  in 
his  intelligence  and  moral  character. 


When  the  old  prophets  said,  *  *  The  fool  shall  perish 
by  his  own  folly,"  they  probably  had  been  impressed 
with  the  fact  that  a  great  many  weak  and  foolish  in- 
dividuals drank  themselves  to  death.  Had  they 
reflected  a  little  further,  it  might  have  occurred  to 


them  that  nothing  better  could  have  happened  for  the 
race,  especially  if  the  alcohol  carried  the  foolish  per- 
sons off  before  they  had  any  children.  All  life  insur- 
ance records  to  date  agree  with  the  findings  of  the 
prophets;  namely,  that  heavy  drinking  shortens  the 
lives  of  the  drinkers.  A  very  great  part  of  the  pro- 
hibition urge  has  been  roused  by  the  insistent  plea  of 
its  advocates  that  all  drinking,  however  moderate, 
shortens  life.  For  two  or  three  generations  our 
American  youth  have  been  frightened  by  tract,  orator 
and  pulpiteer  with  lurid  statements  to  the  effect  that 
drinking  a  glass  of  beer  or  a  teaspoonful  of  alcohol 
would  lead  to  a  much  earlier  death  of  the  individual 
who  embarked  on  so  suicidal  an  enterprise.  We  have 
also  had  almost  equally  lurid  pictures  of  the  frightful 
degeneracy  which  even  the  smallest  doses  of  alcohol 
taken  by  the  parent  set  up  in  the  offspring.  One  of 
the  most  powerful  orators  of  the  prohibition  cause, 
the  late  Governor  J.  Frank  Hanly,  of  Indiana,  used 
to  draw  upon  the  platform  an  impressive  word  picture 
of  an  immense  procession  of  degenerates.  He  had  all 
the  insane,  the  imbeciles,  the  cripples,  the  criminals 
and  the  moral  degenerates  and  defectives  march  by  in 
vast  cohorts  from  the  beginning  of  time  down  to  the 
present  day.  The  picture  was  indeed  terrifying — and 
all  of  this  wreckage  of  human  life  was,  in  Governor 
Hanly 's  judgment,  due  to  just  one  great,  murderous 
cause,  ALCOHOL! 

All  of  this  same  tragic  story  has  been  repeated  in 
a  thousand  different  forms,  especially  to  the  American 
people,  in  face  of  the  fact  that  there  does  not  exist  to- 
day in  any  laboratory  of  the  world  conclusive  evidence 
that  the  drinking  of  alcohol  by  a  human  parent, 
whether  in  large  or  in  small  quantities,  ever  set  up  in 
any  direct  way  the  slightest  defect  of  any  sort  in  the 


Another  powerful  orator  of  prohibition  has  been 
Captain  Richmond  P.  Hobson,  whose  speech  in  Con- 
gress on  alcohol  was  sent  out  in  enormous  quantities 
to  the  American  people,  apparently  at  public  expanse. 
Captain  Hobson,  one  of  the  most  delightful  men  per- 
sonally whom  I  know,  has  repeated  this  speech  as  a 
public  lecture  thousands  of  times  before  audiences  all 
over  America.  It  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  this 
address  has  really  been  a  potent  agent  in  inducing 
the  American  people  to  adopt  prohibition  as  an 
integral  part  of  their  national  life.  I  have  never  heard 
the  address,  but  it  was  recently  furnished  to  me  in 
printed  form  from  the  Congressional  Record,  by  one 
of  the  advocates  of  prohibition  in  Congress.  I  did 
not  even  read  all  of  the  address,  but  I  read  it  for  thirty 
minutes,  and  during  that  time  marked  twenty-three 
scientific  errors,  which,  I  think,  ninety-nine  per  cent. 
of  the  biologists  of  our  time  would  agree  were  errors. 


As  another  illustration,  let  me  cite  the  statement  of 
one  of  the  leading  prohibition  advocates  of  America, 
who  said  to  me  recently  that  there  was  ^*  ample  proof 
that  alcohol  caused  degeneracy  in  the  race.  The 
** ample  proof,  *^  he  said,  was  the  fact  that  in  Bavaria, 
where  there  is  the  highest  per  capita  consumption  of 
alcohol  in  the  world,  there  is  also  the  highest  percent- 
age of  imbeciles  in  the  population.  I  replied  that  if 
examination  were  made  it  might  also  be  found  that 
there  were  more  geniuses  in  Bavaria  or  more  bald- 
headed  persons  than  anywhere  else.  I  also  pointed 
out  that  there  was  probably  more  wienerwurst,  known 
in  America  as  **hot  dogs,"  consumed  in  Bavaria  than 
in  any  other  region  of  the  earth,  and  that  I  had  never 
heard  that  wienerwurst  was  causing  the  human  race  to 


degenerate.  His  only  reply  was  that  he  could  not  ac- 
cept my  suggestions,  as  this  *^well  known  fact''  that 
the  enormous  amount  of  Bavarian  feeblemindedness 
was  due  to  excessive  drinking  habits  was  **a  part  of 
the  Bible  of  Prohibition."  It  may  be,  but  if  so,  it  is 
biblical  and  not  experimental  or  statistical  biology. 

I  am  not  pleading  against  prohibition  or  for  pro- 
hibition, as  I  do  not  know  whether  it  is  a  good  thing 
or  a  bad  thing.  I  only  know  that  I  shall  not  vote  such 
a  vast  program  to  impose  changes  upon  the  funda- 
mental habits  of  mankind  so  long  as  I  do  not  know  any 
more  than  I  know  now,  or  than  anybody  knows,  as  to 
what  it  is  going  to  do  to  the  human  family.  The  most 
hard-headed  biologist  is  bound  to  respect  the  vast 
moral  passion  that  lies  behind  prohibition.  It  probably 
does  not  need  exact  scientific  determinations,  nor  any 
prolonged  experimental  or  statistical  investigations  to 
prove  that  something  should  he  done  about  alcohol; 
some  sort  of  measures  should  be  undertaken  to  lessen 
the  obvious,  undebatable  misery  which  the  unlimited 
use  of  alcohol  brings  upon  certain  individuals  and  their 
families.  But  another  curious  thing  of  prohibition  is 
that  it  has  never  yet  investigated  whether  or  not 
alcohol  is  a  universal  human  curse  or  a  curse  to  only 
a  limited  number  of  human  beings,  endowed  by  nature 
with  a  peculiar  temperament  and  physical  constitution. 
Evidence  is  constantly  accumulating  to  indicate,  at 
least,  that  alcohol  is  a  curse  only  to  a  small  portion — 
nobody  knows  whether  it  is  ^ve  or  twenty  per  cent. — 
of  the  human  race.  It  is  growing  in  probability  that 
alcohol  is  taken  in  excess,  and  therefore  becomes  a 
problem  of  public  health  and  morals,  only  by  persons 
who  are  psychopathic  whether  they  drink  or  not.  If 
this  should  turn  out  to  be  true,  and  I  don't  know 
whether  it  will  or  not,  and  if  the  other  eighty  or  ninety 
or  ninety-five  per  cent,  of  the  population  should  find 


alcohol  a  real  blessing  to  their  lives  and  of  no  injury  to 
their  health,  it  certainly  makes  it  obvious  that  prohibi- 
tion is  substituting  political  remedies  for  medical 
remedies,  policemen's  clubs  for  moral  suasion, •and 
jails  for  education. 


Now,  as  to  whether  alcohol  shortens  human  life  we 
have  really  only  one  critical  investigation,  that  of  Ray- 
mond Pearl  of  Johns  Hopkins  University,  the  report 
of  which  has  just  come  from  the  press.  Pearl  has,  for 
the  first  time,  investigated  by  critical  procedures  the 
question  whether  moderate  drinkers  of  alcohol  land  in 
their  graves  earlier  than  those  who  are  total  ab- 
stainers. I  cannot  go  into  PearPs  statistical  methods, 
which  are  impressive  in  their  extent  and  are  conducted 
according  to  the  latest  methods  of  analytical  inquiry, 
but  I  strongly  recommend  a  wide  reading  by  the 
general  public  of  his  admirable  book  entitled.  Alcohol 
and  Longevity,  It  may  be  that  when  PearPs  pioneer 
work  there  published  has  run  the  long  gantlet  of 
scientific  criticism  some  corrections  in  his  figures  may 
be  found  necessary.  On  this  point  I  do  not  pretend  to 
pronounce  judgment.  But  that  it  would  form  a 
sounder  basis  for  political  procedure,  for  social  wel- 
fare and  moral  uplift  than  the  methods  used  in  con- 
cocting the  aforementioned  *^ Bible  of  Prohibition"  and 
the  method  of  calculating  the  amount  of  weak  minded- 
ness  in  the  population  from  the  amount  of  alcohol 
consumed  per  capita  per  annum,  I  have  not  a  shadow 
of  a  doubt. 

And  as  to  the  effect  of  the  drinking  of  parents  upon 
the  health,  character  and  longevity  of  the  offspring,— 
that  is,  the  effect  of  alcohol  on  the  human  race  en 
masse,  as  well  as  to  its  effect  upon  the  health  and 


longevity  of  the  individual, — I  prefer,  in  order  that  I 
may  not  be  accused  of  reading  my  own  conclusions 
into  such  a  piece  of  scientific  work,  to  quote  Pearl's 
conclusions  in  his  own  words.  They  are  as  follows: 

**The  results  of  the  investigation  which  this  book 
reports  can  be  stated  in  much  less  time  and  space  than 
the  work  itself  required.    They  are : 

*^1.  In  a  fairly  large  and  homogeneous  sample  of 
the  working  class  population  of  Baltimore  the 
moderate  drinking  of  alcoholic  beverages  did  not 
shorten  life.  On  the  contrary,  moderate  steady  drink- 
ers exhibited  somewhat  lower  rates  of  mortality  and 
greater  expectation  of  life  than  did  abstainers.  This 
superiority  is  not  great  in  the  male  moderate  drinkers, 
and  may  not  be  significant  statistically.  But  it  cer- 
tainly gives  no  support  to  the  almost  universal  belief 
that  alcohol  always  shortens  life,  even  in  moderate 

^*2.  Those  persons  in  this  experience  who  were 
heavy  drinkers  of  alcoholic  beverages  exhibited  con- 
siderably increased  rates  of  mortality  and  diminished 
longevity,  as  compared  with  abstainers  or  moderate 

'*3.  If  both  moderate  drinkers  and  heavy  drinkers 
in  this  sample  of  the  population  are  pooled  together, 
and  the  resulting  heterogeneous  group  is  compared 
with  abstainers,  the  drinkers,  as  a  class,  have  higher 
rates  of  mortality  and  lower  expectation  of  life  than 
the  abstainers  as  a  class.  The  result  is  in  agreement 
with  the  experience  of  life  insurance  companies.  But 
it  is  fully  demonstrated  in  this  book  that  this  result 
appears  only  because  the  impaired  heavy  drinker  risks 
are  pooled  with  the  actuarially  superior  moderate 
drinkers,  and  bring  down  the  resulting  pooled  average. 

*^4.  Experiments  by  various  workers  on  such  dif- 
ferent forms  of  life  as  guinea  pigs,  fowls,  rats,  mice, 


rabbits,  frogs  and  insects  agree  in  showing  a  beneficial 
effect  of  alcohol  upon  the  race.  This  beneficial  effect 
appears  to  be  produced  chiefly  as  a  result  of  the  re- 
markably sharp  and  precise  selective  action  of  this 
agent  upon  germ  cells  and  developing  embryos,  killing 
off  the  weak  and  defective  and  leaving  the  strong  and 
sound  to  survive  and  perpetuate  the  race.  The  pre- 
valent notion  that  parental  alcoholism  tends  to  cause 
the  production  of  weak,  defective,  or  monstrous 
progeny  is  not  supported  by  the  extensive  body  of 
experimental  work  which  has  been  done  on  the 
problem.  Only  one  recent,  critical  experimenter  has 
ever  reported  the  production  of  defective  offspring 
following  parental  alcoholism,  and  his  results  respect- 
ing this  point  are  definitely  not  confirmed  by  another 
competent  worker  with  the  same  animal,  the  guinea 


**It  seems  clear,  and  entirely  just,  that  anyone  dis- 
agreeing with  the  conclusion  reached  in  this  study  that 
there  is  no  impairment  of  the  life  duration  of  moderate 
drinkers  as  compared  with  abstainers,  must  assume 
the  burden  of  proof  as  to  why  the  present  considerable 
mass  of  objective  data  do  not  show  a  result  opposite  in 
sense  to  that  which  they  do  in  fact  show  regarding  this 
point.  I  am  in  no  way  constrained  to  explain  why 
moderate  drinkers  and  abstainers  show  similar  life 
expectancies  at  all  ages.  I  am  content  to  rest  upon  the 
fact  that  it  is  so  in  the  present  statistics.  On  the 
principle  of  Occam's  razor  (Entia  non  sunt  multi- 
plicanda  praeter  necessitatem),  the  most  probable  ex- 
planation seems  to  me  to  be  the  simple  one  that  the 
moderate  consumption  of  alcoholic  beverages  has  no 
deleterious  effects.  But  since  I  have  carefully  re- 
frained  throughout  the  book  from  stating  this  as  a 
general  conclusion,  I  am  in  no  wise  obligated  to  prove 
it  as  such.     Instead  it  is  sufficient  for  the  present 


merely  to  draw  the  specific  conclusion  that  in  the  con- 
siderable sample  of  the  working  class  population  of 
Baltimore  here  studied,  moderate  drinkers  did  live, 
on  the  average,  just  as  long  as  total  abstainers,  and  in 
truth  a  little  longer. 

^*  These,  then,  are  the  results  of  this  investigation. 
They  seem  to  indicate,  with  great  clearness,  that  any 
biological  harmfulness  chargeable  against  alcohol,  in 
this  group  of  over  five  thousand  people,  resulted  solely 
from  its  abuse,  and  not  from  its  reasonable  and  proper 
use.  I  said  at  the  beginning  of  this  book  that  the  sole 
object  of  the  study  was  to  learn  something  about  the 
purely  biological  effects  of  alcohol,  as  distinguished 
from  its  real  or  supposed  social  effects." 


I  hold  no  brief  for  the  correctness  or  incorrectness 
of  Doctor  Pearl's  work.  This  must  stand  or  fall  by 
the  judgment  of  men  more  intimately  qualified  in  this 
particular  field  than  I.  But  that  Pearl's  work  is  a  ^e 
example  of  the  political  and  social  methods  upon  which 
sound  national  life  and  sound  social  and  political  ethics 
must  proceed  in  order  to  usher  in  and  carry  on  the  next 
gre^  age  of  man,  I  have  not  the  slightest  doubt.  Until 
men  appreciate  the  vast  moral  ministry  of  statistics 
and  experiment  in  determining  both  their  private  and 
public  conduct  I  cannot  see  civilization  as  anything 
but  a  vast  melee  of  tumbling  human  impulses,  very 
little  under  the  guidance  of  intelligence,  and  likely  to 
go  to  pieces  any  moment  by  one  route  about  as  easily 
as  by  another.  We  hear  it  now  loudly  acclaimed  that 
civilization  is  in  danger.  Civilization  is  always  in 
danger.  It  always  will  be.  But  it  will  be  in  danger 
just  in  proportion  as  it  is  guided  by  emotion  instead 
of  intelligence. 


Whether  one  favors  prohibition  or  is  against  it  is, 
in  my  judgment,  a  profound  indication  of  his  whole 
outlook  upon  life.  It  depends  upon  whether  he  takes 
a  positive  or  a  negative  view  of  moral  liberty  and  self- 
control.  In  thinking  upon  prohibition  there  is  a  story 
which  often  comes  to  my  mind  that  illustrates  the 
difference  between  the  two  points  of  view : 

The  story  runs  that  about  two  hundred  and  fifty 
years  ago,  over  in  Holland,  there  was  an  obscure  lens 
grinder  who  lived  and  died  in  a  little  poorly  furnished 
room,  almost  friendless,  penniless  and  alone. 

After  his  death  they  found  a  bundle  of  manuscript 
in  the  drawer  under  his  work-bench.  By  chance,  some 
scholars  happened  to  see  this  manuscript  and  instantly 
discovered  that  this  simple,  unpretending  craftsman, 
named  Benedict  Spinoza,  had  written  one  of  the  great- 
est philosophies  of  life  in  the  whole  history  of  mankind. 

In  the  course  of  that  philosophy  he  said:  **If  you 
can  keep  from  doing  a  thing  because  it  is  bad,  you  can 
keep  from  doing  the  same  thing  because  something  else 
is  good." 

That  is  the  difference  between  the  commandments 
which  say,  **Thou  shalt  not,"  and  what,  according  to 
St.  Mark,  are  the  greatest  of  all :  *  *  Thou  shalt  love  the 
Lord  thy  God"  and  ^^Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as 

In  the  political  world,  it  is  the  difference  between 
Roosevelt  and  Wayne  Wheeler,  between  Abraham 
Lincoln  and  **Bill"  Anderson. 

We  live  in  an  age  of  negatives — an  age  when  well- 
intentioned  people  hold  the  idea  that  men  can  be  made 
virtuous  by  locking  them  away  from  temptation. 

The  chief  aim  of  our  Constitution — formed  by  men 
who  were  all  positives — was  to  prevent  the  Govern- 
ment from  doing  something  to  the  people.  They  were 
justly  afraid  of  the  power  of  Government.    But  the 


whole  passion  of  our  time  is  to  use  the  power  of 
Government  to  do  something  to  the  citizen — to  pro- 
hibit him  from  living  his  own  life  of  moral  freedom. 

Thousands  of  laws  are  passed  to  prohibit  the 
citizen;  we  hear  of  no  laws  to  give  him  more  liberty. 

Our  fathers  died  for  liberty  and  we  are  afraid  of  it. 

Our  fathers  believed  in  education  and  the  positive 
power  of  moral  ideals ;  we  believe  in  prohibition  and 
the  negative  power  of  policemen's  clubs. 

I  am  personally  opposed  to  prohibition  for  four 
very  simple  and,  I  think,  very  godly  reasons :  because 
I  believe  in  temperance,  morality,  liberty,  and  in  law 
and  order. 

I  am  convinced  there  is  more  rejoicing  in  heaven 
over  one  free  moral  act  than  over  ninety  and  nine  due 
to  prohibitions. 

Even  if  we  attain  national  sobriety  by  jails,  clubs, 
fines  and  police,  it  will  be  the  moral  tragedy  of  all 
history;  if  we  attain  it,  as  we  can,  by  education,  it  will 
be  the  greatest  glory  that  men  know,  the  glory  of  self- 

"What  this  age  needs  most  is  to  hark  back  to  its 
great  philosophers  and  moral  leaders.  They  were  all 

Prohibition  may  succeed  in  keeping  men  from 
drunkenness,  but  it  will  never  give  a  single  man  self- 

They  did  succeed  in  prohibiting  Socrates  from 
teaching  moral  liberty  and  forced  him  to  drink  poison ; 
and,  *'in  that  one  cup  of  hemlock,  they  drowned  a  whole 

This  negative  psychology  seems  to  me  to  be  the  one 
great  danger  to  the  future  liberties  of  men. 

If  we  can  keep  from  drunkenness  and  immoraKty  of 
all  sorts  because  they  are  bad,  we  can  likewise  keep 
from  these  negative  things  by  the  positive  teaching  to 


our  children  that  temperance,  morality,  liberty,  and 
law  and  order  are  fine  and  beautiful,  great  and  good. 

Notwithstanding  the  considerations  I  have  ad- 
vanced, however,  the  great  moral  passion  that  has 
caused  millions  of  men  to  vote  a  restraint  upon  their 
own  liberties  and  happiness  in  order  to  protect  a  weak 
brother  from  the  consequences  of  his  own  probable 
folly,  is  one  of  the  most  inspiring  spectacles  in  the 
whole  history  of  mankind.  Not  only  inspiring,  but 
hopeful,  even  to  the  man  who  disagrees  with  its  im- 
mediate wisdom.  It  shows  what  a  vast  reservoir  of 
the  milk  of  human  kindness  is  ready  to  be  let  loose  as 
soon  as  the  scientist  and  the  social  technician  have 
themselves  developed  the  knowledge  for  directing  it 
into  more  effective  channels.  The  revelation  that  such 
great  numbers  of  people  want  to  make  the  world  better, 
cleaner  and  happier  is  so  inspiring  that  it  almost 
reconciles  one  to  accept  without  protest  the  unlooked 
for  ill  effects  that  have  flowed  from  prohibition. 

I  think  that  prohibition  is  fundamentally  a  great 
social,  political  and  biological  mistake,  but  the  great 
urge  for  human  betterment  behind  it  all  is  not  a  mis- 
take. It  is  one  of  the  most  precious  revelations  of 
human  nature.  In  the  same  way,  I  think,  democracy  in 
its  extreme  form  is  an  unworkable  hypothesis,  but  the 
sentiment  of  democracy  is  one  of  the  most  priceless 
passions  in  the  human  heart.  Aristocracy  in  its  ex- 
treme form  is  just  as  unworkable  as  a  scheme  for 
developing  universal  happiness  or  increasing  the 
world's  fitness  for  affairs.  But  the  passion  for  ex- 
cellence which  lies  behind  it  is  too  valuable  not  to  be 
utilized  somehow  in  the  ultimate  scheme  of  government 
which,  by  and  by,  technical  knowledge  applied  to  the 
guidance  of  human  passions  will  give  to  the  next  age 
of  man. 

If  it  be  really  true — and  I  suspect  it  is — that  men 


drink  to  excess  because  of  mental  and  temperamental 
instability ;  if  further,  this  type  of  instability  is  present 
in  only  a  small  portion  of  the  population;  if  this  insta- 
bility tends  to  be  inherited  by  the  offspring  of  such 
persons,  as  all  evidence  indicates  is  highly  probable ;  if, 
moreover,  as  PearPs  memoir  indicates,  all  the  vast 
preachments  of  the  past  two  generations  and  all  the 
efforts  at  prohibition  combined,  have  caused  only  a 
small  percentage  of  heavy  drinkers  ever  to  reform 
(probably  less  than  five  per  cent.),  it  would  surely 
indicate  to  human  reason  that  some  other  method  of 
attack  upon  what  everyone  admits  is  a  great  national 
problem  should  at  least  be  tried. 

If  I  may  venture  a  personal  judgment,  I  cannot  but 
feel  that  if  one  fiftieth  of  the  money  expended  on 
efforts  at  prohibition  could  be  expended  for  an  exten- 
sion of  the  new  science  of  clinical  psychology,  so  that 
every  community  of  a  thousand  persons  or  more  should 
have  at  its  service  a  consulting  psychologist,  just  as  it 
now  has  a  consulting  physician,  it  would  do  more  to 
solve  the  question  of  alcohol,  in  so  far  as  it  is  a  social 
and  personal  problem,  than  all  the  measures  of  pro- 
hibition combined.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  penetration 
by  a  skilled  technical  expert,  who  had  spent  years  in 
training  for  his  profession,  into  the  inner  life  of  the 
individual  drinker,  a  study  of  his  spiritual  conflicts 
and  the  harrowing  problems  of  life  as  he  sees  it,  would 
offer  more  hopes  of  the  building  of  a  sound  character 
and  of  a  development  of  a  will  to  resist  temptation 
than  can  be  done  by  airplanes  or  rum  fleets. 


When  the  psychologist  is  privileged  to  extend  his 
ministrations  far  down  into  the  pre-school  life  of  the 
child,  even  down  to  the  hour  of  birth  of  each  babe,  and 


then  extend  his  services  not  only  through  the  usual 
educational  period  but  on  into  industrial  and  voca- 
tional adjustment;  when  he  is  even  privileged  to  ex- 
tend his  skilled  and  kindly  ministry  into  a  mail's 
domestic  life  and  into  the  home  wherever  there  is  lack 
of  mental  and  temperamental  harmony,  I  think  that 
we  shall  have  made  the  greatest  step  which  men  have 
ever  made  toward  a  real  solution  of  the  problems  both 
of  alcohol  and  of  crime. 

One  curious  thing  that  has  escaped  all  but  a  very 
few  students  of  such  matters  is  the  obvious  fact  that 
all  criminals  and  all  pathological  drinkers  were  at 
one  time  children.  And  I  believe  the  work  of  Terman, 
Eaubenheimer,  Cady,  Hazlett,  Starbuck,  May  and 
Voelker  has  given  us  abundant  reason  to  believe  that 
the  potential  criminal  can  be  detected  when  he  is  a 
little  child.  Voelker,  Starbuck  and  others  are  giving 
us  every  reason  to  believe  that  moral  education  is  more 
effective  than  intellectual  education.  Psychologists 
are  just  giving  us  reason  to  believe  that  we  can  educate 
human  character  more  than  we  can  educate  human 
intelligence  or,  rather,  that  we  can  so  train  the  intelli- 
gence that  it  will  guide  the  emotions  to  a  sound  and 
happy  life  of  effective  social  behavior. 


It  is  my  belief  in  moral  as  well  as  intellectual 
education  that  gives  me  my  strongest  hope  for 
eugenics.  It  gives  me  the  hope  that  men  will  in  time 
institute  a  biological  policy  as  big  and  as  insistent,  as 
imperative  in  its  ethical  demands  and  as  lofty  in  its 
calls  to  men's  inner  drives,  as  are  the  appeals  that 
come  from  the  more  tangible  rewards  of  civilization. 
After  all,  civilization  is  not  an  artificial  creation  but  a 
natural  development.    It  is  simply  a  fulfillment  of  or- 


ganic  function.  Indeed,  civilization  is  the  outcome  of 
man's  fundamental  trends;  and  chief  among  these 
trends — I  shall  not  venture  in  this  day  to  call  them 
instincts — are  hunger,  the  sex  emotions,  the  aBsthetic 
senses  and  the  desire  to  be  important.  Civilization 
gives  more  prizes  to  these  natural  functions  than  does 
the  jungle,  and  that  is  chiefly  why  we  try  to  be  civil- 
ized. But  when  a  society  becomes  as  complex  as  ours, 
these  trends  must  be  more  and  more  subjected  to  con- 
trol, not  only  by  the  individual  himself  but  by  the  best 
trained  technical  intelligence  which  the  race  can  attain 
and  institute.  And  for  these  reasons,  just  because 
man  is  so  little  rational  and  so  much  emotional,  just 
because  he  will  be  a  damn  fool  if  he  gets  half  a  chance, 
I  do  not  see  the  slightest  hope  of  prohibitions  and 
policemen's  clubs  curing  him  of  such  a  vast  trend  in 
his  nature  as  his  desire  to  relax  the  tensions  of  his  own 
life  and  seek  either  a  real  or  a  fictitious  freedom  in 


All  of  this  melee  of  noble  impulses  guided  by  igno- 
rance instead  of  by  intelligence  shows  what  a  danger- 
ous biological  enterprise  civilization  really  is.  It 
shows  us  in  a  very  definite  way  how  man's  loftiest 
passions  may  be  at  war  with  his  health  and  character 
as  a  race.  I  merely  cite  prohibition  as  a  prime  exam- 
ple. It  is  highly  probable  that  the  American  people, 
prior  to  prohibition,  were  rapidly  drinking  themselves 
sober.  Those  family  strains  that  were  highly  suscep- 
tible to  alcohol  and  could  not  control  their  appetites 
for  its  excessive  use  were  probably  rapidly  weeding 
themselves  out.  Prof.  Edward  A.  Eoss,  the  distin- 
guished sociologist  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin, 
suggested  years  ago  that  possibly  within  another  hun- 
dred years  these  biologically  defective  strains  would 


have  probably  been  mostly  weeded  out.  He  suggested 
that  if  this  should  prove  true,  probably  prohibition 
would  never  become  a  question  at  all. 

Whatever  may  be  the  underlying  cause  at  wort,  it 
seems  pretty  obvious  that  those  races  such  as  the  Jews 
and  Mediterranean  peoples  which  have  used  alcohol 
for  the  greatest  number  of  centuries  have  the  fewest  of 
these  uncontrollable  drinkers.  Drunkeimess  is  as  rare 
among  the  Jews  as  it  is  common  among  the  north 
European  stocks.  Prof.  William  MacDougall,  psychol- 
ogist, of  Harvard,  argues  that  this  is  not  because  alco- 
hol has  weeded  out  the  weaker-willed  strains  from  the 
south  European  peoples,  but  because  they  are  a  gayer 
and  more  light-hearted  people;  while  we  grim  and 
gloomy  folk,  such  as  the  Scotch,  East  English,  Swedes, 
North  Germans  and  the  like,  are  of  a  dour  and  somber 
disposition  and  prone  to  take  life  as  a  dismal  and  sol- 
emn proposition.  He  adduces  considerable  evidence 
from  the  character  of  the  art,  the  philosophy  and  the 
literature  of  the  two  groups  of  peoples,  and  the  re- 
markable differences  in  their  relative  tendency  to  com- 
mit suicide,  that  the  Northerners  are  introvert  and  the 
Southerners  extravert.  The  Northerner,  he  thinks, 
likes  to  get  off  by  himself,  to  roam  the  sea,  to  climb  the 
lonely  mountain  fastness,  to  explore  the  wilderness, 
and  to  commune  with  his  soul  upon  problems  of  reli- 
gion, destiny  and  God.  The  Southerner  makes  of  his 
religion  a  gala  festival  and  has  a  good  time  in  carrying 
on  his  worship.  MacDougall  thinks  that  for  this  reason 
the  Northerner  has  to  drink  to  keep  up  his  courage  in 
the  face  of  the  awful  problems  of  existence.  It  seems 
a  bit  anomalous  that  a  man  would  have  to  drink  to  keep 
up  his  courage  in  the  presence  of  his  God,  upon  whom 
he  is  relying  for  counsel  and  consolation.  We  might 
reflect  that  the  Jewish  people  were  apparently  not  an 
extremely  drunken  race  when  communion  with  a  rather 


terrifying  Jehovah  was  the  very  atmosphere  which 
they  breathed. 


Of  course,  these  passing  considerations  of  mine  do 
not  really  answer  the  arguments  in  Professor  Mac- 
Dougairs  penetrating  thesis.  It  may  be  that  both  the 
introspective  factor  and  the  heredity  factor  are  at 
work  to  cause  more  uncontrollable  drinking  among  the 
Northern  races.  However  that  may  be,  I  can  but  think 
that  the  town  drunkard  was  one  of  the  very  chiefest 
agents  in  causing  our  noble-hearted  people  to  try  to 
remedy  his  misfortune  by  prohibiting  alcohol  to  the 
entire  population.  Certainly  the  reformed  drinkers, 
from  John  B.  Gough  and  ^' Billy''  Sunday  down,  have 
been  among  the  strongest  propagandists  of  the  cause. 
I  hardly  think  that  the  judgment  of  such  men  as  to  the 
best  measures  for  their  own  moral  protection  would  be 
as  wise  and  valid  as  could  be  gained  from  large,  pro- 
longed and  dispassionate  researches.  It  seems  to  me 
that  a  strong  case  might  be  made  out  to  the  effect  that 
prohibition  was  *^put  over"  on  the  American  people 
chiefly  by  second-class  men.  Most  certainly,  it  was 
**put  over"  without  first-class  sociological,  biological, 
psychological  and  political  knowledge.  We  do  not  find 
among  the  leaders  of  prohibition  propaganda  such  men 
as,  for  examples.  President  Eliot,  President  Lowell^ 
President  C.  C.  Little,  President  Glenn  Frank,  Elihu 
Eoot,  Chief  Justice  Taft,  John  W.  Davis,  Edward  L. 
Thorndike,  Prof.  Franklin  H.  Giddings,  Prof.  John 
Dewey,  James  Harvey  Eobinson,  Everett  Dean  Mar- 
tin, Dr.  Irwin  Edman,  Owen  D.  Young,  Dr.  William 
H.  Welch,  Thomas  Hunt  Morgan,  and  men  of  similar 
intellectual  caliber  and  broad  social  outlook.  Nor  do 
we  find  onr  leading  writers,  philosophers  and  drama- 


tists  among  the  leaders  in  this  field  of  social  and  polit- 
ical appeal.  Some  of  these  men  may  have  accepted 
prohibition  but  they  have  not  been  leaders  in  making 
it  a  national  policy.  Wisdom  comes  only  from  wise 
heads,  and  if  a  proposed  measure  of  national  life  so 
important  as  this  does  not  appeal  to  heads  like  these,  I 
have  little  confidence  in  trusting  in  its  ultimate 


All  I  have  said  about  the  failure  of  men  to  see  pro- 
hibition as  a  biological  problem,  a  problem  of  human 
evolution,  as  well  as  a  social  and  political  problem, 
applies  to  numerous  questions,  such  as  crime,  prosti- 
tution, charity  and  uplift,  and  even  medical  science 
itself.  As  another  example  of  this,  we  unhesitatingly 
spend  vast  sums  of  money  to  try  to  cure  those  afflicted 
with  tuberculosis.  Only  a  few  persons,  even  in  the 
medical  profession,  have  ever  stopped  to  inquire 
whether  everybody  was  equally  likely  to  have  tuber- 
culosis in  a  severe  form,  nor  have  they  asked  whether, 
if  some  persons  are  more  likely  to  contract  it  than 
others,  is  not  that  greater  likelihood  transmitted  to 
their  children! 

After  millions  of  money  had  been  spent  for  curing 
tuberculosis  in  the  individual,  two  or  three  biologists 
sounded  a  warning  that  if  these  persons  were  cured 
and  then  allowed  to  marry  and  transmit  to  their  chil- 
dren their  likelihood  to  contract  tuberculosis,  and 
these  on  to  the  grandchildren,  and  so  on,  it  might 
spread  tubercular  susceptibility  throughout  the  whole 
race.  They  suggested  that  curing  the  individual  and 
allowing  him  to  produce  children  would  in  the  end 
increase  the  disease  in  the  race.  It  is  my  own  belief 
that  this  is  what  is  happening.    This  situation  led  the 


American  Tuberculosis  Association,  to  its  lasting 
credit,  to  institute  extended  research  under  the  direc- 
tion of  Dr.  Raymond  Pearl,  to  whom  previous  refer- 
ence has  been  made,  to  ascertain,  if  possible,  how  much 
of  tuberculosis  is  due  to  heredity  and  how  much  to 

If  susceptibility  to  tuberculosis  be  a  thing  such  as 
susceptibility  to  mathematical  training,  and  if  it  be  due 
largely  to  heredity,  then  one  sort  of  policy  is  indicated ; 
and  if  it  be  due  largely  to  environment  and  heredity 
plays  little  part,  then  another  policy  is  indicated.  But 
we  have  expended  vast  sums  of  money  on  the  cure  to 
tuberculosis,  on  the  theory  that  it  was  entirely  due  to 
environment.  This  theory  means  that  if  we  can  cure 
the  individual  there  is  no  more  danger  of  his  children 
contracting  tuberculosis  than  the  children  of  any  other 
person.  The  mere  fact  that  a  much  higher  percentage 
of  tubercular  young  men  was  discovered  among  the 
army  draftees  in  southern  California,  Arizona  and 
New  Mexico,  than  among  those  from  any  other  place 
in  the  country,  would  indicate  of  itself  that  their  par- 
ents and  grandparents  had  probably  been  cured  by 
those  wonderful  climates,  but  had  intermarried  sus- 
ceptible stocks  to  such  an  extent  that  tuberculosis  was 
becoming  a  characteristic  of  the  race.  Pearl's  investi- 
gation is  not  yet  completed,  but  it  has  gone  far  enough 
to  indicate  that  the  heredity  factor  in  tuberculosis  is  a 
very  considerable  one.  It  has  certainly  gone  far 
enough  to  show  that  those  who  maintain  that  heredity 
plays  no  part  in  tuberculosis  and  that  all  persons  are 
equally  likely  to  contract  the  disease,  provided  they 
are  equally  exposed  to  it,  will  not  only  have  to  prove 
their  case  and  not  assume  it,  as  heretofore,  but  will 
have  to  prove  it  by  much  more  exact  methods  than 
they  have  so  far  instituted. 



It  will  be  an  extremely  fortunate  thing  if  it  should 
turn  out  that  such  things  as  tuberculosis,  cancer  •  in- 
sanity, criminalistic  tendencies,  and  the  like,  are  inher- 
ited; and  the  more  strongly  we  find  they  are  inherited 
the  more  fortunate  it  will  be.  I  shall  argue  this  ques- 
tion at  much  greater  length  in  a  subsequent  volume, 
which  I  have  under  way  in  my  workshop,  on  **The 
Optimisms  of  Science/'  It  is  certainly  one  of  the 
crowning  optimisms  of  all  scientific  discovery  that  we 
are  not  all  equally  likely  to  contract  tuberculosis,  de- 
velop cancer,  exhibit  insanity  or  commit  crime. 

Indeed,  the  naive  methods  which  most  of  our  books 
on  criminology  have  taken  to  prove  that  heredity  is 
not  a  factor  in  crime,  by  citing  a  large  number  of 
criminals  whose  parents  and  grandparents  and  even 
great  grandparents  were  not  criminals,  give  a  student 
a  new  conception  of  what  constitutes  sound  biological 
inquiry.  Some  investigations  in  this  field  may  have 
escaped  me,  but  I  have  never  seen  one  outside  of  the 
magnificent  work  of  Charles  Goring,  of  London,  which 
even  took  account  of  so  obvious  a  fact  that  some  of  the 
persons  in  the  family  pedigree  may  have  died  in 
infancy.  Babies  do  not  commit  crimes,  but  what  they 
might  have  committed  had  they  grown  up  no  mortal 
knows.  And  when  so  obvious  a  fact  is  not  somehow 
accounted  for  in  the  statistical  array,  the  investigation 
is  practically  worthless.  This  fallacy  has  vitiated 
many  of  the  investigations  of  the  heredity  of  cancer, 
since  in  most  of  them  no  account  is  taken  of  the  fact 
that  cancer  does  not  set  in  very  often  before  the  age 
of  thirty-five;  and  if  a  person  die  prior  to  that  age  in 
the  pedigree  by  disease  or  accident,  there  is  no  telling 
how  he  would  have  affected  the  result  had  he  lived 
into  the  cancer  age.    The  admirable  researches  of  Miss 


Maude  Slye,  of  the  University  of  Chicago,  strongly  in- 
dicate that  there  is  a  high  hereditary  factor  in  cancer. 
Her  researches  are  models  of  sound  biological  inquiry. 
The  happy  thing  is,  however,  that  all  studies  are 
steadily  trending  toward  the  conclusion  that  human 
defects  and  human  virtues  are  partly  due  to  heredity. 
It  is  this  which  gives  hope  to  eugenics  and  also  to  the 
human  race. 


As  a  matter  of  fact  scarcely  any  recent  public  wel- 
fare policy  has  given  us  a  more  striking  proof  of  the 
necessity  of  first  looking  before  we  leap,  than  the  inves- 
tigation, by  Doctors  Stocks  and  Karn,  of  the  sani- 
tarium treatment  of  tuberculosis.  Their  conclusions 
have  just  been  published  in  Volume  I  of  the  Annals  of 

Stocks  and  Karn  are  two  English  investigators 
working  in  connection  with  the  Galton  Eugenics  Lab- 
oratory, under  the  auspices  of  the  University  of  Lon- 
don. This  laboratory  is  under  the  direction  of  Prof. 
Karl  Pearson,  who  is  regarded,  by  many  of  those  com- 
petent to  judge  such  matters,  as  the  foremost  statis- 
tician in  the  world.  The  laboratory  is  carried  on 
largely  by  funds  left  by  Sir  Francis  Galton,  one  of 
the  greatest  minds  of  all  time  and  the  founder  of  the 
science  of  eugenics.  Galton  took  the  science  of  statis- 
tics, which  had  been  invented  by  a  Belgian  mathe- 
matician named  Quetelet,  and  greatly  elaborated  its 
methods  in  range  and  precision.  I  often  wish  that 
every  high  school  and  college  student  would  hang 
above  his  bed,  as  the  first  thing  to  greet  his  eyes 
in  the  morning  when  he  wakens,  along  with  the 
vision  that  is  uppermost  in  his  mind  that  he  must 
smash  through  the  line  at  the  next  football  game,  the 


motto  which  was  the  inspiration  of  Galton's  life.  Gal- 
ton  left  his  impress  upon  all  modern  science,  and  his 
agile  mind  and  noble  spirit  touched  nearly  every  field 
of  human  inquiry.  I  can,  therefore,  recommend  ta  the 
youth  of  our  day  no  finer  statement  than  this  of  the 
spirit  and  method  which  should  guide  him,  and  not 
only  in  his  own  scientific  research,  but  in  the  develop* 
ment  of  his  social  philosophy : 

*^  General  impressions  are  never  to  be  trusted.  Un- 
fortunately, when  they  are  of  long  standing  they 
become  fixed  rules  of  life  and  assume  a  prescriptive 
right  not  to  be  questioned.  Consequently,  those  who 
are  not  accustomed  to  original  inquiry  entertain  a 
hatred  and  a  horror  of  statistics.  They  cannot  endure 
the  idea  of  submitting  their  sacred  impressions  to 
cold-blooded  verification.  But  it  is  the  triumph  of 
scientific  men  to  rise  superior  to  such  superstitions,  to 
desire  tests  by  which  the  value  of  beliefs  may  be  enter- 
tained, and  to  feel  sufficiently  masters  of  themselves  to 
discard  contemptuously  whatever  may  be  found  un- 

Many  of  the  leading  statisticians  of  our  time  have 
been  partly  trained  in  the  Galton  Laboratory,  which 
has  given  an  impetus  in  the  whole  field  of  statistical 
biology.  This  is  known  by  the  term  ^* biometrics,'' 
which  Galton  invented  to  express  the  application  of 
metrics,  the  science  of  measurement,  to  biology,  the 
science  of  life.  In  their  biometrical  investigation  of 
tuberculosis.  Doctors  Stocks  and  Karn  have  compared 
the  effects  of  sanitarium  treatment  of  this  disease  with 
the  results  obtained  by  home  treatment  and  the  treat- 
ment given  by  public  dispensaries.  The  investigation 
is  of  vast  importance  to  modern  philanthropy,  to  the 
medical  profession,  to  our  State  and  National  Govern- 
ments, and  to  thousands  of  individuals,  even  hundreds 
of  thousands,  who  are  at  this  moment  debating  the 


serious  problem  in  their  own  lives  whether  to  go  to  a 
sanitarium  for  treatment  of  tuberculosis  or  to  remain 
at  home  under  the  care  of  the  family  physician.  For 
these  reasons  I  shall  not  make  any  comments  of  my 
own  upon  a  piece  of  scientific  work  fraught  with  so 
many  important  public  sequences.  I,  therefore,  give 
in  their  own  words  a  description  of  the  nature  of  the 
investigation  and  the  results  obtained  by  Doctors 
Stocks  and  Karn.  In  the  introduction  to  their  report 
they  say: 


"Although  it  was  one  time  believed  that  sanatoria 
were  effective  in  curing  phthisis,  and  at  the  present 
time  it  is  tacitly  assumed  that  they  are  at  least  effec- 
tive in  favorably  influencing  the  progress  of  the  dis- 
ease, it  has  never  been  satisfactorily  proved  that  such 
is  really  the  case.  The  isolation  of  phthisical  persons 
for  a  time  and  the  training  given  them  as  to  how  they 
may  be  non-infective  to  other  persons  on  returning  to 
their  homes  must  of  course  be  of  value  to  the  com- 
munity, and  the  long  rest,  good  food,  graduated  exer- 
cise and  fresh  air  must  be  of  temporary  value  in 
improving  the  comfort  and  well-being  of  the  patient 
in  many  cases.  These  facts  are  admitted  by  most,  but 
unless  sanatorium  treatment  is  doing  more  than  this 
and  is  actually  exercising  a  beneficent  influence  on  the 
progress  of  the  disease  which  is  demonstrably  supe- 
rior to  that  exercised  by  other  forms  of  treatment 
such  as  ^an  be  carried  out  in  dispensaries  or  at  home, 
there  are  many  who  would  hold  the  opinion  that  the 
advantages  mentioned  could  probably  be  provided 
with  less  inconvenience  to  the  patient  and  at  a  smaller 
expense  to  the  nation. 

*'In  contrast  to  these  there  have  been  four  statis- 
tical researches  on  the  question,  all  of  which  have  been 


carried  out  on  good  sanatoriiim  data,  namely,  those  of 
Elderton  and  Perry  on  the  experience  of  the  Adiron- 
dack sanatorium,  of  Bardswell  and  Thompson  on  data 
from  Midhurst  Sanatorium,  of  Hartley,  Wingfield  ^d 
Thompson  on  data  from  Frimley  Sanatorium,  and  of 
Vallow  on  the  experience  of  the  Bradford  Sanatorium. 
In  the  first  of  these  it  was  shown  that  mortality  after 
the  discharge  of  incipient  phthisis  cases  was  about 
four  times  as  great  as  that  of  the  general  population  of 
the  same  ages,  that  the  mortality  of  apparently  cured 
cases  was  about  twice  that  of  the  general  population, 
and  that  in  general  the  mortality  experienced  by  san- 
atorium-treated patients  showed  no  improvement  over 
that  experienced  in  pre-sanatorium  days,  judging 
from  such  figures  as  were  available.  Bardswell  and 
Thompson  found  the  mortality  of  incipient  cases  after 
treatment  at  Midhurst  to  be  some  six  times,  of  ad- 
vanced cases  sixteen  times,  and  far  advanced  cases 
thirty-eight  times  that  expected  in  the  general  pop- 
ulation of  the  same  ages,  and  the  corresponding  figures 
obtained  at  Frimley  were  about  four,  sixteen,  and 
forty.  The  Bradford  figures  were  somewhat  better  for 
the  incipient  group. 

^ '  All  these  investigations  have  been  based  upon  the 
same  method;  namely,  to  classify  the  patients  accord- 
ing to  age,  sex,  and  condition  on  admission  or 
discharge,  ascertain  the  rate  of  survival  of  each  sub- 
group after  leaving  the  sanatorium  and  compare  it 
with  the  survival  rate  of  a  life-table  population  at  the 
same  ages.  No  exception  can  be  taken  to  these  re- 
searches as  far  as  they  go,  but  they  suffer  from  the 
defects  that  (1)  they  measure  progress  only  by  sur- 
vival, and  (2)  they  do  not  compare  the  tuberculous 
treated  in  sanatoria  with  the  tuberculous  treated  at 
the  same  time  and  in  the  same  districts  by  other 
methods,  by  which  comparison  alone  we  can  hope  to 


reach  any  conclusion  as  to  the  real  value  of  sanatoria 
in  the  fight  against  diseas9.  The  main  objects  of  the 
present  research  have  been  to  provide  such  a  com- 
parison, not  only  as  regards  mortality  experienced  but 
as  regards  progress  toward  recovery  measured  in 
other  ways.'' 

These  investigators  compared  a  large  sample  of 
tuberculosis  patients  who  had  received  sanatorium 
treatment  with  another  large  sample  of  patients  who 
had  received  care  and  advice  either  from  a  public  dis- 
pensary or  else  had  been  treated  at  home  by  the  family 
and  the  family  physician.  These  patients  were  com- 
pared in  numerous  particulars  which  I  give  below  in 
the  words  of  the  authors  themselves: 

*'For  ourselves  we  cannot  think  of  any  kind  of 
selection  likely  to  have  any  important  influence  on 
progress  which  would  not  come  under  one  or  more  of 
the  following  heads: 

'^1.  Sex. 

*^2.  Age. 

**3.  Stage  of  the  disease  in  lungs. 

**4.  Severity  of  constitutional  s^Tnptoms. 

**5.  Nutrition  of  the  patient. 

**6.  Financial  resources  of  the  patient. 

**7.  Amount  of  deterioration  since  coming  under 


*'8.  Quality  of  dwelling. 

**9.  Amount  of  overcrowding  in  patient's  home. 

<*10.  Family  ties." 

After  completing  their  prolonged  and  exacting  in- 
vestigation, the  first  of  its  kind  ever  made  along  these 
lines,  the  authors  sum  up  their  conclusions  in  the  f oL 
lowing  paragraphs,  which  ought  to  convey  a  profound 
lesson  to  the  mind  of  every  statesman,  both  as  to  the 


methods  pursued   and  the  results   obtained  bearing 
upon  human  welfare: 


**1.  An  exhaustive  study  of  the  histories  of  the 
first  2,794  consecutive  cases  of  undoubted  pulmonary 
tuberculosis  brought  under  the  survey  of  the  Belfast 
Tuberculosis  Dispensary  from  1914  onwards  leads  to 
the  following  conclusions: 

'*2.  A  certain  proportion  of  patients  were  recom- 
mended for  treatment  at  sanatoria  and  those  who 
stayed  at  least  fourteen  days,  in  addition  to  receiving 
the  usual  dispensary  treatment  before  and  after  their 
visit  to  the  sanatorium,  have  been  defined  as  "*  san- 
atorium-treated,'  while  the  residue  of  patients  who 
received  only  dispensary  or  domiciliary  treatment  have 
been  spoken  of  as  *  otherwise-treated. ' 

**3.  The  average  ultimate  progress  as  estimated 
of  a  period  of  six  years  unless  the  patients  had  been 
previously  lost  to  view  was  undoubtedly  worse  in  the 
case  of  the  sanatorium-treated  than  in  the  case  of  the 
otherwise-treated  for  patients  first  seen  in  the  incip- 
ient stage,  but  was  not  significantly  different  for 
patients  first  seen  in  the  two  advanced  stages.  There 
is  some  suggestion,  however,  that  the  very  advanced 
stages  requiring  hospital  treatment  fared  better  in 
sanatorium  than  elsewhere,  but  naturally  this  is  diffi- 
cult to  establish. 

**4.  These  conclusions  appear  to  hold  good  for 
both  sexes  and  for  young  people  and  adults  alike 
whether  progress  was  estimated  on  a  survival  basis, 
by  the  ratio  of  actual  to  expected  mortality,  by  the 
proportion  improving  to  any  degrees,  or  by  the  pro- 
portion in  whom  the  disease  became  arrested  or 
apparently  cured;  but  by  the  last  criterion  the  san- 


atorium-treated  showed  a  temporary  superiority  dur- 
ing the  first  two  or  three  years  which  was  lost  in 
subsequent  years. 

^  *  5.  Every  effort  has  been  made  to  determine  what 
kind  of  selection  was  exercised  in  the  various  circum- 
stances which  led  to  the  formation  of  the  group  of  the 
sanotoria-treated,  particularly  as  regards  any  selec- 
tion practised  by  the  medical  officers  and  how  far 
this  could  account  for  their  disappointing  progress  as 
compared  with  the  residual  cases.  Selection  on  the 
grounds  of  sex,  age,  stage  of  or  severity  of  symptoms 
was  adequately  corrected,  for  without  affecting  the 
conclusions  appreciably,  selection  on  the  grounds  of 
poverty,  overcrowding  or  bad  home  conditions  was 
shown  to  be  negligible  in  its  effect  on  progress. 

**6.  The  initial  nutrition  had  no  appreciable  re- 
lation to  ultimate  progress  in  adult  males  and  only  a 
slight  relation  in  adult  females.  Adults  selected  for 
sanatorium  averaged  four  pounds  less  in  body  weight 
than  those  not  selected,  which  no  doubt  prejudiced 
their  progress  to  a  slight  extent  in  the  case  of  women, 
but  not  nearly  to  the  extent  to  be  accounted  for.  The 
extra  weight  acquired  in  sanatoria,  averaging  some 
three  pounds  in  men  and  ten  pounds  in  women,  was 
very  rapidly  lost  after  discharge;  improvement  in 
weight  over  longer  periods  exhibited  in  men  no  rela- 
tion and  in  women  only  a  slight  relation  with  the 
amount  of  sanatorium  or  dispensary  treatment  re- 

**7.  Having  made  every  possible  correction  for 
factors  likely  to  influence  progress,  the  correlation 
method  by  alternative  categories  indicates  that  for 
each  sex  sanatorium  treatment  as  contrasted  with 
other  forms  of  treatment  was  associated  to  a  signifi- 
cant degree  with  inferior  progress,  which  confirms  the 
results  of  the  other  methods  whilst  dispensing  with  the 


necessity  of  making  assumptions  whatever  about  the 
patients  lost  to  view. 

'^8,  In  further  confirmation,  the  correlation 
method  proved  the  absence  between  length  of  stay  at 
sanatorium  and  ultimate  progress,  but  indicated  an 
appreciable  relation  between  regularity  of  dispensary 
treatment  and  progress. 

*'9.  The  only  possible  explanation  which  sug- 
gests itself  is  that  the  depressing  psychological  effects 
of  a  long  period  of  enforced  idleness  in  the  company 
of  patients  similarly  afflicted  may  in  the  bulk  of  cases 
counteract  or  even  outweigh  such  benefit  as  may  arise 
from  other  factors,  and  that  the  continued  effort  to 
'carry  on'  at  home  may  help  in  itself  toward  the  mas- 
tery of  the  disease. 

'*10.  No  consistent  evidence  has  been  obtained 
from  this  research  that  bad  housing  conditions,  as 
judged  by  rent,  class  of  house,  state  of  cleanliness  of 
rooms,  or  overcrowding,  had  any  influence  on  the 
patient's  ultimate  progress  or  rate  of  recovery. 

*  *  11.  If  the  above  conclusions  are  sound  it  will  be 
well  to  consider  (a)  whether  the  great  inconvenience 
to  themselves  and  their  families  inflicted  upon  many 
cases  of  phthisis  by  sending  them  as  a  routine  pro- 
cedure for  long  periods  to  sanatoria  is  justified  by  the 
results;  (b)  whether  this  form  of  treatment  should  not 
be  reserved  for  those  in  whom  an  unusual  form  of  on- 
set (e.  g.  hagmoptysis)  has  made  a  very  early  diagnosis 
possible,  those  who  are  so  ill  as  to  require  hospital 
treatment,  or  those  whose  circumstances  demand  their 
removal  from  home." 

My  reason  for  setting  forth  in  such  detail  the  prob- 
lems of  prohibition  and  tuberculosis  is  partly,  of 
course,  the  great  biological  and  eugenical  importance 
of  the  subjects.  My  chief  motive  has  been,  however, 
to  emphasize  the  fact  that  we  are  living  in  an  age  of 


science.  We  have  the  instruments,  method  and  prod- 
ucts of  science  lying  all  about  us.  Science,  its  methods 
and  products,  constitute  the  most  insistent  portion  of 
the  environment  in  which  we  live.  This  is  a  new  fact 
in  human  history.  Yet  we  have  made  very  little  appeal 
to  the  methods  of  science,  indeed  have  in  many  re- 
spects defied  these  methods,  in  deciding  upon  such 
great  public  policies  as  the  treatment  of  tuberculosis 
and  the  treatment  of  the  problem  of  alcohol. 

All  men  admit  that  both  alcohol  and  tuberculosis 
are  immense  and  pressing  human  problems.  The  con- 
siderations I  have  advanced  neither  prove  nor  dis- 
prove that  the  policies  upon  which  we  have  embarked 
are  wrong.  But  I  believe  they  do  prove  that  if  these 
policies  are  right  it  is  a  mere  matter  of  good  fortune 
and  not  a  product  of  intelligent  social  and  political  en- 
gineering. And  my  appeal  is  that,  since  we  have  the 
methods  and  instruments  of  science  in  our  hands  it  is 
our  solemn  duty  to  make  use  of  them  in  deciding  upon 
all  social  measures.  It  matters  not  at  all  whether 
these  social  measures  be  the  management  of  alcohol 
or  tuberculosis  or  charity  or  social  welfare  generally, 
we  miss  the  greatest  possible  ethical  opportunity 
which  this  new  thing,  science,  offers  to  men  when  we 
do  not  use  its  ministrations  as  our  chief  instrumen- 
tality for  bringing  to  these  problems  an  effective  solu- 

It  may  be  these  instrumentalities  cannot  aid  us,  but 
they  are  at  least  worth  trying.  If  they  fail,  then  I 
know  of  nothing  else  to  try. 





As  I  see  the  present  situation,  there  are  three  great 
world  possibilities  which  lie  just  ahead  of  civilized 

The  first  possibility  is,  that  men  may  destroy  civil- 
ization on  the  battlefield  and  drown  it  in  blood.  In  the 
face  of  the  fact  that  there  are  in  Aiierica  alone  over 
thirty  peace  organizations  with  large  secretarial  forces 
engaged  day  and  night  in  pouring  out  a  flood  of  doc- 
mnents,  form  letters,  lectures,  petitions,  and  that  there 
are  crusades,  drives  for  funds  and  membership,  and 
concerted  offensives  to  force  Congress  to  forbid  all 
preparation  for  war;  in  face  of  the  fact  that  over 
thirty-seven  thousand  manuscripts,  many  of  them  of 
the  highest  theoretical  penetration,  were  recently  sub- 
mitted for  the  Edward  A.  Filene  prize  for  ^^The 
Best  Practical  Proposals  for  Kestoring  Peace  and 
Prosperity  .  .  .  Through  International  Coopera- 
tion;" in  the  face  of  the  League  of  Nations,  Locarno 
Pacts  and  numerous  other  immense  efforts  to  in- 
sure permanent  peace  on  the  globe;  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  efforts  of  this  kind  have  been  going  on 
for  a  hundred  years  and  the  world  was  assured 
by  many,  supposedly  penetrating,  thinkers  that  an- 
other war  was  impossible — we  find  that  war  has 
not  in  the  least  diminished  as  a  human  undertak- 
ing;— perhaps  we  would  be  justified  in  saying,  as  a 
human  sport.    Beyond  all  question,  as  the  new  psycho- 



biology  has  abundantly  demonstrated,  this  is  because 
war  is  fundamental  in  man's  natural  make-up,  and  as 
long  as  human  nature  remains  as  it  is,  carrying  along 
with  it  all  the  biological  baggage  which  it  accumulated 
in  the  jungle,  war  will  either  continue  or  else  can  only 
be  prevented  by  profound  education  of  the  individual 
and  the  utilization  of  the  highest  technical  intelligence 
in  the  science  of  government. 


In  an  able  book  just  oif  the  press  by  Mr.  John  Car- 
ter, entitled  Man  is  War,  he  gives  an  admirable 
summing  up  of  those  biological  trends  in  human  nature 
which  make  it  evident  that  war  is  just  as  natural  to 
man  as  peace ;  and  that  if  we  are  ever  to  have  a  world 
of  peace  we  must  either  change  human  nature  or  else 
we  must  give  a  power  and  influence  to  trained  tech- 
nical intelligence,  in  the  conduct  of  government,  which 
we  have  never  accorded  it  before.    Mr.  Carter  says : 


**The  war-scare-mongers  are  aided  by  the  horror- 
boys,  those  whose  profession  it  is  to  paint  the  terrors 
of  the  next  war — despite  protests  by  chemists  and 
scientists  that  their  data  are  absurd.  They  show  off 
the  super-gases,  the  super-planes,  the  bacteria  bombs, 
and  make  our  flesh  creep  with  pictures  of  whole  cities 
devastated  in  a  few  seconds.  Yet  comparative  casualty 
and  recovery  lists  show  that  the  greater  science  in  war 
the  fewer  the  number  of  deaths.  The  shell  spares  more 
lives  than  the  blade,  the  gas-attack  spares  more  lives 
than  the  shell.  Conversely,  the  supreme  horror  of 
modern  war  is  not  gas  or  bomb,  but  the  bayonet 


**The  effect  of  all  this  unabashed  and  unsound 
propaganda  is  not  so  much  to  convert  America  to  a 
holy  horror  of  war  as  to  confuse  the  public  and  lead  to 
muddled  thinking  in  international  matters.  *  War  is  so 
dreadful  that  another  war  is  unthinkable ;  another  war 
would  spell  the  downfall  of  civilization'  is  the  argu- 
ment. On  the  contrary,  others  wars  are  entirely 
thinkable,  some  are  now  in  progress,  and,  far  from 
being  the  downfall  of  civilization,  are  being  waged 
ostensibly  in  its  behalf.  Who  can  doubt  that,  if  the 
Turks  started  on  the  warpath  in  Iraq  or  the  Japanese 
in  the  Pacific,  the  world  would  be  informed  that  the 
future  of  civilization  depends  on  exterminating  the 
Turkish  or  Japanese  peoples?  Public  opinion  is  con- 
fused and  prevented  from  forming  clear  conceptions 
of  right  and  wrong,  of  cause  and  effect,  by  such  foolish 
dogmas.  War  is  dreadful,  certainly,  but  is  dreadful 
only  as  death  and  suffering  are  dreadful ;  and  hitherto 
no  idealist  has  preferred  his  life  to  his  ideal,  no  gentle- 
man has  preferred  dishonor  to  death,  no  nation  has 
preferred  slavery  to  extinction;  and  until  degeneracy 
becomes  a  virtue,  no  idealist,  gentleman  or  nation  will 
prefer  the  course  of  safety  in  such  dilemmas. 


^*  Appeals  to  pacifism,  tempered  with  realism  or 
distorted  with  emotion,  are  doubly  mischievous  because 
they  give  currency  to  an  utterly  unreal  picture  of  hu- 
man nature.  Man  is  a  compact  of  certain  instincts 
which  war  has  already  capitalized  as  peace  can  never 
do.  Chief  of  these  is  rhythm.  A  fascinating  book 
might  be  written  on  the  relation  of  rhythm  to  society : 
the  beat  of  the  seasons  and  the  years,  the  rhythm  of 
day  and  night,  of  sleeping  and  waking,  the  pull  of  the 
moon  on  the  tides  and  on  the  sexes,  the  beat  of  the 


heart,  the  rhythm  of  breathing,  every  organic  process 
associated  with  man — to  these  the  drum  has  an  unan- 
swerable appeal,  and  the  drum  is  the  symbol  of  Mars. 
Again,  the  instinct  for  preeminence,  the  desire  iOr 
distinction,  the  urge  of  vanity,  are  very  close  to  the 
heart  of  the  race.  The  uniform  sets  a  man  off  from  his 
fellows  (which  is  gratifying)  and  recommends  him  to 
the  favor  of  women  (which  is  even  more  gratifying). 
The  uniform  is  part  of  the  panoply  of  war.  Opposite 
to  the  instinct  of  vanity  is  the  instinct  to  follow  the 
moving  crowd,  to  keep  step — the  herd  instinct.  The 
sight  of  marching  regiments  is  a  powerful  and  subtle 
force  which  has  been  integrated  to  war.  And,  finally, 
there  is  the  flag,  the  totem,  the  primitive  rallying  point 
for  the  organized  crowd,  the  fetish  which,  from  the 
time  of  the  Eoman  eagles  to  the  Stars  and  Stripes,  is 
more  powerful  even  than  patriotism.  In  battle,  hillock, 
a  clump  of  trees,  a  village,  or  anything  distinguishable 
becomes  the  gage  of  prowess  and  calls  forth  insensate 
efforts  from  the  fighting  forces.  Civilization  has  har- 
nessed to  the  use  of  war  the  primitive  forces  which  are 
as  old  as  man :  rhytlim,  vanity,  herd  instinct  and  rally- 
ing instinct.  Their  symbols  are  the  fife  and  drum,  the 
uniform,  the  regiment  and  the  flag.  Against  these  the 
peace-mongers  storm  in  vain,  for  they  are  so  deep  in 
human  nature  that  they  can  never  be  eliminated. 

**But  beneath  these  lie  the  organic  qualities  of 
political  society,  which  link  it  with  the  amoeba.  These 
are  the  instincts  of  self-preservation,  self -perpetuation 
and  self-aggrandizement.  The  perpetuation  of  any 
society  is  entrusted  to  its  institutions — monarchy,  con- 
stitutions, democracy.  Fascism,  or  Bolshevism — ^which 
require  bloodshed,  violence  and  constant  vigilance  for 
their  creation  and  preservation.  Whenever  such  an 
organization  of  society  is  threatened  from  without,  it 
reacts  powerfully  and  characteristically  in  a  spasm  of 


self-defense  known  as  nationalism.  Nationalism  is 
therefore  only  a  symptom  of  political  adjustment,  not 
a  force  in  itself.  It  is  the  effort  of  a  political  society  to 
defend  itself  or  to  obtain  what  is  indispensable  to  its 
preservation.  The  third  and  most  active  principle  of 
international  life  is  the  form  of  aggrandizement  called 
imperialism.  This  represents  the  sum  of  the  appetites 
and  desires  which  prompt  the  individual  to  compete 
with  the  other  members  of  his  group.  When  the 
amoeba  is  brought  in  contact  with  its  food,  it  surrounds 
and  absorbs  that  food;  so  do  nations.  The  harsh  law 
of  nature  suggests  that  what  does  not  grow,  decays. 
Imperialism  is  a  vital  impulse  and  one  as  necessary  to 
the  greatest  nation  in  the  world  as  to  the  newsboy  on 
the  corner — for  in  expanding,  a  nation  is  obeying  the 
law  of  life. 

*^ Accordingly,  the  efforts  of  the  swarm  of  peace- 
enthusiasts  spawned  by  the  recent  years  of  misery  and 
turmoil  are  utterly  beside  the  point.  They  can  never 
outlaw  war,  for  war  is  the  first  rule  of  life.  When  they 
base  their  appeals  on  false  logic  or  mere  emotion  they 
are  an  actual  danger  to  the  world,  for  they  prevent  a 
sane  and  sober  consideration  of  the  true  nature  of  man 
and  the  possibility  of  adjusting  institutions  to  human 
nature.  The  most  casual  study  of  the  enormous  power 
and  general  appeal  of  the  greatest  single  force  for 
peace  in  the  world — the  Catholic  Church — shows  that 
its  success  is  due  to  the  fact  that  it  has  fitted  itself  to 
humanity  and  has  never  put  too  heavy  a  burden  on  the 
instincts  of  the  race.  Yet  Catholicism  has  never  pre- 
tended to  eliminate  all  war,  for  it  has  never  pretended 
that  it  considered  war — or  death — the  greatest  of 

**A  few  intelligent  groups  which  are  seriously  try- 
ing to  present  the  facts  to  the  world  are  submerged  by 
the  fawning  sentimentalists,  the  weepy  emotionalists 


and  the  professional  alarmists,  who  make  the  means 
ridiculous  and  the  effect  nil.  Until  peace  can  present 
a  stronger  appeal  to  human  and  national  instincts  than 
war,  it  is  little  use  for  Geneva  to  send  forth  its  ludi- 
crous apostles :  they  merely  befog  the  real  issue,  which 
is,  not  the  biological  necessity  for  war,  but  the  biolog- 
ical character  of  war.  The  springs  of  conflict  can  not 
be  eliminated  through  institutions,  but  through  reform 
of  the  individual  human  being,  and  that  is  a  task  which 
has  baffled  the  highest  theologians  for  two  thousand 

**The  heart  of  man  begot  the  Roman  legion  and  the 
Roman  law,  the  Christian  ethic  and  the  Spanish  Inqui- 
sition, the  instrument  of  commercial  credit  and  the 
practise  of  commercial  war.  Men  have  fathered  the 
theory  of  liberty,  equality,  fraternity,  the  guillotine 
and  the  cheka.  Man  has  created  the  frescoes  of  the 
Sistine  Chapel  and  mustard  gas.  For  everything  be- 
gotten of  man  shares  the  nature  of  man  and  is  as  apt  to 
destruction  as  to  creation. 

*  *  The  world  will  escape  the  blight  of  war  when  maa 
has  ceased  to  be  human.  The  world  will  find  peace 
when  man  is  extinct.    For  man  is  war. ' ' 

It  is  a  curious  thing  that,  notwithstanding  the 
masses  of  ^^ literature"  sent  out  by  our  numerous  peace 
societies,  no  examination  has  ever  been  made  of  the 
prime  question  as  to  whether  war  has  actually  dimin- 
ished in  frequency  and  duration  among  civilized  races. 
Among  his  numerous  researches  in  fields  of  eugenical 
interest,  F.  A.  Woods  has  also  examined  this  question 
in  his  book  entitled,  Is  War  Diminishing 9  The  author 
concludes,  after  submitting  the  problem  to  extended 
statistical  analysis,  that  war  has  not  decreased  meas- 
urably within  the  past  three  hundred  years.  This  is  an 
important  fact  which  our  peace  societies  have  entirely 
overlooked  and  which  strongly  indicates  that,  despite 


all  our  efforts  and  desires  and  our  increasing  horror  at 
the  very  thought  of  war,  it  is  unlikely  that  such  an  age- 
old-habit  of  man  is  going  to  come  suddenly  to  an  end. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  people  are  often  astonished 
that  the  increasing  horror  of  war  and  the  undoubted 
increase  of  humanitarianism  during  the  past  three 
hundred  years  have  not  automatically  brought  war  to 
an  end.  They  overlook  the  fact  that  the  humane  in- 
stincts are  quite  easily  transformed  overnight  into  war 
virtues  under  the  influence  of  national  wrath  and 
excitement.  During  the  World  War,  everyone  will 
remember  that  the  worst  enemies  suddenly  became 
friends  and  stood  shoulder  to  shoulder  in  what  they 
believed  was  a  noble  crusade  to  make  the  world  safe 
for  something  or  other,  no  matter  what.  Neighborhood 
quarrels,  some  of  which  had  lasted  for  a  generation, 
were  transmuted  into  a  passion  of  mutual  helpfulness. 

This  matter  is  so  important  and  is  so  constantly 
overlooked  by  all  societies  working  for  peace  that  I  feel 
constrained  to  give  the  essence  of  a  letter  from  my 
friend.  Woods,  with  whom  I  have  recently  been  in  cor- 
respondence upon  this  very  subject.  He  says:  *^The 
willingness  to  respond  to  the  appeal  of  battle  is  itself 
a  virtue.  Nature  has  made  the  ideally  moral  man. 
peaceful  in  times  of  peace  but  warlike  in  times  of  war. 
The  chief  virtues  of  the  average  man  spring  from  his 
desires  to  be  helpful.  Take  as  an  instance  the  willing- 
ness of  any  chance  stranger  to  stop  and  direct  you 
when  you  have  lost  your  way.  If  an  accident  has  taken 
place,  anyone  and  everyone  is  ready  to  lend  a  hand. 
In  the  same  way  in  times  of  war,  this  instinct  to  be 
helpful  to  the  group  is  of  immense  importance.  No 
race  could  survive  without  it.  A  man  instinctively 
renders  help  to  his  side  of  the  fight  and  is  very  proud 
and  happy  if  his  services  are  especially  noted. 

**For  these  reasons  we  cannot  expect  that  the  in- 


crease  of  sjnnpatliy,  which  has  doubtless  taken  place 
since  the  days  of  the  Crusades  and  the  Inquisition,  can 
lead  to  restraining  nations  from  going  to  war.  In 
time  of  peace,  this  sympathy  and  charity  extends  to  "^11 
parts  of  the  world.  We  readily  give  money  to  help  the 
sick  in  Africa  or  China.  But  just  before  wars  are 
declared,  there  is  no  longer  any  sympathy  towards  the 
hated  nation.  Sympathy  and  altruism  are  still  at  work, 
but  their  activities  are  confined  within  their  own 

'* Sympathy,  a  peace  virtue,  is  also  a  war  virtue.'* 
Consequently,  while  we  may  desire  peace  and  use 
all  our  efforts  and  intelligence  to  secure  it,  yet  we  must 
recognize  that  man  is  so  little  a  rational  being  and  so 
much  an  animal  being  that  at  any  time  the  world  pos- 
sibility of  war  must  be  reckoned  with  by  all  intelligent 


The  second  world  possibility  which  lies  ahead  is 
that  men  may  go  through  a  long  period  of  social,  eco- 
nomic and  political  muddling,  without  any  very  clear 
idea  as  to  what  they  want  or  where  they  are  going,  or 
what  they  would  do  if  they  got  what  they  think  they 
want  or  got  where  they  think  they  want  to  go,  and  with 
hell,  as  I  have  already  pointed  out,  always  waiting  to 
break  loose  just  around  the  next  corner.  This  is  too 
obviously  the  situation  in  which  we  find  ourselves  to- 
day to  need  further  comment. 


The  third  world  possibility  is  that  men  may  apply 
human  intelligence  to  human  affairs.  This  is  the  only 
thing  that  has  never  been  tried.    If  permanent  world 


stability  and  progress  are  to  be  anything  more  than  an 
idle  dream,  either  men  must  train  more  highly  the  intel- 
ligence they  now  have,  discover  more  of  it  to  train, 
and  give  it  more  power  and  influence  than  they  have  so 
far  done,  or  else  they  must  institute  a  eugenical  social 
order  which  will  of  itself  breed  a  larger  proportion  of 
intelligent  and  socially-minded,  naturally  ei\dlized 
persons.  Indeed,  I  think  that  the  discovery  of  more 
and  more  intelligence  and  its  better  education  is  the 
prime  condition  for  the  breeding  of  more  intelligence. 
In  short,  the  highest  education  of  the  best  people  is,  I 
think,  the  only  way  to  breed  better  people;  and  the 
breeding  of  a  larger  and  larger  number  of  better  and 
better  people  is  the  only  way  to  make  a  permanently 
better  world. 


If  men  should  conclude  to  undertake  the  last  named 
of  the  three  possible  world  programs — that  is,  if  they 
should  agree  to  put  intelligence  in  the  human  saddle 
and  give  it  the  bit  and  rein ;  if  they  should  conclude  to 
call  the  trained  intelligence  from  our  schools  and  uni- 
versities and  put  it  in  charge  of  all  the  agencies  of 
social  control ;  in  short,  if  men  should  conclude  to  take 
politics  out  of  politics  and  put  them  into  the  hands  of 
trained  technical  social  engineers  (the  policy  I  have 
already  urged  with  reference  to  prohibition  and  char- 
ity" and  the  policy  which  is  now  to  a  considerable  extent 
guiding  our  measures  of  public  health  and  the  stamping 
out  of  tuberculosis  and  other  infectious  diseases),  then 
there  are  four  men  who  cannot  aid  the  world  in  such  au 
undertaking  and  just  one  who  can.  To  find  that  one 
man,  to  train  him,  to  infuse  him  with  the  new  scientific 
social  spirit  and  to  elevate  him  to  power  and  respon- 
sibility, is  the  one  hope  of  the  world. 



The  first  man  who  cannot  aid  ns  in  the  hour  of 
reconstruction  and  social  fulfillment  which  I  earnesMy 
believe  does  lie  ahead  is  the  optimist.  This  does  not 
mean  that  men  should  not  look  at  life  and  face  its  trag- 
edies and  dilemmas  with  cheerfulness,  hope  and  cour- 
age. Without  these  sources  of  spiritual  renewal  men 
cannot  face  life  at  all.  Cheerfulness,  hope  and  courage 
are  the  things  which  make  the  world  go  round.  They 
change  things,  they  change  life,  they  change  destiny. 
They  transform  hopeless  tragedy  into  dignity,  and 
they  give  the  daily  grind  of  life  a  robust  and  salutary 

But  the  professional  economic  and  political  optim- 
ist who  infests  our  time  is  a  man  who  believes  that  silk 
purses  can  be  made  out  of  sows'  ears  by  deep  breath- 
ing, ^^ harmonic  thinking''  and  voluble  eruptions  of  the 
glad  philosophy.  He  is  not  a  man  of  real  hope  or  real 
courage.  His  ostentatious  cheerfulness  is  a  defense 
mechanism  to  bolster  up  his  own  cowardice  and  his 
ignorance  of  any  intelligent  course  of  action.  He 
thrusts  his  pestiferous  formulas  of  sentimental  nebu- 
losity into  the  hard,  practical  affairs  of  men,  as  an 
actual  solution  of  the  problems  they  are  wrestling  with. 
He  substitutes  the  pomposity  of  his  own  shallowness 
and  asininity  for  true  social  courage  and  political  in- 
sight. He  believes  that  by  repeating  some  phantasma- 
gorical  incantation  to  the  effect  that  **  every  day  in 
every  way  the  world  is  getting  better  and  better, ' '  this 
will  in  and  of  itself  make  it  better  and  be  an  ample 
substitute  for  intelligent  inquiry  and  authentic  social 

This  type  of  temperament  is  rampant  in  this 
age  as  never  before  in  human  history;  it  is  the 
underlying  spirit  of  vast  organizations  backed  by  huge 


sums  of  money,  and  it  is  one  of  the  very  chief  est  obsta- 
cles to  the  progress  of  men  to  rational  social  control. 


The  second  most  useless  man  in  the  world  is  the 
pessimist.  The  pessimist  is  not  necessarily  the  oppo- 
site of  the  optimist ;  he  is  rather  a  man  who  is  trying  to 
find  optimism  in  despair  and  gain  courage  by  a  total 
abandonment  of  effort.  This  appears  to  him  as  a  solu- 
tion, and  just  to  that  extent  it  gives  him  the  sense  of 
having  done  something,  having  taken  a  stand,  and  that 
sense  of  psychological  relief  which  all  men  seek  when 
under  the  strain  and  pressure  of  difficulties.  All  men 
want  solutions  of  their  dilemmas.  By  the  very  nature 
of  the  mind,  it  is  under  stress  in  the  presence  of  an 
unsolved  problem.  The  optimist  gets  his  relief  from 
this  stretch  and  pull  of  his  emotions  by  the  gay  an- 
nouncement to  himself  and  the  world  that  things  could 
not  be  better.  The  pessimist  gets  his  mental  relief  by 
an  equally  fantastic  announcement  that  things  could 
not  be  worse.  Both  get  comfort  by  these  mental  escape- 
devices.  The  pessimist  is  a  man  who  when  he  has  to 
choose  between  two  evils  winds  up  by  choosing  both. 
As  one  writer  has  suggested,  he  would  even  commit 
suicide  if  he  could  do  it  without  killing  himself.  He 
swallows,  so  to  speak,  both  horns  of  the  dilemma,  and 
trusts  **what  gods  may  be''  to  save  him  from  indi- 

Both  the  optimist  and  the  pessimist  live  in  imag- 
inary worlds,  worlds  of  wish-fancies  and  defense 
mechanisms.  They  cannot  help  this  world,  because 
they  do  not  live  in  it. 


The  third  most  useless  man  is  the  conservative.  A 
conservative  is   a  man  who  **  believes  that  nothing 


should  ever  be  done  for  the  first  time. "  It  is  all  very 
well  if  an  earthquake  breaks  loose  and  does  it  once ;  it 
then  becomes  ^^ precedent,"  a  part  of  the  status  quo. 
The  conservative  puts  his  money  into  earthquakes,  and 
they  then  become  ^'vested  interests,''  ^Hhe  sacred 
rights  of  property."  For  example,  men  always  have 
put  their  money  into  arms,  munition  plants  and  other 
forms  of  scientific  hell  in  order  to  make  money;  they 
always  have  employed  women  and  children  without 
reference  to  their  health  or  development.  The  word 
^^ always,"  to  the  conservative,  makes  just,  right  and 
wise  this  or  anything  else  that  has  been  ^* always." 
Congress  has  always  debated  until  the  country  was 
both  worn  out  and  bewildered,  and  then  has  voted  on 
the  emasculated  outcome.  Therefore,  to  vote  first  and 
debate  afterwards,  which  in  many  cases  would  bring 
just  as  Avise  results,  would  be  ''hasty,  ill-considered 
action. "  If  a  dozen  men  of  heart,  conscience  and  high 
ability,  trained  to  the  last  degree  in  the  modern  science 
of  statistics,  men  such  as  Edward  L.  Thorndike,  Ray- 
mond Pearl,  S.  J.  Holmes,  Carl  E.  Seashore,  Edward 
M.  East,  F.  A.  "Woods,  Truman  L.  Kelley,  Lewis  M. 
Terman  were  elected  to  Congress  and  their  methods 
put  into  effect — methods  which  involve  no  debate  but 
only  cold-blooded  analytical  inquiry  into  the  facts — it 
would  reduce  the  Congressional  Record  from  a  set  of 
volumes  which  now  have  to  be  shipped  in  a  freight  car 
to  one  volume  which  could  be  carried  in  the  voter 's  vest 
pocket.  It  would  also,  instead  of  bewildering  his  mind, 
chart  out  for  him  a  clear  course  of  political  action. 
Your  true  conservative  is  a  perfect  illustration  of  the 
famous  remark  of  the  Yale  professor  who  said,  "The 
more  I  see  of  my  classes  the  more  I  marvel  at  the  infi- 
nite capacity  of  the  human  mind  to  resist  the  introduc- 
tion of  knowledge."  Consequently,  the  conservative 
will  never  illuminate  the  world  with  a  new  freedom. 



The  fourth  most  useless  man  in  the  world  is  the 
radical.  The  radical  is  a  man  who  believes  that  noth- 
ing should  ever  be  done  except  for  the  first  time.  That 
first  time  is  when  his  particular  little  pet  panacea  is 
put  into  effect — and  that  is  all  we  shall  need,  because 
straightway  the  world  will  be  ushered  into  an  abrupt 
millennium.  He  overlooks  the  fact  that  while  revolu- 
tions have  always  advertised  this  as  the  denouement  of 
their  hand-made  dramas,  the  results  have  never  come 
up  to  the  advertising. 

The  radical  is  always  a  thoroughgoing  class  man. 
He  thinks  he  is  a  universal  man  equipped  with  an  all- 
pervasive  social  philosophy.  He  advertises  that  when 
his  class  gets  into  power  there  will  at  once  be  some- 
thing new ;  namely,  progress.  But  whenever  the  radical 
has  succeeded  the  instruments  of  progress,  such  as 
culture,  education,  liberty,  poetry,  beauty,  have  nearly 
all  been  destroyed.  Men  have  had  to  make  a  new  start. 
Throughout  all  history,  whenever  radicalism  has  suc- 
ceeded, the  people  for  whose  comfort,  liberty,  protec- 
tion, wealth  and  leisure  the  radical  program  was 
instituted,  according  to  claim,  have  suddenly  found 
that  the  limb  has  been  sawed  off  between  them  and  the 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  progress  is  increase  in  wisdom, 
and  revolutions  never  increase  wisdom  nor  the  number 
of  wise  men  called  into  power.  Wisdom  comes  from 
but  one  place — wise  men's  heads.  Revolutions  never 
increase  the  number  of  such  heads,  nor  do  they  place 
any  larger  number  of  them  in  social  control.  Whether 
democracy  shall  succeed  or  fail  depends  upon  whether 
it  will  be  able  to  teach  men  how  to  find  wise  heads,  and 
whether  it  can  teach  men,  when  such  heads  are  found, 
to  learn  from  them  and  trust  them.    The  radical  can 


aid  very  little  in  discovering  wisdom  or  in  utilizing  it 
in  social  and  political  processes. 


Since  none  of  these  men  can  materially  aid  us  in 
applying  that  sort  of  intelligence  to  our  social  order 
which  will  result  not  only  in  improving  men's  con- 
ditions but  in  improving  men's  inborn  health  and 
character — the  final  test  of  all  human  intelligence — 
who  is  the  man  who  shall  aid  us  to  a  sound  social  phil- 
osophy and  execute  political  wisdom?  I  think  it  is 
evident  that  it  is  the  new  liberal.  And  the  new  liberal 
is  simply  the  old  liberal  with  his  passions  for  human 
betterment  gone  to  school  to  the  new  science  and 
trained  in  the  new  social  and  political  technique. 

Certainly,  the  old  liberal  is  entitled  to  our  deepest 
respect.  He  has  had  a  long  and  heroic  history.  When 
the  Renaissance  was  in  its  heyday,  it  looked  for  a  time 
as  though  the  new  liberal  had  really  come  upon  the 
stage,  and  a  thoroughgoing  pagan  in  religion,  a  free 
spirit  in  ethics  and  art,  an  unfettered  intelligence  in 
philosophy,  an  experimenter  in  science  and  an  aristo- 
democrat  in  politics,  had  come  upon  the  world  stage. 
But  as  this  Renaissance  of  free  intelligence  in  Italy 
swept  northward  and  there  gradually  became  trans- 
formed into  the  religious  Reformation,  it  took  on  many 
new  aspects,  out  of  which,  under  the  brilliant  and 
rhapsodical  inspiration  of  Rousseau  in  the  latter  half 
of  the  eighteenth  century,  the  old  liberal  finally 

Liberalism  in  any  form  was  not  the  intention  of 
the  Reformation.  Far  from  it,  but  the  one  hundred 
and  fifty  years  of  blood  into  which  it  plunged  Europe 
finally  came  to  this  strange  and  unexpected  outcome. 



And  according  to  my  friend,  Everett  Dean  Martin, 
the  philosopher,  of  Cooper  Union,  New  York,  who  has 
surveyed  this  period  and  has  traced  the  development 
of  its  ideas  with  keen  penetration,  Eousseau  and  his 
philosophy  developed  five  great  ideas  which  even  to- 
day are  the  Bible  of  the  old  liberalism.  The  five  ideas 
of  Rousseau  are : 

First :        The  nobility,  goodness  and  perfectibility 
of  man 

Second:     The   goodness   and   kindliness    of  what 

Rousseau  was  the  first  to  call  ^^  Mother 

Third:       The  inevitability  of  progress 
Fourth :     The  equality  of  men 
Fifth:         The  almightiness  of  the  environment  in 

determining  the  character,  happiness  and 

achievements  of  men. 

In  every  one  of  these  ideas,  Rousseau  and  the  old 
liberal  were  wrong.  It  is  a  curious  thing  that  some- 
times a  principle  wrong  in  the  abstract  will  secure 
advantages  for  men  in  concrete  ways.  Under  the 
inspiration  of  these  wrong  conceptions  the  old  liberal 
has  to  a  large  extent  freed  men's  mind  from  dogmatic 
theology,  from  political  authority  in  religion,  and  from 
the  ^'divine  right"  of  kings.  They  next  secured  a 
number  of  the  so-called  ''rights  of  man,''  such  as  free 
education  for  the  masses,  universal  suffrage,  the  right 
to  the  free  pursuit  of  happiness,  and  the  right  to  make 
all  the  laws  he  pleased.  This  last-named  privilege  has 
been  indulged  in  with  such  reckless  gaiety  that  a  child 
born  in  the  United  States  in  this  year  of  Our  Lord 


1927,  finds  himself  confronted  by  an  array  of  over  two 
million  laws  and  ordinances  for  the  good  of  his  soul 
and  the  guidance  of  his  conduct.  All  of  these  the 
stupidest  man  is  supposed  to  have  at  his  tongue 's  end 
and  be  ready  to  obey  at  a  moment's  notice.  Some 
twenty  thousand  new  laws  and  regulations  passed  by 
our  state  and  national  governments  are  every  year 
added  to  this  brief  code  of  human  conduct.  Whether 
this  has  really  added  to  the  rights  of  man  and  the  free 
pursuit  of  happiness,  or  whether  it  has  only  set  up  a 
more  detailed  tyranny,  is  a  profound  question. 

As  to  the  actual,  concrete  truth  of  the  five  great 
beliefs  of  the  old  liberal,  the  march  of  modern  science 
has  not  left  them  a  leg  to  stand  on.  They  are  all  wrong. 
Yet  when  we  hear  radical  and  so  called  ** progressive'' 
parties  announcing  their  platforms  they  are  practically 
always  talking  in  the  obsolete  language,  scientifically 
speaking,  of  eighteenth  century  liberalism.  Let  us  con- 
sider them  for  a  moment : 

First,  men  are  not  by  nature  just,  wise  and  good. 
Some  are  good,  some  are  bad,  and  some  are  indifferent ; 
some  are  intelligent,  some  are  mediocre  and  some  are 
stupid.  For  this  reason  the  masses,  if  merely  given 
political  freedom  and  a  vote,  will  not,  as  the  old  liberal 
believed  they  would,  necessarily  rule  themselves  with 
sanity  and  intelligence.  Without  a  new  education,  a 
new  trust  in  leadership,  a  new  reverence  for  superi- 
ority, a  new  application  of  the  technical  methods  of 
science  to  their  social  and  political  affairs,  they  will 
not,  because  they  cannot,  rule  themselves  wisely  and 

Second,  there  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  in  all  the 
discoveries  of  modern  science  that  ** Mother  Nature" 
has  the  slightest  interest  in  mothering  anybody.  Na- 
ture is  neither  good  nor  bad,  neither  friendly  nor  un- 
friendly.   Eain  falls  on  the  just  and  the  unjust  without 


the  least  favoritism.  Death  steals  upon  the  innocent 
babe  in  its  cradle  with  as  little  mercy  as  it  does  upon 
the  murderer  on  his  way  to  his  crime.  Science  is  un- 
able to  discover  the  slightest  "goodness"  in  the 
universe  or  any  concern  for  the  welfare  of  men.  Men 
attain  goodness  and  welfare  only  to  the  degree  to 
which  they  obey  nature's  laws. 

It  is  for  this  reason,  and  for  this  reason  alone,  that 
men  could  not  be  moral — that  is,  intelligently  right- 
eous— until  science  taught  them  how,  until  science 
taught  them  the  laws  of  nature  and  how,  intelligently, 
to  obey  them.  But  the  notion  of  the  eighteenth  century 
liberals,  that  Nature  had  up  her  sleeve  a  kind-hearted 
"purpose"  to  develop  men  in  character  and  to  provide 
them  with  a  social  and  political  state  that  would  be  a 
near-heaven,  and  perhaps  even  surpass  such  near- 
heaven  in  some  of  its  appointments,  has  not  received 
the  remotest  support  from  the  laboratory  revelations 
of  the  past  hundred  years. 


Third,  progress  is  not  in  the  least  inevitable,  unless 
it  be  in  a  much  profounder  biological  and  evolutionary 
sense  than  Rousseau  and  the  old  liberals  ever  dreamed 
of.  There  may  be  a  true  biological  and  evolutionary 
progress  going  on,  but  this  is  not  what  Rousseau  and 
his  followers  meant.  I  shall  arg*ue,  in  the  concluding 
section  of  this  book,  the  question  as  to  whether  there  is 
an  inevitable  organic  progress  going  on  in  man's 
physical,  moral  and  mental  constitution.  Indeed,  it  is 
in  order  to  ask  and  to  try  to  answer  this  question  with 
real  biological  evidence  that  this  essay  is  written. 

But  that  there  is  a  grand,  all-embracing  principle  of 
social  and  political  progress  which  will  gradually  bring 
our  social  order  to  "perfection";  that  there  is  some 


sort  of  a  social  or  political  pull  ahead  or  a  spiritual 
push  behind  man  that  is  automatically  carrying  him  on 
to  an  ideal  republic,  is  not  borne  out  by  anything  we 
know  about  human  nature  or  human  history.  Inde^, 
the  very  progress  or  at  least  the  apparent  progress 
amid  which  Rousseau,  Voltaire,  Hume  and  their  great 
liberal  confreres  lived  has  been  shown  by  Woods  in  his 
Influence  of  Monarchs  to  have  been  due  in  the  main 
not  to  some  grandiloquent  principle  of  progress,  but  to 
the  germ-cells  from  which  the  kings  of  western  Europe 
for  four  or  five  hundred  years  were  born.  Woods 
shows,  by  more  exact  and  fruitful  methods  than  have 
been  used  in  any  other  historical  work  with  which  I  am 
acquainted,  that  when  the  king  was  born  from  a  good 
germ-cell,  when  he  had  sprung  from  a  good  family 
stock  and  consequently  had  inherited  high  abilities  as  a 
leader  in  war  and  government,  progress  in  the  ma- 
jority of  cases  accompanied  this  purely  biological 
phenomenon.  And  when  the  king  chanced  to  be  born 
from  a  germ-cell  containing  very  few  of  those  chemical 
packages  which  had  the  power  to  develop  into  high 
abilities  for  war  and  administration,  then,  in  a  ma- 
jority of  cases,  hard  times  immediately  fell  upon  the 
people,  and  progress,  in  the  old  liberal  sense,  came  to  a 
sudden  conclusion. 

Let  us  for  a  moment  contrast  the  old  liberaPs 
mystical  notion  of  progress  with  the  simple  fact  found 
by  Woods  that  with  three  hundred  fifty-four  rulers  in 
fourteen  different  countries  of  Europe  during  the 
past  ^\e  hundred  to  eight  hundred  years,  the  favor- 
able conditions  of  the  people — that  is,  those  economic 
and  cultural  conditions  commonly  termed  progress — 
were  in  seventy  per  cent,  of  the  actual  cases  identical 
with  the  personal  ability  and  character  of  the  sov- 

Let  the  reader  who  is  honestly  searching  for  the 


true  causes  of  social  progress  and  for  methods  of  in- 
vestigation that  bear  any  hope  of  revealing  these 
causes  contrast  the  mystical  musings  of  such  men  as 
Eousseau  in  the  eighteenth  century  and  Oswald  Spen- 
gler  in  the  twentieth,  and  much  of  the  merely  descrip- 
tive theories  of  most  of  our  cultural  anthropologists  as 
to  how  the  elements  of  culture  are  created,  utilized  and 
carried  on,  with  the  modest  statement  of  Woods,  based 
upon  sound  mathematical  inquiry  into  the  causes  of 
these  phenomena.  After  surveying  and  tabulating  the 
personal  abilities  of  all  of  the  kings  in  fourteen  differ- 
ent countries  of  modern  Europe  and  comparing  them 
with  the  social  and  economic  conditions,  Woods  says: 

^^A  summarized  statement  of  the  results,  in  terms 
of  percentages,  would  be :  Strong,  mediocre  and  weak 
monarchs  are  associated  with  strong,  mediocre  and 
weak  periods,  respectively,  in  about  seventy  per  cent, 
of  the  cases.  Strong  monarchs  are  associated  with 
weak  periods,  and  weak  monarchs  (including  non- 
royal  regents)  with  strong  periods  in  about  ten  per 
cent,  of  the  cases.  In  about  twenty  per  cent,  of  the 
cases  mediocre  monarchs  are  associated  with  strong 
or  weak  periods,  or  mediocre  periods  are  associated 
with  strong  or  with  weak  monarchs." 

I  shall  return,  in  the  concluding  section,  to  a  further 
discussion  of  this  problem  of  the  significance  of  leader- 
ship, not  only  as  the  chief  element  in  social  progress 
but  also  as  the  chief  element  in  biological  progress  and 
as  the  prime  agency  in  bringing  about  the  next  age  of 
man.  But  I  think  the  few  but  significant  facts  sub- 
mitted above  are  sufficient  proof  that  man  cannot 
depend  upon  riding  into  the  Golden  Age  of  peace, 
plenty  and  pleasure,  which  is  the  usual  conception  of 
progress,  upon  some  hypothetical  principle  of  neces- 
sary evolution. 

The  fourth  idea  of  Rousseau  and  the  old  liberals — 


namely,  the  conception  of  the  equality  of  man — is  too 
grotesque  to  need  extended  discussion.  The  thing 
which  modern  laboratory  methods  of  measuring  the 
physique,  the  intelligence  and  the  moral  and  emotioitkl 
trends  of  men  has  revealed  is  not  that  men  differ  from 
one  another,  but  the  astonishing  degree  in  which  they 
differ.  Dean  Carl  E.  Seashore  of  the  Graduate  School 
of  Iowa  University  has  for  years  been  measuring  the 
differences  in  the  native  musical  endowment  of  a  large 
number  of  persons.  He  finds  that  of  some  elements  of 
inborn  musical  ability  some  persons  have  two  hundred 
times  as  much  as  others.  Intelligence  tests,  now  run- 
ning into  the  millions,  show  that  very  much  the  same 
facts  are  true  of  man 's  whole  intellect  and  personality. 
Consequently,  any  hypothesis  of  the  equality  of  men  or 
that  they  can  be  made  equal,  in  talents,  beauty,  health, 
social  graces,  longevity  or  political  capacity,  by  some 
environmental  necromancy,  has  no  support  in  modern 
science.  Educational  psychology  is  rapidly  discover- 
ing that  recognition  of  these  enormous  individual  dif- 
ferences, and  provision  for  the  training  of  what  a  man 
has  in  him  instead  of  some  mystical  notion  as  to  what 
he  ought  to  have  in  him,  are  the  chief  objective  of  edu- 
cation. As  Dr.  David  A.  Mitchell,  the  clinical  psychol- 
ogist, defines  it,  *Hhe  aim  of  education  is  not  so  much 
the  development  of  special  skill  as  it  is  to  give  a  man  a 
clear  understanding  of  his  abilities  and  a  just  appre- 
ciation of  his  limitations. ' ' 

When  we  come  to  see  that  men  cannot  be  happy  or 
effective  until  their  individual  traits  and  abilities  are 
provided  for,  we  shall  have  made  a  real  start  towards 
building  an  industrial  and  political  society  for  men. 
We  shall  then  abandon  the  old  liberal's  conception  of 
a  benevolent  social  order — some  Arcadian  peace- 
plenty-and-pleasure-society — under  the  benignant  su- 
pervision of  some  compassionate  Mother  Nature  con- 
structed for  a  hypothetical  man. 


Coining  lastly  to  Rousseau's  fifth  conception,  all 
men  of  the  eighteenth  and  the  first  half  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  believed  that  men  were  the  products  of 
environment,  and  most  men  believe  it  yet.  They  did  not 
stop  to  inquire  how  this  environment  ever  arose.  It 
seems  that  it  would  have  occurred  to  some  of  them  that 
human  nature  had  had  something  to  do  with  creating 
human  surroundings.  If  human  nature  has  any  power 
within  itself  to  choose  between  alternatives — that  is, 
choose  between  this  act  or  that,  choose  to  take  advan- 
tage of  this  feature  or  that  in  surroundings  and  events 
and  reject  others — then  the  resulting  environment 
must  be  due,  to  a  considerable  extent,  to  what  these 
choices  have  made  it.  If  this  be  at  all  true,  then  men 
are  not  the  products  of  their  environment,  but  to  just 
that  extent  the  environment  is  the  product  of  men. 


It  would  require  not  one  volume  but  many  to  argue 
to  any  decisive  conclusion  the  complex  problem  of 
heredity  and  environment.  It  is  at  once  probably  the 
most  complex  and  most  important  problem  that  has 
ever  confronted  human  intelligence.  As  a  contribu- 
tion to  the  subject,  Dr.  Arthur  Estabrook,  of  the 
Carnegie  Institution,  has  for  some  years  been  studying 
in  detail  the  families  and  communities  made  up  from 
the  stocks  which  first  settled  Old  Virginia,  as  they 
have  left  this  area  and  during  the  past  three  centuries 
have  migrated  westward.  The  net  conclusions  of  his 
study,  presented  in  a  most  interesting  paper  at  a  recent 
meeting  of  the  American  Eugenics  Research  Associa- 
tion, strongly  supported  the  thesis  that  it  is  blood 
which  makes  and  seeks  environment  much  more  than 
environment  produces  blood  and  character.  By  trac- 
ing particular  families  as  they  and  their  descendants 


migrated  on  and  on,  over  mountain  and  valley  and 
plain,  building  community  after  community,  he  finds 
that  the  able  and  energetic  individuals,  as  measured 
by  their  achievements,  wealth  and  social  influence, 
are  the  ones  that  are  constantly  found  on  the  fringe  of 
the  frontier.  He  finds  that  certain  families  have  fur- 
nished far  the  larger  share  of  these  energetic  individ- 
uals. In  every  community  a  few  of  the  older  ones 
remained  and  stamped  their  character  unmistakably 
on  the  social  life  and  institutions  in  which  they  live. 
The  younger  members  of  these  same  families  move  on, 
and  out  of  the  wilderness  constantly  carve  a  career  for 
themselves  and  create  an  environment  which  is  the 
reflection  of  their  own  natural  characteristics.  He 
also  finds  that  the  weaker  and  more  stupid  families 
have  thrived  under  the  protection  of  the  strong  and 
able  and  have  been  a  drag  on  every  community  into 
which  their  thriftless  stocks  have  thrust  themselves. 

While  such  a  study  is,  as  Doctor  Estabrook  himself 
suggests,  not  as  critical  as  we  should  desire,  yet  it  is 
critical  enough  to  throw  the  burden  of  proof  to  the 
contrary  upon  those  who  maintain  that  human  cultures 
and  environments  are  not  the  creation  of  men's  own 
natures  but  that  they  create  men's  natures  and  make 
man  what  he  is.  If  it  is  environment  which  causes 
the  intelligence  and  character  of  men  to  be  what  they 
are,  then  there  is  no  object  in  using  this  intelligence 
and  character  to  make  men  better,  and,  indeed,  there  Is 
no  power  in  man  to  do  this.  There  is  no  use  in  appeal- 
ing to  men  to  better  their  environment  if  they  are 
themselves  the  products  of  that  environment.  You 
are  plainly  appealing  to  a  power  which  does  not  exist; 
namely,  an  inborn  capacity  to  build  and  choose  en- 

As  I  have  said,  the  argument  could  be  carried  on 
through  this  volume  and  many  others;  but  these  few 


facts  certainly  suggest  that  any  environmental 
interpretation  of  history,  such  as  the  economic  inter- 
pretation of  Karl  Marx,  the  geographical  and  topo- 
graphical interpretation  of  Buckle,  the  metaphysi- 
cal interpretation  of  Hegel  and  the  like,  is  fraught 
with  grave  difficulties.  But  it  was  this  extreme  en- 
vironmental view  of  life  and  history  which  led  the 
old  liberal  into  the  belief  that  the  ills  of  man  flow 
almost  entirely  from  the  ills  of  society,  and  he  believed 
he  could  remedy  all  this  by  the  simple  legerdemain  of 
giving  every  man  a  vote.  He  failed  to  see  the  com- 
plete logical  contradiction  between  the  notion  that  men 
could  remedy  all  their  discomforts  and  misfortunes  by 
voting  their  own  environment  upon  themselves  and 
the  notion  that  there  was  an  inherent,  evolving  social 
principle  which,  if  let  alone,  would  carry  men  into  the 
millennium.  If  this  evolving  principle,  which  in  time 
is  going  to  make  us  all  healthy,  wealthy  and  wise,  can 
be  depended  on,  then  there  is  no  need  of  our  doing 
anything  about  it.  But  if  it  will  not  operate  of  itself, 
then  it  is  useless  to  build  our  social  hopes  upon  a  piece 
of  machinery  which,  however  ingenious  and  intricate, 
has  the  annoying  (but,  to  the  inventors,  entirely  negli- 
gible) defect  common  to  all  perpetual  motion  ma- 
chines, namely,  that  they  won't  work.  The  main  body 
of  modern  biology  and  psychology  does  not,  to  any 
considerable  extent,  support  the  theory  that  a  mere 
change  in  social  machinery  will  directly  in  and  of  itself 
remedy  the  defects  and  the  misfortunes  of  men.  Such 
changes  will  help  greatly  to  make  men  happier  and 
more  effective,  because,  as  we  have  seen,  the  changes 
in  social  conditions  brought  about  by  different  sover- 
eigns throughout  the  history  of  modern  Europe  have 
done  this  very  thing.  But  we  should  reflect  that  even 
here  these  changes  have  been  brought  about  by  a 
definite  and  clearly  definable  change  in  the  inborn 


natures  of  part  of  the  people;  that  is,  a  change  in  the 
inborn  capacities  of  the  sovereigns. 


Certainly,  these  considerations  at  least  strongly 
indicate  that  the  notion  that  a  vote  would  confer  upon 
the  masses  of  men  some  miraculous  political  wisdom 
they  did  not  possess  before  and  also  inspire  them  with 
a  mad  passion  for  political  education  is  not  justified 
by  what  the  critical  investigations  of  modern  science 
have  been  able  to  find  out  about  the  human  mind  and 
emotions;  and,  certainly,  the  notion  seems  hardly  jus- 
tified by  either  the  practical  history  of  the  experiment 
of  giving  a  vote  to  everybody  or  by  the  mental  tests 
made  within  the  past  dozen  years  upon  thousands  of 
voters.  With  all  our  modern  environment  and  educa- 
tion, many  voters  cannot  even  name  the  days  of  the 
week  or  count  backwards  from  twenty  to  one  or  tell 
what  is  absurd  in  the  following  sentences: 

**A  man  said:  'I  know  a  road  from  my  house  to 
the  city  which  is  down  hill  all  the  way  to  the  city  and 
down  hill  all  the  way  back  home. '  ' ' 

**  Yesterday  the  police  found  the  body  of  a  girl  cut 
into  eighteen  pieces.  They  believe  that  she  killed  her- 

Voters  who  cannot  see  any  absurdities  in  these 
assertions  are  not  likely  to  perceive  any  absurdities  in 
prohibition  or  a  free  immigration  policy  or  in  the  pro- 
vision that  the  oldest  member  of  the  Foreign  Relations 
Committee  of  the  Senate  should  be  its  dominating 
head,  without  reference  to  his  qualifications  as  an 
international  statesman,  or  that  our  President  should 
appoint  to  fill  the  position  of  Secretary  of  State  and 
other  important  offices  *'lame  ducks''  who  have  be- 
come lame  and  been  denied  office  by  their  own  con- 


stituents  because,  as  Philip  Guedalla,  the  historian, 
says,  '^  their  supporters  have  discovered  their 
imbecility. ' ' 


Of  course,  this  picture  of  the  old  liberal  is  too  beau- 
tifully simplified  to  be  entirely  true.  Yet  I  think  it 
throws  into  fairly  logical  perspective  the  main  tenets 
of  his  social,  political  and  educational  philosophy.  He 
performed  an  immense  human  service,  for  without  him 
we  would  likely  still  be  back  at  Magna  Charta  and  the 
Bill  of  Rights — at  least  back  at  the  Declaration  of 
Independence.  His  immense  passion  for  human  ad- 
vancement has  infused  itself  into  education,  industry 
and  politics,  and  is  the  most  hopeful  thing  to-day  in  the 
human  outlook,  provided  he  will  only  learn  to  apply  to 
social  processes  the  technical  methods  of  science, 
instead  of  grandiloquent  generalizations  about  a  myth- 
ical and  mystical  economic  and  political  man.  It  is  the 
application  of  technical  methods  which  makes  the  new 
liberal,  and  distinguishes  him  as  a  new  sort  of  human 
being  in  the  world. 

The  new  liberal,  instead  of  approaching  the  prob- 
lems of  human  life  and  society  with  some  ready-made 
assumption  which  he  proposes  to  prove  and  which 
leads  him  to  color  all  the  facts  and  to  find  only  the 
facts  which  support  his  assumption,  selects  some  spe- 
cial problem  and  collects  all  the  facts  which  pertain  to 
it.  He  does  not  care  what  his  facts  are  going  to  prove. 
He  cares  only  to  find  out  what  they  do  prove.  This  is 
something  new  in  the  world.  He  approaches  a  social 
or  a  political  or  even  an  educational  or  a  religious 
problem  with  precisely  the  same  mental  attitude,  the 
same  intellectual  tools  and  methods,  with  which  he 
repairs  his  automobile.    "When  a  man's  automobile  is 


out  of  eommission  he  does  not  refer  in  his  mind  to  some 
grand  general  principle  about  broken  automobiles,  but 
he  studies  the  practical  ifs  and  ands  of  the  situation, 
picks  out  the  appropriate  tools  and  without  any  waving 
of  the  flag  or  shouting  of  slogans  or  repeating  ready- 
made  formulas  handed  down  by  some  philosopher  of 
progress  meets  the  difficulty  in  a  sensible,  concrete 
way.  The  new  liberal  does  the  same  thing  when  he 
sets  out  to  study  man's  social  ills. 

I  have  never  known  men  to  use  optimism  or  pessi- 
mism or  conservatism  or  radicalism  or  bigotry  or  dog- 
matism or  fundamentalism  or  class  or  race  prejudice 
to  repair  an  automobile.  I  have  never  heard  of  men 
using  such  tools  for  any  such  purpose.  And  yet  they 
seem  to  be  almost  the  only  tools  in  which  we  have  any 
faith  when  it  comes  to  repairing  our  practical 
social  breakdowns  and  meeting  our  practical  social 

Of  course,  dealing  with  an  automobile  is  not  so 
difficult  as  dealing  with  a  distraught  society.  An 
automobile  is  not  in  constant  eruption  from  its  emo- 
tions; it  is  not  subject  to  hysteria,  although  it  often 
seems  to  be.  A  hundred  automobiles  do  not  form  a 
crowd  and  act  as  crowds  always  do,  from  mass  psy- 
chology. They  do  not  do  things  in  a  mass  that  they 
would  not  do  as  individuals.  Human  beings  do.  An 
automobile  is  always  rational  to  the  limits  of  its  ma- 
chinery, but  a  human  being  seldom  is. 

For  these  reasons,  while  scientific  truth  is  never  a 
compromise,  yet  social  and  political  truth  nearly  al- 
ways is  a  compromise.  Nevertheless,  the  new  liberal 
tries  to  seize  hold,  by  scientific  methods,  of  the  con- 
stant factors  in  human  behavior,  the  ones  that  can  be 
depended  upon,  and  tries  to  utilize  them  in  guiding 
social  behavior  and  arriving  at  social  conclusions.  He 
has  discovered  that  with  all  their  complexities  human 


passions  can  be  measured,  human  desires  can  be 
plotted  out,  curves  that  represent  human  emotions  and 
aptitudes  can  be  drawn  on  a  blackboard  or  on  a  piece 
of  paper,  and  the  causes  of  human  action  can  be  re- 
duced to  number.  And  when  things  can  be  reduced 
to  a  number,  when  we  can  count  human  actions  and  say, 
**  There  are  just  so  many  of  this  sort  and  so  many  of 
that  sort,  no  more  and  no  less;  there  is  this  large  a 
quantity  of  aptitude  in  this  human  being  and  that  large 
a  quantity  in  that  one, ' '  it  is  then,  as  Sir  Francis  Gal- 
ton  said,  that  we  have  science.  And  the  new  liberal  is 
simply  the  man  who  tries  to  apply  to  the  affairs  of 
men  the  science  of  number  and  the  results  of  controlled 
experiment  based  on  number. 


The  new  liberal  would  have  been  impossible  in  the 
old  world  in  which  men  lived  prior  to  science.  He 
would  have  had  no  tools  to  work  with  and  nothing  but 
an  emotional  and  mystical  objective  to  work  to.  The 
old  liberal  is  just  as  impossible  in  the  new  world  which 
has  been  created  by  science.  Indeed,  the  new  liberal  is 
the  child  of  science.  In  his  humanitarian  spirit  and 
his  passion  to  make  the  world  better  he  is  a  lineal  de- 
scendant of  the  old  liberal.  But  in  his  analytical  spirit, 
his  intellectual  attitude  and  his  cool-headedness  he  is 
a  lineal  descendant  of  the  Alexandrian,  the  Greek  and 
the  Renaissance  men.  When  Boccaccio,  for  example,  a 
poor  Florentine  lawyer,  heard  that  a  teacher  was  com- 
ing to  Italy  to  teach  men  Greek,  and  that  he  would  be 
privileged  to  sit  at  his  feet  and  learn  this  noble  lan- 
guage and  imbibe  its  free  spirit  and  its  gay  and  un- 
daunted outlook  upon  life — the  thing  which  in  our  day 
has  become  science — he  shouted  and  danced  for  joy. 
And  the  new  liberal  is  the  lineal  descendant  of  that 


free  and  open  spirit  and  that  high  passion  for  truth 
which  the  Alexandrian  and  the  Greek  brought  into  the 
world  and  which  the  Renaissance  men  joyously  handed 

But,  of  course,  the  new  liberal  faces  a  different  set 
of  problems,  a  different  human  environment  from  any 
which  men  ever  confronted  before.  He  faces  a  world 
created  by  his  own  spirit.  And  the  tragedy,  as  well 
as  the  danger,  of  the  modern  world  is  that  while  the 
new  liberal — the  man  of  scientific  spirit — created  this 
world,  while  he  invented  its  machines,  while  he  dis- 
covered its  physics,  its  chemistry,  its  biology  and  its 
psychology,  while  he  created  the  very  air  men  breathe 
to-day  and  the  instruments  they  use  to  carry  on  their 
lives,  yet  he  is  not,  himself,  in  social  and  political  con- 
trol of  these  vast  agencies. 

For  what  is  it,  let  me  ask  the  man  in  the  street, 
that  has  happened  to  him  and  to  all  of  us?  As  I  see 
it,  it  is  simply  this:  A  few  wonderful  minds,  called 
scientists,  by  living  a  new  sort  of  life,  a  new  kind  of 
spiritual  existence,  by  creating  in  themselves  a  new 
type  of  intellectual  attitude,  the  attitude  of  utterly 
fearless  experimentation  with  the  universe,  have 
created  a  world  industrial  machine.  Out  of  this  indus- 
trial machine  has  grown  a  world  social  and  political 
machine,  the  like  of  which  never  before  existed.  And 
after  these  scientists,  by  living  this  new  and  strange 
kind  of  life,  had  invented  this  world  machine,  the  busi- 
ness men  and  the  politicians  ran  away  with  it.  They 
thought  they  could  manage  it  without  themselves 
living  that  same  kind  of  spiritual  and  intellectual  life. 
They  seized  control  of  the  instruments  of  science,  but 
they  did  not  understand  its  spirit.  When  men  use 
railroads  and  steam  engines  and  printing  presses  and 
gunpowder  and  poison  gas  and  trolley  cars  and  radio 
and  telegraph  and  telephone,  and  do  not  understand 


the  spirit  which  created  them  and  do  not  live  the 
spiritual  and  moral  life  which  made  them  possible,  the 
world  indeed  is,  as  never  before,  in  danger.  For  when 
men  do  not  understand  the  spirit  of  science  they  use 
its  instruments  not  to  fulfill  its  passions,  its  lofty  ethics 
and  its  happy  and  adventurous  outlook,  its  unconcern 
for  anything  but  truth  and  beauty  and  righteousness 
and  moral  and  spiritual  liberty — ^which  is  the  outcome 
of  truth — but  to  fulfill  their  own  passions,  their  own 
lusts  and  selfishness — those  old  passions  of  the  race, 
which  have  not  been  touched  to  new  objectives  nor 
disciplined  to  new  issues  by  new  grasp  of  the  real 

This  then,  it  seems  to  me,  is  precisely  the  situation 
of  the  modern  man.  Science  has  thrown  him  into  a 
new  world.  It  has  given  him  vast  and  intricate  ma- 
chines, placed  in  his  hands  huge  engines  of  power 
which  he  can  operate  because  most  of  them  the  scien- 
tist himself  has  made  fool-proof;  and  yet  he  does  not 
understand  the  real  spirit  which,  with  all  the  cold  steel 
of  the  machine,  is  in  reality  within  the  machine  itself. 
He  does  not  know  how  to  take  to  himself  the  kind  of 
life  which  created  the  very  machine  he  is  using  to 
increase  his  wealth,  comfort  and  ease.  He  does  not 
know  how  to  apply  that  spirit  and  method  to  his  own 
life's  problems  and  to  the  solution  of  his  social  and 
political  dilemmas.  His  own  chiefest  danger  lies  in 
this ;  that  he  does  not  even  entrust  the  management  of 
his  social  and  political  affairs  to  the  men  and  the  kind 
of  intelligence  which  are  the  very  agencies  that  have 
created  the  machines  that  have  made  him  rich  and 
arrogant  and  powerful.  Science  transports  him  over 
river  and  mountain  and  plain.  It  has  encircled  the 
loftiest  summits  of  earth  with  his  commerce;  it  has 
brought  the  products  of  the  antipodes  to  his  home  and 
to  his  table.    It  has  carried  him  through  the  very 


heavens  themselves.    It  has  enabled  him  to  converse 
with  all  the  Seven  Seas. 


All  of  this  is  the  creation  of  the  scientist,  and  yet 
men  will  not  trust  him  in  the  management  of  their 
social  and  political  affairs.  Nor  will  they  take  to  them- 
selves the  kind  of  life  that  he  lives,  although  the  visible 
material  products  of  that  kind  of  life  lie  all  about  them 
and  are  in  their  very  hands.  With  all  these  triumphs 
of  science  about  them,  they  laugh  at  the  idea  that  that 
same  science  could  either  manage  their  practical 
affairs  better  for  them  than  they  themselves  can  man- 
age them,  or  that  science  can  bring  about  a  better 
spiritual  life  to  live.  For  never  in  all  history  did  men 
have  so  much  to  live  for,  never  did  they  have  so  much 
to  live  in,  never  did  they  have  so  much  to  live  with,  and 
yet  never  did  they  seem  to  have  so  little  to  live  by.  We 
live  in  a  world  to-day  where  the  very  air  is  quivering 
with  human  speech,  where  the  skies  are  actually  vibrat- 
ing with  music  and  song,  where  every  thought  we 
think  **goes  shivering  to  the  stars.''  Literally  and 
actually,  the  time  has  come  when  *^deep  calleth  unto 
deep,"  when  **day  unto  day  uttereth  speech  and  night 
unto  night  showeth  knowledge." 

And  yet,  the  real  problem  of  the  modern  world  is 
whether,  with  all  this  knowledge  blazing  before  their 
eyes  and  quivering  in  the  very  air  about  them,  men 
have  really  learned  anything.  With  the  winds  of 
heaven  laden  with  music  and  knowledge,  never  did 
men's  lives  seem  so  barren  of  true  intellectual  exalta- 
tion, nor  their  hearts  so  far  from  authentic  spiritual 
anchorage.  People  who  think  they  are  educated — ^but 
who  in  reality  have  no  idea  what  education  is,  because 
they  have  no  idea  what  science  is  with  its  analytical 


spirit,  its  intellectual  liberty  combined  with  spiritual 
discipline,  nor  what  scientific  truth  really  means — are 
flocking  by  the  millions  to  bearded  mystics,  enshrouded 
occultists,  bob-haired  and  rouged  clairvoyants,  dark- 
room mediums.  Oriental  voodooists,  **  applied  psychol- 
ogists,'' character  analysts,  pseudo-psychoanalyzers, 
hocus-pocus  humbuggers,  and  are  trying  to  get  God 
out  of  ouija  boards.  These  people  talk  bravely  with 
the  phraseology  of  science,  but  they  haven't  the  slight- 
est idea  what  science  really  means.  They  use  its 
instruments  and  its  vocabulary,  but  they  don't  know 
what  it  is  all  about. 

If  the  reader  imagines  that  I  am  talking  vague 
philosophical  fancies,  let  him  contemplate  a  fact  as 
brought  out  by  a  recent  writer  in  The  Scientific 
Monthly:  One-fourth  of  all  the  citizens  of  Los  Ange- 
les, California,  belong  in  these  classes,  and  while  most 
of  them  think  they  are  highly  educated  they  belong  to 
societies  strongly  banded  together,  and  backed  by 
large  sums  of  money,  to  fight  the  spread  of  scientific 
truth,  which  is  the  very  thing  that  has  made  them  rich. 
Los  Angeles  is  probably  no  special  rendezvous  of 
humbuggery;  yet  this  writer  points  out  that  with  all 
the  countless  millions  of  wealth  which  science  alone  has 
created  for  the  citizens  of  this  section  there  is  not  a 
single  laboratory  in  all  Southern  California  for  the 
study  of  experimental  medicine,  the  field  that  requires 
a  greater  range  of  equipment  than  any  other  field  of 
research  and  the  one  most  directly  and  immediately 
beneficial  to  mankind.  California,  like  all  the  other 
states,  has  made  its  fortune  out  of  the  instruments  of 
science,  but  understands  so  little  of  the  spirit  and  meth- 
ods of  science  that  this  writer  exclaims,  *^Look  at  the 
Governor  of  California  refusing  to  endorse  modern 
hygienic  measures  for  fear  of  alienating  the  Christian 
Science  vote,  and  the  regents  of  the  State  University 


denying  adequate  appropriations  to  the  medical 
department  for  fear  of  antagonizing  the  Protestant 
religio-therapeutic  bloc ! ' ' 

This  sort  of  thing  can  go  on  for  a  time.  Men 
can  live  amid  the  luxuries  created  by  science  and  at 
the  same  time  war  against  its  intellectual  life  and 
spirit  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other  hand  refuse  to 
apply  either  its  findings  or  its  methods  to  the  manage- 
ment of  their  social  and  political  affairs.  Yes,  it  can 
go  on  for  a  time,  but  it  will  soon  bring  its  own  end. 

In  contrast  with  the  attitude  toward  science  of 
these  antagonistic  citizens  of  Southern  California, 
whose  wealth  and  power  of  propaganda  themselves 
depend  upon  science,  and  in  contrast  with  those  funda- 
mentalists who  would  tear  the  teaching  of  science  from 
our  school  books,  I  shall  ask  the  reader  to  contemplate 
the  sheer  nobility  and  dignity  of  the  plea  for  the 
promotion  of  pure  science  which  was  made  by  Sec- 
retary Herbert  Hoover  at  the  December,  1926,  meeting 
of  the  scientific  men  of  America  in  Philadelphia.  It  is 
a  plea  which  should  be  taken  earnestly  to  heart  by  the 
humblest  American  citizen,  because,  as  Mr.  Hoover 
shows  with  exceptional  force  and  clarity,  the  standards 
of  living  for  our  people  depend  almost  wholly  upon  the 
advance  of  pure  knowledge.  And  it  is  the  scientist, 
working  with  ample  fmids  and  a  free  mind,  who  alone 
can  advance  the  knowledge  of  nature  upon  which  all 
our  future  welfare  depends.    Mr.  Hoover  said : 

*' These  men  of  pure  science  are  the  most  precious 
assets  of  our  country,  and  their  diversion  to  teaching 
and  applied  science  reduces  the  productivity  which 
they  could  and  should  give  to  the  nation.  It  is  no  fault 
of  their  own,  but  it  is  the  fault  of  the  nation,  that  it 
does  not  give  to  them  and  to  the  institutions  where 
they  labor  a  sufficient  support. 

**  There  is  no  price  that  the  world  could  not  afford 


to  pay  these  men  who  have  the  originality  of  mind  to 
carry  scientific  thought  in  steps  or  strides.  They  wish 
no  price.  They  need  but  opportunity  to  live  and  to 
work.  No  one  can  estimate  the  value  to  the  world  of 
an  investigator  like  Faraday  or  Pasteur  or  our  own 
Doctor  Millikan.  The  assets  of  our  whole  banking  com- 
munity to-day  do  not  total  the  values  which  these  men 
have  added  to  the  world's  wealth." 

So  critical  has  become  the  situation,  averred  Mr. 
Hoover,  that  a  survey  of  the  men  engaged  in  scientific 
research,  and  the  sums  existing  for  their  support  and 
the  development  of  their  work,  showed  that  they  had 
actually  diminished  in  the  last  decade,  whereas,  in 
order  to  keep  step  with  the  developments  of  applied 
science,  they  should  have  immeasurably  increased. 

* '  Teaching  is  a  noble  occupation,  ^ '  Mr.  Hoover  con- 
tinued, ^^but  other  men  can  teach,  and  few  men  have 
that  quality  of  mind  which  can  explore  the  unknown  in 
nature.  Not  only  are  our  universities  compelled  to 
curtail  the  resources  they  should  contribute  in  men 
and  equipment  for  this  patient  groping  for  the  sources 
of  fundamental  truth,  because  of  our  educational  pres- 
sure, but  the  sudden  growth  of  industrial  laboratories 
themselves  and  the  larger  salaries  they  offer  have  in 
themselves  endangered  pure  science  by  drafting  men 
from  the  universities.  This  is  no  complaint  against 
our  great  industries  and  their  fine  vision  of  the  appli- 
cation of  science.  It  simply  means  that  we  must 
strengthen  the  first  line  of  industrial  advancement- 
pure  science  research." 

He  caused  a  ripple  of  laughter  to  run  through  his 
audience  when  he  said  '^some  scientific  discoveries  and 
inventions  have  in  the  past  been  the  result  of  genius 
struggling  in  poverty,  but  poverty  does  not  clarify 
thought,  nor  furnish  laboratory  equipment. 

**  Discovery  nowadays  must  be  builded  upon  a  vast 


background  of  scientific  knowledge,  of  liberal  equip- 
ment. It  is  stifled  where  there  is  lack  of  staff  to  do  the 
routine,  and  where  valuable  time  must  be  devoted  to 
tending  the  baby  or  peeling  potatoes,  or  teaching  yoilr 
and  my  boys.  The  greatest  discoveries  of  to-day  and 
of  the  future  will  be  the  product  of  organized  research 
free  from  the  calamity  of  such  distractions. 

' '  The  day  of  the  genius  in  the  garret  has  passed,  if 
it  ever  existed.  The  advance  of  science  to-day  is  by 
the  process  of  accretion.  Like  the  growth  of  a  plant, 
cell  by  cell,  the  adding  of  fact  to  fact,  some  day  brings 
forth  a  blossom  of  discovery,  of  illuminating 
hypothesis  or  of  great  generalization.  He  who  enunci- 
ates the  hypothesis,  makes  a  discovery  or  formulates 
the  generalization,  and  thus  brings  forth  the  fine 
blossom  of  thought,  is  indeed  a  genius.  But  his  pro- 
duct is  the  result  of  the  toil  of  thousands  of  men  before 
him.  A  host  of  men,  great  equipment,  long,  patient, 
scientific  experiment  to  build  up  the  structure  of 
knowledge,  not  stone  by  stone,  but  grain  by  grain,  is 
our  only  sure  road  of  discovery  and  invention.  We  do 
have  the  genius  in  science;  he  is  the  most  precious  of 
all  our  citizens.  We  cannot  invent  him;  we  can,  how- 
ever, give  him  a  chance  to  serve. 

**No  greater  challenge  has  been  given  to  the  people 
of  America  since  the  Great  War  than  that  of  our  scien- 
tific men  in  the  demand  for  greater  facilities.  It  is  an 
opportunity  to  again  demonstrate  in  our  Government, 
our  business,  and  our  private  citizens  the  recognition 
of  a  responsibility  to  our  people  and  nation  greater 
than  that  involved  in  the  production  of  goods  or  trad- 
ing in  the  market. ' ' 


As  I  have  said,  hostility  to  free  science  can  go  on 
for  a  time;  it  cannot  go  on  indefinitely.    Most  of  all. 


men  cannot  go  on  if  they  refuse  to  apply  to  their  own 
lives  and  the  reproduction  of  their  species  the  laws 
of  their  own  biology  which  science  has  discovered. 
And,  as  I  see  it,  unless  we  can  bring  the  majority  of 
men,  at  least,  to  a  real  understanding  of  the  inner  life 
and  spirit  of  science  and  cause  them  to  bring  to  the 
management  of  society  an  application  of  the  same 
mental  tools  and  attitudes  which  underlie  science,  I 
fear  that  one  of  two  things  is  going  to  happen  to  this 
roaring,  whirling,  manufacturing,  wealth-producing, 
rapid-moving  world  which  science  has  created  for  the 
modern  man  to  live  in :  First,  either  labor — proletar- 
ian labor,  without  culture,  without  tradition,  without 
a  sound  social  philosophy,  without  aristocracy,  without 
polish  and  manners,  without  that  reverence  for  superi- 
ority and  intelligence  which  is  the  finest  thing  educa- 
tion can  give  to  men — will  seize  and  control  this  world 
industrial  machine,  and  without  thought  or  care  for 
its  finest  and  gentlest  values  will  bend  it  to  their  own 
uses  and  train  men  in  an  industrial  philosophy  which 
has  in  it  no  social  vision  beyond  their  own  materialistic 
interpretation  of  life  and  history.  Second,  if  this  does 
not  happen,  capital  will,  I  fear,  seize  and  control  this 
world  machine  and,  with  an  even  greater  lack  of  cul- 
ture, with  a  total  lack  of  those  profound,  pitying  and 
compassionate  human  emotions  which  do  animate 
proletarian  labor,  will  not  take  the  trouble  to  develop 
any  social  philosophy  at  all.  It  will,  I  fear,  use  science 
only  as  an  instrument  to  exploit  men  on  a  bigger  scale 
than  ever,  to  chain  them  to  bigger  and  bigger  machines 
which  they  cannot  control  and  which  they  do  not  under- 
stand. In  the  end,  without  any  clear  intent  on  its  part 
or  any  clear  understanding  of  what  it  is  really  doing, 
it  will  institute  a  well-fed,  well-housed,  well-clothed 
but  nevertheless  an  uncultured,  scientific  barbarism 
without  conscience  or  tolerance,  and  without  a  clear 


recognition  of  those  social  and  political  responsibilities 
to  weaker  and  less  fortunate  men  which  has  always 
been  expressed  in  ^^ich  dien/^  **I  serve,''  the  motto 
which  has  animated  every  true  biological  aristocracy. 
One  of  these  two  things,  I  think,  is  bound  to  happen 
to  men  unless  they  develop,  by  a  combination  of  the 
old  liberalism  with  its  immense  human  passion  and 
the  new  liberalism  with  its  immense  insights  and  its 
analytical  methods,  a  sound  social  philosophy.  Men 
have  never  had  such  a  thing  as  a  social  philosophy. 
They  have  never  needed  one  very  much.  But  science 
and  its  mechanical  inventions  have  made  the  world  so 
big  and  complex,  they  have  made  the  ethical  obliga- 
tions which  one  man  owes  to  another  so  bewilderingly 
intricate;  they  have  made  human  contacts  so  infinite 
and  so  diverse  that  unless  a  man  has  a  clear,  cool- 
headed  and  yet  compassionate  philosophy  of  his  own 
social  life  and  its  responsibilities  to  his  fellow  men  he 
cannot  guide  his  conduct  aright.  And  much  more,  if 
our  industrial  leaders,  who  are  the  real  managers  of 
the  modern  world,  have  no  sound  philosophy  of  their 
own  duties  and  privileges,  then  all  that  science  has 
done  has  been  to  bring  us  comfort  without  culture, 
excitement  without  meaning.  All  our  scientific  knowl- 
edge, our  discoveries  of  man's  biology  and  psychology, 
have  not  enabled  us  to  build  a  society  that  has  made 
him  or  can  make  him  any  better  in  his  inborn  nature, 
his  natural  health,  intelligence  and  passions — any 
better  than  he  was  the  day  that  he  left  the  jungle  and 
stood,  dazzled  by  the  glittering  splendors  which  he 
saw  in  his  imagination  ahead  of  him,  upon  the  thresh- 
old of  civilization. 


What,  then,  is  the  real  situation  of  the  modern  man, 


and  what  is  the  superlative  question  which  confronts 

Let  us  look  back  for  a  moment  over  the  previous 
pages  and  review  the  main  steps  by  which  we  have 
come,  in  order  to  see  whether  they  do  not  enable  us,  at 
least,  to  ask  this  question  with  intelligence,  whether 
or  not  human  intelligence  is  to-day  in  a  position  to  give 
a  fruitful  and  djmamic  answer. 

We  have  seen  that  man  is  naturally  a  jungle  animal 
who  has  been  injected  into  the  midst  of  polite  society. 
Probably  nearly  all  of  this  society,  its  polished  man- 
ners, its  ethics  and  culture,  and  what  we  would  call  to- 
day its  traffic  regulations,  was  developed  by  a  very 
few  men.  The  forces  of  nature  had  acted  ceaselessly 
upon  man's  mind  and  body  for  untold  ages,  in  order  to 
produce  a  creature  adapted  to  jungle  life.  A  few  of 
his  geniuses,  however,  invented  civilization  which 
placed  the  masses  of  men  in  a  new  environment.  It 
is  absurd  to  suppose  either  that  civilization  was  not 
the  outcome  of  fundamental  trends  and  passions  which 
had  been  evolved  in  pre-civilized  days,  or  that  the 
impositions  of  this  new  environment  upon  him  should 
stop  his  evolution.  Nothing  can  stop  evolution.  As 
Mark  Twain  said,  *Hhere  is  more  or  less  weather  go- 
ing on  all  the  time."  There  is  likewise  more  or  less 
evolution  going  on  all  the  time.  It  is  highly  probable 
that  so  radical  a  change  of  environment  for  man  set 
his  evolution  going  at  a  faster  pace  than  ever.  How- 
ever, there  is  one  thing  which  he  did  not  reckon  with, 
at  least,  adequately,  and  that  is  that  the  ease  and 
comfort  of  civilized  life  and  the  prizes  which  it  set  up 
for  the  most  successful  and  the  ablest  men  to  strive 
for  would  lead  them  to  decrease  their  birth  rate. 
Consequently,  as  time  went  on  the  experiment  failed 
time  and  again — ^partly,  at  least,  because  the  leaders 
vanished  and  the  masses  of  men  had  not  evolved  to 


the  point  where  they  naturally  lived  a  civilized  life 
and  carried  on  a  complex  social  order,  not  because  the 
leaders  made  it  for  them  but  because  it  was  just  their 
natural  way  of  living. 

In  the  modern  world,  however,  a  new  force  has 
arisen  that  is  laden  with  a  might,  a  magnitude  and  a 
meaning  for  man's  future  evolution  which  the  wisest 
of  men  cannot  now  foresee.  Indeed,  only  a  few  score 
of  men  out  of  the  nearly  two  billions  of  persons  now  on 
earth  have  ever  even  thought  of  what  it  might  mean 
to  man  as  an  organic  being.  This  new  force  is  the 
control  of  nature  by  human  intelligence,  known  as 

We  have  seen  that  this  agency,  science,  has  thrown 
man  again  into  a  new  environment  which  is  almost  as 
different  from  that  even  of  the  past  few  centuries  of 
his  development  as  those  centuries  were  different  from 
his  prehistoric  days.  Within  the  past  quarter  of  a 
century  much  striking  evidence  from  the  fields  of 
biology,  anthropology,  psychology — and  the  summa- 
tion of  them  all,  sociology — has  been  developed  that 
man  is  undergoing  a  new  evolution.  This  has  led  a 
handful  of  men  to  inquire  what  this  evolution  is, 
whither  it  is  trending  and  what  sort  of  a  creature  it 
will  evolve.  In  short,  they  are  asking  a  question  about 
which  civilized  men  have  never  before  thought ;  if  they 
had  thought  about  it,  they  would  have  had  no  means 
of  answering  it  as  we  have  now.  That  question  is, 
What  is  civilization  doing  to  mankind?  Is  it  making 
him  naturally  better  or  naturally  worse,  naturally 
stronger  or  naturally  weaker,  naturally  more  in- 
telligent or  naturally  more  stupid?  To  put  it  in  a  more 
concrete  form,  the  question  of  the  modem  world  is  just 
this:  Will  science  enable  men  to  huild  a  civilization 
which,  by  its  social  customs,  its  educational  methods, 
its    religious    and    ethical   idealism    and    taboos,   its 


economic  adjustments  and  its  political  procedures — its 
essential  structure,  its  inherent  drive  and  dynamics — 
a  civilisation  which  will  force  the  human  race  biologi- 
cally upward;  or  will  science  he  only  a  new  and  more 
terrible  instrument  than  men  have  ever  known,  by 
which  they  will  be  forced  biologically  downward? 

This  is  the  real  question  which  confronts  the  long- 
range  statesmanship  of  the  age.  It  is  the  hope  of  the 
following  pages  to  contribute  something  to  the  answer. 





I  TRUST  that  the  preceding  pages  have  made  it  clear 
that  civilization  does  not  bring  evolution  to  an  end. 
Man  has  often  recklessly  thrown  all  his  biological 
capital  upon  the  gaming  table  of  civilization,  and 
risked  all  the  gains  of  his  evolutionary  history  upon 
a  single  throw.  He  has  done  this  because  he  has  sup- 
posed he  was  gambling  on  a  **sure  thing";  he  had  not 
the  slightest  idea  that  he  might  lose.  He  supposed 
that  his  biological  capital  was  intact  and  that  there 
was  no  danger  of  dissipating  it.  In  other  words,  he 
has  never  until  the  present  rise  of  the  biological 
sciences  had  the  slightest  idea  that  civilization  did 
anything  to  him  as  an  organic  being. 

Science,  however,  has  discovered  that  civilization 
tinkers  with  the  human  germ-plasm  upon  a  more 
gigantic  scale  than  did  the  jungle.  If  it  does  nothing 
else,  it  increases  his  food  supply,  and  this  at  once 
enormously  increases  his  numbers  and  the  range  of  his 
migrations  over  the  face  of  the  earth.  And,  as 
Prof.  Ellsworth  Huntington  has  shown,  these  great 
changes  of  climate  and  weather  which  man's  migra- 
tions lead  him  into,  these  changes  of  habitat,  have 
worked  profound  changes  in  his  physique  and  his 
mentality,  as  well  as  changes  in  the  sort  of  civiliza- 
tions that  he  builds.  The  particular  type  of  civiliza- 
tion that  a  race  erects,  in  turn  works  still  further 
changes  in  its  organic  composition.  Some  of  these 
changes  have  probably  improved  man  in  his  natural 



capacities.  But  when  his  social  orders  have  reached 
the  climax  of  their  success  and  to  all  outward  appear- 
ances all  has  been  going  well,  slowly  but  silently  the 
forces  of  nature  have  been  at  work  upon  the  hunian 
constitution.  They  seem,  as  a  rule,  to  have  brought 
about  not  improvement  but  biological  decay.  This 
has  especially  brought  about  decay  in  the  intelligence 
and  moral  character  of  the  leaders.  And,  finally,  the 
very  material  success  of  the  enterprise  has  been  the 
biological  agency  which  has  brought  it  to  its  tragic 
and  disgraceful  end. 

No  one  is  reckless  enough,  of  course,  to  believe  that 
this  biological  factor  has  been  the  sole  cause  of  the 
rise  and  fall  of  those  buried  civilizations  whose  ruins 
and  whose  lost  arts  are  now  exhibited  in  motion  pic- 
tures for  the  excitement  and  entertainment  of  the 
masses.  Many  of  those  who  now  gaze  in  vacant 
wonder  upon  these  pictures  of  bygone  human  grandeur 
can  scarcely  read  even  their  own  language  which 
feebly  describes  these  marvelous  creations  of  the  men 
of  long  ago.  It  certainly  does  not  rouse  in  them  any- 
thing more  than  idle  curiosity  as  to  why  such  wonder- 
ful and  apparently  successful  social  enterprises  should 
have  ever  passed  away.  But  in  the  scientist  and  social 
philosopher  they  at  once  stir  the  imagination  and 
baffle  the  intellect  as  to  why  they  did  not  go  on  to  still 
greater  triumphs,  and  why  his  own  present  culture  is 
not  simply  their  direct  consummation.  It  seems  un- 
thinkable that  men  should  ever  have  experienced 
civilization,  with  its  comforts,  its  adventures  and  its 
pageantries  and  ever  have  given  it  up  voluntarily. 
In  every  case  there  has  been  at  least  a  heroic  remnant 
that  died  fighting  to  retain  its  values.  But  the  rem- 
nant has  not  been  large  enough  to  save  the  social 
heritage,  with  all  its  pomp  and  circumstance — the  long 
results  of  toil  and  time— from  utter  devastation. 


And  as  the  social  philosopher  sits  by  the  side  of 
the  moron  and  watches  the  passing  of  these  lost 
paradises,  he  wonders  if  this  is  the  inevitable  fate  of 
all  civilizations.  He  wonders  if  there  is  inherent 
in  the  very  enterprise  itself  those  agencies  that  bring 
decay,  and  if  his  own  civilization  is  going  to  go  the 
same  way.  And  he  wonders  too  whether  those  instru- 
ments of  science  which  have  charted  the  heavens, 
have  solved  the  secret  of  the  ^^  balancing  of  the 
clouds ' '  which  so  puzzled  the  mind  of  the  poet  Job  and 
have  weighed  the  atom  and  the  stars,  cannot  also 
penetrate  into  this  mystery  of  his  own  being  and 
progress,  and  devise  a  way  of  living  happily  and 
effectively  in  the  midst  of  wealth,  refinement  and  cul- 
ture, until  the  end  of  the  earthly  drama.  It  is  this 
passion  and  the  hope  of  solving  this,  the  last  great 
mystery  that  confronts  human  intelligence,  that  have 
given  rise  to  the  science  of  eugenics — the  science  of 
building  a  social  order  which  will  both  give  to  men  the 
richest,  most  varied  and  spacious  life  and  enviroimient 
of  which  their  intelligence  is  capable,  and  at  the  same 
time  produce  a  race  inherently  well-bom. 


There  are  many  who  have  gained  from  superficial 
knowledge  the  idea  that  eugenics  is  a  harsh,  hard- 
hearted, purely  biological  program  for  destroying  the 
weak  and  arbitrarily  giving  all  the  prizes  of  life  to  the 
strong.  If  this  were  true  it  would  destroy  the  finest 
values  of  culture  and  the  richest  flowerings  of  the 
human  spirit.  There  is  a  popular  idea  that  eugenics 
means  to  do  away  with  our  hospitals,  our  welfare 
agencies,  our  Red  Cross,  our  Salvation  Army,  our 
efforts  to  cure  the  social  disease  of  the  slums,  our  ef- 
forts to  abolish  poverty,  our  religious  injunctions  to 
visit  the  poor,  the  sick  and  the  fatherless.    The  public 


has  been  warned  by  irresponsible  critics  of  engenioe 
that  for  these  measures  we  propose  to  substitute  a 
cold-blooded  Spartan  program  of  neglect  of  the  un- 
fortunate and  even  their  wholesale  destruction. 
Eugenics  is  pictured,  in  a  number  of  recent  magazine 
articles  and  books,  by  those  who  have  spent  a  few 
hours  instead  of  many  years  in  the  contemplation  of 
human  biology  and  its  relationship  to  human  culture, 
as  a  Nietzschean  worship  of  a  super-race,  a  race  of 
strong  men  who  **live  dangerously,"  dangerously 
especially  to  those  weaker  and  less  fortunate  than 


If  eugenics  means  this  or  any  approach  to  it,  then 
I  personally  have  no  interest  in  it.  If  eugenics  means 
the  sacrifice  of  culture,  then  I  am  for  culture.  The 
present  world  and  the  present  human  race,  with  its 
weakness,  stupidity,  folly,  disease  and  crime,  and  its 
probability  of  social  failure,  is  good  enough  for  me. 
If  eugenics  means  the  sacrifice  of  the  things  of  the 
spirit,  then  I  am  for  the  things  of  the  spirit.  They  are 
more  precious  than  a  Nietzschean  super-race  could 
ever  be.  If  eugenics  means  only  another  human 
jimgle,  gilded  with  the  glittering  tinsel  of  the  material 
creations  of  the  intellect,  laden  with  the  conveniences 
and  encumbrances  of  wealth  and  whirling  in  a  maze 
of  ingenious  and  interesting  mechanical  contrivances, 
then  I  do  not  care  what  sort  of  race  lives  in  that  sort 
of  jungle. 


Not  only  is  eugenics  nothing  of  this  kind,  but  it 
could  not  be  anything  remotely  approaching  so  fan- 
tastic and  asinine  a  conception  of  the  maimer  in  which 
human  cultures  affect  human  biology.    Human  sym- 


pathy  began  in  the  animals,  when  some  member  of  the 
species  first  felt  the  urge  to  take  care  of  its  offspring 
and  give  these  offspring,  if  necessary,  its  own  life,  to 
preserve  them.  Those  animals  which  possessed  this 
cooperative  urge  in  the  highest  degree  gathered  into 
herds  where  the  motto  was  **A11  for  one  and  one  for 
all."  This  trend  reached  its  highest  development  in 
man  and  has  been  a  prime  factor  in  enabling  him  to 
become  civilized  and  build  his  complex  and  multi- 
tudinous cultures. 

Obviously,  if  man  should  set  up  a  society  which 
had  as  one  of  its  great  objectives  the  weeding  out  of 
this  sentiment  from  the  race,  this  foolish  objective 
would  defeat  its  own  end.  The  sentiment  would  soon 
become  so  thin  and  weak  that  the  race  would  not  hold 
together.  As  a  consequence,  eugenics  is  not,  as  it  is 
commonly  regarded  by  the  uninformed,  a  purely  bio- 
logical program.  Its  advocates  are  not  dedicated 
solely  to  hereditarianism.  They  are  as  deeply  con- 
cerned over  man's  environment  as  are  the  environ- 
mentalists themselves.  Indeed,  the  biologist  and  the 
student  of  heredity  know  as  no  one  else  knows  that  it 
is  the  environment  which  determines  the  trend  of 
heredity  itself.  It  was  when  this  majestic  conception 
dawned  upon  the  imperial  brain  of  Charles  Darwin 
that  the  world  had  for  the  first  time  a  plausible  sug- 
gestion as  to  what  were  some  of  the  causes,  at  least, 
that  had  worked  the  marvelous  changes  in  the 
hereditary  constitutions  of  plants  and  animals.  The 
biologist  knows,  as  no  one  else  can  know,  that  it  is 
only  by  the  manipulation  of  the  environment  that  he 
can  control  the  processes  of  heredity.  And  what  is 
true  of  plants  and  animals  in  this  respect  is  true  of 
men.  Eugenics  means  no  slackening  of  man's  efforts 
to  improve  his  environment  and  expand  his  social  and 
artistic  enjoyments,  nor  does  it  mean  any  lessening  of 


his  humane  activities.  If  it  does,  eugenics  spells  race 
decay,  not  race  improvement. 

If  civilization  is  bound  from  its  very  nature  to  fail, 
nevertheless  it  is  a  noble  tribute  to  human  intelligent 
and  character  that  time  and  again  it  has  been  begun. 
If  civilization  carries  within  itself  the  seeds  of  its  own 
destruction,  still  it  is  better  to  have  had  it  for  a  time 
and  for  a  few  than  to  have  missed  from  the  great 
human  drama  its  grandeur  and  pageantry.  As  the 
poet  said  of  human  love,  it  is  better  to  have  become 
civilized  and  lost  than  never  to  have  been  civilized 
at  all. 

But  eugenics  is  an  effort  to  preserve  man's  culture 
as  much  as  it  is  an  effort  to  preserve  man's  heredity, 
because  only  by  preserving  the  one  can  its  advocates 
preserve  or  hope  to  improve  the  other. 


For  these  reasons,  eugenics  is  the  very  flowering 
of  culture.  Eace  culture  and  spiritual  culture  are 
synonymous.  Eugenics  calls  to  all  that  is  finest  and 
best  in  the  human  spirit.  For  if  men  cannot  be  in- 
duced to  take  care  of  the  cripple  before  their  eyes,  it 
is  idle  for  some  enthusiastic  advocate  of  eugenics  to 
try  to  rouse  in  them  that  still  greater  and  longer-range 
humanitarianism  which  will  induce  them  to  make  one 
of  the  great  objectives  of  their  civilization  the  pre- 
vention of  the  possibility  of  cripples  being  born  a 
hundred  years  from  now.  Personally,  I  see  no  other 
way  by  which  we  can  set  up  in  our  society,  especially 
in  our  young  men  and  women,  those  lofty  ideals  of 
physical  excellence,  intelligence  and  moral  character 
which  shall  influence  them  in  their  mate  selections  and 
in  their  production  of  children.  And  biologists  know 
of  no  other  way  than  an  improvement  in  mate  selection 


and  in  birth  selection  by  which  we  can  improve  the 
future  organic  health  of  the  race. 

Plainly,  then,  eugenics  is  simply  the  new  social, 
educational,  religious,  industrial  and  political  states- 
manship. It  is  the  problem  of  correlating  social 
evolution,  social  life  and  customs  with  biological 
evolution.  And  if  social  evolution  stops,  eugenics  will 
automatically  stop  with  it.  Man  will  be  hurled  back 
once  more  into  barbarism,  where  nature  will  take  him 
in  charge  and  once  again,  as  she  has  done  so  often, 
administer  her  eugenical  discipline  with  an  iron  hand. 
There  are,  therefore,  before  man  three  great  eugenical 
problems:  First,  the  preservation  of  his  cultures, 
which  are  the  only  means  for  carrying  out  any 
eugenical  scheme;  second,  the  preservation  of  his 
numbers,  which  is  his  only  means  of  carrying  on  either 
a  social  or  a  biological  experiment  which  shall  be  as 
large  as  the  planet  on  which  he  lives,  because  nothing 
short  of  a  planetary  eugenics  is  really  creditable  to 
his  intelligence;  and,  third,  the  conservation  and  in- 
crease of  the  biological  capital  bequeathed  him  by  his 
long  jungle  evolution.  Eugenics  is,  therefore,  a  cul- 
tural program  as  much  as  it  is  purely  a  biological 
hereditarian  program. 

In  short,  the  problem  before  the  eugenist  is  to 
improve  man  organically  in  the  midst  of  a  great  cul- 
ture, in  the  midst  of  a  great  humanitarianism,  and  in 
the  fullest  exercise  of  his  religious,  esthetic  and  social 
emotions.  If  we  look  at  it  from  the  ethical  side,  this 
means,  I  think,  that  the  eugenist  can  safely  espouse — 
indeed,  I  think  he  must  espouse — a  higher  biological 
Epicureanism.  For  when  the  higher  Epicurists  said, 
**Eat,  drink  and  be  merry,  for  to-morrow  we  die," 
they  meant  it  not,  as  is  often  supposed,  as  a  license  to 
indulge  in  licentious  dissipation,  but  as  a  stern  yet 
tappy  command  to  live  a  lofty,  ethical  life  of  modera- 


tion,  tolerance  and  joy.  And  I  think  that  we  wEo 
advocate  eugenics  as  the  next  and  supremest  challenge 
to  human  intelligence  and  character,  and  the  next 
step  in  human  evolution,  must  adopt  the  biological 
Epicurean  motto,  **Let  us  be  merry  with  our  culture 
and  all  its  values,  because  the  values  can  be  so  directed 
that  persons  of  intelligence,  health  and  virtue  will  be 
given  a  better  chance  to  live  long  in  the  land  of  their 
fathers  and  hand  on  their  health  and  their  generous 
natures  to  an  ever-expanding  race  of  descendants;  let 
us  indulge  in  a  perfect  orgy  of  humanitarianism  and 
save  the  weakling,  the  poor  and  the  fatherless,  the 
tubercular,  insane,  feeble-minded  and  unadapted.  Let 
us,  however,  in  the  interest  of  future  human  health  and 
happiness,  see  to  it  that  these  to  whom  our  sympathies 
have  extended  the  privilege  of  a  happy  earthly  life, 
instead  of  sounding  for  them  the  death  knell  of  the 
jungle,  shall  not  have  the  high  biological  privilege, 
which  should  always  run  parallel  with  social  privilege 
and  always  be  under  social  control,  namely,  the 
privilege  of  reproduction." 

If  men  can  establish  a  civilization  shot  through 
and  through  with  this  ideal,  it  will  mean  that  their 
intelligence  has  at  last  provided  a  way  of  living  the 
happiest  and  finest  and  richest  life  of  which  their 
bodies  and  souls  are  capable.  But  it  will  at  the  same 
time  provide — indeed,  necessitate — that  the  intelli- 
gence and  emotions  which  created  it  all  shall  survive 
in  ever-increasing  power  and  beauty.  We  see,  there- 
fore, that  it  is  the  loftiest  impulses  of  man  which  lead 
him  straight  to  the  eugenic  ideal;  it  is  the  highest 
triumph  of  his  intelligence  that  he  has,  through 
science,  wrung  from  nature  enough  of  her  own  secrets 
of  evolution  to  put  that  ideal  into  effect.  And  if  man 
af  this  stage  has  attained  the  fortitude,  the  patience 
and  the  spiritual  drive  to  apply  these  secrets  to  his 


own  being,  it  will  be  those  very  sections  of  the  race 
endowed  with  this  noble  temperament  and  racial  pas- 
sion which  will  by  this  very  process  be  preserved  for 
the  evolntionary  task  that  lies  ahead;  namely,  the 
ushering  in  of  the  next  biological  age  of  man. 


If  the  considerations  advanced  np  to  this  point 
have  validity,  it  seems  plain  that  man  mnst  apply  the 
lessons  of  his  jungle  life  to  his  civilized  life;  in  other 
words,  he  must  institute  a  program  of  eugenics  as 
wide  as  the  new  sort  of  life  into  which  civilization  has 
plunged  him.  And  eugenics  cannot  be  something 
separate  from  his  general  worldly  life.  It  must  be 
an  animating  part  of  it.  Eugenics  cannot  be  a 
separate  propaganda,  some  scheme  entirely  separate 
from  man's  every-day  activities — such,  for  example, 
as  the  Sunday  school  or  the  church  or  the  college  is  in 
our  day;  it  must  be  a  living  part  of  the  social, 
commercial,  educational  and  political  life  of  the  com- 
mon people.  Eugenics  must  become  the  very  essence 
of  the  environment  in  which  men  live. 

If  these  suggestions  be  sound,  then  eugenics  has 
plainly  before  it  two  great  objectives:  First,  the 
preservation  of  the  race  from  deterioration  in  the 
midst  of  a  capacious,  stimulating  and  happy  environ- 
ment; and,  second,  the  improvement  of  the  race  by 
means  of  this  environment.  Man  can  never  call  him- 
self really  civilized,  or  delude  himself  into  boasting 
that  he  has  constructed  an  intelligent  world  for  him- 
self and  his  descendants  to  live  in,  until  this  situation 
obtains  as  the  permanent  earthly  life  of  human  beings. 

Furthermore,  if  these  considerations  have  genuine 
validity,  then  I  believe  that  the  biological  sciences — 
which  term  includes  all  we  know  about  living  things — 
have  given  us  four  great  discoveries  which  are  bound 


to  be  the  corner  stones  upon  which  a  truly  engenical 
civilization  must  rest.  These  discoveries  must  become 
the  new  organizing  principles  of  education,  religious 
ministry,  politics,  industry,  and  the  ethics  which  per- 
vades all  of  these  phases  of  human  behavior.  No 
previous  race  of  people  ever  possessed  these  dis- 
coveries. They  are  wholly  new  things  in  human 
knowledge.  The  men  who  built  the  civilizations  of  the 
past  could  not  act  upon  them,  because  they  did  not 
know  them.  They  went  at  the  task  entirely  blind. 
But  science  has  opened  men's  eyes.  As  far  as  the 
laws  of  his  own  being  are  concerned,  science  has, 
literally,  given  man  a  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth.  If 
from  now  on  men  do  not  act  upon  these  principles  they 
are  precisely  those  of  whom  the  Master  said,  **They 
have  eyes  but  they  see  not,  ears  but  they  hear  not." 
The  man  of  the  past,  even  in  the  midst  of  his  social 
failure,  could  at  least  say,  **I  did  the  best  I  knew;  I 
would  have  done  better,  but  I  did  not  know  how." 
We  cannot  say  to  them,  **You  ought  to  have  done 
better."  This  is  the  attitude  we  take  toward  children 
when  we  have  given  them  a  watch  to  play  with  and 
they  ignorantly  wreck  its  delicate  mechanism.  Man 
has  always  tinkered  in  the  same  childish  way  with  the 
most  delicate  mechanism  in  all  the  universe,  the 
mechanism  of  the  living  cell  from  which  he  himself 
is  born,  the  cell  from  which  he  derives  the  traits  of 
his  own  nature,  and  by  which  he  hands  these  traits  on 
to  his  children. 

But  we  know  now  as  men  never  knew  before,  the 
nature  of  this  delicate  mechanism.  We  do  not  know 
how  it  is  wound  up.  We  do  not  know  who  was  the 
Winder.  We  believe — each  man  according  to  his  own 
philosophy — that  the  Winder  was  simply  **tliat  high, 
unknown  purpose  of  the  world  which  we  call  God." 

But  we  do  know  how  this  mechanism  operates,  how 


it  hands  on  the  natures  of  men  from  one  generation  to 
the  next.  And  if  we  wreck  this  marvelous  piece  of 
machinery  the  men  of  the  future  can  and  will  say  to 
us,  *'You  ought  to  have  done  better,  because  you  did 
know  how."  This  may  be  a  very  simple  way  of 
stating  the  duty  of  the  modern  man  amidst  the  vast 
complex  of  social  forces,  but  it  has  the  merit  of  being 
perfectly  clear  and  inescapable. 

Let  us  examine,  very  briefly,  then,  these  four  great 
new  principles,  which  have  always,  without  his  know- 
ing it,  governed  man's  earthly  life,  and  which  always 
will  govern  it.  It  merely  rests  with  him  now  whether 
he  will  make  a  better  use  of  them,  since  he  knows  them, 
than  he  did  when  he  knew  them  not. 


The  first  corner  stone  upon  which  an  all-inclusive 
eugenical  program  must  rest  is  the  fact  that  the 
mental,  temperamental  and  spiritual  traits  of  man  are 
inherited  hy  the  same  mechanism,  and  in  just  about  the 
same  degree  as  are  his  physical  traits. 

It  is  commonly  believed  by  both  laymen  and  the 
majority  of  scientific  men  that  the  mental  and  spiritual 
traits  can  be  changed  much  more  by  education  than 
can  the  physical  traits.  While  there  is  a  great  deal  of 
evidence  that  this  belief  is  justified,  nevertheless,  in 
my  judgment,  it  is  far  from  having  been  absolutely 
demonstrated.  It  is  highly  probable;  the  evidence  is 
very  strong;  but  with  all  that,  we  do  not  know  it 
absolutely.  These  pages  assume  that  it  is  true,  but  I 
wish  to  go  on  record  with  the  foregoing  reservation. 


I  fhiTik  it  scarcely  necessary  to  submit  evidence,  at 
this  period  of  the  world's  history,  that  the  bodily 
traits  of  human  beings  are  inherited.    It  seems  nn- 


necessary  to  prove  that  children  are  more  like  their 
own  parents  in  physical  appearance  and  make-up,  as 
a  rule,  than  they  are  like  other  parents.  Still,  I  find 
that  a  good  many  extreme  environmentalists  do  not 
believe  in  heredity  even  to  this  extent.  They  are  such 
confirmed  believers  in  the  notion  that  man  can  be 
altered  in  his  inmost  being  by  some  form  of  training 
and  education  or  by  some  social  and  political  hocus- 
pocus  that  they  will  not  concede  that  a  man  is  any 
more  likely  to  look  like  his  own  parents  than  he  is  to 
look  like  the  first  person  he  chances  to  meet  on  the 
street.  If,  as  we  often  hear,  there  is  **  nothing  to 
heredity,"  this  is  precisely  what  would  be  the  case. 

As  evidence  that  this  notion  is  still  rather  widely 
held,  let  me  cite  the  experience  of  my  friend,  Mr. 
Alleyne  Ireland,  the  publicist,  who  recently  ques- 
tioned, on  this  point,  one  of  the  foremost  leaders  of 
political  education  in  America.  This  gentleman  has 
for  many  years  profoundly  influenced  the  political 
ideas  and  beliefs  of  many  thousands  of  Americans; 
yet,  according  to  Mr.  Ireland,  he  said  that  he  did  not 
believe  in  heredity  or  have  any  patience  with  the  idea. 
Mr.  Ireland  then  asked  him  if  he  believed  that  his 
children  were  just  as  likely  to  look  like  the  first  person 
they  met  when  they  turned  the  next  corner  as  they 
were  to  look  like  their  own  mother  and  father.  He 
replied,  he  thought  that  they  were.  Mr.  Ireland  next 
asked  him  if  he  believed  that  the  children  of  a  white 
man  and  white  woman  were  just  as  likely  to  be 
Negroes  as  they  were  to  be  white  persons.  He  replied 
again  that  he  thought  this  was  the  case,  and  added 
that  if  such  parents  had  white  children  instead  of 
black  it  was  entirely  due  **to  the  grace  of  God!" 

I  am  not  at  all  surprised  that  a  politician  should 
have  such  profound  faith  in  the  grace  of  God  when  it 
comes  to  determining  the  effects  upon  the  people  of 


some  of  his  political  policies.  He  seems,  at  least  very 
often,  to  take  very  few  precautions  on  his  own  part  to 
see  that  his  measures  shall  turn  out  for  the  welfare  of 
the  people.  He  does  not  seem  to  trust  quite  so  much, 
however,  to  divine  intervention  to  insure  that  they 
shall  enhance  his  own  welfare.  He  provides  for  that 
himself.  But  when  a  leader  of  political  education  has 
so  little  faith  in  the  uniformity  of  nature,  it  appears 
to  me  to  be  a  pretty  dangerous  portent  in  our  political 

Those  people  who  believe  there  are  no  established 
habits  in  the  universe  and  who  believe  that  the  course 
of  nature  is  likely  at  any  moment  to  be  upset  by  some 
capricious  celestial  meddling  should  apply  to  such  be- 
liefs the  famous  remark  which  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
made  on  one  occasion  to  a  body  of  young  divines  who 
were  receiving  their  diplomas  from  the  theological 
seminary.  Mr.  Beecher  said  that  many  of  them,  he  had 
learned,  had  been  agonizing  in  spirit  as  to  just  where 
they  would  locate  their  pastoral  efforts.  ^*I  do  not 
think,"  said  the  great  preacher,  **that  you  need  to 
feel  any  great  anxiety  on  this  point,  because  I  do  not 
believe  that  the  world  will  give  way  very  much  at  the 
place  where  any  one  of  you  happens  to  locate."  He 
continued,  *^I  do  not  say  this,  gentlemen,  because  I 
wish  to  make  light  of  your  immense  intellectual 
weight,  but  because  I  have  such  an  abiding  faith  in 
the  stability  of  the  planetary  system." 


The  political  educator  and,  indeed,  all  extreme 
environmentalists,  must  believe  that  we  are  living  in 
a  universe  that  has  veiy  little  stability  or  uniformity. 
It  is  most  assuredly  one  which  cannot  be  depended 
upon.    Our  Behavioristic  friends  are  just  now  giving 


us  assertions  that  are  not  only  far  beyond  any 
demonstrated  facts  in  their  possession,  but,  I  believe, 
are  contrary  to  any  possible  belief  in  a  continuously 
dependable  mental  life.  They  assert  that  all  behavior, 
or  practically  all  of  it,  is  due  to  environment.  I  have 
no  belief  that  a  paragraph  or  two  will  either  describe 
justly  or  refute  the  position  of  Behaviorism.  Its  ex- 
perimental work,  I  have  no  wish  to  refute.  It  stands 
for  itself,  and  is  a  most  worthy  addition  both  to  our 
knowledge  and  to  our  conception  of  the  nature  of  the 
mental  life.  But  it  seems  to  me  doubtful  that  a  host 
of  random  and  unrelated  environmental  factors  could 
possibly  produce  in  an  organism  which  has  in  its  own 
constitution  neither  organic  continuity  nor  differential 
sensitivity,  a  consistent  and  logical  mental  life,  or,  if 
the  Behaviorist  prefers  the  term,  physical  life. 

If  all  organisms  are  born  alike,  and  have  no  in- 
herent organic  differences,  it  is  certainly  a  strain  upon 
our  conceptions  of  the  theory  of  probability  to  believe 
that  a  vast  number  of  environmental  stimuli,  which 
are  not  themselves  causally  related,  would  build  up 
modes  of  reaction  which  are  causally  related.  I  have 
no  personal  objections  to  a  purely  mechanistic  de- 
scription of  the  life  process  itself.  I  have  been  so  far 
unable  to  see,  however,  how  stimuli  which  are  incon- 
sistent and  unrelated  can  build  up  consistent  and  con- 
trolled behavior.  If  the  organism  does  possess  any 
individualized  powers  of  reaction  against  its  environ- 
ment— that  is,  a  capacity  for  consistent  and  purposive 
behavior — I  am  unable  to  see  how  these  arose  within 
the  organism  itself  by  purely  mechanical  processes; 
and  if  they  are  possessions  of  the  organism,  I  cannot 
conceive  of  them  as  not  being  also  possessions  of  the 
species  to  which  the  organism  belongs.  If  they  are 
possessions  and  characteristics  of  the  species,  they  are 
surely  transmitted  by  heredity  down  the  racial  stream. 


Nor  is  this  view  necessarily  an  assumption  that  the 
vitalistic  conception  of  the  nature  of  organic  life  is  the 
true  and  valid  one.  The  vitalist  assumes  that  in  all 
plants  and  animals  there  is  an  inner  *'life  force'' 
which  directs  growth,  development,  reproduction  and 
evolution.  He  also  usually  assumes  that  this  life  force 
is  working  toward  a  definite  purpose  or  ideal.  Per- 
sonally, it  seems  to  me  that  this  conception,  commonly 
known  as  ** vitalism,"  usually  leads  its  adherents  to 
mysticism.  They  usually  arrive  at  a  mystical  explana- 
tion of  these  natural  processes,  which  appear  to  me  to 
be  purely  mechanical.  I  think  it  is  a  triumph  of  the 
biological  sciences  to  have  demonstrated  that  birth, 
growth  and  death,  the  fertilization  of  the  egg,  and  all 
the  processes  of  development  which  this  fertilization 
sets  going,  are  entirely  mechanical. 

However,  when  it  comes  to  the  behavior  of  the 
organism  as  a  whole  this  presents  an  entirely  different 
problem.  This  is  a  mystery  which  I  think  the  in- 
struments of  science,  of  necessity  mechanical,  have  so 
far  completely  failed  to  explain.  Of  course,  one  can 
assume  a  defiant  mechanistic  explanation  of  thought 
and  behavior  if  one  chooses,  but,  in  my  belief,  it  is  not 
the  safest  assumption  at  the  present  time.  At  least, 
it  is  difficult  to  see  how,  when  we  consider  the  nature 
of  the  laws  of  chance,  random  environmental  factors 
could  produce  anything  but  aimless  random  behavior 
instead  of  logical,  purposive  action.  The  Behaviorist 
replies  to  all  of  this  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as 
purposive  behavior,  and  that  thinking  has  no  purpose 
in  it.  Without  arguing  the  matter  here,  I  have  been, 
so  far,  unable  to  see  how  a  mere  chance  combination 
of  random  forces,  which  have  no  relationship  to  each 
other  and  no  special  reason  for  being  collected  in  a 
particular  combination  or  in  a  particular  individual, 
can  ever  produce  upon  us  the  effect  of  making  us  think 


we  are  thinking;  nor  do  I  see  how  it  can  develop  con- 
duct which  gives  us  the  feeling  that  it  is  under  the 
guidance  of  an  ideal  which  lies  ahead.  It  is  difficult 
to  see  how  the  food  and  chemicals  taken  into  the  body 
and  the  general  stimuli  of  heat,  light,  moisture  and  the 
like  can  cause  an  organism  to  act  in  a  purposive  way 
under  the  influence  of  events  which  have  not  yet 
occurred,  I  think  it  highly  probable  that  physics  and 
chemistry  can  explain  the  actual  bodily  movements 
and  the  brain  changes  which  take  place  while  I  am 
writing  this  passage  on  my  typewriter.  But  I  do  not 
believe  they  explain  why  I  am  doing  it.  I  am  doing 
it,  in  fact,  under  the  influence  of  idealistic  stimuli ;  that 
is,  under  the  influence  of  events  which  have  not 
occurred  but  which  I  expect  will  occur.  How  the 
future  can  possibly  be  retroactive  and  produce 
chemical  and  mechanical  effects  in  my  body  and  cause 
me  to  move  in  certain  logical  ways  which  must  be 
purposive,  simply  because  they  produce  systematic, 
logical  and  expected  results,  I  am  unable  at  present 
to  see. 

While  I  believe  biology  has  triumphantly  dem- 
onstrated the  mechanistic  nature  of  the  life  processes 
themselves,  it  has  hopelessly  failed  so  far  to  ex- 
plain to  me  thought  and  behavior.  Chemistry  and 
physics  can  explain  an  organism  which  merely  works, 
but  I  think  they  have  not  explained  an  organism 
which  lives  a  personal  life  of  meanings  and  values.  I 
see  no  explanation  of  this  except  some  sort  of  dualistic 
conception  of  the  universe  in  which  we  live ;  that  is,  a 
universe  in  which  there  is  something  which  is  not  aim- 
less, mechanical  force.  We  can  call  this  other  sub- 
stance **muid"  or  ** spirit"  or  any  other  convenient 
term.  There  are  numerous  technical,  philosophical 
conceptions  as  to  how  this  dualism  of  spirit  and  matter 
operates.    It  is  unnecessary  to  go  into  them  here.    1 


merely  wish  to  point  out  that  one  need  not  be  either 
dogmatic  or  sentimental  or  behind  the  times  in  science 
to  believe  that  science  has  not  explained  the  whole 
universe,  although  the  Behaviorist  assures  us  that  he 
has  done  so  and  that  there  is  no  longer  even  any  need 
for  philosophic  reflection,  or  any  possibility  that  life 
and  thought  have  any  meaning  or  purpose  which  are 
significant  to  the  individual  himself. 


The  man  in  the  street  and  the  social  reformer  like 
to  believe  in  the  power  of  the  environment  to  change 
men,  chiefly  because  they  think  such  a  belief  is  the 
only  optimistic  one.  I  have  already  mentioned  this 
point  and  expect  to  argue  it  at  length  in  a  future 
volume.  We  all  like  to  believe  in  the  power  of  environ- 
ment. We  like  to  believe  that  we  can  influence  people 
about  us,  that  we  can  change  them,  that  we  can  alter 
their  behavior,  their  outlook  on  life,  their  fundamental 
characteristics.  A  parent  likes  to  believe  he  can  train 
his  children  in  the  way  they  should  go,  and  that  they 
will  go  that  way.  He  feels  an  "immense  responsibility 
for  their  moral  character,  and  he  believes  that  their 
abilities  in  gripping  life  effectively  depend  largely 
upon  the  environment  with  which  he  surrounds  them. 
He  is  by  no  means  altogether  wrong  in  holding  these 
beliefs  and  acting  upon  them. 

What  children  do  and  what  they  become  depend 
to  a  considerable  extent  on  environment  and  oppor- 
tunity. But  parents  should  reflect  that  just  in  propor- 
tion as  environment  can  mold  children,  their  fate  is  a 
matter  of  mere  luck  and  chance.  If  they  chance  to 
have  good  surroundings  they  will  be  good  people. 
This  sounds  very  lovely  and  optimistic.  But  it  carries 
with  it  the  terrifying  thought  that  exactly  the  opposite 


would  also  be  true  should  they  chance  to  have  bad 
surroundings.  If  good  environment  will  make  people 
good,  then  bad  environment  will  make  people  bad. 
And  if  this  theory  be  true,  then  it  will  affect  all  people 
equally.  Those  people  who  have  by  good  luck  had  a 
good  environment  will  be  good  people,  and  those  who 
by  bad  luck  are  thrown  into  a  bad  environment  will  be 
bad  people.  In  other  words,  there  is  no  possible 
escape  from  this  awful  and  fateful  power  of  environ- 
ment.   A  man  is  what  his  environment  makes  him. 

The  reason  for  the  scientist's  clinging  to  the  notion 
of  the  power  of  environment  is  merely  that  he  wants 
to  find  the  truth  of  the  matter ;  but  the  reason  for  the 
average  man's  clinging  to  this  notion  is  that  he  be- 
lieves it  is  hopeful  and  kindly  and  that  it  softens  our 
views  of  human  life.  If  he  will  reflect,  however — and 
I  wish  some  of  our  leading  educators  would  reflect — 
upon  the  other  side  of  the  problem,  if  he  would  just  go 
around  behind  the  picture  and  take  a  look  at  it  from 
the  back  instead  of  from  the  .front,  he  would  see  that 
he  is  unwittingly  espousing  and  preaching  a  doctrine 
of  unvarnished,  cold-blooded,  unmitigated  pessimism 
and  fatalism.  A  number  of  distinguished  scientists 
have  done  me  the  honor  to  say  that  I  am  the  first 
student  who  has  pointed  out  this  logical  contradiction 
in  the  reasoning  of  both  the  common  man  and  the 


Even  a  number  of  biologists  in  their  published  writ- 
ings have  been  rather  apologetic  in  presenting  the  facts 
which  indicate  to  them  that  heredity  is  a  powerful 
factor,  and  probably  the  most  powerful  factor  in  de- 
termining human  character  and  destiny  and  in  award- 
ing the  prizes  of  life.    But  this  is  not  necessary,  their 


apologies  are  not  justified.  They  are  carrying  coals 
to  Newcastle.  It  is  the  very  essence  of  the  environ- 
mental theory  that  man  is  helpless  in  the  presence  of 
the  environmental  forces  which  happen  to  surround 
him,  although  the  environmentalists  do  not  seem  to 
have  observed  this  as  the  necessary  outcome  of  their 
logic.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  the  very  essence  of  the 
hereditarian  theory  that  a  man  has  within  him  the 
power  to  control  and  manipulate  environment  to  his 
desires  and  will.  And  few  if  any  hereditarians  seem 
to  have  observed  this.  Of  course,  it  seems  very  com- 
forting for  the  parent  himself  to  believe  that  his  child 
is  a  mere  bit  of  clay  in  the  potter's  hand.  It  comforts 
him  to  think  that  he  is  the  potter  and  can  mold  the 
child  into  some  noble  pattern  of  beauty  and  strength. 
But  let  him  look  at  it  from  the  child's  standpoint.  By 
this  very  same  view  which  gives  the  father  or  mother 
so  much  comfort,  the  child  is  the  mere  victim  of  the 
situation.  And  just  in  so  far  as  the  clay-and-potter 
idea  of  human  character  is  true,  then  every  child 
comes  into  the  world  an  utterly  helpless,  friendless 
piece  of  clay,  with  his  character  and  destiny  and 
happiness  at  the  mercy  of  chance  circumstances.  He 
is  the  mere  plaything  of  fate,  the  will-o'-the-wisp  of 
fortune  and  the  jest  of  chance  and  change.  If  the  ex- 
treme environmental  theory  be  true,  then  a  man  on 
his  entire  journey  from  the  cradle  to  the  grave  is  pre- 
cisely like  the  lonely,  broken,  dismantled  ships  called 
derelicts,  which  drift  aimlessly  about  the  ocean.  They 
are  water-soaked  and  almost  completely  sunk  from 
view.  They  are  thus  the  terror  of  every  sailor  upon 
the  high  seas.  They  have  no  machinery,  no  captain, 
no  guiding  mind,  no  rudder,  no  sail,  and  they  are 
bound  for  no  port.  They  drift  aimlessly  before  every 
wind  that  blows.  Every  current  that  passes  by,  al- 
though it  has  come  from  far-off  seas,  catches  them  in 


its  relentless  onward  flow  and  bears  them  once  more 
to  skies  and  seas  unknown. 


Just  SO  it  is  with  the  human  mind  and  body  and 
character  if  the  world  which  the  environmentalists 
have  set  up  be  true.  It  may  be  very  comforting  to 
believe  that  we  can  mold  other  beings  to  our  will,  but 
this  very  belief  carries  as  its  own  necessity  that  those 
beings  that  we  mold  have  no  will  or  character  of  their 
own.  We  who  believe  in  heredity  are  convinced  that 
this  is  not  true.  We  hold  a  much  more  hopeful  and 
optimistic  outlook  upon  the  problems  of  life  and 
destiny.  We  believe  that  a  man  has  something  within 
him.  We  believe  that  this  something  is  the  power 
which  the  long  toil  of  evolution  has  given  to  living 
beings  as  the  very  essence  of  life  itself,  namely,  the 
power  to  react  upon  environment  and  mold  it  to  the 
demands  of  its  own  nature.  The  power  of  the  living 
organism  to  grasp  and  mold  environment  to  the  de- 
mands of  its  own  structure  and  its  own  dynamics  is 
to  my  mind  what  the  life  process  is.  I  shall  discuss 
this  point  again  towards  the  conclusion  of  this  section. 

It  is  this  characteristic  of  the  living  organism 
which,  in  my  belief,  makes  it  possible  for  it  to  have  the 
thing  which  we  call  experience  and  to  produce  as  the 
very  essence  of  that  experience  the  thing  we  call 
knowledge.  If  the  pure  environmental  theory  be 
true — while  I  merely  assert  this  here  and  do  not  at- 
tempt to  argue  it — ^I  believe  that  it  makes  impossible 
the  things  which  we  call  experience  and  knowledge. 
The  power  to  manipulate  environment  is  the  very 
essence  of  life;  it  is  what  this  **fever  called  living"  in 
its  ultimate  analysis  really  is;  and  if  it,  itself,  be  the 
product  of  environment,  then  environment  has  given 


to  a  combination  of  chance  circumstances  called  an 
individual  organism  a  power  greater  than  resides  in 
these  environmental  forces  themselves.  It  has,  at 
least,  gone  beyond  our  conception  of  cause  and  effect. 
Reducing  it  to  simple,  every-day  terms,  we  who 
believe  in  heredity  believe  that  just  in  proportion  as 
evolution  has  advanced,  and  organisms  have  gained 
greater  and  greater  complexity,  this  has  given  them  a 
progressive  power  over  their  environment.  This  has 
reached  its  climax  in  man,  and  as  we  go  up  from  the 
imbecile  to  the  genius,  this  power  over  environment 
and  this  freedom  from  the  effects  of  environment 
steadily  expand.  It  is  this  which  enables  the  normal 
man  to  rise  amid  almost  any  ordinary  earthly  environ- 
ment and  justly  and  rightly  exclaim,  **I  am  the  master 
of  my  fate,  I  am  the  captain  of  my  soul. ' ' 


The  reader  may  ask.  If  man  is  master  of  his  en- 
vironment why  strive  to  give  him  a  good  environment 
at  all?  What  difference  does  it  make  whether  he  has 
a  good  or  a  bad  enviroimient?  The  answer  lies  in  the 
very  nature  of  heredity  itself.  Since  it  has  the  power 
to  choose  among  environmental  opportunities,  quite 
obviously  the  better  these  opportunities  are,  the  more 
numerous,  the  richer  and  more  complex,  the  more  op- 
portunity they  give  for  the  exercise  of  all  the  poten- 
tialities of  the  individual's  heredity.  A  genius  among 
the  cave  men  could  do  very  little,  because  there  was 
very  little  to  do  and  very  little  to  do  with.  A  moron 
to-day  can  do  much  because  there  is  much  to  do  and 
much  to  do  with.  The  Negro,  for  example,  can  do 
vastly  better  in  America  than  he  can  in  Africa.  Our 
environment  offers  vastly  more  inducements  as  well 
as  rewards  for  the  exercise  of  any  capacities  that  he 
may  have  within  him.    However,  our  environment  is 


too  complex  for  the  Negro  to  master  or  take  advantage 
of  all  of  it.  I  think  that  in  this  respect  the  best  brief 
description  of  the  Negro  character  that  has  ever  been 
made  is  the  observation  of  David  Grayson,  that  inimi- 
table philosopher  of  our  daily  life :  *  *  The  Negro  can  do 
more  with  little  and  less  with  much  than  any  man  I 
know."  His  vast  good  nature,  which  is  inborn,  is 
almost  unabated  by  circumstances,  however  untoward 
they  may  be.  A  very  small  portion  of  the  vast 
luxuries  of  our  abundant  environment  fills  his  easy 
good  nature  with  the  glow  of  satisfaction.  Surround- 
ings that  seem  very  hard  to  the  white  man,  with  his 
more  gloomy  disposition  and  his  greater  demands, 
seem  to  the  Negro  ample  sources  of  happiness.  That 
is,  he  can  do  much  and  get  much  out  of  life  with  very 
little  in  hand.  But  this  very  lack  of  inner  discontent 
with  his  environment  has,  in  the  long  flow  of  evolution, 
deprived  him  of  the  very  ability  as  well  as  of  the  pas- 
sion to  rise  and  create  and  master  a  more  difficult  and 
intricate  environment.  He  is  not  equal  to  those  higher 
integrative  processes  of  the  nervous  system  which — 
as  Sherrington,  the  English  psychologist,  has  shown — 
are  the  very  essence  of  controlled  behavior  and 
mastery  over  the  dilemmas  presented  by  the  environ- 
ment. For  this  reason  he  can  do  little  with  much  be- 
cause he  fails  in  grasping  the  higher  complexities  and 
consequently  the  higher  advantages  of  a  multitudinous 
environment  such  as  ours. 


Now,  what  is  true  of  the  Negro  is  true  of  all  levels 
of  intelligence  and  temperament.  It  is  true  of  all 
levels  of  organic  life.  In  1910,  F.  A.  Woods  published 
in  the  Popular  Science  Monthly,  now  the  Scientific 
Monthly,  an  able  discussion  of  this  very  point  in  a 


paper  entitled  **Laws  of  Diminishing  Environmental 
Influence."  Woods  brought  out  three  things  of  very 
great  importance,  points  which  are  frequently  over- 
looked in  discussions  of  the  problem  of  heredity  and 

This  paper  showed:  First,  that  as  we  come  up 
from  the  plant  world  through  the  low  forms  of  life, 
such  as  the  amoeba,  oyster,  crab,  to  the  higher  forms, 
such  as  insects,  fishes,  frogs,  reptiles,  birds  and 
mammals,  and  finally  to  the  mental  and  moral  traits 
of  human  beings,  there  is  a  regular  and  consistent 
decrease  of  the  power  of  the  environment  to  control 
the  life  and  development  of  the  individual.  There  is 
likewise  a  concomitant  increase  in  the  power  of  the 
organism  to  control,  utilize  and  develop  its  environ- 
ment so  as  to  create  by  its  own  powers  new  environ- 
ments and  build  new  surroundings  for  itself. 

When  this  fact  is  once  stated,  it  seems  so  obvious 
a  rule  of  nature  that  one  wonders  it  was  not  thought 
of  before.  But,  as  Herbert  Spencer,  the  English 
philosopher,  pointed  out  and  as  has  been  confirmed  by 
modern  psychological  measurement,  you  can  pretty 
well  tell  the  calibre  of  a  man's  mind  by  the  broad 
general  ideas  which  occur  to  him.  The  higher  man 
sees,  even  among  common  facts,  relationships  which 
totally  escape  the  common  man.  For  this  reason  he 
arrives  at  those  large  generalizations  which  we  call 
**laws"  of  nature.  They  seem  quite  obvious  to  lesser 
minds  when  once  a  mind  of  the  generalizing  type  has 
discovered  and  stated  them. 


Anyone  will  agree,  I  think,  that  any  oyster,  for 
example,  is  almost  entirely  the  product  of  its  environ- 
ment.   It  cannot  even  swim  about  and  choose  its  feed- 


ing  ground.  It  has  to  depend  for  its  subsistence  upon 
the  mere  chance  currents  that  bring  food  within  its 
reach.  It  has  no  power  to  change  the  temperature  of 
the  water,  nor  to  choose  water  of  a  more  favorable 
temperature.  Indeed,  the  oyster  is  ahnost  wholly  a 
creature  of  circumstance.  This  is  precisely  the  view 
which  our  Behavioristic  friends,  and  other  extreme 
environmentalists,  seem  to  me  to  hold  as  to  the  brain 
of  a  new-born  child. 

If,  as  these  students  maintain,  there  are  no  inborn 
differences  among  human  beings;  if  the  brains  of  all 
children  when  they  are  born  are  exactly  alike;  and  if 
the  different  traits  they  exhibit  in  later  life  which 
lead  us  to  think  of  one  of  them  as  John  Jones  and  of 
another  as  William  Brown,  are  entirely  due  to  the 
environment  of  their  early  childhood,  then  it  seems  to 
me  that  we  have  a  pure  oyster  theory  of  life  and  educa- 
tion. It  seems  that  it  would  make  scarcely  any 
difference  in  a  child's  future  intelligence  and  moral 
character  if  we  should  without  injury  remove  the 
child's  brain  at  birth  and  fill  its  skull  with  a  colony 
of  oysters.  Oysters  are  composed  of  sentient  tissues, 
and  this  is  all  that  the  Behaviorist  seems  to  demand  as 
his  original  stock  in  trade  for  producing  either  an 
imbecile  or  a  genius.  If  the  extreme  environmental 
contenHons  be  true,  then  I  see  no  logical  place  to  stop 
in  the  environmental  theory  between  the  oyster  suck- 
ing in  the  passing  morsel  of  food  and  the  genius 
measuring  the  orbits  of  the  stars. 

Practically  one  hundred  per  cent,  of  the  oyster's 
life  is,  doubtless,  due  to  environment ;  the  Behaviorists 
assert  that  ninety-five  per  cent,  of  a  human  being's 
character  is  due  to  environment.  Evolution  has  cer- 
tainly little  to  show  for  all  its  time  and  trouble  if  it 
has  only  produced  a  -&ve  per  cent,  difference  in  the 
power  of  its  later  creations  over  its  earlier  ones  in  the 


mastery  of  environment.  But  it  is  some  comfort  to  the 
eugenist  to  know  that  he  has  at  least  this  five  per  cent, 
margin  of  organic  difference  to  work  on.  If  he  can 
improve  this  five  per  cent,  and  make  it  six,  perhaps  he 
ought  to  be  satisfied. 


The  second  feature  of  the  environment  which 
Woods  noted  in  his  thesis  was  that  the  influence  of 
environment  decreases  with  the  power  and  opportunity 
of  choice  which  is  open  to  the  individual.  As  Woods 
says:  **This  may  be  the  chief  reason  why  human 
beings,  who  of  all  creatures  have  the  greatest  power  to 
choose  the  surroundings  congenial  to  their  special 
needs  and  natures,  are  so  little  affected  by  outward 
conditions.  The  occasional  able,  ambitious  and  de- 
termined member  of  an  obscure  or  degenerate  family 
can  get  free  from  his  uncongenial  associates.  So  can 
the  weak  or  lazy  or  vicious  (even  if  a  black  sheep  from 
the  finest  fold)  easily  find  his  natural  haunts. 

**It  is  a  point  often  forgotten,  yet  one  that  should 
be  constantly  borne  in  mind,  that  there  are  these  two 
kinds  of  environment  from  the  standpoint  of  an 
organism.  There  are  surroundings  from  which  there 
is  no  escape,  let  the  creature  try  his  best,  and  there 
are  also  environments  from  which  escape  is  possible 
if  the  inheritant  desires  impel  it." 

We  can  see  how  this  applies  both  to  lower  organ* 
isms  and  to  human  beings.  When  we  fertilize  and 
cultivate  a  plant,  it  has  no  escape  from  the  environment 
we  impose  upon  it.  The  oyster  also,  for  example,  has 
little  power  of  choice.  It  cannot  escape  from  one  en- 
vironment and  choose  another.  This  does  not,  in  itself, 
cause  the  environment  to  have  greater  influence,  but  it 
does   enable  the  environment  to  impose  its   entire 


weight  upon  the  organism.  When  we  come  to  the 
higher  animals,  and  especially  to  man,  the  whole  drive 
of  their  lives  is  to  search  for  an  environment  congenial 
to  their  natures.  As  Woods  argues,  a  man  cannot 
escape  from  the  period  of  the  world  into  which  he 
happens  to  be  born.  Consequently,  the  kind  of  life  he 
lives,  the  way  he  conducts  himself,  the  achievements 
that  he  makes,  are  to  a  considerable  extent  determined 
by  these  inescapable  conditions.  If  you  and  I,  for 
instance,  were  in  Eome,  we  would  doubtless  do  as  the 
Eomans  do,  because  there  is  no  other  way  to  do.  A 
man  cannot  migrate  from  one  century  of  the  world  to 
another.  Therefore,  the  whole  weight  of  the  age  in 
which  a  man  lives  he  must  bear  upon  his  shoulders. 
As  a  consequence  of  this,  the  number  of  great  men  and 
women  who  appear  in  any  one  age  may  be  due  to  the 
general  conditions  of  the  times.  During  a  war  great 
generals  are  likely  to  arise.  A  man  with  the  military 
genius  of  Napoleon  could  not  make  it  manifest  in  a 
time  of  peace.  I  imagine  that  if  Napoleon  were  born 
to-day  in  America  he  would  become  a  great  railroad 
builder  or  king  of  finance.  There  can  be  little  question, 
I  think,  that  Napoleon  was  one  of  the  greatest  financial 
geniuses  of  all  time.  Any  man  who  could  carry  on  war 
with  the  whole  world  for  twenty  years  and  never  for  a 
single  moment  debase  his  national  currency  certainly 
deserves  to  be  placed  among  the  immortal  kings  of 

A  man  is,  therefore,  to  some  extent  the  product  of 
his  age.  This  does  not  alter  the  fact  that  the  age  is 
nearly  always  the  product  of  the  inborn  genius  of  a 
very  few  men.  It  is  this  genius  which  imposes  upon 
the  masses  of  men  an  environment  from  which  they  as 
individuals  cannot  escape.  As  an  example  of  this, 
conditions  have  made  it  hard  for  women  to  achieve 
distinction  throughout  nearly  all  human  history.    The 


fact  that  far  more  women  are  now  rising  to  high  places 
of  power  and  influence  is  therefore  largely  due  to 
change  in  the  world  environment  of  modem  times. 
But  this  very  fact  illustrates  the  point  at  issue,  and 
that  is  that  even  with  opportunity  thrown  wide  open 
to  all  women,  yet  all  women  do  not  attain  equal  distinc- 
tion. The  relative  achievements,  the  relative  choices 
which  different  women  make,  and  the  relative  emo- 
tional interest  and  capacity  to  make  use  of  the 
available  features  in  the  environment  which  different 
women  exhibit,  are  to  an  immense  extent  due  to  their 
differences  in  inborn  qualities. 


The  third  feature  of  the  environment  in  its  relation 
to  heredity  which  Woods  notes  in  his  paper  is  the 
difference  between  the  expected  and  the  unexpected 

For  example,  when  a  child  is  bom,  we  expect  for  it 
a  certain  kind  of  environment.  We  expect  that  it  will 
live  for  a  number  of  years  under  the  care  of  its  parents 
and  in  contact  with  its  brothers  and  sisters  and  other 
children  in  the  community.  The  child's  parents,  grand- 
parents and  great-grandparents  have  gone  through 
pretty  much  the  same  experience.  There  have  been 
some  changes  in  the  world,  of  course,  during  that  time ; 
methods  of  transportation  have  changed,  schools  have 
improved,  the  ways  in  which  people  make  a  living  have 
undergone  changes,  and  the  like.  However,  all  the 
ordinary  contacts  of  human  beings  with  each  other, 
such  as  friendliness,  sympathy,  conversation  about 
their  trials,  troubles  and  hopes,  the  general  standards 
of  good  conduct  and  right  relationships,  and  what  we 
might  call  the  moral  and  mental  atmosphere  of  the 
world  have  not  been  profoundly  changed.  As  we  read 
the  Bible  or  any  ancient  book,  we  find  that  probably 


eighty  or  ninety  per  cent,  of  the  ways  in  which  people, 
in  its  time,  behaved  toward  each  other,  and  the  conduct 
and  relationships  which  they  expected  from  each  other, 
were  just  about  the  same  as  they  are  now.  Conse- 
quently, we  would  expect  the  children  of  Abraham, 
Isaac  and  Jacob  to  grow  up  about  as  our  boys  and  girls 
to-day,  if  as  babies  they  should  be  transferred  across 
the  centuries  to  our  own  time.  The  reason  for  thinking 
this  is  that  we  would  expect  most  of  the  environment 
to  be  not  very  different  from  that  of  the  olden  time. 
They  would  make  radically  different  achievements  in 
this  day,  of  course,  just  because  the  means  of  making 
achievements  have  been  greatly  multiplied.  Never- 
theless, the  relative  achievements  which  they  would 
make  to-day  would  be  largely  determined  by  their 
relative  capacities. 

This  idea  of  the  expected  environment  goes  even 
deeper,  and  is  indeed  the  very  essence  of  our  concep- 
tion of  what  heredity  is.  Prof.  Herbert  S.  Jennings, 
of  Johns  Hopkins,  has  brought  this  out  very  distinctly 
in  his  recent  little  book  entitled  Prometheus.  Follow- 
ing Professor  Jennings'  reasoning,  which  I  think  states 
the  belief  of  all  advanced  workers  in  biology  to-day,  the 
word  *^ heredity''  means  that  there  are  certain  chemical 
packages  in  the  germ-cells;  that  is,  the  first  life-cell 
from  which  individuals  arise.  If  one  or  a  group  of 
these  chemical  packages  meets  with  a  certain  expected 
environment  it  will  develop  into  a  certain  expected 
trait  or  function  or  feature  of  the  adult  organism. 
There  are  chemical  packages  in  the  germ-cells  from 
which  some  people  are  born,  which,  if  they  meet  with 
the  expected  environment  will  develop  into,  say,  red 
hair,  or  browTi  eyes  or  musical  talent  or  tuberculosis 
or  tall  or  short  stature,  and  the  like.  We  know  they 
will  do  this  provided  they  meet  the  expected  environ 
ment.    And  by  this  I  mean  they  must  meet  the  same 


conditions  of  heat,  moisture,  nourishment,  education, 
physical  growth  of  the  other  parts  of  the  body  which 
this  same  kind  of  chemical  packages  met  with  during 
the  lives  of  the  individual's  ancestors  and  other  per- 
sons who  exhibited  these  same  characters.  However, 
in  this  same  germ-cell  are  also  hosts  of  other  chemical 
packages  which  will  express  their  appropriate  char- 
acters in  the  adult  individual  if  it  should  happen  that 
they  meet  with  the  environment  which  will  develop 
them.  But  these  chemical  packages  will  only  develop 
in  the  same  way  as  they  did  in  the  ancestors  provided 
that  the  individual  meets  with  the  same  chemical, 
physical  and  educational  environment  that  brought  out 
these  traits  in  the  ancestors. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  individual  meets  with 
radically  different  conditions,  why,  then,  some  other 
character  than  the  expected  one  will  develop.  It  might 
happen,  of  course,  that  no  character  at  all  would  de- 
velop. If  a  man  does  not  have  the  chemical  packages 
requisite  for  the  development  of  hair,  for  instance,  in 
the  germ-cell  from  which  he  was  born,  he  will  be  bald- 
headed  from  the  cradle  to  the  grave.  No  amount  of 
hair  tonic  or  beauty  culture  will  ever  enable  him  to 
cover  his  pate  with  a  growth  of  hair.  Most  people  will 
at  once  admit  this  to  be  a  fact,  and  yet  these  same 
people  imagine  that  they  can  administer  some  sort  of 
educational  or  social  or  political  tonic  that  will  create 
mental  and  moral  traits  in  people  when  there  were  no 
chemical  packages  in  the  germ-cell  for  those  traits. 
The  reason  we  believe  that  there  were  no  chemical 
representatives  in  the  germ-cells  of  such  people  for 
these  desirable  traits  is  that,  as  we  look  back  into  the 
lives  of  their  ancestors,  we  find  that  they  lived  amid  the 
same  environmental  agencies  which  brought  out  these 
traits  in  people  all  about  them,  yet  in  these  particular 
people  they  did  not  appear. 



When  we  look  at  heredity  as  being  this  sort  of 
thing,  it  loses  all  mysticism  and  becomes  a  definite, 
manageable,  measurable  fact.  It  brings  it  out  of  the 
realm  of  mystery  and  makes  it  a  clear  mental  concept. 
And  if  it  be  looked  at  in  this  way,  I  cannot  conceive 
of  any  trait  or  characteristic  which  we  see  in  an  in- 
dividual— ^whether  it  be  moral  idealism,  artistic 
sensitiveness,  insanity,  longevity,  susceptibility  to 
alcohol  or  malaria  or  to  the  opportunity  to  commit 
crime — that  is  not  inherited ;  and  I  cannot  conceive  of 
any  trait  or  characteristic  that  is  not  also  due  to  en- 
vironment, that  is  to  say,  is  acquired. 

When  a  child  is  born,  we  predict,  with  considerable 
confidence  and  with  considerable  success  in  our  pre- 
dictions after  we  have  studied  its  ancestry,  that  it  will 
develop  into  a  man  or  woman  with  certain  general 
characteristics.  We  are  successful  in  our  predictions, 
not  because  the  germ-cell  from  which  the  child  was 
born  determines  willy  nilly  all  it  shall  be  and  become, 
but  because  we  expect  that  the  chemical  packages, 
called  chromosomes  and  genes,  in  the  germ-cell  from 
which  it  was  born,  and  which  are  quite  similar  in  their 
chemical  properties  and  potencies  to  those  from  which 
the  child's  ancestors  were  born,  will  also  develop  in  a 
very  similar  environment. 

Consequently,  when  we  measure  a  trait  in  a  child 
and  compare  it  with  the  same  trait  in  its  parents  and 
other  ancestors,  we  are  not  measuring  heredity  separ- 
ate from  environment,  but  are  measuring  both  at  the 
same  time.  We  can  only  separate  the  two  factors  suc- 
cessfully when  we  can  put  two  individuals  of  the  same 
heredity  under  different  environments,  or  else  put  two 
persons  with  different  heredity  under  the  same 



We  accomplish  this  with  encouraging  success  where 
we  can  study  a  pair  of  twins  who  are  so  nearly  alike 
that  for  practical  purposes  we  can  assume  they  are 
identical,  and  who  we  believe  from  our  knowledge  of 
embryology  were  both  born  from  one  germ-cell  and 
consequently  have  almost  identical  heredity,  by  plac- 
ing them  under  different  environments.  We  also  reach 
a  fair  approximation  to  experimental  conditions  where 
sets  of  brothers  or  of  sisters,  all  of  whom  were  born 
from  separate  germ-cells  and  consequently  have  dif- 
ferent heredity,  are  reared  in  the  same  home,  by  the 
same  parents,  attend  the  same  school,  Sunday  school 
and  church,  have  the  same  friends  and  playmates,  and 
thus  have  eighty  or  ninety  per  cent,  of  their  environ- 
ment identical.  This  has  been  done  in  a  large  number 
of  very  refined  investigations,  and  they  all  agree  in 
finding  the  heredity  factor  more  influential  in  de- 
termining one's  physical  make-up,  intelligence  and 
character,  than  the  environmental  factor.  Prof.  J. 
H.  MuUer,  of  the  University  of  Texas,  has  recently 
devised  some  new  mathematical  methods  for  stud>dng 
twins  who  look  alike  and  act  alike,  but  who  have  been 
reared  apart  during  most  of  their  lives.  Anyone  read- 
ing these  pages  who  knows  of  a  pair  of  such  twins — 
that  is,  twins  of  the  same  sex,  who  are  so  nearly  alike 
as  to  be  a  subject  of  common  remark,  but  who  have 
been  separated  the  greater  part  of  their  lives, 
especially  during  their  years  of  early  childhood — will 
confer  a  great  favor  on  investigators,  and  make  a 
genuine  contribution  to  the  solution  of  the  heredity 
environment  problem — perhaps  the  most  important 
problem  that  confronts  mankind — if  he  will  send  the 
names  and  addresses  of  these  persons  to  Professor 
MuUer  of  the  University  of  Texas,  at  Austin,  Texas. 



Doctor  Tmman  L.  Kelley,  of  Stanford  Universily, 
one  of  the  keenest  analytical  minds  of  our  time,  has 
also  devised  methods  of  the  very  highest  mathematical 
refinement  and  consequent  accuracy  for  separating  the 
heredity  factor  from  the  environment  factor  in  the 
study  of  particular  traits.  He  finds  that  some  traits 
are  more  influenced  by  environment  or  more  subject  to 
heredity  than  others.  The  sweeping  assertion  often 
made,  even  by  scientific  men,  that  ninety  per  cent,  of 
a  man's  character  is  due  to  heredity,  or,  as  others 
claim,  ninety  per  cent,  is  due  to  environment,  is,  thus, 
not  justified  by  the  facts,  unless  one  has  in  mind  that  he 
is  merely  expressing  a  general  average  of  all  of  a 
man's  traits. 

In  discussing  the  heredity- environment  problem, 
Prof.  E.  L.  Thorndike,  years  ago  made  the  penetrating 
observation  that  if  the  differences  among  men  are  due 
to  environment,  then  if  we  could  put  a  group  of  men 
under  the  same  environmental  influence — such,  for 
example,  as  training  them  in  arithmetic — this  training 
ought  to  bring  their  abilities  closer  together,  and  thus 
make  them  more  nearly  alike. 

After  this  is  once  stated,  it  seems  very  simple  and 
obvious.  Let  us  suppose,  for  illustration,  that  Smith 
and  Robinson  were  born  with  the  same  abilities  in 
arithmetic  and  the  facility  they  manifest  in  these  func- 
tions will  be  due  to  the  environment  they  meet.  Let  us 
suppose  that  the  highest  achievement  they  could  ever 
reach  in  arithmetic  could  be  stated  by  the  figure  forty. 
The  Behaviorists  seem  not  to  allow  us  to  set  any  limits 
to  what  the  stupidest  child  can  be  taught  to  do,  either 
in  solving  problems  in  arithmetic  or  in  the  higher 
forms  of  mathematical  thinking,   two  things   which 


Doctor  Kelley  believes  are  different  functions  of  the 
mind.  He  thinks  a  man  may  be  a  very  rapid  calculator, 
and  yet  may  not  be  able  to  work  out  the  Einstein  theory 
any  better  than  a  man  who  has  very  moderate  ability 
in  computation. 

Let  us  suppose,  next,  that  we  find  by  trying  Smith 
and  Robinson  out  that  Smith  at  present  has  an  ability 
in  arithmetic  of  twenty,  while  Robinson  has  an  ability 
of  thirty.  We  now  give  them  an  equal  amount  of  train- 
ing in  arithmetic.  Plainly,  if  they  both  have  equal 
ability  they  will  both  move  up  towards  forty,  but  since 
neither  one  of  them  can  go  beyond  forty,  they  will 
soon  be  much  less  than  ten  points  apart,  which  was  the 
distance  by  which  they  were  separated  when  they  be- 
gan. Since  they  can  do  equally  well  if  they  get  the 
chance,  and  you  give  them  that  chance,  they  will  both 
arrive  ultimately  at  just  about  the  same  point,  say 
thirty-five  or  thirty-eight  or  whatever  it  may  be. 

It  would  surely  seem  from  this  that  if  all  men  are 
born  equal,  given  equal  opportunities  they  will  do 
equally  well.  Neither  common  observation  nor  scien- 
tific experiment  up  to  date  lends  encouragement  to  this 
suggestion.  Let  us,  however,  reverse  the  picture  of 
the  cause  of  Smith  and  Robinson  ^s  difference  in  ability. 
Let  us  suppose  that  Smith  and  Robinson  were  not  born 
with  equal  ability,  but  that  Smith  has  a  potential 
ability  of  forty,  and  Robinson  has  a  possibility  of  ar- 
riving at  sixty.  We  test  them  out  as  before,  and  find 
that  they  both  now  stand  at  twenty.  If  they  get  the 
opportunity  and  apply  themselves  with  equal  industry, 
it  seems  plain  that  Robinson  will  soon  shoot  far  ahead 
of  Smith,  and  that  equal  opportunity,  instead  of  keep- 
ing them  together,  will  separate  them  more  widely 
than  at  the  beginning. 

On  the  face  of  it,  the  above  illustration  seems  per- 
fect, but  Doctor  Kelley  has  shown  that  it  is  just  a  bit 


too  perfect.  He  shows  in  his  little  book,  The  Influence 
of  Nurture  upon  Native  Differences  that  there  are 
some  functions  of  the  mind  where  equal  amounts^  of 
training  tend  to  lessen  natural  differences,  while  there 
are  others,  in  which,  as  in  the  above  illustration,  train- 
ing tends  to  widen  the  differences.  While  as  a  general 
proposition  equal  opportunity  doubtless  tends  to  make 
men  more  unlike,  yet,  when  we  come  to  measure  the 
mind — function  by  function  and  trait  by  trait — there 
are  exceptions  to  this  broad  general  rule.  I  should 
imagine  that  this  is  due  to  the  nature  of  the  different 
traits  in  question,  and  the  fact  that  all  functions  of  the 
mind  do  not  operate  in  precisely  the  same  way  nor  do 
we  acquire  learning  by  the  same  group  of  processes. 


The  nature-nurture  problem  is  being  constantly  at- 
tacked from  new  angles.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that 
the  ultimate  solution  lies  somewhere  between  the  two 
extremes.  The  Year  Booh  of  the  National  Society  for 
the  Study  of  Education,  published  in  April,  1927,  is 
devoted  entirely  to  new  investigations  of  the  relative 
influence  of  heredity  and  environment.  One  important 
group  of  studies  has  been  made  for  this  publication 
by  Miss  Barbara  Burks,  of  Stanford  University,  and 
Prof.  Frank  N.  Freeman,  psychologist  at  the  Univer- 
sity of  Chicago.  Miss  Burks'  study  has  to  do  with  the 
problem,  whether  adopted  children  are  influenced  in 
their  intelligence,  as  determined  by  intelligence  tests, 
by  the  sort  of  parents  who  have  adopted  them.  She 
finds  that  the  foster  parents  and  the  home  surround- 
ings which  they  supply  do  influence,  to  some  extent, 
the  intelligence  of  the  children  in  so  far  as  intelligence 
tests  can  determine.  Professor  Freeman  has  studied 
the  intelligence  of  adopted  children  as  compared  with 


that  of  their  foster  brothers  and  sisters.  Professor 
Freeman  writes  me  that  he  has  found  that  good  homes 
and  good  foster  brothers  and  sisters  raise  the  intelli- 
gence quotient  of  adopted  children,  while  bad  home 
surroundings  and  foster  brothers  and  sisters  of  low 
quality  lower  the  ratings  obtained  by  intelligence  tests. 
Both  studies  find  the  non-intellectual  traits  more  in- 
fluenced for  good  or  bad  than  the  purely  intellectual 
traits.  All  this  is  very  encouraging  to  those  who  have 
adopted  children  with  a  view  of  improving  their  in- 
telligence and  character.  The  studies  in  this  **Year 
Book''  are  all  highly  technical  in  character.  They  do 
not  alter  the  positions  which  I  have  advanced  in  this 
book ;  namely,  that  both  heredity  and  environment  are 
profoundly  concerned  in  the  development  of  character 
and  intelligence. 

One  of  the  most  significant  pieces  of  evidence 
recently  developed  in  the  problem  of  heredity  and 
environment  is  that  which  relates  to  the  ancestry  of  the 
one  thousand  gifted  children  that  Professor  Terman 
has  studied  in  California.  Professor  Terman  started 
out  with  a  view  of  merely  finding  a  large  group  of 
highly  gifted  children  and  studying  the  general 
characteristics  of  these  precocious  youngsters.  After 
he  had  discovered  these  children,  who  were  selected 
from  the  public  schools  solely  because  of  their  high 
intelligence,  it  occurred  to  him  to  look  up  the  ancestors 
of  five  hundred  and  seventy-eight  of  them,  in  order  to 
see  if  they  had  any  distinguished  persons  in  their 
family  trees.  To  his  own  amazement,  he  discovered 
that  some  members  of  this  group  of  remarkable 
children  were  related  to  one-fourth  of  the  men  and 
women  in  America's  Hall  of  Fame!  Scarcely  one 
person  in  ten  thousand  of  the  American  people  has 
a  relative  in  the  Hall  of  Fame;  but  twenty-three  of 
these  children  were  related  to  these  famous  Americans. 


This  gives  us  the  astonishing  fact  that  one  in  twenty- 
five  of  these  brilliant  boys  and  girls,  instead  of  one  in 
ten  thousand,  is  related  to  the  immortal  geniuses  in 
the  Hail  of  Fame.  Personally,  I  do  not  see  any  way 'to 
account  for  the  high  intelligence  of  these  children  on 
any  other  grounds  than  that  they  come  from  highly 
intelligent  strains  of  the  human  family.  This  is  still 
further  emphasized  by  the  fact  that  a  large  number  of 
these  children  were  related  to  many  other  dis- 
tinguished Americans  who  are  not  among  the  supreme 
few  in  the  Hall  of  Fame  but  who  have  made  for 
themselves  places  of  credit  and  renown  in  our  coun- 
try 's  history. 


There  are  a  few,  even  among  scientific  men,  who 
maintain  that  the  heredity-environment  problem  has 
no  significance.  One  distinguished  biological  student 
of  heredity  has  stated  recently  that  to  worry  about 
which  was  the  more  important,  heredity  or  environ- 
ment, was  just  like  asking  which  was  the  more  im- 
portant in  running  a  locomotive,  the  fuel  or  the  water. 
He  said  that,  since  they  were  both  essential  to  the 
engine's  motion,  they  were  thus  equally  important,  and 
the  question  of  which  one  was  the  more  important  had 
no  sense  to  it.  As  Woods  has  suggested,  the  most  im- 
portant thing  is  the  engine  itself.  The  fuel  and  the 
water  are  expected  to  go  with  it.  When  a  man  pur- 
chases an  engine,  the  thing  he  is  concerned  about  is 
to  get  the  best  machinery  possible.  He  expects  to  find 
the  fuel  and  the  water.  A  very  slight  defect  in  the 
machinery  would  render  the  best  fuel  and  water  in- 
effective. A  slight  improvement  in  the  engine  might 
immensely  enhance  the  speed.  An  improvement  in  the 
quality  of  the  water  and  the  fuel  would  doubtless  work 


some  benefit,  but  it  is  hardly  likely  it  would  be  of  as 
great  advantage  as  the  improvement  of  the  machinery 
to  an  equal  degree.  Anyhow,  fuel  and  water  are  well 
nigh  universal,  but  engines  are  not.  They  are  a  special 
creation,  and  the  great  thing  is  to  secure  a  good  one, 
if  the  engineer  wishes  to  do  effective  work. 


Just  SO  it  is  when  a  child  is  born,  the  important 
thing  is  the  quality  of  the  child,  both  its  mind  and 
body.  A  pretty  good  environment  is  expected,  be- 
cause for  thousands  of  years  in  organized  communities 
environment  has  been  good  enough  for  children  of 
fairly  good  quality  of  mind  and  body  to  survive  and 
to  grow  both  mentally  and  physically,  as  well  as 
morally,  in  a  fairly  orderly  manner.  Some  children 
get  a  more  favorable  environment  than  others,  but  in 
my  own  judgment  the  differences  in  environment  amid 
which  it  is  possible  for  a  boy  or  girl  to  survive  at  all 
are  not  so  very  great.  I  doubt  that  they  are  as  great 
as  environmentalists  have  assumed.  This  is  because 
the  human  organism  simply  will  not  stand  very  great 
changes  in  environment.  The  limits  are  not  so  very 
wide  apart  between  which  the  human  organism  will 
live  at  all.  That  is  one  phase  of  this  whole  problem 
which,  insofar  as  I  know,  has  not  been  measured. 
I  do  not  know  that  anyone  has  attempted  to  measure 
the  real  differences  in  the  environment  itself.  We 
assume  that  there  is  a  very  great  difference  between 
an  environment  of  poverty  and  an  environment  of 
wealth.  But  is  there  1  1  doubt  that  in  the  actual  push 
or  pull,  either  mental  or  physical,  which  wealth  or 
poverty  exerts  on  the  human  organism,  the  difference 
is  very  great.  I  imagine  that  if  we  divided  these 
broad  features  of  the  environment  into  a  great  many 
separate  elements  we  should  find  the  differences,  as 


actual  influences  working  upon  the  organism,  are  not 
as  great  as  the  extreme  environmental  theory  demands. 


There  is  one  point  about  the  influence  of  environ- 
ment upon  human  beings  which  has  been  a  matter  of 
common  observation  ever  since  parents  had  children, 
but  the  true  significance  of  which  has  only  recently 
been  understood.  It  has  always  been  believed  that  a 
child  could  be  influenced  more  easily  by  environment 
than  a  grown  person.  This  belief  is  entirely  justified 
by  modern  science.  Curiously  enough,  parents  have 
not  generally  recognized  that  this  principle  extends 
down  to  the  very  hour  that  a  child  is  born.  We  are 
greatly  indebted  to  the  Behaviorists,  especially  to  their 
founder  and  leader.  Dr.  John  B.  Watson,  for  his 
brilliant  experimental  work  on  infants,  which  has 
taken  this  conception  out  of  the  realm  of  theory  and 
placed  it  in  the  field  of  demonstrated  fact.  Dr.  Arnold 
Gesell,  of  Yale,  and  others  have  also  added  brilliant 
chapters  to  our  knowledge  of  the  psychology  of  baby- 
hood. They  have  demonstrated  one  thing  clearly,  and 
that  is  that  the  environment  of  the  first  few  months  and 
years  of  life  is  more  effective  and  important  in  deter- 
mining the  fundamental  trends  and  characteristics  of 
the  adult  man  and  woman  than  any  other  period  of 
equal  length,  and  probably  more  effective  than  the 
whole  remainder  of  life. 

But  it  is  the  very  success  of  the  Behaviorist's  o-vvn 
demonstrations  which  seems  to  me  to  defeat  his  con- 
tention that  environment  is  all-powerful  in  shaping 
human  character  and  destiny,  and  that  heredity 
amounts  to  practically  nothing.  He  proves,  for 
instance,  that  the  earlier  in  life  the  environmental  in- 
fluence can  be  brought  to  bear,  whether  it  be  fright  or 
the  development  of  some  useful  habit,  the  more  pro- 


found  the  effect  is.  He  overlooks  the  fact,  however, 
that  at  the  time  at  which  he  can  begin  with  a  babe — 
namely,  the  first  hour  after  birth — he  is  even  at  that 
stage  working  with  what  a  biologist  would  regard  as  a 
very  old,  very  far  advanced  organism.  If  the  first  few 
months  of  life  are  more  important  than  any  other 
period — even  periods  of  much  longer  duration, 
possibly  even  more  important  than  the  whole  remain- 
der of  life — then  the  very  long  period  prior  to  birth 
must  he  progressively  more  important. 

This  fact  has  been  demonstrated  in  experiments 
of  Spemann  and  others,  related  by  Jennings.  These 
experiments  show  that  where  the  biologist  can  inter- 
fere with  his  instruments  in  the  very  early  cell  stages 
of  frogs  and  salamanders,  he  can  work  changes  which 
in  the  adult  organism  become  truly  astonishing.  For 
example,  when  a  frog  begins  to  grow,  the  first  cell 
divides  into  two.  Ordinarily  one  of  these  cells  de- 
velops into  the  right  half  of  the  frog's  body  and  the 
other  cell  develops  into  the  left  half.  But  if  these  two 
cells  are  separated,  each  one  develops  into  a  complete 
frog.  Likewise  there  are  certain  salamanders  which 
ordinarily  have  two  eyes,  one  on  each  side  of  the  head. 
But  the  cells  can  be  manipulated  at  the  beginning  in 
a  very  technical  way  so  that  a  salamander  is  produced 
which  has  only  one  eye  in  the  middle  of  the  head. 

Now,  if  the  environmentalists  could  institute  such 
violent  interferences  as  these  with  the  first  few  cells 
which  at  the  beginning  constitute  a  human  being,  or  at 
least  a  potential  one,  then  their  claim  that  environment 
is  all-powerful  and  that  they  might  make  any  child 
into  a  genius  or  an  idiot,  a  saint  or  a  gallows  bird, 
would,  I  think,  be  entirely  justified.  However,  these 
very  experiments  demonstrate  the  enormous  signifi- 
cance of  the  element  of  time  and  the  stage  of  develop- 
ment in  making  environmental  interference  effective. 


They  demonstrate  that  it  would  take  a  vastly  higher 
technique  than  now  seems  within  easy  attainment  to 
work  such  changes  upon  organisms  so  comparatively 
«imple  as  frogs  and  salamanders,  when  they  had 
i-eached  anything  approaching  the  stage  of  develop- 
ment that  a  babe  has  reached  when  it  is  born.  The 
achievements  of  development  are  so  rapid  and  are  so 
solidly  maintained  that  it  certainly  does  violence  to  a 
biologist's  conception  of  the  alterability  of  organismal 
growth  to  believe  that  education  or  differences  in  social 
status,  wealth  or  poverty  will  profoundly  change  the 
structure  and  function  of  organisms  as  old  as  babes 
are  when  they  are  born.  The  Behaviorisms  own  dem- 
onstrations indicate  that  the  very  portion  of  the  life 
of  the  organism  which  he  needs  to  get  at,  in  order  to 
make  good  his  claim,  is  the  very  portion  he  cannot  get 
at.  He  claims  he  can  make  a  stupid,  slow  but  normal 
child,  from  generations  of  stupid,  slow,  thriftless, 
socially  unsuccessful  but  normal  parents,  into  a 
dynamo  of  energy,  a  walking  cyclopaedia  of  learning 
and  an  angel  of  moral  character.  Yet,  by  his  own 
theory  the  very  portion  of  life  which  he  needs  in  order 
to  demonstrate  this  fact  he  cannot  get  at,  and  during 
this  supremely  important  period  the  environment  of  all 
human  beings  is  probably  at  least  ninety  per  cent. 
uniform.  It  is  probably  ninety  per  cent,  uniform,  at 
least,  in  so  far  as  any  pedagogical  processes  are  con- 


I  imagine  that  environment  and  education  will  be- 
come much  more  effective  as  the  psychologist  reveals 
more  and  more  the  groundwork  of  life  contained  in  the 
months  of  babyhood.  It  may  be  ten  times  as  effective. 
But,  even  if  so,  I  cannot  see  that  it  will  do  any  more 
than  draw  out  and  emphasize  the  differences  in  char- 


acter  and  intelligence  with  which  babes  arrive  in  this 
world.  And  I  think  there  is  evidence  that  these  dif- 
ferences even  at  that  point  are  considerable.  If  en- 
vironment be  as  powerful  as  its  enthusiastic  friends 
proclaim,  then  it  ought  to  be  able  to  take  two 
individuals,  who  now  differ  widely,  and  make  them 
much  more  nearly  alike.  If  the  differences  between 
John  Jones  and  William  Brown  are  due  chiefly  to 
differences  in  environment,  then  the  advocates  of  this 
theory  ought  to  be  able  to  put  them  in  a  common  en- 
vironment and  soon  make  them  alike  again.  If  it  be 
claimed  that  they  are  too  old  and  their  nervous  systems 
too  set  and  tough  to  alter,  it  ought  at  least  to  be 
possible  to  take  their  children  and  make  them  alike. 
Maybe,  but  nearly  all  educational  experience  indicates 
that  precisely  the  opposite  would  be  the  result.  The 
more  we  educate  human  differences  the  larger  those 
differences  become,  with  the  exceptions  which  Doctor 
Kelley  has  noted.  If  we  could,  for  example,  educate  a 
tall  man  to  be  taller  and  a  short  man  to  increase  his 
shortness,  they  would  in  the  end  be  farther  apart  than 
ever.  And  it  is  this  general  trend  throughout  nearly 
all  education  which  is  to  me  one  indication,  at  least, 
that  the  larger  share  of  the  differences  among  men  is 
due  to  nature  and  not  to  nurture.  Kelley  has  shown 
that  with  a  few  traits  similar  training  of  two  in- 
dividuals possessing  these  traits  will  tend  to  decrease 
the  differences,  but  with  a  majority  of  traits  the  dif- 
ferences are  increased  by  similarity  of  training. 


However,  just  because  all  traits  are  due  both  to 
heredity  and  environment,  just  because  no  trait  or 
character  will  manifest  itself  unless  it  meets  with  the 
expected  environment,  it  follows  that  one  does  not 
necessarily  have  to  exhibit  a  trait  even  if  he  has 


inherited  it.  In  a  lecture  delivered  in  1909  I  said  on 
this  point:  **If  you  have  inherited  a  thing,  that  does 
not  necessarily  mean  that  you  have  to  show  it.  No 
characteristic  will  develop  unless  it  has  the  appro- 
priate environment.  Most  people  imagine  that  when 
it  is  said  that  tuberculosis  or  insanity  is  hereditary  this 
means  that  a  person  who  has  inherited  this  disease 
must  necessarily  show  it.  The  average  person,  indeed, 
fights  the  idea  of  heredity,  and  even  many  of  the 
medical  profession  fight  it,  because  they  imagine  that 
heredity  is  some  sort  of  relentless  fate.  Especially 
they  imagine  that  if  a  disease  is  hereditary  there  is  no 
escape  from  it;  that  if  it  is  in  your  family,  you  are 
sure  to  have  it,  and  that  there  is  practically  no  use 
trying  to  cure  it.  It  is  just  hereditary,  and  they  sup- 
pose that  means  it  is  inevitable  and  also  means  well- 
nigh  certain  death. 

*^  Heredity  is  nothing  of  the  sort.  Everyone  in- 
herits  a  great  many  things  which  he  never  discovers 
and  which  no  one  else  ever  discovers,  just  because 
there  has  been  no  environment  to  bring  this  particular 
feature  of  his  heredity  to  expression.  A  child  may 
have  inherited  a  high  susceptibility  to  tuberculosis  in 
the  State  of  New  York  or  Maine  where  he  was  born. 
But  if  by  chance  his  parents  removed  to  Arizona,  he 
might  never  discover  the  fact  that  he  had  inherited 
tuberculosis  at  all.  Likewise,  there  are  many  forms 
of  insanity  which  are  distinctly  heritable  traits.  Yet 
if  one  can  secure  a  wise  physician  who  understands  the 
mind  as  well  as  the  body,  and  will  live  a  quiet,  con- 
trolled life,  he  may  entirely  escape  the  manifestation 
of  this  hereditary  character.  Many  a  college  student 
has  inherited  great  ability  for  mathematics,  but  very 
often  he  has  a  seemingly  miraculous  power  to  prevent 
this  hereditary  character  from  coming  to  any  notable 



A  great  many  people  argue  that  environment  is  the 
chief  factor  in  human  destiny  because  they  can  cite 
numerous  special  instances  where  some  men  have  be- 
come famous  apparently  by  accident.  This  does  not 
meet  the  real  requirements  of  the  problem,  even  if  it 
can  be  proved  to  be  entirely  true.  Such  persons  are 
confusing  the  worldly  fortune  of  a  man  with  the  actual 
character  of  the  man  himself.  A  man  may  become 
famous  without  his  having  changed  his  character  in 
the  least.  An  actress  or  opera  singer  who  has  become 
famous  over  night,  after  some  grand  debut,  is  the  same 
person  she  was  the  day  before.  The  problem  of 
heredity  and  environment  is  only  secondarily  a 
problem  of  the  worldly  position  of  a  person;  it  is  pri- 
marily a  question  as  to  just  how  much  a  man's  sur- 
roundings, the  education  that  has  been  given  to  him, 
the  books  he  has  read,  the  people  he  has  conversed 
with,  the  job  he  has  to  work  at,  the  amount  of  money 
he  has  in  his  pocket,  and  similar  outside  things,  have 
changed  the  man  himself  as  a  human  person. 

All  these  outward  possessions  and  activities  are  in- 
dications of  one  of  two  things,  either  that  the  man  has 
sought  them  or  else  they  have  been  forced  upon  him. 
Those  that  have  been  forced  upon  him  are  matters  of 
pure  chance,  such  as  being  born  rich  or  poor  or  the  like. 
And  whether  one  finds  these  things  after  searching 
diligently  is  also  a  matter  largely  of  chance.  However, 
the  inner  urge  to  seek  for  them  and  to  gain  benefit  or 
receive  damage  from  them  is  largely  determined  by 
the  nature  of  the  man.  Fame  is  often  a  matter  of  mere 
accident,  but  intelligence  and  moral  character  are  not. 
The  opportunity  to  use  intelligence  and  the  incentive 
to  develop  moral  character  are  practically  universal. 
These  things  are  always  and  everywhere.    They  al- 


ways  will  be  everywhere.  They  are  the  expected 
environment  for  all  men.  And  while  the  particular 
achievements  a  man  makes,  whether  he  drives  a  plow 
as  in  olden  times  or  drives  an  airplane  as  he  may 'do 
to-day,  whether  he  remains  obscure  or  becomes  famous, 
remains  poor  or  secures  wealth  are  to  a  considerable 
extent  determined  by  the  time  of  the  world  in  which 
he  is  born,  the  country  he  is  bom  in,  the  schools,  in- 
dustries and  tools  that  are  provided  for  him;  yet  I 
think  the  actual  kind  of  a  person  a  man  is  among  his 
fellows  is  not  profoundly  altered  by  these  environ- 
mental differences.  A  man  can  be  kindly  anywhere, 
he  can  be  honest  anywhere,  he  can  be  ingenious 
anywhere.  "We  commonly  think  that  a  man  will  be 
more  honest  if  we  place  him  amid  richer  surroundings. 
In  some  cases  he  will  be;  in  others,  these  things  only 
make  him  more  dishonest,  give  him  more  opportunities 
to  lie  and  steal  and  throw  him  in  the  midst  of  relation- 
ships so  complex  that  they  are  too  much  for  his  intelli- 
gence and  temperament  to  negotiate  with  proper 

Morality  is  merely  adequate  and  effective  adjust- 
ment. And  this  depends  upon  intelligence  more  than 
upon  anything  else.  And  intelligence  is  a  thing  with 
which  different  men  are  born  in  different  amounts; 
these  fundamental  amounts  are  only  to  a  moderate 
degree  changed  by  education.  To  sum  it  all  up,  then, 
while  it  is  not  altogether  true,  yet  it  is  probably  more 
nearly  true  as  a  generalization  of  the  whole  problem  of 
heredity  and  environment  than  any  other  one  state- 
ment of  the  case,  that  in  every  situation  of  life,  as  the 
old  saying  goes,  *^  A  great  deal  depends  upon  the  man.'* 
The  trend  of  modern  inquiry,  at  least  so  it  seems  to 
me,  justifies  the  belief  of  the  student  of  eugenics  that 
more  depends  upon  the  man  himself  as  nature  made 
him  than  upon  anything  else. 


I  have  made  this  extended  excursion  into  the 
heredity-environment  question  merely  that  the  reader 
may  feel  considerable  confidence  that  heredity  makes  a 
difference — indeed,  a  very  great  difference.  If  this  be 
true  and  if  mental  and  physical  traits  are  both  inher- 
ited, then  it  makes  a  great  deal  of  difference  what  kind 
of  parents  a  man  has,  and  what  kind  of  people  are 
born.  A  man  cannot  choose  his  parents,  but  his  par- 
ents can  choose  each  other;  and  in  the  choice  of  each 
other  the  pedigree  which  records  the  heredity  of  each 
matters  a  great  deal. 

The  chief  point,  however,  from  the  standpoint  of 
eugenics  is  that  if  it  be  true  that  some  people  have 
better  heredity  than  others,  then  if  economic  con- 
ditions, social  and  intellectual  ambitions,  general 
ideals  or  wrongly  directed  birth  control  should  lower 
the  birth  rate  of  those  who  have  good  heredity  and 
leave  undiminished  the  birth  rate  of  those  with  medi- 
ocre or  positively  bad  heredity,  the  average  intelli- 
gence, physique  and  moral  character  of  the  race  are 
going  down.  But  if  we  can  induce  good,  healthy 
families  among  good,  healthy  people,  and  reduce  the 
birth  rate  at  the  other  end  of  the  scale,  the  case  for 
eugenics  is  largely  won.  To  bring  about  this  condition 
is  the  hope  of  eugenics. 


The  second  corner  stone  of  eugenics,  is  the  non- 
inheritance  in  any  large,  wholesale  way  of  what  is  com- 
monly called  '^ acquired^ ^  characters. 

I  doubt  that  any  question,  short  of  Fundamen- 
talism, has  had  as  much  muddled  thinking  bestowed 
upon  it  as  this.  It  has  long  seemed  to  me  that  the 
discussion  of  the  problem  of  the  transmission  of  ac- 
quired or  induced  characters — in  the  way,  at  least,  m 


which  a  great  deal  of  the  discussion  has  been  carried 
on — is  to  a  considerable  extent  a  logical  blind  alley. 
If  you  mean  by  the  term  an  ** acquired''  character 
that  you  are  going  by  some  manipulation  of  the 'en- 
vironment to  set  up  or  create  or  release  some  new 
potency  in  the  germ-cell — ^which  potency  under  the 
environment  which  you  have  induced  or  which  is 
already  present  will  develop  into  a  new  character  m 
the  organism — and  then  expect  that  this  new  character 
will  continue  to  reappear  in  coming  generations 
after  your  original  stimulus  from  the  environment  and 
the  environment  amid  which  your  new  character  first 
developed  and  which  caused  it  to  develop  is  withdrawn, 
it  would  seem  that  you  are  reasoning  in  scientific,  in- 
stead of  theological,  jargon  as  to  how  many  angels  can 
dance  on  the  point  of  a  biological  needle.  As  we  have 
already  seen,  all  characters  are  acquired  through  the 
influence  of  the  environment  in  every  generation  while 
at  the  same  time  they  are  due  just  as  much  and  prob- 
ably more,  to  the  chemical  agencies  in  the  germ-cell. 
If  either  of  these  agencies  is  not  present  for  each  and 
every  character  in  the  organism  in  every  generation, 
then  the  characters  will  not  develop. 


To  suppose  that  some  push  might  be  given  either  to 
the  body  or  the  germ-cell  of  the  organism  which  would 
cause  a  new  character  to  appear  in  the  offspring ;  and 
to  suppose  that  this  new  character  will  go  on  willy-nilly 
under  its  own  power  down  the  generations  after  the 
original  push  has  been  withdrawn,  is  at  least  straining 
our  ideas  as  to  the  very  little  part  played  by  the  envi- 
ronment in  each  generation  in  bringing  the  characters 
of  the  organism  to  their  full  development.  One  can 
conceive,  of  course,  that  this  special  push  has  altered 


the  atomic  structure  of  the  germ-cell,  and  that  this  will 
alter  the  potency,  as  we  should  expect  it  would,  of  the 
chemical  representatives  of  the  adult  characters  in  the 
germ-cell.  That  this  can  be  done  or  has  been  done  is 
only  a  conception  and  is  going  beyond  anything  of 
which  we  have  at  present  experimental  proof,  although 
we  do  have  a  number  of  authentic  experiments  which 
indicate  that  this  sort  of  change  has  been  induced. 

We  can  picture  in  our  imaginations  that  the  phys- 
ical or  chemical  structure  of  the  germ-cell  could  be  so 
altered  that  a  character  appearing  heretofore  under 
the  influence  of  the  environment  which  had  obtained 
would  no  longer  appear,  even  though  the  appropriate 
environment  were  still  present.  In  other  words,  the 
loss  of  a  character  apparently  might  be  brought 
about;  and  this  probably  has  been  accomplished  by  a 
number  of  experimenters.  This  would  probably  be  not 
only  much  easier  to  accomplish  from  the  mere  stand- 
point of  experimental  technique,  but  it  would  likely  be 
an  experimental  undertaking  of  quite  a  different  order. 
For  if  we  knock  a  character  out  of  a  germ-cell  it  is 
highly  improbable  that  the  environment  which  has 
heretofore  been  bringing  it  to  expression,  when  the 
appropriate  chemical  conditions  in  the  germ-cell  were 
present,  would  recreate  it  and  cause  it  to  appear  again 
when  the  original  chemical  conditions  in  the  germ-cell 
were  absent.  At  least,  in  knocking  a  character  out  of  a 
germ-cell  the  experimenter  is  not  concerned  with  the 
future  environment.  If  the  character  be  once  knocked 
out,  the  environment  can  be  pretty  well  trusted  to  keep 
it  out. 

But  in  creating  a  new  character  this  character 
would  have  to  appear  in  the  first  generation,  under  the 
influence  of  two  factors :  first,  the  push  or  pull  of  the 
environmental  agency  which  set  up  the  new  physical  or 
chemical  potencies  in  the  germ-cell;  and,  second,  the 


environmental  conditions  either  in  the  remainder  of 
the  organism  or  in  the  general  medium  of  nature  which 
bring  this  new  character  to  its  expression.  It  might  be 
possible  that  the  experimenter  could  depend  upon 
the  indefinite  continuance  of  this  appropriate  and  ex- 
pected environment  which  brought  his  new  character 
to  expression.  But  he  is  also  expecting  the  change  to 
continue  in  the  germ-cell  after  his  environmental  agen- 
cies which  caused  it  have  been  withdrawn.  This  may 
be  a  trustworthy  assumption,  but,  if  so,  it  would  seem 
to  me  to  assume  that,  whereas,  the  processes  of  devel- 
opment will  not  go  on  in  the  organism  except  under 
appropriate  environmental  conditions,  yet  they  will  go 
on  in  the  germ-cell.  Possibly  so.  My  only  point  is  that 
I  believe  it  lacks  at  the  present  moment  ample  experi- 
mental proof. 

If  these  considerations  have  any  logical  consistency, 
they  suggest,  at  least,  that  it  would  be  expecting  a  good 
deal  from  any  educational  procedures  (such  as  teach- 
ing rats  to  find  their  way  through  a  maze  at  the  sound 
of  a  beU,  with  the  objective  in  their  minds  of  attaining 
a  piece  of  cheese  at  the  other  end)  to  believe  that  they 
would  fulfiU  all  of  these  conditions. 

My  sole  point  is  that,  from  the  standpoint  of  direct 
race  improvement,  these  considerations  and  technical 
difficulties  make  it  seem  rather  fatuous  to  believe  that 
some  shift  in  the  distribution  of  w^ealth  or  hours  of 
labor  or  transfer  of  social,  economic  and  political 
power  from  one  class  to  another  such  as  Socialism  sug- 
gests; or  an  improvement  by  psychoanalysis  of  the 
particular  dreams  which  the  Freudians  claim  each  race 
of  people  indulge  in  while  they  are  asleep  (whether 
these  dreams  be  due  to  disordered  stomachs  or  sex 
complexes) ;  or  that  the  teaching  of  Egyptology  or 
Latin  grammar,  such  as  some  educators  suppose  is 
improving  the  germ-cells  as  well  as  the  brain-cells ;  or 


that  the  prohibition  of  alcohol  for  a  few  generations, 
such  as  the  prohibitionists  expect  to  provide,  will  work 
any  very  profound  changes  either  for  better  or  worse 
in  the  organic  make-up  of  mankind. 


As  an  example  of  the  popular  faith  in  the  direct 
improvement  of  the  human  race  by  education  or  legis- 
lation, one  of  the  chief  claims  as  to  the  benefit  of  pro- 
hibition is  that,  if  only  we  can  keep  alcohol  away  from 
our  young  people  for  two  or  three  generations,  the 
taste  and  liking  for  it  will  disappear.  They  claim  that 
this  enforced  abstinence  would  in  a  few  generations 
produce  a  race  of  men  who  would  find  no  greater  pleas- 
ure in  the  finest  wine  than  in  a  good  quality  of  water 
or  beef -broth. 

Such  persons  display  in  the  first  place  an  exhaus- 
tive ignorance  of  biology  and  heredity,  and  also 
overlook  such  obvious  disproofs  of  so  fanciful  a  theory 
as  that  of  the  Indians  in  America  when  the  white  man 
arrived.  None  of  the  Indians  had  surely  imbibed  any 
alcohol  since  the  days  when  they  left  China  and  mi- 
grated by  way  of  Siberia  and  Alaska  into  America,  as 
Doctor  Hrdlicka  has  shown  they  did.  Yet  the  moment 
they  tasted  alcohol,  they  proved  to  be  natural-bom 
drunkards  almost  to  a  man.  And  in  recent  times  we 
have  had  to  set  up  the  most  rigid  surveillance,  en- 
forced by  powerful  military  police,  to  prevent  the  noble 
red  man  from  drinking  himself  into  extinction.  It 
seems  from  this  that  prohibition,  if  it  works,  will  in- 
crease the  taste  for  alcohol,  and  actually  force  us  by 
legislation  to  become  a  nation  of  potential  drunkards. 
Certainly,  the  evidence  to  date  runs  mainly  toward 
this  conclusion  and  not  the  opposite.  It  is  quite  con- 
ceivable that  prohibition  might  so  strengthen  the 
desire  for  alcohol  that  it  would  break  down  of  its  own 


weight  in  time  and  sweep  the  race  with  universal 

It  is  highly  probable  that  the  Indians'  drinking  was 
a  biological  phenomenon  of  the  same  sort  as  that  wBich 
occurred  when  measles  struck  the  Tasmanians  in  the 
South  Seas.  Not  a  single  man  in  this  race,  endowed 
as  they  were  with  unusually  fine  physiques,  proved  to 
be  immune  from  this  microbe.  It  affected  them  all  in 
a  deadly  form.  As  a  consequence  the  last  Tasmanian 
died,  but  a  few  years  ago,  from  this  devastating  mal- 
ady. Had  a  single  couple  survived,  they  would  have 
doubtless  bred  a  new  race,  endowed  with  a  natural 
ability  to  withstand  this  disease  producing  organism. 
Other  races  had  long  ago  undergone  this  experience, 
and  a  few  proved  immune  from  a  deadly  onset. 
Consequently,  we  rarely  have  a  death  now  from 

Had  we  been  able  to  devise  some  medical  treat- 
ment that  would  have  kept  the  Tasmanians  from 
dying  when  they  were  attacked  with  measles,  this 
would  evidently  have  continued  the  race.  But  it  seems 
just  as  evident  that,  since  those  we  had  to  preserve  by 
medical  means  would  marry  and  reproduce  their  sus- 
ceptihility  to  measles,  this  susceptibility  would  be  by 
our  very  preservative  measures,  carried  on  as  a  per- 
manent characteristic  of  the  race.  When  men  first 
drank  alcohol,  for  instance,  and  a  lot  of  them  died, 
the  medicine  men  and  prophets  doubtless  proclaimed 
that  the  race  was  about  done  for.  Further  experience, 
however,  probably  demonstrated  that  it  was  only  the 
weaker  and  more  susceptible  ones  that  died,  while 
those  with  greater  resistance  to  the  effects  of  alcohol 
or  greater  moral  self-control  survived.  The  race  with- 
stood the  shock  and  entered  a  new  and  probably  higher 
plane  of  evolution.  As  the  biologist  puts  it,  the  race 
underwent  an  ** evolution  against  alcohol."    It  may  be 


that,  from  the  beneficent  effects  of  prohibition,  we 
are  now  undergoing  a  similar  evolution  against  wood 
alcohol,  French  perfumery,  spirits  of  ammonia,  strych- 
nine and  fusel  oil.  Whether  this  will  improve  the  race 
in  its  natural  gentility,  social  capacity  and  obedience 
to  law,  remains  to  be  seen. 


Whatever  may  be  the  ultimate  solution  of  the  prob- 
lem of  acquired  or  induced  characters — a  solution 
which  would  certainly  reveal  to  us  many  of  the  secrets 
of  evolution — it  seems  patent  that  at  least  it  is  ex- 
tremely difficult  to  modify  the  germ-cell  and  thus 
modify  the  race  in  a  satisfactory  and  continuously 
constructive  direction.  The  fact  that  we  cannot  very 
easily  modify  the  germ-cell  and  thus  change  the  inborn 
heredity  of  the  race  to  any  great  extent  by  education 
points  to  three  very  important  considerations  for 
eugenics : 

First,  the  fact  that  we  cannot  produce  desirable 
traits  to  order  by  any  procedure  now  known  means 
that  if  any  of  the  desirable  traits  which  the  race  now 
possesses  are  lost  by  the  fact  that  those  persons  who 
possess  them  do  not  have  a  sufficient  number  of  chil- 
dren to  carry  these  traits  on  down  to  future  men  and  to 
future  society,  we  cannot  readily  replace  these  lost 
treasures  of  evolution  by  education  or  by  any  improve- 
ment in  environment. 


Of  course,  if  it  be  true,  as  the  environmentalists 
claim,  that  ninety-five  per  cent,  of  every  man's  charac- 
ter in  every  generation  is  due  to  his  surroundings  and 
education,  then  there  is  no  need  for  eugenics.     The 


race  in  that  case  is  plenty  good  enough  for  all  practical 
purposes ;  the  eugenist  gives  up  his  case,  throws  up  his 
biological  sponge,  and  retires  from  the  field.  It  hap- 
pens, however,  that  I  have  not  become  sufficiently 
convinced  that  the  conceptions  of  science  are  in  them- 
selves the  criterion  and  the  revelation  of  ultimate 
reality,  nor  have  I  seen  sufficient  experimental  proofs 
from  the  Behaviorist's  laboratory  to  enable  me  to 
share  with  him  his  fatalistic  and  hopeless  belief  that 
man  is  a  mere  bit  of  protoplasmic  mechanism  thrown 
by  the  law  of  chance  distribution  upon  a  boundless  sea 
of  fortuitously  distributed  circumstances,  with  no 
power  within  himself  to  choose  the  stars  that  may 
guide  his  course  or  to  select  the  haven  at  which  he  shall 
at  least  labor  to  arrive.  It  seems  a  bit  anomalous  that, 
if  the  mechanistic  contention  be  true — namely,  that 
purposive  striving  is  impossible — the  mechanist  should 
strive  so  hard  to  prove  his  own  case.  Prof.  William 
Wheeler  of  Harvard  has  shown  that  Doctor  Watson 
is  by  no  means,  as  is  commonly  maintained,  the 
founder  of  the  science  of  studying  animal  behavior 
as  a  whole  without  including  the  assumption  that  this 
behavior  is  conscious.  Yet  Watson  announced  recently 
that  the  last  philosopher  was  dead,  that  Behaviorism 
had  solved  all  the  problems  of  mind  and  matter,  con- 
sciousness and  reality,  and  that  from  now  on  men 
could  dispense  with  this  idle  plaything  which  has  so 
long  amused  them,  namely,  philosophy. 

As  my  friend,  Dr.  Donald  A.  Laird,  psychologist,  of 
Colgate  University,  remarked  to  me  recently  in  sub- 
stance. Doctor  Watson  is  himself  one  of  the  great  phil- 
osophers of  our  time.  He  has  taken  a  small  handful  of 
brilHant  and  entirely  valid  experiment,  and,  upon  this 
meager  basis  has  erected  a  complete  philosophy  of 
mind  and  consciousness,  life  and  destiny,  reality,  and 
the  nature  of  the  universe  itself. 


At  the  very  best,  until  the  environmentalists  fur- 
nish us  with  a  number  of  examples  of  great  actresses 
whom  they  have  produced  from  persons  heretofore 
considered  to  be  dumb-head  chorus  girls;  of  great 
writers  from  persons  whom  our  best  pedagogical 
methods  could  not  teach  to  read  until  they  were  eight 
or  ten  years  old ;  of  astronomers  from  children  who,  by 
the  age  of  twelve,  could  not  be  taught,  by  any  method 
now  known,  to  count  up  to  fifty  without  error ;  of  great 
geniuses  in  war  and  government  from  persons  who  had 
never  been  able,  by  our  ordinary  methods  of  education, 
to  learn  to  manage  a  go-cart  intelligently;  until  then, 
I  think,  the  eugenist  can  safely  proceed  in  his  efforts  to 
improve  the  hereditary  material  of  the  race  upon 
which  education  and  environment  can  exert  their 
undoubtedly  effective  and  beneficent  work. 


The  second  result  of  the  non-easy  inheritance  of 
acquired  characters  is  that  it  prevents  the  future  nat- 
ural characters  and  intelligence  of  man  from  being  the 
fantastic  creations  of  whatever  cult  or  system  of  dog- 
ma happens  to  rule  at  the  moment  in  human  education. 
A  great  many  people  write  to  me  pointing  out  how 
unfortunate  it  is  that  educating  the  parent  does  not 
improve  the  natural  characteristics  of  the  children. 
They  think  this  destroys  all  hope  of  improving  the 
race.  Quite  the  contrary ;  it  is  one  of  our  chief  est  hopes 
for  bringing  about  permanent  race  improvement.  For, 
plainly,  if  good  education  were  transmitted,  bad  educa- 
tion would  also  be  transmitted. 

A  woman  just  wrote  me  that  she  would  be  in  despair 
if  she  thought  that  cultivating  a  religious  life  in  her- 
self would  not  cause  her  children  to  be  born  with  better 
moral  and  religious  natures.    I  replied  to  her  that  it 


was  extremely  fortunate  that  none  of  the  results  of  her 
religious  training  and  efforts  would  be  inherited  by  her 
children.  I  urged  her  to  reflect  that  while  she  thought 
that  she  had  the  one  true  religion,  yet  there  were  about 
a  hundred  other  sects  and  denominations,  many  of 
them  quite  opposed  to  her  beliefs,  all  maintaining  that 
they  also  had  discovered  the  one  and  only  way  to 
heaven.  The  Eoman  Catholics  and  the  Protestants  do 
not  agree  in  their  religious  views.  They  slaughtered 
each  other,  with  perfectly  clear  conscience,  for  one 
hundred  and  fifty  years  during  the  Eeformation,  each 
one  trying  to  prove  by  this  method  that  his  religion,  if 
not  the  only  one,  was  at  any  rate  the  best.  The  Prot- 
estant would  doubtless  regard  it  as  quite  fortunate  if 
the  Catholic  teachings  were  not  inherited  by  the  chil- 
dren, while  the  Catholic  would  be  unhappy  and 
probably  feel  that  the  race  was  deteriorating  if  the 
religion  of  the  Protestants  was  constantly  being  inten- 
sified by  being  transmitted  by  heredity  to  the  children. 
The  religious  temperament  is  no  doubt  inherited;  but 
fortunately,  religious  teaching  and  training  are  not. 

It  is  obvious  that  education  of  some  sort,  mental 
influences  of  one  kind  or  another,  are  being  exerted 
upon  every  human  being  always  and  everywhere.  If 
a  set  of  influences  which  we  think  of  as  good  were 
transmitted  from  parent  to  child,  certainly  all  bad 
influences  would  be  transmitted  just  as  strongly.  You 
might  be  teaching  your  child  lofty  religious  sentiments, 
while  down  in  the  slums  old  Fagins  are  teaching 
thievery  and  murder  to  poor  little  Oliver  Twists.  If 
your  fine  religious  sentiments  are  fixed  in  the  brain  of 
your  child,  and  then  transmitted  on  to  your  grandchil- 
dren, it  is  equally  plain  that  old  Fagin's  murderous 
spirit  will  be  transmitted  through  Oliver  Twist  and  the 
Artful  Dodger  to  their  children  and  grandchildren. 
Fortunately,  the  germ-cell  is  not  a  sieve  which  filters 


through  to  the  next  generation  the  influences  which  you 
happen  to  think  are  good  and  keeps  back  what  you 
happen  to  think  is  bad.  The  views  as  to  what  is  good 
and  bad  are  constantly  changing,  and  they  are  different 
among  different  groups  of  people.  Fortunately,  there- 
fore, the  germ-cell  stands  as  a  very  difficult  barrier  to 
prevent  the  passage  of  any  kind  of  educational  influ- 
ence from  one  generation  to  the  next.  For  this  reason 
we  can  quite  safely  count  upon  the  fact  that  the  inborn 
traits  of  future  men  are  not  going  to  be  the  grotesque 
and  preposterous  concoctions  of  anybody's  ideas  of 
pedagogy,  philosophy,  religion  or  politics.  It  seems 
peculiarly  fortunate  that  the  idiotic  experiments  which 
we  have  performed,  and  are  still  perpetrating,  upon 
children,  in  the  name  of  education,  are  not  going  to  be 
transmitted  as  the  inborn  characters  of  future  gen- 


The  third  result  of  the  fact  that  the  germ-cell  is  a 
very  hard  barrier  to  pass  and  that  education  does  not 
readily  go  through  it  to  the  next  generation  is  that 
this  makes  heredity  an  extremely  dependable  thing. 
Let  us  imagine  that  the  stream  of  heredity  which  is 
carried  in  the  germ-cells  from  generation  to  generation 
were  extremely  unstable  and  could  be  changed  by  all 
sorts  of  modifjang  influences.  Let  us  imagine  also  that 
this  stream  of  germ-cells,  which  the  biologist  calls  the 
'* germinal  stream,"  were  like  the  Hudson  River  which 
runs  from  Albany  to  New  York.  It  bears  an  immense 
amount  of  traffic  from  one  city  to  the  other.  But  sup- 
pose that  the  various  schools  and  colleges  that  are 
located  on  the  banks  of  the  Hudson  could  change  the 
course  and  character  of  that  portion  of  the  river  im- 
mediately in  front  of  their  campuses.  Some  of  them 
would  want  the  river  to  be  blue,  some  green,  some 


would  want  it  frozen  in  midsummer  and  open  in  mid- 
winter, some  would  want  it  filled  with  landscape 
gardens,  others  with  aquatic  animals,  and  so  on,  indefi- 
nitely. It  is  obvious  that  traffic  would  be  impossible. 
The  very  finest  passenger  boat  loaded  at  Albany  with 
the  best  and  noblest  people  in  the  world  would  never 
be  able  to  land  them  in  New  York  and  spread  their 
beneficent  influence  in  that  city. 

This  is  a  very  homely  and  incomplete  illustration, 
yet  it  does  bring  to  mind  a  fairly  good  picture  of  what 
would  happen  to  the  human  race  if  the  germinal  stream 
could  be  constantly  changed  by  environment  and  educa- 
tion. To  put  it  in  common  parlance,  too  many  cooks 
would  spoil  the  broth.  It  also  illustrates  the  fact  that 
if  the  germinal  stream  cannot  easily  be  changed  we  can 
have  a  great  deal  of  faith  that  the  traffic  we  set  going 
upon  it  will  reach  its  destination  without  disaster  or 
radical  alteration.  In  other  words,  it  is  the  very  diffi- 
culty of  modifying  this  hereditary  vehicle  upon  which 
man's  mental,  moral  and  physical  traits  are  carried 
down  the  stream  of  time  that  gives  us  a  justifiable 
confidence  that,  if  by  any  method,  we  shall  succeed  in 
improving  the  human  race,  it  will  remain  improved 
long  enough,  at  least,  for  us  to  bolster  up  our  improve- 
ments and  thus  sustain  our  gains.  The  human  race 
certainly  had  a  pretty  bad  environment  for  several 
centuries  after  the  fall  of  Kome.  The  environment  of 
the  common  people  of  Eussia  has  certainly  not  been 
ideal  for  a  number  of  centuries.  It  is  probably  far 
from  ideal  yet.  But  these  long  periods  of  Dark  Ages, 
when  scarcely  any  education  was  available  for  the 
masses  and  when  life  was  hard  and  bitter  and  often 
brutal,  have  not  made  the  race  into  imbeciles,  neurotics 
or  cutthroats.  Selection,  of  course,  has  been  at  work 
and  has  changed  them  to  some  extent.  The  forces  of 
evolution  never  slumber  nor  sleep.    But  the  majority 


of  people  remain  about  as  they  were,  kindly,  passion- 
ate, good-hearted,  moderately  intelligent  folks  from 
whom  now  and  then  by  a  chance  combination  of  mar- 
riages— that  is,  a  chance  combination  of  germ-cells — 
there  arises  a  leader  and  a  genius  to  carry  them 
forward  another  stage  on  the  highway  of  progress.  It 
is,  therefore,  evident  that  the  difficulty  of  modifying 
the  germ-cell  is  one  of  our  chief  est  sources  of  eugenical 


The  third  corner  stone  of  eugenics  is,  in  my  judg- 
ment, the  fact  that  good  qualities  tend  to  he  associated 
with  one  another  in  the  natural  make-up  of  men  and 
women.  To  put  it  a  bit  more  correctly,  there  is  a  posi- 
tive and  not  a  negative  correlation  among  the  desirable 
traits  of  human  beings.  The  chiefest  of  these  positive 
and  healthy  correlations  is,  I  think,  the  tendency  for 
intellect  and  moral  character  to  be  found  associated 
together  in  a  majority  of  persons — that  is,  they  will  be 
found  to  exist  together  more  often  than  the  opposite 

This  means  that  if  a  man  has  any  one  good  trait 
in  a  considerable  or  high  degree,  we  can  expect,  as  a 
rule,  that  he  will  have  a  great  many  other  good  traits 
associated  with  it.  He  may  not  possess  these  other 
good  traits  in  quite  as  high  degree  as  his  most  sig- 
nificant one ;  but  he  will,  as  a  rule,  possess  more  of  them 
than  other  persons  who  do  not  possess  his  most 
significant  trait. 


The  notion  that  nature  ** compensates"  a  man  by 
giving  him  bad  traits  to  balance  his  good  ones,  and 
good  ones  to  make  up  for  his  bad  ones,  has  doubtless 


been  greatly  emphasized  in  the  minds  of  many  people 
by  Emerson's  famous  essay  on  ** Compensation, ' '  in 
which  he  announced  that  this  was  the  law  of  nature. 
Emerson  himself  was  merely  voicing  popular  im- 
pressions and  mystical  beliefs  that  have  grown  up  in 
Oriental  religions.  Neither  he  nor  anyone  else  had  at 
that  time  ever  given  the  idea  any  critical  examina- 
tion. As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  truth  lies  in  the  opposite 

Professor  Thorndike  announced  in  his  Educa- 
tional Psychology  in  1910  (and  possibly  earlier)  his 
belief  that  all  mental  traits  tend  to  be  correlated;  that 
is,  the  good  are  more  often  found  associated  with  the 
good  and  the  bad  with  the  bad.  Owing  to  the  very 
great  importance  of  this  principle  in  general  evolution 
and  its  special  application  to  eugenics,  I  repeat  here 
an  oft-quoted  passage  bearing  upon  this  point  from 
Professor  Thorndike 's  Educational  Psychology: 

**The  significance  of  the  relations  between  mental 
traits  which  have  been  measured  in  this  way  is  seen 
most  easily  and  clearly  by  observing  the  doctrines 
about  individual  psychology  which  they  disprove. 

**  First  may  be  mentioned  a  series  of  beliefs  in  men- 
tal antagonisms  or  compensations.  Such  are:  That 
superiority  to  the  central  tendency  in  vividness  and 
fidelity  of  imagery  of  one  sort  implies  inferiority  to 
the  central  tendency  in  vividness  and  fidelity  of 
imagery  of  other  sorts;  that  superior  ability  to  get 
impressions  through  one  sense  is  related  to  inferiority 
in  getting  impressions  through  other  senses;  that  in- 
tensity of  attention  varies  amongst  individuals  in 
opposition  to  breadth  of  attention,  so  that  a  high  de- 
gree of  power  to  attend  to  one  thing  at  a  time  goes  with 
a  low  degree  of  power  to  attend  to  many  things  at 
once;  that  the  quick  learner  is  the  poor  rememberer; 
that  the  man  of  great  artistic  gifts,  as  in  music,  paint- 


ing  or  literary  creativeness,  is  weak  in  scientific  ability 
or  matter-of-fact  wisdom;  that  divergence  above  the 
mode  in  power  of  abstract  thought  goes  with  diver- 
gence below  the  mode  in  thought  about  concrete 
things;  that  the  man  of  superior  intellect  is  likely  to 
be  of  inferior  mental  health;  that  the  rapid  worker  is 
inaccurate;  that  an  agile  mind  goes  with  a  clumsy 
body;  etc.,  etc. 

**Not  all  of  these  and  other  supposed  antagonisms 
or  inverse  relations  have  been  specifically  tested  by 
the  calculation  of  the  appropriate  R's  (degrees  of 
resemblance) ;  but  those  which  have  been  so  tested 
have  been  found  in  gross  error.   .    .    . 

**Cattell  ('03)  finds  that  eminence  in  artistic  lines 
implies  superiority  in  politics  or  generalship  or  science 
more  often  than  the  reverse.  All  relevant  measure- 
ments witness  to  a  positive  correlation  between  effi- 
ciency in  thought  with  abstract  data  and  efficiency  in 
thought  with  concrete  data;  also  between  the  ability 
to  work  with  a  greater  speed  at  a  given  accuracy,  and 
the  ability  to  work  with  greater  accuracy  at  a  given 
speed.  Indeed,  the  individual  who  works  at  higher 
speed  often  works  more  accurately  at  even  that  higher 
rate  than  does  the  slower  worker  at  his  more  favorable 


All  this  means,  of  course,  that  common  impressions, 
such  as,  for  example,  that  persons  born  blind  have  a 
finer  sense  of  hearing  and  touch  than  ordinary  people; 
or  that  persons  of  high  ability  are  more  likely  to  go 
insane  than  stupid  or  mediocre  persons;  or  that  per- 
sons of  great  musical  ability  are  lacking  in  common 
sense;  or  that  persons  who  have  great  ability  to  make 
money  are  lacking  in  power  to  appreciate  art  and 
beauty,  are  wrong.    Of  course,  people  who  have  great 


abilities  frequently  concentrate  their  energies  along 
the  line  of  least  resistance;  that  is,  along  the  line  of 
their  highest  group  of  abilities.  Especially  do  they 
do  this  if  they  have  opportunity  and  encouragement, 
and  discover  in  early  life  what  their  best  abilities  are. 
As  a  consequence,  they  do  not  develop  their  other 
abilities  so  highly  as  the  ones  to  which  they  have 
devoted  their  main  energies  and  attention. 

But,  as  Thorndike  points  out  elsewhere,  the  ten 
greatest  generals  of  the  world  would  likely  be  con- 
siderably better  poets  than  the  average  man.  They 
would  not  rank  with  the  great  poets,  because  the 
great  poets  have  developed  their  best  abilities  and  the 
great  generals  have  developed  theirs.  There  can  be 
scarcely  any  doubt  from  this  principle  that,  notwith- 
standing the  general  belief  that  poets  are  lacking  in 
what  is  called  practical  horse  sense,  ten  well  known 
poets  would  make  better  generals  than  ten  men  whom 
you  would  pick  out  at  random  as  you  walk  along  the 
street.  "While  a  personal  observation  upon  a  scientific 
matter  is  not  of  much  value,  let  me  say  it  happens  that 
I  spent  a  portion  of  last  evening  conversing  with  three 
of  America's  conspicuous  poets,  Edgar  Lee  Masters, 
Percy  Mackaye  and  Robert  Schauffler.  They  im- 
pressed me  as  being  men  of  much  greater  common 
sense  and  practical  wisdom  than  we  find  among  the 
general  average  of  men.  I  should,  at  least,  be  willing 
to  wager  on  them  as  military  leaders  in  a  national 
emergency  in  preference  to  three  men  just  picked  out 
at  random  at  the  county  fair,  or  any  other  unselected 
gathering  of  people. 


There  is  a  technical  sense  in  which  this  principle 
of  the  correlation  among  mental  traits  is  not  altogether 
correct.     There  are  certain  traits  that  do  not  tend 


universally  to  be  associated  with  each  other.  As  the 
statistician  would  put  it,  they  ** correlate  to  zero.'* 
This  means  that  there  is  no  tendency  for  them  to  be 
found  bound  together  in  the  general  run  of  the  pop- 
ulation. This  fact  has  recently  been  worked  out  by 
Doctor  Truman  L.  Kelley  by  very  technical  methods. 
I  shall  refer  to  this  in  the  concluding  section,  since  it 
bears  upon  problems  of  eugenics  and  evolution.  How- 
ever, good  traits  do  not  indicate  that  they  are  com- 
pensated with  bad  ones,  nor  bad  ones  with  good  ones. 
The  general  tendency,  however,  is  for  both  desirable 
and  undesirable  traits  to  be  grouped  in  separate  indi- 
viduals. They  are  neither  collected  at  random  in 
individuals  nor  are  they  brought  together  by  nature 
as  opposites. 

In  the  early  years  of  this  century  the  degree  of 
correlation  among  a  number  of  mental  traits  was 
worked  out  by  various  investigators.  Professor 
Pearson  of  England  also  worked  out  a  number  of 
correlations  among  physical  traits.  He  showed,  for 
example,  that  a  man  who  has  long  arms  tends  to  have 
long  legs.  Nature  does  not  compensate  one  good 
physical  trait  by  balancing  it  against  a  poor  one.  Even 
our  crude  newspaper  humorists,  Mutt  and  Jeff,  seem 
to  have  reflected  upon  this  phenomenon;  on  one  occa- 
sion little  Jeif  explained  to  Mutt  that  he  believed  in 
Emerson's  law  of  compensation,  as  he  had  often  ob- 
served that  if  one  of  a  man's  legs  happened  to  be  too 
long  the  other  leg  was  always  too  short. 

The  whole  upshot  of  the  matter  is  that  the  products 
of  evolution  are  logical.  The  human  body  as  well  as 
the  human  mind  is  a  logical  development.  For  this 
reason  anthropologists  are  able  to  take  only  one  or 
two  bones  of  a  prehistoric  man  and  construct  a  fairly 
faithful  likeness  of  the  whole  man.  In  this  way  Dr. 
J.  H.  McGregor,  of  the  American  Museum  of  Natural 


History,  has  made  some  wonderful  reconstructions  of 
the  men  of  the  Old  Stone  Age,  to  illustrate  the  lectures 
of  Dr.  Henry  Fairfield  Osborn  upon  the  life  and 
structure  of  these  prehistoric  races. 


However,  the  first  demonstration  of  the  close  rela- 
tionships among  man's  characteristics  was  made  by 
Dr.  F.  A.  Woods  in  his  book,  Mental  and  Moral 
Heredity  in  Royalty,  published  in  1906.  In  his  re- 
search he  proved  that  the  large,  general,  moral  traits 
of  men  are  linked  with  their  intellectual  traits.  The 
importance  of  this  discovery  may  be  judged  by  the 
general  reader  by  a  remark  which  Professor  Thorndike 
made  shortly  afterward  in  a  lecture  on  psychology. 
Thorndike  spoke  as  follows  (I  have  not  the  original 
lecture  at  hand,  and  therefore  quote  from  memory): 
*^The  man  who  proved  that  mental  and  moral  traits 
are  correlated  has  made  a  greater  achievement  than 
the  winning  of  any  battle  in  the  history  of  the  world." 
I  recited  a  few  of  these  facts  in  my  Fruit  of  the  Family 
Tree,  but  my  purpose  there  was  entirely  different. 

Woods  examined  the  lives  of  six  hundred  seventy- 
one  of  the  kings  and  queens  and  their  sons  and 
daughters,  covering  ^ve  or  six  hundred  years  of 
European  history.  He  rated  them  by  elaborate 
methods  on  two  separate  scales,  one  for  intellect  and 
one  for  morals.  Each  scale  had  ten  graduations 
numbered  from  one  to  ten.  The  surprising  and 
wonderful  thing  is  that  those  rated  in  the  lower  grades 
for  intellect  usually  rated  in  the  lower  grades  for 
morals.  On  the  other  hand,  those  that  were  most  cele- 
brated for  intellectual  achievements  were,  as  a  rule, 
most  highly  praised  by  historians  for  their  moral 
character.    There  were  some  exceptions,  of  course,  to 


this  rule.  Such  persons  as  Catherine  II  of  Russia  and 
Frederick  the  Great  of  Prussia  were  high  for  intellect 
but  low  for  moral  character.  But  such  persons  as 
Gustavus  Adolphus,  Gustavus  Vasa,  William  the 
Silent,  Henry  IV  of  France,  William  III  of  England, 
Alphonso  X  of  Portugal,  Ferdinand  and  Isabella  of 
Castile  and  Aragon,  and  many  others,  were  just  as 
renowned  for  their  rich  moral  natures,  their  passionate 
devotion  to  the  welfare  of  the  people  and  their  humane- 
ness of  disposition  as  they  were  for  their  military, 
political  and  diplomatic  achievements.  Of  course,  it 
is  commonly  believed  in  this  country  that  the  royal 
families  of  Europe  have  been  a  poor  lot  mentally, 
physically  and  morally.  But  Woods'  study  showed 
that  among  this  group,  numbering  all  told  about  eight 
hundred  persons,  nearly  all  of  whom  were  more  or  less 
related  to  one  another,  there  were  at  least  twenty  men 
and  eight  or  ten  women  whose  ranking  among  the  shin- 
ing geniuses  of  human  history  will  never  be  questioned. 
Nothing  has  ever  impressed  my  own  mind  so  deeply  as 
to  the  staggering  power  of  heredity  in  the  production 
of  human  character  and  intelligence.  What  makes  it 
all  the  more  impressive  is  that  Woods  submitted 
strong  evidence  to  indicate  that  the  exceptional 
achievements  and  lofty  personal  virtues  of  the  royal 
persons  were  not  the  products  of  their  exceptional 
rank  and  power,  but  that  their  exceptional  rank  and 
power  were,  in  the  main,  the  products  of  their  natural 
strength  of  intellect  and  character. 


If  we  take  into  consideration  the  general  theory  of 
evolution,  we  are  bound,  it  seems  to  me,  to  expect  desir- 
able traits  to  be  strongly  associated.  If,  for  example, 
a  man  who  had  a  long,  strong  right  arm,  was  just  as 


likely  as  not  to  have  a  short,  weak  left  one,  or  if  a  man 
who  had  a  strong  backbone  had  just  as  good  a  chance 
as  not  of  having  short,  weak  ribs  or  short,  weak  thigh 
bones,  it  is  evident  that  evolution  could  never  proceed 
at  all.  Living  plants  and  animals  would  be  mere  gro- 
tesque assemblages  of  unrelated  structures  and  func- 
tions. It  is  a  belief  of  my  own  that  the  stage  of 
evolution  of  any  species  might  be  roughly  measured  by 
the  degree  of  correlation  among  its  desirable  mental 
and  physical  traits.  I  believe  it  might  be  maintained 
that  this  correlation  has  risen  steadily  as  evolution  has 
progressed.  I  know  of  no  exact  measurements  of  this, 
but  it  would  probably  at  least  repay  inquiry.  The 
giant  forms  of  early  times,  such  as  the  pterodactyl  and 
the  dinosaur,  impress  one  upon  general  observation  as 
being  rather  loosely  put  together,  with  a  lack  of  highly 
logical  correlation  among  their  organs  and  functions. 
This  fact  has  never  been  so  delightfully  expressed  as 
it  was  by  the  late  Bert  Leston  Taylor,  the  beloved 
columnist  of  the  Chicago  Tribune,  in  his  poem  entitled 
The  Dinosaur.  Mr.  Taylor's  poetico-paleontological 
reflections  upon  this  prehistoric  monster  were  as 
follows : 

**  Behold  the  mighty  Dinosaur, 

Famous  in  prehistoric  lore 

Not  only  for  his  weight  and  length 

But  for  his  intellectual  strength. 

You  will  observe  by  these  remains 

The  creature  had  two  sets  of  brains — 

One  in  his  head  (the  usual  place) 

The  other  at  his  spinal  base. 

Thus  he  could  reason  a  priori 

As  well  as  a  posteriori. 

No  problem  bothered  him  a  bit ; 

He  made  both  head  and  tail  of  it. 

So  wise  he  was,  so  wise  and  solemn, 


Each  thought  filled  just  a  spinal  column. 

If  one  brain  found  the  pressure  strong, 

It  passed  a  few  ideas  along ; 

If  something  slipped  his  forward  mind, 

'Twas  rescued  by  the  one  behind; 

And  if  in  error  he  was  caught, 

He  had  a  saving  afterthought.  ^ 

As  he  thought  twice  before  he  spoke, 

He  had  no  judgments  to  revoke: 

For  he  could  think  without  congestion 

Upon  both  sides  of  every  question. 

0  gaze  upon  this  model  beast 
Defunct  ten  million  years  at  least!" 

Certainly,  evolution  has  been  a  progress  towards 
logical  unity,  resulting  in  greater  economy  of  structure 
and  greater  facility  of  locomotion.  I  do  not  wish  to 
strain  a  point,  but  it  would  seem  a  suggestive  thesis 
that  any  organism  which  varied  in  the  direction  of  a 
greater  logical  unity  in  its  structures  and  functions — 
that  is,  a  higher  correlation  among  its  desirable 
traits — would  be  able  to  negotiate  survival  more  suc- 
cessfully than  an  organism  which  failed  in  this  achieve- 
ment. I  imagine  that  if  such  a  progress  in  degree  of 
correlation  does  exist  it  would  be  found  to  be  more 
marked  in  physical  than  in  mental  traits,  because  the 
mental  traits  are  more  recent,  and  physical  correlation 
in  excellence  were  the  first  conditions  of  sur\dval. 
When  comparative  anatomy  and  comparative  psychol- 
ogy have  progressed  another  decade  or  two  we  may  be 
in  a  position  to  see  whether  there  is  any  validity  in  this 
suggestion  of  progressive  correlation. 


Even  if  the  foregoing  suggestion  should  prove  to  be 
purely  fanciful,  I  believe  that  the  correlation  among 


mental  traits  could  be  utilized  in  a  new  method  of 
attack  upon  the  problem  of  heredity  and  environment. 
This  seems  to  me  a  point  which  has  so  far  been  over- 
looked. My  suggestion  is,  that  the  correlation  among 
the  traits  of  an  organism  would  seem  to  indicate,  on 
the  grounds  of  probability  alone,  that  these  traits  are 
germinal  and  not  environmental  in  origin,  that  is,  due 
to  heredity  more  than  to  environment.  It  would  appear 
to  be  hardly  probable  that  the  chance  distribution  of 
environmental  influences,  which  are  not  in  any  high 
degree  causally  related  to  one  another,  would  assemble 
the  majority  of  good  traits  in  one  individual  and  the 
majority  of  bad  ones  in  another.  Furthermore,  it 
strains  our  conception  of  the  nature  of  probability  to 
suppose  that  these  traits  would  be  assembled  in  an 
individual  in  approximately  the  same  ratios  and  to 
approximately  the  same  degrees  in  which  they  were 
assembled  in  his  ancestors.  These  ancestors  have 
often  lived  in  environments  in  which  the  large  general 
factors  at  least  were  quite  measurably  different  from 
those  in  the  environment  in  which  the  present  individ- 
ual lives.  In  many  cases  the  relative  impact  of  these 
environmental  agencies  on  the  ancestors  and  upon  the 
descendants  has  not  only  not  been  the  same,  but  has 
been  completely  reversed. 

I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  some  studies  of  the 
heredity-environment  problem  could  here  be  made  on 
new  lines,  with  a  promise  of  fruitful  results. 


The  hopeful  thing  which  results  from  the  discovery 
that  the  good  traits  of  men  are  linked  together  in  their 
hereditary  constitution  is  that  if  we  can  improve  man 
in  any  one  trait  which  is  socially  desirable  we  can 
safely  count  on  improving  his  nature  all  round.    This 


seems  to  me  to  answer  for  all  time  the  criticism  often 
made  against  eugenics  that  most  men  of  high  ability 
and  most  geniuses  are  immoral,  and  are,  therefore, 
socially  unadaptable.  It  also  meets  a  second  common 
criticism  of  eugenics  that  if  the  race  could  be  induced 
to  select  husbands  and  wives  for  intelligence,  we 
should  thereby  create  a  race  of  brilliant  scoundrels. 

This  notion  that  men  and  women  of  high  ability  are 
usually  persons  of  low  character  is  so  widespread,  the 
few  immoral  geniuses  of  history  and  the  few  great  men 
who  have  had  ill  health  such  as  insanity  or  epilepsy 
have  been  cited  so  often  by  shallow  critics  of  eugenics, 
that  I  feel  constrained  to  call  attention  to  some  evi- 
dence to  the  contrary.  The  majority  of  people  express 
great  surprise  on  learning  that  on  the  average  intellec- 
tual people  are  better  morally  than  mediocre  and 
stupid  people.  The  belief  is  very  common  that  in  order 
to  be  good  you  must  be  very  stupid.  I  have  found  from 
numerous  interviews  that  many  highly  educated  peo- 
ple actually  believe  that  a  boy  of  exceptional  bright- 
ness is  in  much  greater  danger  of  becoming  a  jail  bird 
or  a  degenerate  than  if  he  did  not  show  these  danger- 
ous (?)  signs  of  mental  precocity. 

When  some  widely  known  man  goes  wrong  or  is 
accused  of  drunkenness,  the  expression  we  usually 
hear  is,  **Why,  what  else  could  you  expect  of  a 
genius  ? ' ' 

Whenever  a  musician,  an  artist,  or  writer  runs  off 
with  some  other  man's  wife  and  forgets  to  bring  her 
back,  people  usually  say,  *^Well,  you  know  those  peo- 
ple of  genius  lead  such  immoral  lives  anyway.  They 
call  it  artistic  temperament.  But  that's  no  excuse; 
they  ought  to  be  punished  just  the  same  as  common 
folks.  But  then,  you  know,  geniuses  are  irrespon- 

One  little  oversight  in  such  opinions  is  that  people 


fail  to  notice  how  many  ordinary  folks  do  the  same 
things.  A  little  examination  easily  proves  that  ordi- 
nary folks  run  off  with  each  others'  wives  and  hus- 
bands and  do  all  sorts  of  stupid  immoral  things  more 
often  than  do  people  of  genius. 

Men  and  women  of  ability,  talent,  and  genius  are 
the  most  moral  and  virtuous  persons  in  the  world. 


All  our  high  notions  of  morality,  character  and 
righteousness  are  the  products,  the  creations  of  genius, 
and  not  of  stupidity. 

**The  good  old-fashioned  virtues,"  as  they  are  now 
often  contemptuously  called,  chiefly  because  so  many 
stupid  people  are  violating  them  and  making  the  most 
of  the  notoriety  obtained  thereby,  are  all  the  products 
and  creations  of  people  of  brains. 

The  Ten  Commandments  were  not  written  by  a 

The  Ten  Commandments  were  the  product  of  the 
supremest  intellectual  vision  and  power  of  the  one  race 
of  people  which  has  probably  possessed  the  loftiest 
moral  genius  of  any  race  of  people  that  has  ever  lived. 

In  one  form  or  another,  the  moral  code  embodied  in 
our  Ten  Commandments  has  existed  in  all  races,  even 
the  lowest;  and  these  moral  codes  have  been  the  cre- 
ations of  the  men  and  women  of  genius  in  every  race. 


The  reason  for  this  is  simply  that  in  every  clime,  in 
every  period  of  history  and  in  every  community  of 
people  the  leaders  have  found  from  experience  that 
the  good  old-fashioned  virtues  paid. 

Immorality  is  a  foolish,  short-sighted,  stupid  way 
which  people  take  for  getting  something  they  want  or 
think  they  want. 


Morality  and  righteousness  are  simply  intelligent 
ways  of  living.  It  is  true  that  some  persons  of  high 
ability  take  foolish  ways  for  gaining  what  they  want. 
But  they  do  not  use  stupid  means  to  gain  their  ends 
nearly  as  often  as  unintelligent  people  do. 

Nothing  could  more  clearly  confirm  this  than  the 
fact  that  about  three-fourths  of  all  our  criminals  and 
nearly  four-fifths  of  all  immoral  women  are  feeble- 
minded or  emotionally  and  temperamentally  defective. 


F.  A.  Woods  told  me  just  the  other  day  that  he 
had  been  searching  throughout  all  history  for  twenty- 
five  immoral,  dissolute  men  of  science  of  first  rank 
and  had  failed  to  find  them. 

Just  test  yourself  on  this  notion  that  geniuses  are 
immoral  and  that  the  good  old  virtues  are  made  mostly 
for  simple,  plain  people  who  have  not  nerve  and  sense 
enough  to  violate  them.  If  most  geniuses  are  im- 
moral, you  ought  to  be  able  to  name  a  large  number  of 
them  off-hand. 

I  have  had  several  hundreds  of  people  try  doing 
this,  and  I  believe  you  would  be  no  exception.  You 
would  say,  *^Why,  yes,  most  geniuses  are  immoral  or 
unbalanced  in  some  way ;  just  look  at  Edgar  Allan  Poe, 
Robert  Burns,  Oscar  Wilde,  Lord  Byron,  Aaron  Burr 
and — and — well,  I  don't  just  off-hand  think  of  the 
rest,  but  then  we  all  know  most  of  them  have  led  im- 
moral lives." 


But,  where  indeed  are  all  the  hosts  of  immoral, 
eccentric  musicians,  painters,  writers,  inventors, 
actors,  statesmen,  generals,  philosophers,  discoverers, 
mathematicians,     biologists,     psychologists,     astron- 


omers,  historians,  poets,  educators,  novelists,  electrical 
wizards,  chemists,  physicists  and  financiers? 

Since  you  insist  that  immorality  and  eccentricity 
of  conduct  are  the  usual  characteristics  of  such  per- 
sons, surely  you  can  name  several  hundred  who  have 
been  dope  fiends,  drunkards,  and  corrupters  of  good 
manners  generally. 

After  thinking  awhile,  you  might  be  able  to  recall 
among  geniuses  who  have  left  unsavory  moral  reputa- 
tions the  following:  Alexander  the  Great,  Jenghiz 
Khan,  Napoleon  Bonaparte,  Peter  the  Great,  Catharine 
the  Great,  Shelley,  the  poet.  Lord  Nelson,  the  first 
Duke  of  Marlborough,  Louis  XIV  and — and — well, 
where  are  the  rest  of  them? 


Surely  there  must  be  many  more.  If  you  have  read 
much  history  in  recent  years,  you  may  be  able  to  re- 
member having  read  that  Caesar  and  Immanuel  Kant 
had  epileptic  fits,  that  Wagner  was  irritable,  that 
Offenbach,  the  musician,  was  a  bit  too  gay,  and  that 
Daniel  Webster  drank  more  than  was  good  for  him,  as 
nearly  all  men  did  in  his  day. 

Woodrow  Wilson  tells  us  in  his  History  of  the 
'American  People  that  in  the  early  days  when  a 
minister  was  to  be  ordained,  the  deacons  and  leading 
church  members  drank  enough  to  start  a  saloon.  He 
says  that  they  had  to  appoint  one  of  the  visiting 
ministers  who  agreed  to  keep  sober  enough  to  perform 
the  ceremony,  and  that  the  women  members  of  the 
church  brewed  the  liquor! 

But  getting  drunk  was  not  then  regarded  as  in  the 
least  immoral  and  was  the  universal  custom.  But 
this  custom  has  been  found  to  be  unintelligent — that 
is,  immoral — and  nearly  all  intelligent  people  have 
long  since  abandoned  it. 



As  intelligence  and  education  grow,  morality  al- 
ways improves. 

It  is  true  DeQuincey  and  Coleridge  fell  into  bad 
drug  habits.  Stevenson  and  Chopin  both  had  tuber- 
culosis, but  about  one  person  in  ten  dies  of  tuber- 
culosis, anyhow,  whether  he  is  a  genius  or  not. 

It  is  also  true  that  Catharine  de  Medici,  Lorenzo 
the  Magnificent  and  Cesare  Borgia  were  a  tough  lot. 
Benvenuto  Cellini,  the  Italian  painter;  Boccaccio,  the 
writer;  and  Horace,  the  Roman  poet,  were  pretty  wild 
blades,  but  most  of  us  have  to  look  into  a  cyclopedia 
to  find  these  facts. 

But  test  yourself  and  see  how  many  famous  men 
and  women  you  can  recall  icithouf  a  cyclopedia  whose 
noble  lives  and  characters  gleam  from  every  page  of 
human  history. 


Without  the  slightest  effort  I  think  of  Moses, 
Isaiah,  Shakespeare,  Lincoln,  "Washington,  Hamilton, 
Jefferson,  John  Randolph,  John  Marshall,  Roosevelt, 
Florence  Nightingale,  Joan  of  Arc,  Charlotte  Cush- 
man,  Mary  Lyons,  Harriet  Beecher  Stowe,  Sarah 
Siddons,  Plato,  Aristotle,  Socrates,  Pericles,  Cicero, 
Seneca,  Marcus  Aurelius,  St.  Augustine,  Thomas 
Aquinas,  Martin  Luther,  Thomas  More,  Sir  Walter 
Scott,  Dickens,  Thackeray,  George  Eliot,  Faraday, 
Pasteur,  Helmholtz,  Bach,  Mozart,  Beethoven,  Liszt, 
Edward  MacDowell,  Caesar  Franck,  John  Milton, 
Dante,  William  the  Silent,  Gustavus  Adolphus,  Alex- 
ander the  Second  of  Russia,  Hegel,  Spinoza,  Herbert 
Spencer,  Huxley,  John  T^-ndall,  Charles  Darwin,  Alex- 
ander Graham  Bell,  Robert  Fulton,  Louis  Agassiz. 

This  is  only  a  sample  which  anybody  can  think  of 


in  three  minutes.     With  a  little  thought,  any  well- 
informed  person  could  easily  add  five  times  as  many. 


Of  course  we  hear  a  great  deal  about  the  frightful 
immorality  of  actors  and  musicians  and  other  public 
artists.  We  must  remember  that  all  these  persons  are 
at  all  times  in  the  limelight.  Their  very  professions 
require  this.  Consequently,  when  one  of  them  is  guilty 
of  some  moral  dereliction,  the  whole  world  hears 
about  it. 

Indeed,  this  is  true  of  nearly  all  men  of  genius. 
From  the  nature  of  the  case,  they  are  prominent  per- 
sons, and  if  one  out  of  hundreds  lives  an  immoral 
life,  it  throws  a  stigma  over  them  all. 

The  fact  that  a  vast  majority  of  musicians,  writers, 
actors,  and  the  like  live  quiet,  modest,  wholesome  lives 
and  are  just  like  any  other  class  of  good  people,  does 
not  make  food  for  gossip. 

If  you  live  next  door  to  John  Smith,  the  famous 
actor,  and  his  cook  told  your  cook  that  Sunday  night 
Mr.  Smith  brought  home  a  box  of  candy  for  his  chil- 
dren and  flowers  for  his  wife,  and  spent  the  evening 
with  them  by  the  fireside,  would  you,  on  hearing  this, 
rush  to  the  telephone  and  tell  the  world  ! 


No,  indeed;  but  what  if  you  were  told  that  John 
Smith  took  flowers  and  candy  to  another  man^s  wife, 
and  on  arriving  home  had  beaten  his  own  wife  and 
children  I  If  one  out  of  hundreds  of  actors,  writers  or 
corporation  presidents  violates  the  moral  standards, 
we  talk  of  the  incident  with  uncounterf  eited  glee. 

And  if  we  study  not  merely  the  lofty  geniuses  of 
the  human  race  but  the  average  man,  we  find  that 
almost  universally  the   abler  people  are,  the  more 


moral  they  are.  Any  factory  superintendent  knows 
that  skilled  workmen — that  is,  intelligent  workmen — 
are  far  more  moral,  steadier,  more  dependable  than 
unskilled  laborers. 

As  an  example,  the  Brotherhood  of  Locomotive 
Engineers  has  had  a  magnificent  history  for  keeping 
contracts — the  very  acme  of  sound  morals.  In  every 
community  everywhere  they  belong  among  the  moral, 
upright,  dependable  citizens.  The  same  is  true  of  any 
skilled  trade  or  craft.  The  higher  up  we  go  in  skill — 
that  is,  in  intelligence — the  higher  up  we  go  in  sound 
morals  and  good  citizenship. 

A  PROMISE  fulfiij:.ed 

Among  the  leading  scientists  of  the  world  there 
are  not  half  a  dozen  who  have  the  slightest  reputation 
for  any  form  of  departure  from  sound  morals.  My 
own  studies  indicate  that  research  scientists  have 
probably  the  highest  average  virtue  of  any  group  of 
similar  numbers  in  the  world  ^s  history.  And,  perforce, 
they  have  to  be  men  of  talent  and,  in  most  cases,  genius. 

But  the  crowning  proof  that  virtue  pays  is  the 
proof  by  F.  A.  Woods,  in  his  study  of  the  royal  fam- 
ilies, that  the  Fifth  Conmiandment  is  a  great  biologi- 
cal document.  It  is  the  first  commandment  with  a 
promise — the  promise  that  those  who  obey  their  par- 
ents— that  is,  live  righteously  and  virtuously — shall 
live  long  in  the  land  which  the  Lord  God  has  given 

Woods  proved  that  the  good  live  long  and  the  bad 
die  young. 


Verily  the  fool  does  perish  from  his  own  folly, 
whether  prince  or  pauper,  king  or  peasant. 


Stupidity  and  immorality  on  the  one  hand,  and  in- 
telligence and  virtue  on  the  other,  are  linked  in  the 
very  biological  make-up  of  the  human  race.  The  ex- 
ceptions to  this  only  prove  the  rule. 

Not  only  do  the  good,  old-fashioned  virtues  pay,  but 
it  pays  enormously  to  educate  people  in  their  practice. 

And  in  the  conduct  of  national  life  moral  character 
outweighs  everything  else.  All  through  history,  when 
the  old-fashioned  virtues  really  became  old-fashioned 
and  were  held  in  contempt,  it  has  been  because  stupid 
men,  men  of  less  intelligence  and  therefore  of  lower 
character,  had  gained  control  of  the  national  life. 
When  that  happens  in  any  nation,  it  is  the  proof  of 
national  decay. 

In  addition  to  the  important  evidence  already 
cited.  Dr.  Catharine  M.  Cox,  of  Stanford  University, 
has  recently  published  her  fine  study  entitled  Early 
Mental  Traits  of  Three  Hundred  Geniuses.  This  con- 
tains a  critical  examination  of  the  mental  and  moral 
characteristics  of  a  most  remarkable  group  of  young- 
sters. As  Doctor  Cox  proves,  her  **boys'^  as  she  calls 
them,  were  conspicuously  above  the  average  not  only 
in  mental  ability  but  in  moral  character  and  conduct. 

Doctor  Cox  made  exact  ratings  of  these  three 
hundred  geniuses  in  sixty-seven  different  moral  traits. 
These  traits  were  partly  worked  out  by  Webb,  an 
eminent  English  psychologist,  and  in  part  represent 
Doctor  Cox^s  own  work.  They  are  the  traits  which 
are  considered,  according  to  Webb,  as  **  desirable 
traits  in  present-day  school  boys  and  girls.''  They 
include  such  traits  as  physical  bravery,  sense  of 
humor,  constancy  in  friendship,  family  affection, 
gentlemanliness,  fondness  for  social  gatherings,  trusl;- 
worthiness,  conscientiousness,  absence  of  offensive 
self-esteem,  desire  to  excel,  constancy  of  mood, 
strength  of  character,  and  the  like.    She  divided  these 


celebrated  geniuses  into  eleven  separate  groups, 
namely,  artists,  writers  (including  poets,  novelists, 
dramatists),  musicians,  writers  (including  essayists, 
historians,  critics,  scholars),  soldiers  (including 
soldier-statesmen),  soldiers  (fighters),  scientists, 
philosophers,  revolutionary  statesmen,  religious  lead- 
ers, statesmen  (political). 

In  all  these  sixty-seven  traits.  Doctor  Cox,  by 
elaborate  methods,  compared  these  ten  groups  of 
geniuses  when  they  were  children  with  the  ratings  of 
average,  unselected  school  children  upon  the  same 
traits.  Every  group  of  geniuses  ranked  in  moral 
character  above  average  school  children  of  to-day.  I 
could  elaborate  extensively  these  findings;  they  set 
at  rest  forever  the  notion  of  the  immoralities  and 
eccentricities  of  men  and  women  of  genius.  The 
simple  fact  is  that  the  popular  impressions  upon  this 
important  matter,  like  all  other  popular  impressions, 
are  based  upon  observation  of  the  exceptions,  and  are, 
therefore,  not  true. 


In  addition  to  the  correlation  of  the  mental  and 
moral  characters  of  man,  which  I  have  purposely 
argued  at  some  length  because  of  its  enormous  im- 
portance to  eugenics,  a  great  many  other  associations 
among  human  traits  have  been  worked  out  in  the  past 
few  years.  Every  good  trait  or  character  in  human 
beings  that  has  been  studied  has  been  found  to  be 
associated  in  a  safe  degree  with  general  excellence  of 
body  and  mind,  with  the  single  exception  of  the  special 
characteristics  previously  mentioned  that  were 
studied  by  Doctor  Kelley.  For  example,  Professor 
Terman  found  in  studying  a  group  of  nearly  one 
thousand  extraordinarily  gifted  children  in  California 


that  they  came  from  longer-lived  stock  than  the 
average.  They  were  also  bigger  and  healthier  and 
had  greater  lung  capacity  than  average  children,  and 
they  weighed  nearly  three-quarters  of  a  pound  more 
at  birth.  As  another  example,  Dr.  Leta  Hollingworth 
and  Miss  Margaret  V.  Cobb  selected  fifty-seven  re- 
markably precocious  children  in  the  grades  of  the 
New  York  City  public  schools.  Miss  Grace  Allen,  of 
the  Eugenics  Eecord  Office,  traced  the  families  of  these 
brilliant  youngsters.  She  found  as  she  went  back 
among  their  parents  and  grandparents  that  at  the 
age  of  seventy  years  ^ve  times  as  many  of  them  were 
living  now,  or  were  living  in  their  day,  as  is  found  in 
the  general  population.  Only  ten  per  cent,  of  the 
babies  born  into  the  world  are  still  living  at  the  age 
of  seventy;  but  Miss  Allen  found  that  fifty  per  cent, 
of  the  ancestors  of  these  precocious  children  were 
living  at  the  age  of  seventy.  Doctor  Cattell,  the 
psychologist,  studied  one  thousand  of  the  most  emi- 
nent men  that  ever  lived,  and  found  that  fifty  per 
cent,  of  them  were  living  at  the  age  of  seventy;  that 
is,  five  times  the  expected  number. 


All  this  indicates  that  goodness  and  virtue  and 
every  other  thing  of  good  report  tend  to  go  together 
in  the  mental  and  physical  constitution  of  human 
beings.  The  shallow  criticism  made  of  eugenics,  that 
geniuses  have  mostly  been  frail,  neurotic  weaklings, 
is  the  precise  opposite  of  the  facts.  Dr.  J.  F.  Eogers 
of  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Education,  in  The 
Scientific  Monthly,  has  given  a  smashing  answer  to 
this  criticism  of  eugenics,  by  submitting  an  extensive 
array  of  facts  with  reference  to  the  health  of  men  of 
genius.     The  article  is  entitled  Genius  and  Health, 


and  from  it  I  paraphrase  the  following  passages, 
chiefly  in  the  author's  own  words. 

Emerson  declared,  **  Genius  consists  in  health,  in 
plenipotence  of  that  top  of  condition  which  allows  of 
not  only  exercise  but  frolic  of  fancy.'*  Only  the 
healthy  frolic  either  bodily  or  mentally.  Bernard 
Shaw  says  that  a  genius  is  a  person  who  sees  deeper 
than  other  people  and  **has  energy  enough  to  give 
effect  to  this  extra  vision.''  There  need  to  be  specific 
talents  for  genius,  but  there  must  be  energy  behind 
these,  and  it  must  be  energy  of  a  very  real,  bread-and- 
butter  origin.  The  great  man  has  usually  looked  the 
part.  Lowell  said  of  Emerson,  **  there  was  a  majesty 
about  him  beyond  all  men  I  have  ever  known." 
Washington  was  preeminent  for  his  physical  prowess. 
Goethe  was  likened  in  his  youth  to  an  Apollo.  Tenny- 
son was  *^one  of  the  finest  looking  men  in  the 
world."  Wordsworth  was  **of  very  fine,  heroic  pro- 
portions." ** Byron  was  as  beautiful  as  his  verse." 
**  Leonardo  da  Vinci  had  a  figure  of  beautiful 
proportions."  Walter  Scott  was  eminently  handsome, 
and  **cast  in  the  mold  of  young  Hercules." 

Beethoven  had  broad  shoulders  and  was  firmly 
built,  and  said  to  have  in  him  *  *  concentrated  the  pluck 
of  twenty  battalions."  Brahms  was  **the  very  im- 
personation of  energy."  Balzac's  ** whole  being 
breathed  intense  vitality."  Napoleon  at  the  age  of 
forty  is  described  as  **a  remarkably  strong  and  well- 
built  man,  who  could  work  for  eighteen  hours  at  a 
stretch."  No  eight-hour  day  for  him.  Few  geniuses 
have  limited  themselves  to  such  a  small  pittance  of 
work  as  eight  hours  a  day.  Some  of  their  reputed  ill- 
health  has  been  due  to  the  fact  of  their  enormous 
energy,  which  drove  their  bodies  beyond  their  strength 
and  brought  on  temporary  breakdowns. 

Macaulay  was  *^ sturdy,"  Chalmers  was  *' brawny," 


Victor  Hugo  was  ** strongly  built,"  with  a  complexion 
like  that  of  **a  ripe  winter  apple."  Michelangelo  was 
**very  muscular,"  and  at  eighty-six  was  a  tremendous 
worker.  Rubens  was  a  fine  horseman  at  fifty-seven. 
Titian  was  still  painting  with  great  energy  when  at 
the  age  of  about  one  hundred  he  was  stricken  by  the 
plague.  His  end  *  *  came  as  a  surprise  to  his  friends. ' ' 
Men  whose  death  at  the  age  of  one  hundred  surprise 
their  friends  can  hardly  be  termed  weaklings,  as  the 
critics  of  eugenics  try  to  make  out  is  the  case  with 
most  men  of  genius. 

Browning  looked  **a  monument  of  sturdy  health." 
Richard  Person,  the  famous  Greek  scholar,  *' often 
walked  fifty-two  miles  to  attend  his  club  in  the  eve- 
ning." Alexander  von  Humboldt  at  sixty  *' climbed 
high  mountains  without  showing  fatigue."  Benjamin 
Franklin  at  the  age  of  forty  often  swam  two  hours  at 
a  stretch,  and  in  his  old  age  was  fond  of  displaying 
his  great  strength.  Dr.  Samuel  Johnson  was  held 
up  by  four  footpads  and  held  them  at  bay  until  the 
police  arrived.  Dean  Swift,  whom  critics  of  eugenics 
hold  up  as  one  of  their  examples  of  a  weakling  genius, 
was  fond  of  walking  and  boating  but  preferred  riding, 
thinking  it  better  for  his  liver  and  brain.  Keats,  who 
is  one  of  the  prize  examples  that  the  critics  of  eugenics 
are  fond  of  citing,  **was  very  robust  until  after  twenty- 
two;  he  was  short  but  broad-shouldered  and  was  the 
best  fighter  in  his  school."  He  later  developed  tuber- 
culosis, which  Pearl  has  shown  is  by  no  means  always 
associated  with  physical  weakness,  but  even  after 
that  he  had  such  great  physical  energy  that  he  would 
often  tramp  for  thirty  miles  in  sun  or  rain  in  hopes  of 
overcoming  the  malady.  Yet  Keats  is  one  of  the 
classic  examples  used  by  the  critics  of  eugenics  to 
illustrate  their  picture  of  the  pale,  frail,  anasmic 


Charles  Lamb  is  another  pet  genius  of  the  critics 
of  eugenics,  yet  he  was  described  as  being  **as  wiry 
as  an  Arab/^  and  ** could  walk  all  day."  Carlyle  is 
another  example  of  the  sickly  genius  commonly  noted. 
True,  he  did  have  a  bad  stomach,  yet,  at  the  age  of 
eighty-two,  he  still  walked  five  miles  a  day.  How 
many  men  at  that  age  are  even  living,  let  alone  taking 
five  mile  jaunts  daily !  Tolstoi  was  an  expert  swimmer 
at  sixty-five,  and  learned  to  ride  a  bicycle  at  sixty-six! 
At  the  age  of  fifty-eight  he  walked  one  hundred  and 
thirty  miles  in  three  days,  starting  out  with  three 
young  men,  two  of  whom  broke  down  on  the  way. 
Tolstoi  reached  the  end  of  his  journey  in  a  merry  mood 
and  declared  he  had  never  enjoyed  anything  so  much 
in  his  life. 

John  Wesley  is  another  favorite  example  which 
eugenical  critics  delight  to  cite  in  their  frantic  efforts 
to  prove  that  if  the  human  race  should  become  more 
intelligent  it  would  become  a  race  of  sickly  and 
anaemic  neurotics.  Yet  of  him  Doctor  Rogers  says, 
'^  While  of  slight  physique,  he  was  an  expert  swimmer, 
and  his  journal  has  been  called  *the  most  amazing 
record  of  human  exertion  ever  penned.'  Eight  thou- 
sand miles  was  his  annual  record  for  travel  on  foot  and 
on  horseback  for  many  a  long  year,  and  *he  spoke 
oftener  and  to  more  people  than  any  man  wHo  ever 
lived.'  " 

Another  genius  whom  the  critics  of  eugenics  cling 
to  with  great  tenacity,  as  one  of  their  prime  cases  of 
frail  genius,  is  Coleridge.  Yet  Doctor  Rogers  says 
of  him,  **0n  one  day  of  the  year  in  which  he 
wrote  The  Ancient  Mariner  he  walked  forty  miles 
without  apparent  fatigue."  The  musician,  Wagner, 
whom  eugenical  critics  din  into  our  ears  as  an 
example  of  a  neurotic,  unhealthy  genius,  was  the  best 
**  tumbler  and  somersault-turner  of  the  large  Dresden 


school;  he  was  a  daring  mountain  climber  and  when 
nearly  seventy  delighted  to  astonish  his  friends  by 
standing  on  his  head."  Tchaikowsky  is  also  often 
cited  as  an  invalid  genius,  but  Doctor  Eogers  says, 
**He  read  somewhere  that,  in  order  to  keep  in  health, 
a  man  ought  to  walk  for  two  hours  a  day  and  he 
followed  this  rule  with  as  much  conscientiousness  and 
superstition  as  though  some  terrible  catastrophe 
would  follow  should  he  return  five  minutes  too  soon. ' ' 
Perhaps  the  prize  example  which  eugenical  critics 
hold  up  as  the  specter  of  a  race  of  bloodless,  feeble 
geniuses  is  Thomas  DeQuincey.  True,  he  injured  his 
health  by  taking  opium,  a  habit  into  which  many  a 
strong  man  has  fallen  almost  entirely  by  chance.  Yet 
Doctor  Eogers  says  of  him,  that,  even  though  deli 
cately  made,  he  considered  **fourteen  miles  a  day  as 
essential  to  his  health,  and  at  seventy  he  often  walked 
seventeen  miles  a  day." 


After  citing  numerous  other  examples.  Doctor 
Eogers  concludes  by  saying:  '^The  composite  picture 
of  the  great  man,  obtained  from  this  study  of  great 
men,  is  that  of  a  being  who  made  the  most  of  his  bodily 
possessions.  Usually  these  were  strikingly  superior. 
Seemingly  they  unfolded  apace  to  fit  the  aspirations 
of  the  spirit  within.  It  was  noted  by  Plato  that  it 
was  not  the  good  body  that  improves  the  soul  so 
much  as  the  good  soul  that  improves  the  body.  Not 
only  does  the  great  man,  the  truly  great  man,  care, 
according  to  his  knowledge,  for  his  own  body  (which 
answers  the  charge  of  almost  universal  dissipation 
made  against  men  of  genius)  but  he  is  so  keenly  sensi- 
tive to  any  hampering  by  bodily  imperfections  or 
missteps  that  he  has  often  felt  called  upon  to  preach 


the  gospel  of  health  to  others,  and  the  sermons  have 
been  of  the  highest  value.  The  exceptions  to  the  pic- 
ture which  we  have  noted  have  been  the  lesser  men. 
Because  they  were  exceptions  they  fall  outside  the 
composite  and  if  they  blur  it  they  also  produce  a 
shadow  which  intensifies  the  figure  it  surrounds.*' 

The  outstanding  characteristic  of  all  men  of 
genius  of  all  ages  has  been  their  abounding  vitality 
and  their  dauntless  determination  to  break  through 
all  limitations  of  the  flesh  and  manifest  in  themselves 
the  robust  motto  of  the  philosopher  John  Locke,  which 
Doctor  Rogers  says  still  comes  to  every  man  of  intel- 
lectual ability  and  energy  like  a  trumpet  call  across 
the  two  centuries  since  it  was  uttered:  ** While  we 
are  alive  let  us  live.'* 

It  is  true  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case  that 
in  men  of  genius  the  very  energy  of  the  spirit  often 
outruns  the  energy  and  capacity  of  the  flesh  to  meet 
its  almost  terrifying  demands.  We  should  remember 
that  while  the  minds  of  men  of  genius  tower  above 
those  of  ordinary  men  like  mountains  above  mole  hills, 
yet  their  bodily  endowments  are  not  as  a  rule  in  the 
same  gigantesque  proportions.  Professor  Terman 
found  that  the  one  thousand  gifted  children  whom  he 
investigated  were  measurably  superior  to  average  chil- 
dren in  bodily  health  and  development,  but  almost 
immeasuraljly  superior  in  their  intellectual  endow- 
ments. For  these  reasons,  men  of  superlative  genius, 
even  though  equipped  by  nature  with  greater  physical 
capacity  than  ordinary  men,  by  their  very  mental 
energy  often  break  down  the  most  superb  piece  of 
bodily  machinery  with  which  nature  has  ever 
equipped  mankind.  Another  point  to  be  noted  is 
that  in  past  times  some  men  of  genius  have  suffered 
all  their  lives  from  some  harrowing  illness  or  handicap 
which  medical  science  can  nowadays  easily  remedy  in 


childhood  in  a  few  minutes.  Diseased  tonsils,  ade- 
noids, teeth,  and  the  like,  have  doubtless  in  past  times 
impaired  the  health  of  many  a  great  man,  and,  indeed, 
have  killed  many  a  potential  genius  in  childhood. 

But  when  we  sum  it  all  up,  the  contention  of  the 
critics  of  eugenics  that  we  are  likely  to  people  the 
earth  with  a  race  of  either  highly  intellectual  bandits ; 
or  a  race  of  poetic,  musical,  artistic,  tubercular 
drunkards;  or  a  race  of  epileptic,  insane,  dyspeptic 
philosophers;  or  a  race  of  frail,  delicate,  emaciated, 
fragile  and  sickly  writers,  thinkers,  inventors,  math- 
ematicians and  scientists,  has  not  a  shadow  of  proof 
to  support  it.  The  public  mind,  which  is  always  un- 
critical, is  full  of  false  traditions  and  superstitions 
about  great  men.  For  example,  the  awkwardness  and 
ugliness  of  Abraham  Lincoln  are  one  of  our  national 
traditions.  Ninety-nine  Americans  out  of  a  hundred, 
probably  nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine  out  of  every 
thousand,  actually  seem  to  believe  that  Abraham  Lin- 
coln was  awkward,  ungainly,  disproportioned,  loose- 
jointed,  and  exceedingly  homely  and  forbidding  both 
in  face  and  figure.  It  happens  that  I  have  spent  much 
time  in  a  study  of  Lincoln's  physiognomy  and 
physique  and  have  published  an  essay  entitled.  The 
Beauty  of  Lincoln,  In  this  study,  I  believe,  I  have 
proved  that,  judged  by  every  sound  standard  of  true 
aesthetics,  Lincoln  was  one  of  the  most  beautiful  men 
that  ever  lived. 


If  it  be  true,  as  I  believe  our  evidence  proves,  that 
intelligence  is  associated  in  human  beings  more  com- 
monly than  otherwise  with  health,  long  life  and  sanity, 
it  follows  as  a  mere  matter  of  course  that  it  is 
likewise  associated  with  beauty.    This  was  true  in  the 


case  of  Lincoln.  His  extraordinary  personal  beauty 
was  the  very  outcome  of  his  vitality  and  intelligence. 
In  addition  to  the  foregoing  evidence  from  the  work 
of  Doctor  Rogers  as  to  the  splendid  health  of  men  of 
genius,  the  British  essayist  and  philosopher,  Havelock 
Ellis,  studied  the  lives  of  one  thousand  and  thirty  of 
the  most  eminent  men  and  women  in  the  history  of 
Great  Britain  and  made  special  note  of  this  feature 
of  genius.  Ellis  found  the  biographies  of  great  men 
filled  with  references  to  the  handsome  appearance  and 
physical  beauty  of  these  distinguished  persons.  Most 
great  men  have  not  only  looked  the  part,  but  they  have 
bee7i  the  part,  in  every  physical,  mental  and  spiritual 
sense,  which  they  have  played  upon  the  world  stage. 
The  association  between  beauty  and  brains  is  so 
opposed  to  popular  belief  that  I  venture  to  pursue  the 
point  a  moment  further.  If  the  improved  race  which 
eugenics  hopes  to  produce  is  going  to  be  unattractive 
to  look  at,  or,  as  some  of  our  critics  maintain,  is  going 
to  be  positively  repulsive,  then  we  are  joy-killers  in- 
deed. Human  beauty  is  the  apotheosis  of  all  beauty. 
If  we  are  going  to  remove  it  from  the  world,  the  game 
seems  hardly  worth  the  candle. 

The  exact  degree  of  association  between  beauty 
and  brains  needs  far  more  extended  investigation  than 
has  been  given  us.  Prof.  Knight  Dunlop,  psychologist, 
of  Johns  Hopkins  University,  has  made  some  study  of 
it  in  his  little  book  entitled  Personal  Beauty  and  Race 
Betterment.  He  sees  clearly,  as  I  think  no  other 
psychologist  has  seen,  the  very  great  importance  of 
the  problem.  As  he  says,  **the  conservation  of  per- 
sonal beauty  is  the  question  of  the  hour."  I  myself 
think  that  next  to  the  conservation  of  intelligence  and 
its  improvement,  the  conservation  and  the  improve- 
ment of  the  beauty  of  the  human  form  and  face  divine 
is  not  exceeded  in  importance  by  any  other  question. 


A  beautiful  human  race  is  bound  to  be  a  healthy, 
happy  and  intelligent  human  race,  and  none  other 
will  be. 

On  this  point  Mrs.  Wiggam  and  I  have  made  sotne 
rough  investigations.  I  found  by  chance  in  the  apart- 
ment of  my  friend,  Doctor  Woods,  a  large  pasteboard 
box  containing  five  or  six  hundred  portraits  of  women 
which  he  had  casually  selected  at  random  from  news- 
papers and  magazines  for  the  purpose  of  studying 
some  question  in  which  he  was  interested.  At  his  sug- 
gestion, I  selected  from  this  collection  all  of  the  women 
whose  pictures  had  been  published  because  of  some 
intellectual  achievement.  This  gave  me  a  group  of 
some  sixty  intellectual  women.  After  turning  the 
pictures  face  downward,  we  selected  twenty  of  the  pic- 
tures at  random.  Mrs.  Wiggam  then  selected  from 
the  magazine  Vanity  Fair,  entirely  at  random,  the 
portraits  of  ten  women,  from  a  page  of  portraits  which 
the  magazine  usually  publishes  every  month,  entitled 
The  Hall  of  Fame.  These  women  were  all  writers, 
authors,  artists,  or  actresses,  of  great  distinction. 

We  then  selected  from  Fernald's  book,  English 
Synonyms  and  Antonymns,  twelve  adjectives  and 
phrases  referring  to  beauty  or  its  opposite.  The 
adjectives  for  beauty  in  their  order  were:  Beautiful, 
handsome,  charming,  pretty,  good-looking,  attractive. 
To  describe  the  opposite  of  beauty  we  listed,  in  their 
order:  Unattractive,  unpleasant,  homely,  uncouth, 
ugly  and  repulsive.  The  common  objection  is  made 
that  there  are  no  standards  of  beauty  by  which  to 
judge;  but  this  set  of  adjectives  gave  at  least  twelve 
choices  to  every  individual. 

We  then  submitted  these  pictures,  without  any 
names  attached,  to  some  twenty-five  persons  of  educa- 
tion and  wide  experience  in  the  observation  of  human 
beings.    Nearly  all  of  them  were  professional  platform 


artists  with  enormous  experience  in  judging  people. 
They  all  ranked  these  women  in  order  of  good  or  bad 

We  have  not  yet  finished  this  investigation,  simply 
because  we  have  not  been  able  to  find  any  satisfactory 
method  of  arriving  at  the  measurement  of  the  beauty 
of  the  average  woman.  Beyond  question,  it  can  be 
arrived  at,  but  several  methods  have  proved  unsatis- 
factory. We  first  tried  obtaining  votes  on  pictures 
taken  at  random  from  the  newspapers,  but  this  gives  a 
much  higher  beauty  than  the  average.  We  found,  for 
one  thing,  that  it  includes  too  high  a  percentage  of 
women  who  are  seeking  divorces,  women  engaged  in 
breach-of-promise  suits,  and  women  who  have  been 
murdered.  All  of  these  are  much  above  the  average 
in  beauty.  For  example,  a  woman  who  gets  murdered 
is  usually  a  prize  being  sought  for  by  at  least  two  men, 
and  her  very  beauty  is  her  undoing.  To  arrive  at  the 
beauty  of  the  average  woman  is,  therefore,  an 
extremely  difficult,  but  an  extremely  important  under- 
taking. I  tried  visiting  photographers  in  small  cities 
and  selecting  at  random  from  their  collections, 
especially  family  groups  and  the  like.  But  this  proved 
unsatisfactory,  because  there  are  all  sorts  of  factors 
which  complicate  the  problem,  such  as  age,  the  amount 
and  kind  of  work  a  woman  has  undergone,  the  amount 
of  worry  she  has  gone  through,  the  amount  of  assist- 
ance she  has  had  from  beauty  shops,  and  the  kind  of 
life  she  has  lived,  in  a  general  way.  Consequently,  all 
that  we  have  aimed  to  arrive  at  has  been  an  approxi- 
mation with  probability  in  its  favor. 


However,    even    with    these    disadvantages,    the 
estimates  which  we  have  taken,  on  the  group  of  thirty 


portraits  of  intellectual  women  mentioned  above, 
easily  show  that  the  average  range  of  their  estimated 
beauty  is  far  above  the  line  of  demarcation  which 
separates  them  from  the  unbeautiful.  There  canT)e 
no  question  that  their  beauty  is  far  above  that  of 
women  in  general,  which  latter  is,  I  am  convinced,  very 
low.  The  average  woman  is  not  beautiful,  and  the 
average  woman  is  not  intellectual.  The  latter  goes,  of 
course,  without  saying.  The  same  is  of  course  true 
of  men.  The  average  is  of  necessity  never  in  the 
higher  ranks  of  any  group  of  phenomena.  (Therefore 
it  is  no  particular  disparagement  of  average  people 
to  point  out  that  they  are  average  and  not  extra- 

Mrs.  Wiggam  and  I  have  made  a  number  of  other 
investigations,  but  these  indicate  to  us  the  trend  of 
what  appears  to  us  to  be  the  truth ;  namely,  that  good 
looks  of  both  men  and  women  are  to  a  high  degree 
associated  with  brains.  The  public  mind  is  confused 
by  the  fact  that,  when  judging  beauty,  especially  a 
woman's  beauty,  most  people  are  mentally  comparing 
her  with  the  most  beautiful  women  whom  they  know, 
or  else  with  some  famous  beauty,  such  as  Agnes  Sorel, 
or  Ethel  Barrymore  or  some  of  our  famous  screen 
beauties.  But  this  is  a  wholly  unfair  and  unscientific 
procedure.  When  we  speak  of  a  woman  being  intelli- 
gent or  unintelligent,  we  are  not  comparing  her  with 
Madame  Curie  or  some  celebrated  genius.  We  are 
comparing  her  with  women  probably  somewhat  above 
the  average  of  intelligence  but  not  very  far  above  it. 
The  aim  of  the  student  of  human  beauty  is  comparison 
with  the  beauty  of  the  average.  A  celebrated  beauty 
is  a  rare  triumph  of  nature  just  as  is  a  genius,  and 
we  do  not  compare  common  humanity  with  geniuses. 
We  cannot  compare  geniuses  with  anybody.  We  com- 
pare them  only  with  infinities  and  eternities.    Just  so 


with  the  Apollos  and  Venuses  of  the  race.  They  are 
the  products  of  nature  working  in  her  freest  and  most 
joyous  moods. 


However,  we  made  another  rough  estimate  of  the 
factors  in  this  complex  problem.  We  took  a  list  com- 
piled in  1903  by  Dr.  J.  McKeen  Cattell,  editor  of  the 
Scientific  Monthly^  comprising  one  thousand  of  the 
most  eminent  persons  that  ever  lived.  Miss  Cora 
Castle,  of  Columbia  University,  has  also  compiled  a 
list,  of  eight  hundred  and  sixty-eight  of  the  most 
eminent  women  of  all  history.  (Incidentally,  Miss 
Castle  tried  to  find  a  thousand  distinguished  women 
in  the  history  of  the  world,  but  was  unable  to 
find  so  many.  One  of  the  profoundest  problems  of 
psychology  is  whether  this  failure  of  women  to  make 
distinguished  achievements  is  due  to  lack  of  ability, 
or  lack  of  temperamental  drive  and  interest,  or  lack 
of  time  and  energy,  because  of  their  duties  in  rearing 
children  and  taking  care  of  the  men;  or  whether  it  is 
due  to  lack  of  general  opportunity  and  stimulus  in  the 
environment.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  latter 
two  factors  have  been  important  items  in  the  problem.) 

Miss  Castle  selected  by  objective  methods  twenty 
women  whom  she  designated  as  a  preeminent  group. 
Doctor  Cattell  included  thirty-two  women  in  his  list 
of  the  greatest  persons  of  history.  We  find  by  com- 
parison that  there  are  fifteen  women  whose  names  are 
included  in  both  the  Cattell  and  Castle  groups.  It 
seems  safe  to  assume  that  these  are  at  least  the  most 
famous  women  that  humanity  has  produced.  At  any 
rate,  there  has  been  more  written  about  them  and  they 
have  made  a  greater  stir  in  history  than  any  other 
women.    We  know  that  most  of  them  were  women  of 


preeminent  mental  ability.     Their  names  are  as  fol- 
lows : 

Mary  Stuart,  Queen  of  Scots 

Queen  Elizabeth  of  England 

Joan  of  Arc 

Madame  de  Stael,  French  writer 

George  Sand,  French  writer 

Catherine  II  of  Russia 

Madame  de  Sevigne,  French  letter  writer 

Madame  de  Maintenon,  consort  of  Louis  XIV  of 

Maria  Theresa,  Queen  of  Hungary  and  Bohemia 
Josephine,  wife  of  Napoleon 
Marie  Antoinette,  wife  of  Louis  XVI  of  France 
Christina  of  Sweden 
Cleopatra,  Queen  of  Egypt 

Catherine  de  Medici,  Queen  of  Henry  II  of  France 
Queen  Anne  of  England 

After  a  good  deal  of  searching,  we  secured  what 
seemed  to  be  a  fairly  good  printed  portrait  of  each 
one  of  these  women.  Of  course,  one  has  to  allow  for 
the  flatteries  of  court  painters,  and  the  like.  It  is 
likely  that  if  a  portrait  painter  had  not  flattered 
Catherine  de  Medici  he  would  have  had  his  head 
chopped  off.  However,  these  portraits  probably  bear 
a  considerable  approximation  to  the  anatomy  and  ap- 
pearance of  these  famous  persons.  We  submitted 
these  portraits  to  a  number  of  cultivated  persons  with 
the  same  list  of  adjectives  to  choose  from  which  we 
used  in  the  case  of  the  other  group  previously  de- 
scribed. The  combined  vote  showed  that  nine  of  these 
women  were  ranked  in  the  upper  five  categories  of 
beauty ;  namely,  beautiful,  handsome,  charming,  pretty 
or  good-looking.  Only  one,  Madame  de  Stael,  was 
voted  as  positively  ugly.    This  was  doubtless  because 


the  portrait  was  one  of  her  in  advanced  years.  Some 
writers  have  described  her  as  very  homely  in  later 
life.  But  Emil  Ludwig  in  his  masterly  life  of  Napoleon 
says:  ^'She  was  handsome,  but  was  too  intelligent  to 
please  him,''  (Napoleon).  As  an  evidence  of  her 
supreme  intellect,  Ludwig  makes  the  interesting  state- 
ment that  Madame  de  Stael  was  the  first  person  in 
the  world  to  perceive  the  extraordinary  genius  of 
Napoleon  Bonaparte. 


Through  the  courtesy  of  John  O'Hara  Cosgrave, 
long-time  editor  of  the  Sunday  Magazine  of  the  New 
York  World,  I  have  just  been  furnished  with  the  fig- 
ures of  an  investigation  made  at  his  instance  by  Dr. 
David  Weschsler,  psychologist  of  the  New  York 
Psychological  Corporation  upon  the  brains  of  the  sup- 
posedly dumb  chorus  girls.  Doctor  Weschsler  gave 
the  army  mental  tests  to  a  large  number  of  stage 
beauties,  most  of  them  singers  and  dancers.  The  re- 
sults were  astonishing  and  showed  that  these  chorus 
girls  who  are  among  America's  most  beautiful  women 
averaged  higher  than  male  college  students.  The  aver- 
age score  on  these  tests  of  the  army  draftees  was  61. 
The  average  of  actors  generally  is  75,  of  business  men 
86,  of  college  women  130  and  of  college  men  127. 


A  few  scores  ranked  in  the  ranges  of  gerxius.  For 
example,  Marion  Gillon,  of  Countess  Maritza,  scored 
159,  Dorothy  AYegman,  a  Ziegfeld  beauty,  scored  166, 
Georgette  Moore  of  Great  Temptations,  made  167,  Kay 
English,  another  Ziegfeld  beauty  ranked  168,  while 
Miss  Edith  Davis,  of  Naughty  Riquette,  made  the  as- 
tounding score  of  184 — probably  above  the  average 


college  professor.  This  score  is  reached  by  not  more 
than  one  person  out  of  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  of 
the  general  population.  The  ^^  silly  chorus  girl,  whose 
only  asset  is  her  beauty"  seems  to  have  the  very  great 
asset  of  high  intelligence  as  well. 


There  would  seem,  therefore,  to  be  pretty  strong 
evidence  that  if  we  can  raise  the  level  of  human  in- 
telligence we  shall  improve  the  good  looks  of  the  race ; 
or,  vice  versa,  if  we  can  raise  the  level  of  beauty  we 
shall  improve  the  intelligence  and  moral  nature  of  man. 
Mrs.  Wiggam  and  I  have  made  some  further  general 
observations  upon  the  beauty  of  women's  feet  as 
correlated  with  intelligence  and  moral  character.  Our 
purpose  was  to  overcome  the  very  just  objection  that 
the  beauty  of  a  woman's  face  is  very  much  a  matter 
of  environment,  diet,  and  a  healthy,  happy  and  easy 
life.  But  this  can  hardly  apply  to  women's  feet;  at 
least,  to  the  extent  that  it  applies  to  their  faces.  The 
shape  of  a  woman's  foot  is  pretty  well  determined  by 
nature.  A  high,  beautifully  molded,  aristocratic  in- 
step can  hardly  be  produced  by  a  shoemaker,  and  a  low, 
flat,  clumsy  foot  can  hardly  be  squeezed  into  an  A,  AA 
or  AAA  last.  Our  only  observation  on  this  point  is 
that  we  find  that  a  number  of  shoe  stores  located  on 
Tipper  Fifth  Avenue  and  other  exclusive  social  sections 
of  New  York  City,  carry  scarcely  any  women's  shoes 
broader  than  B;  and  sixty  per  cent,  or  seventy  per 
cent,  of  their  stock  runs  in  the  A  last. 

Of  course,  it  is  a  pretty  broad  inference,  and  yet 
one  that  is  probably  not  fantastic,  to  suppose  that 
the  intelligence  which  is  very  high  in  this  exclu- 
sive social  region  is  correlated  with  well-shaped  and, 
to    some    extent,   with    small    feet.     And    since    the 


human  figure  is  a  logical  development,  beautiful  feet 
indicate  a  sound  anatomical  make-up  which  is  the  basis 
of  beauty.  Considerable  observation  of  the  young 
women  in  our  private  schools  and  colleges  gives  me 
the  impression  that  the  coming  generation  of  athletic 
women  will  develop  broader  and  stronger  feet  than 
are  indicated  by  these  extremely  narrow  lasts.  I  see 
very  few  feet  on  the  gymnasium  floors  which  I  believe 
could  be  healthfully  squeezed  into  these  extraordinarily 
narrow  lasts  that  are  at  present  fashionable.  But  this 
will  only  give  the  student  of  such  a  problem  a  better 
opportunity  to  find  whether  there  is  any  real  correla- 
tion existing  between  such  factors  in  the  anatomy  and 
the  higher  and  more  recently  evolved  brain  centers 
concerned  with  intelligence.  I  doubt  that  it  is  strain- 
ing a  point  very  greatly  to  imagine  that  if  men  selected 
their  wives  for  their  beautiful  feet  alone,  taking  into 
account  both  shapeliness  and  strength,  the  race  would 
improve  in  intelligence  and  moral  character. 

Of  course,  the  reader  will,  I  hope,  keep  constantly 
in  mind  that  I  am  speaking  only  of  general  average 
tendencies.  Just  because  they  are  only  average 
tendencies,  they  must  of  necessity  have  a  large  number 
of  exceptions.  On  this  point  of  beauty,  for  example, 
one  of  the  noblest  and  most  remarkable  women  I  ever 
knew  was  almost  a  giantess  in  physical  make-up.  She 
had  vast,  ungainly  shoulders,  arms  and  hands,  and  was 
known  for  miles  around  for  her  enormous  feet.  Yet 
she  raised  eleven  sons,  on  a  miserably  poor  sixty-acre 
tract  of  land.  Six  of  her  sons  became  distinguished, 
and  five  became  very  successful  business  men.  They 
were  all  men  of  exceptionally  handsome  appearance, 
of  great  vitality  and  of  high  character.  One  of  them 
became  one  of  the  leading  college  presidents  of  his 
time.  Consequently,  the  reader  must  remember  that 
exceptions,  such  as  this  truly  wonderful  woman,  only 


prove  the  rule,  that  brains  and  beauty  are  associated 
more  often  than  otherwise. 

I  hardly  believe  that  my  reasoning,  however,  i& 
purely  fanciful,  as  Haldane,  that  interesting  biological 
prophet  of  Cambridge,  presented  some  strong  argu- 
ments on  this  point  in  the  original  manuscript  of 
DcBdalus,  which  I  was  privileged  to  read  before  the 
more  select  portions  of  it  were  published  in  the 
Century  Magazine.  Haldane  presented  some  strong^ 
theoretical  considerations,  which  indicated  to  him  that 
the  human  face,  neck,  shoulders  and  breast — indeed, 
the  whole  upper  part  of  the  body,  especially  in 
women — improved  wonderfully  in  beauty  after  human 
beings  rose  to  an  upright  position.  Thus,  for  the  first 
time,  men  and  women  could  take  a  good  look  at  each 
other,  and,  to  put  it  in  common  parlance,  **size  each 
other  up."  Beyond  question,  these  selective  factors 
have  worked  through  human  history ;  it  is  absurd,  with 
our  modern  education  in  art  and  anatomy,  to  suppose 
that  they  are  not  working  now.  I  think  it  is  not  going 
beyond  present-day  evidence  to  believe  that  there  are 
powerful  evolutionary  forces  at  work  to  correlate  with 
human  intelligence  that  economy  and  logic  of  develop- 
ment which  is  the  basis  of  beauty.  And  we  have 
already  seen  that  intelligence  is  associated  with  long 
life,  sound  health  and  moral  character. 

The  upshot  of  it  all  is  that  there  is  not  the  slightest 
need  for  alarm  on  the  part  of  our  critics  lest  eugenics, 
should  it  succeed  in  improving  the  human  intelligence, 
would  people  the  world  with  a  race  of  short-lived,  ugly, 
physical  and  moral  weaklings.  If  eugenics,  by  holding 
up  lofty  ideals  of  beauty,  can  improve  the  race  in 
beauty  alone,  it  seems  safe  to  assume  it  will  at  the 
same  time  improve  it  in  all  other  desirable  ways.  Or, 
if  it  can  improve  it  in  intelligence,  it  will  have  the  same 
effect.     Or,  again,  if  it  can  improve  the  race  in  its 


natural,  inborn  health — as  I  rather  believe  the  lofty 
ideals  of  health  which  this  age  is  preaching  are  al- 
ready beginning  to  do — not  by  direct  inheritance  of  the 
acquired  good  health,  but  by  causing  young  men  and 
women  to  select  healthier  mates  in  marriage,  then  it 
seems  a  reasonable  conclusion  that  the  race  will  also 
improve  in  intellectual  ability,  social  capacity,  artistic 
power,  length  of  life,  and  everything  that  men  live  for 
and  desire.  Eugenics  then  is  in  direct  line  with  all 
progressive  social  as  well  as  organic  evolution  and  is 
not  against  them. 


The  fourth  corner  stone  of  eugenics  is  the  tendency 
of  like  to  marry  like.  This  is  a  principle  which  runs 
through  both  the  animal  and  the  human  kingdom.  The 
principle  is  called  by  statisticians  **assortative  mat- 
ing," and  was  discovered, — or,  at  least,  described, — 
by  Sir  Francis  Galton,  who  also  invented  methods  for 
measuring  it. 

There  are  two  statements  which  we  often  hear 
bearing  upon  this  point  with  reference  to  marriage; 
first,  **  Marriages  are  made  in  heaven, '^  and  second, 
** Marriage  is  a  lottery."  I  have  no  statistical  or  ex- 
perimental means  at  hand  for  disproving  the  former. 
However,  down  at  Woods  Hole,  Massachusetts,  one  of 
nature's  beauty  spots,  where  many  young  men  and 
women  assemble  every  summer  to  study  biology  under 
our  most  distinguished  leaders  in  this  science,  a  large 
number  of  marriages  takes  place.  As  Professor  Conk- 
lin  of  Princeton,  the  wit  of  the  biological  profession, 
recently  remarked,  *  *  If  marriages  are  made  in  heaven. 
Woods  Hole  is  a  branch  office. ' '  Statistics  have  shown 
that  there  are  a  great  many  of  these  branch  offices  of 
the  supposed  celestial  matrimonial  bureau,  especially 


at  our  schools,  co-educational  colleges,  summer  resorts, 
and  the  like;  and  it  is  found  that  at  these  marital 
centers,  as  everywhere  else  where  men  and  women  have 
extensive  contacts,  that  like  tends  to  take  up  with  like. 

If  it  be  true,  on  the  other  hand,  that  marriage  is  a 
lottery,  this  would  be  the  same  as  men  choosing  their 
wives  by  lot  or  throwing  dice  to  determine  their 
matrimonial  choices.  In  fact,  there  would  be  no  choice 
about  it,  and  the  result  would  be  purely  random  selec- 
tion. In  that  case,  a  man's  wife  would  resemble  her 
husband  no  more  than  she  would  resemble  some  other 
man.  Professor  Pearson,  of  London,  has  done  more 
work  on  this  problem  than  any  other  statistician.  For 
example,  suppose  the  average  height  of  the  men  in  a 
community  were  five  feet  eight  inches  and  the  average 
height  of  the  women  five  feet  six  inches.  Professor 
Pearson  finds  that  in  such  case  the  men  who  were  six 
feet  tall — that  is,  varied  from  the  average  by  four 
inches — ^would  more  often  than  not  have  wives  five 
feet  seven  and  one-eighth  inches  in  height.  So,  if 
a  man  varies  from  the  average  in  the  matter  of 
stature,  his  wife,  as  a  rule,  will  be  found  to  vary  just 
a  little  more  than  one-fourth  of  this  amount.  It  has 
been  found  that  this  tendency  of  like  to  marry  like 
holds  good  in  even  such  traits  as  eye  color,  hair  color, 
general  health,  intelligence,  insanity,  tuberculosis,  and 
a  number  of  other  traits  which  have  been  studied. 

This  principle  is,  of  course,  quite  contrary  to 
popxdar  belief.  But  popular  notions  are  always  wrong. 
This  does  not  apply  to  notions  of  art  and  religion, 
because  in  these  fields  taste  and  emotion  are  our  chief 
guides.  But  popular  notions  about  matters  of  fact 
and  natural  law,  if  they  have  never  been  tested  and 
corrected  by  science,  are  always  wrong.  They  almost 
have  to  be  wrong.  It  is  well-nigh  a  psychological 
necessity  that  they  should  be  wrong.    This  is  because 


people  in  general  observe  only  the  exceptions  to  the 
rule,  and  they  make  a  guess  as  to  the  cause  of  the 


I  shall  in  a  moment  cite  a  number  of  other  instances 
of  wrong  popular  notions;  but  one  is  the  belief  that 
opposites  tend  to  marry  each  other. 

For  example,  when  people  see  a  tall  man  walking 
along  the  street  with  a  short  wife  they  usually  exclaim, 
**The  long  and  short  of  it!  We  have  always  noticed 
that  opposites  marry  each  other!"  If  they  had  the 
mental  agility  and  interest,  and  would  observe  closely 
the  next  twenty-five  married  couples  that  come  along 
the  street  together,  they  would  be  amazed  to  discover 
the  number  of  couples  who  look  very  much  alike.  If 
they  will  observe  several  hundred  they  will  discover 
among  them  quite  a  number  of  couples  who  resemble 
each  other  more  closely  than  brothers  and  sisters 
ordinarily  do.  Fat  people  tend  to  marry  fat  people, 
the  leans  to  marry  the  leans,  and  the  tails  to  marry  the 

It  is  in  this  way  that  nature  preserves  her  types 
and  species.  If  living  things  did  not  mate  after  their 
own  kind,  evolution,  to  use  common  parlance,  would 
soon  be  ^^shot  to  pieces."  If,  for  example,  nature,  by 
using  all  her  forces  of  variation,  adaptation,  selection 
and  heredity,  should  succeed  in  building  up  a  character 
in  an  organism,  and  then  should  make  it  repulsive  to 
the  opposite  sex,  plainly,  it  would  soon  disappear. 
Suppose  musical  talent  arose  suddenly  in  the  human 
race  in  some  one  individual  by  some  enormous  muta- 
tion. The  other  individuals  in  the  race  not  having 
musical  sensibility  would,  of  course,  be  unaware  at 
first  of  the  presence  of  this  new  character.    It  would 


at  first  be  distributed  among  a  few  of  this  individual 's 
descendants,  by  mere  chance.  But  suppose  that  among 
those  individuals  who  possessed  it  the  tendency  to 
make  musical  noises  proved  annoying  and  distasteful 
to  the  opposite  sex.  It  seems  evident  that  the  talent 
and  taste  for  music  would  by  this  process  soon  become 
so  attenuated  that  it  would  vanish.  This  is  a  very 
crude,  and,  in  some  ways,  an  illogical  example ;  but  in 
a  general  way,  it  describes  evolutionary  tendencies 
toward  assortative  mating. 

As  further  examples  of  how  universal  this  principle 
is  and  how  it  operates.  Professor  Pearson  and  his 
associate,  Dr.  Charles  Goring,  found  that  as  we  come 
up  in  the  social  and  economic  scale  from  the  very  poor 
to  the  very  prosperous  this  resemblance  of  married 
persons  to  each  other  tends  to  become  more  striking. 
Doctor  Goring  found,  for  instance,  that  the  tendency 
for  a  drunkard  to  marry  a  drunkard  is  considerably 
greater  among  the  well-to-do  than  it  is  among  the  very 
poor  and  destitute.  On  the  other  hand,  Professor 
Pearson  found  that  among  the  well-to-do  and  profes- 
sional classes  a  man  with  a  marked  tendency  to 
tuberculosis  is  more  than  twenty  times  as  likely  to 
marry  a  woman  with  a  tendency  to  tuberculosis  than 
is  true  among  the  very  poor  and  destitute.  He  is 
nearly  twice  as  likely  to  do  this  as  is  a  man  from  the 
prosperous  laboring  classes.  Professor  Pearson 
thinks  this  is  because  among  the  very  poor  classes 
men  and  women  do  not  have  much  choice.  A  man 
marries  a  woman  in  the  next  house,  or  the  woman  who 
works  by  his  side,  and  the  like.  Such  a  man  cannot 
attend  schools  and  colleges  and  travel  about  and  go  to 
summer  resorts,  as  a  man  of  the  professional  and  more 
favored  classes  can  do.  The  poor  man  merely  marries 
the  woman  whom  he  happens  to  meet  in  the  day's 
work;  but  the  more  favored  man  has  a  much  wider 


range  of  choice,  as  has  also  the  woman.  As  a  conse- 
quence, like  tends  to  find  its  like  where  it  has  range 
and  opportunity. 

Dr.  Charles  B.  Davenport,  of  the  Carnegie  Institu- 
tion, believes  from  his  investigations  that  this  tendency 
does  not  work  between  persons  endowed  by  nature 
with  high  tempers.  This  is  probably  because  they  fall 
out  and  disagree  before  they  ever  reach  the  marriage 
altar.  If  this  be  true,  one  can  hardly  regard  this  as 
either  a  social  or  a  biological  misfortune. 


I  cite  these  examples  both  to  prove  the  case  that 
like  marries  like  and  to  show  how  popular  impressions 
arise  and  how  little  they  can  be  trusted  to  lead  us  to 
the  truth.  One  could  easily  cite  numerous  other  ex- 
amples in  other  fields  of  natural  fact.  It  has  always 
been  believed,  for  instance,  that  bald-headedness  is 
due  to  tight  hat  bands ;  that  handling  toads  will  cause 
warts ;  that  bullies  are  always  cowards ;  that  night  air 
is  dangerous  to  health;  that  there  are  such  things  as 
equinoctial  storms;  that  educating  parents  will  cause 
their  children  to  be  born  brighter;  that  mothers  can 
birthmark  their  children  by  prenatal  impressions ;  that 
mothers  can  increase  the  musical  ability  of  their 
children  by  singing  or  playing  musical  instruments  be- 
fore they  are  born;  that  persons  of  high  ability  go 
insane  and  are  neurotic  more  often  than  morons  and 
feeble-minded  persons;  that  nearly  all  geniuses  are 
immoral;  that  drowning  persons  have  water  on  their 
lungs;  and  that  you  can't  reason  with  a  woman.  A 
little  examination  reveals  the  fact  that  these  are  either 
exceptions  to  the  rule  of  nature  or  else  are  precisely 
the  opposite  of  the  truth. 

If  you  should  wish  to  test  this  principle  by  crude 
approximation,  you  might  try  with  some  friend  an 


entertaining  experiment  which  Mrs.  Wiggam  and  I 
have  sometimes  indulged  in  when  traveling  on  the 
train.  When  we  saw  an  unusually  fleshy  woman  com- 
ing into  the  car,  Mrs.  Wiggam  would  wager  that  Ihe 
woman  would  in  a  moment  be  followed  by  an  equally 
fat  husband,  or  that  a  tall  woman  would  be  followed 
by  a  tall  husband,  and  the  like.  I  have  been  forced, 
however,  to  discontinue  this  domestic  diversion  be- 
cause Mrs.  Wiggam  won  all  the  money.  If  people 
generally  would  only  try  to  observe,  even  in  such  crude 
ways  as  this,  the  actual  facts  of  life  and  nature  right 
about  them,  it  would  go  a  long  way  towards  developing 
that  respect  for  scientific  truths  which  would  enable 
the  scientific  statesman  to  apply  exact  principles  to  the 
problems  of  social  development.  Assortative  mating 
is  almost  universally  disbelieved  in,  and  the  notion 
that  opposites  marry  each  other  is  almost  universally 
held  as  a  fact.  Yet  a  little  exact  study  has  revealed 
that  husbands  and  wives  resemble  each  other  as  closely 
as  first  cousins  or  as  nieces  and  nephews  resemble  their 
aunts  and  uncles.  Almost  everyone  admits  the  fact  of 
family  resemblances,  but  assortative  mating  is  just  as 
much  of  a  fact,  and  it  is  by  this  method  that,  to  some 
extent,  family  resemblances  are  preserved.  It  is 
through  the  fact  of  assortative  mating  that  social 
classes  are  built  up,  since  a  man  tends  very  strongly 
to  marry  in  his  own  social  class.  In  this  way 
aristocracies  have  been  built  up,  great  and  powerful 
families  have  been  founded,  and  the  whole  destiny  of 
the  world  has  been  profoundly  affected. 


It  is  because  of  assortative  mating  that  those  who 
plead  for  the  equality  of  human  beings,  and  hold  that 
all  social  classes  are  contrary  to  nature  and  that  the 
son  of  a  pauper  is  just  as  good  as  a  princess  and  should 


be  privileged  to  marry  her,  will  never  have  their  way. 
Nature  herself  is  working  against  them.  People  will 
always  tend  to  marry  their  like,  and  it  follows  that 
social  classes  are  just  as  much  ordained  by  nature  as 
they  are  by  the  processes  of  our  social  and  economic 
life.  This  affords  not  the  slightest  warrant,  of  course, 
for  one  class  to  exploit  or  oppress  another,  but  is 
merely  a  statement  of  a  fact  of  nature.  Furthermore, 
the  principle  of  assortative  mating  is  the  very  salvation 
of  eugenics.  For,  if  the  daughter  of  a  deacon  were  as 
likely  to  marry  a  jail  bird  as  she  is  to  marry  the  son 
of  another  deacon,  if  college  graduates  made  a 
specialty  of  picking  out  morons  as  marital  companions, 
if  gentlemen  always  preferred  blondes  irrespective  of 
their  intelligence,  health,  or  moral  character,  then  all 
hope  of  ever  improving  this  race  of  ours  would  have 
to  be  abandoned. 

Fortunately,  however,  nature  is  on  the  side  of 
eugenics.  If  there  were  no  forces  of  nature  which 
man  could  lay  his  hands  upon  in  order  to  forward  his 
own  biological  fortunes,  he  would  be  in  precisely  the 
situation  in  which  the  purely  mechanistic.  Behavior^ 
istic  theory  places  him;  he  would  be  a  mere  helpless 
piece  of  driftwood  floating  between  two  eternities  down 
the  stream  of  time.  But  I  have  become  convinced  that 
man  can  manipulate  to  a  considerable  extent  the 
agencies  that  have  made  him  what  he  is.  He  can  thus 
insure  to  his  descendants  a  progressively  greater  com- 
mand over  the  forces  of  life  and  circumstance,  a 
greater  freedom  from  the  bestial  chastisement  of  brute 
natural  selection.  By  his  command  over  the  forces  of 
his  own  being  he  can  thus  bring  through  his  descend- 
ants more  intelligence  and  moral  character  on  earth, 
and  more  good  health  as  well  as  good  will  among 
men.  The  concluding  section  of  the  book  will  be 
devoted  to  an  inquiry  as  to  how  these  forces  operate ; 


to  what  extent  they  may  be  controlled  by  intelligence ; 
and,  especially,  whether  they  will  not  operate  amid 
civilized  conditions,  even  without  any  human  interfer- 
ence and  of  their  own  weight  and  dynamics,  so  that 
they  will  work  an  improvement  in  human  nature  as  the 
ages  slowly  and  patiently  unfold  the  future  annals  of 





Thirty  billion  persons  have  been  reared  to  matu- 
rity in  civilized  countries  since  the  dawn  of  history 
some  eight  or  ten  thousand  years  ago.  This  is  the 
estimate  of  the  Eugenics  Eecord  Office  of  the  Carnegie 
Institution.  It  was  exhibited,  together  with  a  number 
of  other  unique  facts  of  man's  biological  history  on  a 
large  chart  at  the  Second  Eugenics  Congress  held  in 
September,  1921,  in  New  York  City,  and  attracted 
much  attention.  The  estimate  was  not  meant  to  be 
exact  and,  therefore,  a  few  millions,  or  even  billions, 
more  or  less  do  not  greatly  matter.  The  thing  of  unique 
interest  which  the  chart  pointed  out  was,  however, 
that  only  about  ^ve  thousand  persons  out  of  the  whole 
thirty  billion  ever  amounted  to  much. 

It  is  somewhat  surprising  that  only  about  five  thou- 
sand human  beings  out  of  the  billions  upon  billions  that 
have  been  born  and  strutted  their  little  hour  across 
the  world's  stage  have  ever  risen  high  enough  above 
the  dead  level  of  mediocrity  so  that  we  can  look  back 
and  see  their  figures  standing  above  the  centuries. 
The  chart  was  surely  generous  enough  in  making  the 
number  even  as  great  as  five  thousand,  as  it  included 
twenty-six  varieties  of  human  achievement.  These 
achievements  ranged  from  those  of  lawgivers  such  as 
Moses  and  Alfred  the  Great ;  examples  of  moral  pur- 
pose such  as  Luther  and  Lincoln ;  poets  such  as  Dante 
and  Shakespeare;  fiction  writers  such  as  Hugo  and 



Dickens;  outstanding  figures  in  business  such  as  Cecil 
Ehodes  and  Eothschild,  to  examples  of  mere  physical 
prowess  such  as  Pheidippides,  the  Greek,  and  Sandow 
the  modern.  This  indicates  either  that  fame  and  the 
opportunity  to  make  remarkable  achievements  are 
partly  or  wholly  a  matter  of  chance,  and  that  a  great 
many  more  men — indeed,  as  the  environmentalists 
think,  all  men — could  have  made  equally  great  accom- 
plishments if  they  had  had  the  chance ;  or  else  it  indi- 
cates that  only  one  person  out  of  six  millions  has  been 
endowed  with  those  extraordinary  characteristics  of 
mind  and  body  that  have  enabled  him  to  bring  to  pass 
those  extraordinary  human  performances  which  have 
lifted  whole  nations  and  eras  and  races  forward  upon 
the  pathway  of  progress. 

In  addition  to  the  five  thousand  supreme  indi- 
viduals, the  above  mentioned  chart  estimates  there 
have  been  about  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  thousand 
of  lesser  talents,  but  who  have  left  sufficient  achieve- 
ments to  enable  us  to  tell  who  they  were.  There  is  a 
sort  of  grand  pathos  in  the  reflection  that,  notmthstand- 
ing  the  fact  that  the  humblest  human  being  expends 
a  large  part  of  his  total  earthly  energy  in  trying  to  be 
important  and  influential  in  his  day  and  time,  we 
cannot  now  find  even  the  name  of  more  than  a  few 
thousands  of  all  the  countless  throngs  that  have  trod 
the  human  pathway.  Only  about  one  hundred  and  thir- 
ty thousand  have  left  sufficient  records  of  who  they 
were  or  what  they  did,  or  what  they  adventured  or  what 
they  thought  about,  to  enable  us  to  identify  them  as 
distinct  personalities,  as  real  actors  in  the  great  drama 
of  time. 

This  group  of  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  thou- 
sand are  in  the  main  those  men  and  women  who  have 
not  exactly  made  progress  but  who  have  merely  kept 
the  world  together  and  kept  it  going  after  some  giant 


genius  started  it.  They  might  be  designated  as  the 
*^ Who's  Who"  people  of  the  world,  somewhat  above 
our  present  Who*s  Who,  of  course,  but  not  those 
who  rank  among  the  discoverers,  creators  and 
prophets.  They  are  designated  by  the  Eugenics  Record 
Office  on  the  chart  as  having  been  **  persons  of  special 
skill,  intelligence,  courage,  unselfishness,  enterprise 
or  strength." 

We  can  well  ask  the  question.  Are  we  really  win- 
ning the  human  race  ?  when,  after  searching  the  records 
of  ten  thousand  years,  we  can  identify  only  one 
hundred  and  twenty-five  thousand  who  have  exhibited 
*^ special  skill,  enterprise  or  strength."  This  would 
constitute  only  one  person  out  of  every  quarter  of  a 
million.  Certainly,  we  can  scarcely  pride  ourselves 
that  the  human  race  has  as  yet  won  the  immense 
stakes  of  health,  intelligence  and  energy — the  three 
basic  sources  from  which  all  genius  springs — if  only 
about  one  person  in  each  quarter  of  a  million  has 
possessed  these  qualities  in  a  truly  notable  degree. 
As  far  as  mere  numbers  are  concerned,  if  these 
superior  persons  were  taken  out  of  the  population  it 
would  require  a  microscope  to  find  the  dent  which 
their  absence  would  make  in  the  vast  mass  of 

Suppose  we  be  generous  and  raise  the  number  of 
these  important  persons  from  one  in  a  quarter  of  a 
million  to  one  in  four  thousand.  This  was  the  ratio  by 
which  Sir  Francis  Galton  defined  the  word  '^eminent." 
This  ratio  is  frequently  used  by  statisticians  nowadays. 
The  entries  in  our  present  Who's  Who  run  about  one 
person  in  every  four  thousand  in  the  American  popula- 
tion. This  would  raise  the  number  of  talented  persons 
throughout  human  history  to  six  or  seven  millions. 
However,  many  persons  in  our  present  Who*s  Who 
have  achieved  only  temporary  notice  by  their  fellows. 


Their  achievements  are  of  small  moment  when  we 
think  of  them  as  being  distinct  impulses  in  the  long 
roll  of  the  ages.  But  even  if  we  consider  that  this 
number,  say  six  millions,  have  been  necessary  to 
progress,  yet  if  they  had  never  lived,  their  absence,  as 
far  as  their  mere  numbers  are  concerned,  would 
scarcely  be  noted  from  the  grand  total.  Yet  the 
strength  of  mind  and  body,  of  soul  and  spirit,  of  these 
few  precious  people  is  worth  more  than  all  the  rest  of 
humanity  put  together.  It  would  not  be  noticeable  in 
the  census  report  if  the  names  of  all  our  thirty  Presi- 
dents were  omitted.  Yet  it  is  beyond  question  that  the 
spirit  and  energy  of  a  few  hundred  persons  such  as 
these  are  the  real  forces  which  have  transformed 
America  from  a  wilderness  to  a  world  power  and 
given  it  its  place  in  the  sun. 


I  have  recited  these  facts  merely  to  emphasize  once 
more  the  point  that  progress  is  not  a  product  of  the 
masses,  but  the  creation  of  a  few  unusual  individuals 
who  have  very  little  relationship  biologically  to  the 
rest  of  the  population.  Anthropologists  have  worked 
out  a  good  many  elaborate  theories  as  to  how  culture 
arises  and  how  it  is  passed  on.  But  it  seems  that  the 
outcome  of  all  their  elaborate  theories  is  bound  to  be 
that  the  elements  of  culture  are  created  by  the  few  and 
are  used  and  passed  on  by  the  many. 

It  hardly  seems  necessary  to  dig  up  the  ruins  of 
buried  civilizations  and  go  back  in  imagination  to 
some  mysterious  time  of  the  world  in  order  to  find  evi- 
dence that  this  notion  of  progress  is  probably  correct. 
You  and  I,  for  example,  did  not  invent  the  telephone. 
Nor  was  the  telephone  invented  by  the  masses.  The 
masses  never  invented  anything.    They  can't  invent 


anything.  Experience  has  proved  that  it  is  difficult 
enough  to  get  a  dozen  highly  trained  men  to  cooperate 
in  a  laboratory  on  one  research  with  a  view  of  discov- 
ering or  inventing  something,  let  alone  trying  to  get 
the  masses  to  do  this.  The  masses  have  no  business 
trying  to  invent  things.  It  is  no  disparagement  of 
common  people  to  say  that  their  chief  business,  their 
chief  hope  of  happiness,  their  chief  protection  for 
themselves,  is  to  pick  out  those  persons  of  talent  and 
genius  who  can  invent  things  for  them,  and  through 
whom  they  can  express  their  passions  and  their  de- 

On  this  point,  one  of  the  leading  educators  of 
America,  a  profound  believer  in  the  education  of  the 
masses  and  in  the  power  of  education  to  elevate  men 
and  make  them  happy  and  effective,  said  to  me  re- 
cently, with  great  earnestness:  **If  I  were  forced  to 
choose  between  education  and  selection,  I  would  un- 
hesitatingly choose  selection. ' '  He  meant  by  this  that 
if  he  had  to  destroy  all  our  system  of  education  and 
give  up  all  hope  of  lifting  the  masses  above  ignorance, 
as  far  as  the  things  of  culture  are  concerned,  but  still 
possessed  the  power  to  pick  out  leaders  and  set  them 
over  the  people,  he  would  far  prefer  to  trust  the  in- 
telligence and  character  of  these  leaders  to  create 
progress  and  take  care  of  the  masses  than  to  trust  any 
sort  of  education  of  the  masses  to  enable  them  to  in- 
vent culture  and  the  means  of  happy  and  effective 
social  progress. 

The  masses  did  not  discover  America,  but  their 
leaders  did.  The  masses  did  not  discover  the  mathe- 
jnatical  formulas  which  have  made  modern  physics 
and  chemistry  possible,  but  a  genius  unknown  to  the 
world  in  general,  named  Josiah  Willard  Gibbs,  did 
discover  and  invent  a  large  part  of  them.  The  masses 
of  the  American  people  do  not  even  know  that  prob- 


ably  the  greatest  separate  distinctive  and  penetrative 
mind  which  our  whole  history  has  produced  was  this 
one  mind  of  Willard  Gibbs.  It  is  the  few  first-class, 
separate  minds  such  as  these  that  make  possible  such 
men  of  great  but,  nevertheless,  lesser  intellectual  rank 
as  Thomas  A.  Edison,  Wilbur  Wright,  Marconi  and 
Henry  Ford.  The  masses  do  not  even  know  who  it  is 
that  creates  progress,  takes  care  of  them,  provides 
wealth,  luxury  and  education  for  them,  and  keeps 
them  out  of  the  jungle.  When  they  have  in  the  past 
even  suspected  who  their  saviors  and  prophets  were, 
they  have  usually  stoned  them  or  burned  them  at  the 
stake,  as  ministers  of  the  devil.  Even  now,  perhaps 
America's  chief  test  danger  is  that  its  real  leaders  of 
thought  and  creators  of  sound  and  courageous  opinion 
of  life  and  the  universe  we  live  in  are  having  these 
creations  of  the  spirit,  priceless  to  the  masses  them- 
selves, torn  from  the  children's  school  books.  These 
leaders  are,  right  here  in  so-called  **free"  America, 
denied,  as  perhaps  in  no  previous  period  of  the 
world's  history,  their  natural  right  to  guide  and  serve 
and  lead. 

Of  course,  a  nation  whose  leaders  have  never  in- 
vented any  means  of  progress  may  now  possess  an 
enormous  number  of  them.  This  in  itself  shows  how 
the  elements  of  culture  are  passed  on  from  nation  to 
nation  and  from  age  to  age.  For  example,  Mexico 
possesses  books,  newspapers,  machine-made  fabrics 
and  tools,  telephones,  railroads  and  the  like,  but  has 
never  invented  any  of  these  things.  They  have  been 
handed  to  them  gratis  by  other  peoples.  True,  Mexico 
has  probably  invented  more  elaborate  and  successful 
methods  of  misgovernment  than  any  other  people  now 
extant,  but  it  is  hoped  that  her  unique  and  unrivaled 
contributions  of  this  nature  to  the  human  scene  will 
not  be  extensively  borrowed  by  other  peoples. 



I  have  made  these  introductory  remarks  upon  the 
relative  number  of  leaders  and  their  relationships  to 
culture  and  progress  because  I  wish  in  the  remaining 
pages  of  this  book  to  examine  four  questions:  First, 
how  the  general  population  grows  and  how  man  has 
ever  spread  over  the  earth  and  how  many  people  are 
ever  likely  to  be  on  this  planet;  second,  how  leaders 
arrive  and  how  they  are  related  biologically  to  the 
remainder  of  the  population;  third,  whether  conscious 
efforts  such  as  are  embodied  in  the  concept  of  eugenics 
present  any  hope  of  either  improving  the  general  popu- 
lation in  quality  or  increasing  the  relative  number  of 
leaders;  and,  fourth,  whether  science  has  not  placed 
agencies  in  the  hands  of  man  whereby,  without  any 
conscious  effort  or  distinct  program  of  race  improve- 
ment, a  new  and  rapid  evolution  may  nevertheless  set 
in  which  will  sweep  the  race  to  higher  levels  of  health, 
intelligence  and  character  than  it  has  ever  reached  be- 
fore. In  other  words,  my  final  inquiry  will  be  whether 
civilization,  notwithstanding  all  its  apparently  destruc- 
tive character,  is  not  evolving  a  naturally  civilized 
man — a  man  more  capable  of  creating  and  carrying  on 
the  values  and  meanings  of  culture  than  has  yet  ap- 
peared in  the  world.  There  is  undoubtedly  a  rising  tide 
of  degeneracy ;  but  I  think  there  is  along  with  it  a  rising 
tide  of  biological  capacity  which  will  be  able  to  meet 
this  temporary  difficulty,  and  ultimately  to  secure  for 
itself  its  rightful  and  happy  possession  of  the  world. 


When  the  human  race  was  enjoined  to  multiply  and 
replenish  the  earth,  it  may  have  been  that  the  divine 
Lawgiver  knew  how  his  injunction  was  going  to  wort 


out;  but,  if  so,  we  liave  no  record  of  this  fact.  We  are 
indebted  very  greatly  to  Raymond  Pearl,  whose  work 
on  alcohol  has  already  been  quoted,  for  some  of  the 
most  penetrating  explanations  of  the  laws  that  govern 
the  growth  and  expansion  of  peoples.  The  reader  who 
wishes  to  understand  this  extremely  important  prob- 
lem, one  which  is  always  interesting  to  the  popular 
mind,  should  read  Doctor  Pearl's  admirable  book, 
The  Biology  of  Population  Growth, 

Pearl  first  describes  the  experiments  of  a  num- 
ber of  biologists,  especially  Donaldson,  Robertson, 
Durbin,  Carlson  and  others,  who  have  shown  how 
lower  organisms  multiply  when  they  are  confined  with- 
in a  given  area,  and  where  the  element  of  time  is  taken 
into  account. 

** Suppose,"  says  Pearl,  **we  consider  what  happens 
when  a  few  yeast  cells  are  dropped  into  an  appro- 
priate nutritive  solution,  saccharine  in  nature,  and 
the  whole  kept  at  a  moderately  warm  temperature.  In 
such  a  satisfactory  enviromnent  the  initially  sown 
cells  quickly  divide  and  redivide.  Here  plainly  we  are 
dealing  with  the  growth  of  a  population — of  yeast 
cells  to  be  sure,  but  still  a  population.  We  can,  just 
as  with  human  beings,  take  periodic  census  counts,  or 
their  methodological  equivalent,  and  so  determine  the 
growth  of  the  population.  If  such  an  experiment  is 
tried  the  result  will  be  essentially  like  that  shown  in 
the  figure." 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  population  starts  off  rather 
slowly  and  later  gains  momentum,  and  then  at  the  last 
slows  down  and  runs  off  at  the  right  almost  on  a  level, 
indicating  that  the  population  has  reached  its  limit 
and  from  now  on  the  death  rate  and  the  birth  rate  will 
be  almost  equal.  In  short,  the  forces  of  expansion 
and  retardation  have  come  to  an  equilibrium.  If  one 
will   examine  the   graph   in   detail,  he   will   readily 


see  by  running  his  eye  along  the  bottom  line  and  then 
along  the  vertical  line  at  the  left  side,  that  during  the 
first  five  and  one-half  days,  approximately,  the  pop- 
ulation rose  to  one  hundred  fifty.  It  now  gains 
momentum  from  sheer  numbers  apparently,  and  by 
the  tenth  day  has  risen  to  the  line  half  way  between 
four  hundred  and  fifty  and  six  hundred,  indicating  a 


Reprinted     from     The    Law    of    Population     Growth,     by     Raymond     Pearl. 
Courtesy   of   Alfred  A.    Knopf,   Inc.,   publisher.   New   York,    1926. 

The  growth  of  a  population  of  yeast  cells.  Data  from  Carlson, 
represented  as  small  circles.     Smooth  curve  from  equation. 

The  number  of  cells  and  the  size  of  a  tadpole's  tail  develop  in  the 
same  ^way  as  the  population  of  yeast  cells  shown  here. 

population  of  approximately  ^vq  hundred  and  twenty 
five.  Thus  during  this  period  of  four  and  one-half 
days  biological  affairs  have  gone  on  gaily,  and  one 
might  suppose  that  it  would  continue  indefinitely. 
However,  for  some  reason  the  rate  of  reproduction  now 
begins  to  slow  down,  and  by  the  eighteenth  day  birth 
and  death  have  about  balanced  each  other;  from  then 
on  the  population  remains  substantially  stationary^ 



Pearl  also  shows  that  the  body  of  the  white  rat  as 
studied  by  Donaldson,  and  the  tail  of  a  tadpole  as 
studied  by  Durbin,  grow  in  the  same  way  and  follow 
the  same  logistic  curve. 

By  ingenious  experiments  on  the  banana  fly, 
Drosophila,  the  tiny  insect  we  see  flying  about  fruit, 
and  also  by  extensive  experiments  on  flocks  of  chick- 


Reprinted    from    Pearl,    The    Law    of   Population    Growth.      Courtesy    Alfred 
A.    Knopf,    Inc.,   publisher,   New    York,    1926. 

Growth  of  wild  type  Drosophila  population  in  half-pint  bottles. 
The  circles  give  the  observed  census  counts  and  the  smooth  curve  is 
the  graph  of  equation. 

ens.  Pearl  himself  showed  that  these  organisms  mul- 
tiply and  replenish  the  available  area  according  to  the 
same  general  law  as  we  have  seen  exhibited  by  the 
yeast  cells.  It  occurred  to  him  to  see  whether  so 
highly  complex  an  organism  as  man,  where  reproduc- 
tion, one  would  think,  is  subject  to  a  great  many 
psychological  influences  and  where  the  population  of 
countries,  we  imagine,  is  influenced  by  a  great  many 
economic  and  political  forces,  follows  this  same  law 


of  population  growth.  It  hardly  seems  possible  that 
the  number  of  human  beings,  say  in  Holland  or 
Sweden  or  Timbuctoo,  would  be  governed  by  the  same 
iron  laws  which  determine  the  number  of  cells  in  the 
body  of  a  rat  or  the  nimiber  of  yeast  cells  in  a  test 
tube.  The  statesman  may  be  amazed  to  learn  that  not- 
withstanding his  ambitious  plans  the  population  of  his 
country  will  grow  and  come  to  its  limit  the  same  as  a 
tadpole's  tail.  Yet  Pearl's  work  seems  to  demonstrate 
that  these  astonishing  facts  are  true  and  that  man  as 
a  biological  organism  is  no  exception  to  the  general 
onward  march  of  nature. 


To  illustrate  this  principle,  I  reproduce  on  page 
232  Pearl's  curve  showing  the  growth  of  the  population 
of  the  United  States  from  the  year  1700  down  to  the 
present  time.  It  will  be  seen  that  down  to  the  census 
of  1920,  notwithstanding  all  our  immigration  and  the 
enormous  open  country  in  the  "Western  states,  the  same 
iron  law  has  governed  our  population  development. 
Pearl  applied  the  same  method  to  the  growth  of  tlie 
populations  of  Sweden,  where  there  has  been  no  immi- 
gration, to  France,  where  there  has  been  extensive 
practice  of  birth  control,  and  to  Japan,  where  there 
has  been  no  extensive  birth  control.  One  would 
imagine  that  the  birth  rate  had  been  interfered  with 
by  these  widely  differing  economic  and  psychological 
conditions,  but  Pearl  shows  that  his  curve  fits  them 
all.  A  country  is  going  to  fill  up  in  a  regular,  orderly 
way  according  to  its  food  supply  and  its  available 
area.  A  pertinent  passage  from  Benjamin  Franklin  is 
quoted  by  Pearl  which  ought  to  arrest  the  attention  of 
those  business  men  who  wish  to  import  cheap  labor, 
in  order,  as  they  say,  "to  develop  the  country  and  to 



carry  on  our  industries."  Nature  will  take  its  course 
and  fill  up  the  country  anyhow.  When  we  import 
cheap  labor,  the  higher  priced  stock  we  already  have 
ceases  to  produce  children.  On  this  point  Benjamin 
Franklin  said :    *  ^  The  importation  of  foreigners  into  a 


Reprinted  from   Pearl,   The  Lazv  of  Population  Growth.     Courtesy  of  Alfred 
A.   Knopf,   Inc.,  publisher,   New    York,    1926. 


It  will  be  readily  seen  that  the  growth  of  population  in  the  United 
States,  notwithstanding  all  our  immigration,  has  followed  the  same 
iron  law  as  that  which  governs  the  population  expansion  of  a  brood 
of  flies  or  a  colony  of  yeast  cells  or  the  growth  of  a  tadpole's  tail. 
The  curve  shows  the  actual  census  figures  down  to  1920  (see  bottom 
line)  at  which  time  our  population  was  about  105,000,000  (see  left 
line).  Evidently,  the  curve  is  bound  to  keep  on  in  a  regular  way,  and 
in  the  year  2080  the  population  of  the  United  States  will  be 

country  that  has  as  many  inhabitants  as  the  present 
employment  and  provisions  for  subsistence  will  bear 
will  be  in  the  end  no  increase  of  people.  .  .  .  Nor  is 
it  necessary  to  bring  in  foreigners  to  fill  up  any  occa- 
sional vacancy  in  a  country;  for  such  a  vacancy  (if  the 
laws  are  good)  will  soon  be  filled  by  natural  gener- 


Incidentally,  the  author  of  Law  of  Population 
Groivth  shows  how  ridiculous  are  some  of  the  ideas 
about  population  which  are  held  by  politicians  (and 
which,  indeed,  frankly  speaking,  some  of  us  eugenists 
have  held  in  the  past)  when  he  says: 

**The  French  furnish  the  world's  best  example  of 
the  benefits  (or  evils,  as  you  like)  of  a  nearly  sta- 
tionary population.  Some  of  them  worry  about  it, 
others  apparently  rejoice.  At  the  moment  any 
candidate  for  political  preferment  in  that  country  is 
likely  to  be  called  upon  to  state  whether  he  is  for  or 
against  babies,  just  as  in  America  he  is  confronted 
with  the  awkward  necessity  of  declaring  himself  wet 
or  dry,  or  evolutionist  or  Fundamentalist." 

If  the  reader  will  glance  again  at  the  curve  of  the 
population  of  the  United  States  he  will  see  that  Pearl 
has  carried  it  on  up  to  the  time  when  he  believes  it 
will  become  stationary,  which  will  be  about  the  year 
2080.  At  that  time,  he  concludes,  the  population  of  the 
United  States  will  be  197,274,000.  We  hear  our  poli- 
ticians and  our  industrial  leaders  talk  in  grandiloquent 
terms  of  a  population  of  500,000,000;  but  when  we 
find  this  law  of  population-growth  and  limit  applies 
to  such  diverse  countries  as  Austria,  Denmark, 
England  and  Wales,  Hungary,  Italy,  Norway,  Scot- 
land, Servia,  Java,  the  Philippine  Islands,  the  world 
as  a  whole,  and  the  City  of  Baltimore,  it  is  sheer  reck- 
lessness and  naive  assumption  to  suppose  that  the 
United  States  is  inhabited  by  some  *' chosen  people" 
that  will  form  an  exception  to  the  laws  of  nature. 


There  is  another  study  by  this  same  author  which 
strongly  confirms  these  laws  of  population  develop- 
ment.   In  looking  about  in  recent  years  for  some  more 


crucial  biological  experiment,  upon  man,  large  enough 
and  exact  enough  to  test  these  discoveries  with  respect 
to  population,  Pearl  some  years  ago  hit  upon  the  pop- 
ulation of  French  Algeria,  where  a  unique,  large-scale 
biological  experiment  seemed  to  have  been  especially 
staged  by  the  entry  of  the  French  into  that  country. 
Briefly,  the  facts  Pearl  found  are  these:  When  the 
French  went  into  Algeria  about  seventy-five  years  ago 
the  native  Arab  population  had  one  of  the  highest 
birth  rates  in  the  world.  The  native  Arab  seemed  to 
live  for  little  else  except  sex  indulgence.  The  French 
came  in,  and  have  gradually  grown  to  be  a  large  part 
of  the  population.  They  introduced  a  much  higher 
culture,  greatly  increased  the  wealth  of  the  country, 
and  improved  general  conditions.  The  French  also, 
presumably,  practised  birth  control  extensively.  All 
the  evidence  Pearl  finds  is  against  any  theory  that 
the  Arab  has  ever  in  any  way  curbed  his  sexual  appe- 
tite or  made  any  use  of  birth-regulation  methods.  Yet, 
strange  to  say,  the  birth  rate  of  the  Arabs  at  once 
began  to  drop,  and  has  since  run  practically  neck  and 
neck  with  that  of  the  French.  This  is  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  the  introduction  of  medical  science  and  hy- 
giene greatly  reduced  the  death  rate  among  the  Arabs, 
especially  among  the  babies  and  children.  The  curve 
showing  the  simultaneous  drop  and  the  parallel  course 
run  by  the  two  racial  birth  rates  is  exhibited  in  the 
chart  on  page  235. 

Here,  then,  we  have  spread  before  us  one  of  the 
most  significant  facts  in  the  whole  earthly  life  of  man. 
It  is  one  to  which  statesmen  could  give  attention  with 
very  great  profit.  They  have  always  believed  that 
populations  would  expand  indefinitely  and  that  the 
sole  problem  of  statecraft  was  feeding  them  and  pro- 
ducing more  wealth  for  them,  so  that  they  would  pro- 
duce more  children  who  would  in  turn  produce  more 


wealth,  and  so  on  ad  infinitum.  We  have  also  had  held 
before  us  the  specter  of  increasing  misery  as  the  pop- 
ulation reached  the  food  limit.  Pearl  does  not  share 
this  view.    As  wealth  grows,  as  luxury  increases  and 

From  Pearl,  The  Law  of  Population  Grouth.      Courtesy  of  Alfred  A.  Knopf, 
Inc.,    publisher,    New    York,    1926. 

Age  specific  fertility  rates  of  women  from  age  twenty  on  in  the 
Territoires  du  Nord  of  Algeria.  Solid  line — natives;  dash  line — 

new  interests  in  life  develop  by  the  fact  that  people 
are  raised  above  the  brute  struggle  for  existence,  the 
birth  rate  seems  automatically  to  decline  until  the 
population  becomes  stationary ;  and,  as  far  as  material 
conditions  are  concerned,  the  people  attain  a  very 
happy  situation. 

By  all  means  the  most  interesting  question  which 
arises  out  of  these  discoveries  concerning  the  growth 
of  population  is  just  why  the  birth  rate  drops  as  pop- 


ulation  increases.  There  is  nothing  more  interesting 
in  recent  biology.  Animals  in  a  large  group  will  not 
breed  as  rapidly  as  animals  in  a  small  group.  At  the 
Maine  Experiment  Station,  Pearl  showed  years  ago, 
hens  will  lay  more  eggs  when  fifty  are  placed  in  a  pen 
together  than  they  will  if  one  hundred  and  fifty  hens 
are  placed  in  a  pen  three  times  as  large.  Although  the 
same  amount  of  space  is  allowed  ^*per  square  hen,"  as 
Kate  Douglas  Wiggin  put  it,  yet,  for  some  strange  rea- 
son, the  egg  production — that  is,  the  birth  rate — auto- 
matically declines.  The  same  is  true  of  human  beings. 
This  is  certainly  going  to  be  one  of  the  most  significant 
factors  to  consider  in  man's  future  life  on  the  globe. 


It  has  long  been  known,  of  course,  that  the  birth 
rate  of  well-to-do  and  rich  people  is  much  less  than  that 
of  poor  people.  Whether  it  is  poor  capacity  or  poor 
opportunity  that  makes  people  poor,  they  certainly 
have  much  more  than  their  share  of  the  world's  chil- 
dren. I  cannot  here  present  the  evidence,  but  there  is 
an  abundance  in  existence  which  leads  me  to  believe 
that  the  largest  single  reason — by  no  means  the  only 
reason — why  poor  people  are  poor  is  because  they  do 
not  possess  by  nature  the  ability,  temperament  and 
energy  to  become  rich.  I  am  speaking  not  of  particular 
instances  but  of  large  general  averages.  All  mental 
tests  indicate  that  poor  people  do  not  average  as  high 
in  ability  as  the  middle  and  upper  economic  classes.  A 
great  many  people,  particularly  the  Socialists  who 
seem  to  imagine  that  their  cooperative  commonwealth 
would  make  every  one  equally  healthy,  wealthy  and 
wise,  think  this  is  a  pessimistic  view.  Again,  quite  the 
contrary.  I  have  never  myself  been  able  to  get  any 
pessimism  out  of  the  laws  of  nature.    When  a  man  has 


accomplished  the  mental  and  spiritual  achievement  of 
*' accepting  the  universe '*  and  has  ceased  trying  to 
make  it  over  and  ceased  hoping  that  it  will  suddenly 
turn  out  to  be  something  entirely  different  from  what 
it  plainly  appears  to  be,  he  will  find,  I  think,  that  he  has 
attained  a  new  happiness,  and  will  find  himself  quite 
content  to  leave  the  universe  alone.  Nothing  wins  in 
the  game  of  life  except  courage  in  the  face  of  whatever 

But  we  have  certainly  built  a  grotesque  social  and 
economic  order  if  there  are  no  rewards  whatsoever  for 
brains,  energy  and  character.  If  the  man  who  lacks 
these  is  as  likely  to  succeed  as  the  man  who  possesses 
them,  then  the  outlook  for  the  individual  is  indeed 
hopeless.  He  receives  no  reward  for  honest  striving, 
and  intelligence  and  character  do  not  enable  him  to 
elevate  the  social  and  economic  position  of  either  him- 
self or  his  family.  If  we  fail  to  find  not  only  more 
ability  and  a  higher  average  of  virtue  among  well-to-do 
and  rich  people  than  we  find  among  the  poor,  who  are 
commonly  lauded  as  possessing  all  the  human  virtues, 
then  it  means  that  brains  and  character  are  of  no  use  to 
a  man.  It  also  means  that  we  might  as  well  dispense 
with  all  efforts  to  improve  these  mortal  possessions. 

It  seems  biologically  unfortunate,  however,  that 
just  as  men  do  succeed  in  a  social  and  economic  way 
they  reduce  the  number  of  children  to  whom  they  pass 
on  not  only  their  property  and  influence,  but  their  nat- 
ural talents  and  energy.  Pearl's  work  shows  us  how 
populations  grow  as  a  whole,  but  this  only  partly 
answers  a  question  of  equal  importance.  And  that  is, 
which  types  of  the  population  produce  the  large  fam- 
ilies and  thus  add  the  greatest  contribution  to  the 
national  reservoir  of  character  and  ability?  One  is 
bound  to  infer,  of  course,  since  the  drop  in  the  birth 
rate  goes  along  with  increasing  wealth,  that  those  who 


procure  the  most  wealth  are  the  ones  who  reduce  the 
birth  rate  the  most.  This  turns  out  to  be  true.  Pearl 
gives  a  list  of  the  property  valuations  of  the  various 
states  of  the  United  States.  Those  with  the  highest 
property  valuation,  such  as  Connecticut,  Massachu- 
setts, New  York  and  California,  have  the  lowest  birth 
rate,  while  those  with  low  property  valuation,  such  as 
Kentucky,  Virginia,  North  and  South  Carolina,  have 
the  highest  birth  rate.  Dr.  David  Heron,  of  the  Gal- 
ton  Laboratory,  in  London,  found  that  not  only  is  a 
high  birth  rate  associated  with  poverty  in  England,  and 
a  low  birth  rate  associated  with  economic  and  profes- 
sional success,  but  he  found  also  that  the  factors  con- 
tributing to  this  unfortunate  differential  birth  produc- 
tion have  doubled  in  their  intensity  and  effectiveness 
of  operation  within  the  past  fifty  years.  The  upper 
and  middle  classes — which  include  not  merely  rich 
people,  but  doctors,  lawyers,  clergymen,  teachers, 
professors,  engineers,  stenographers,  skilled  mechan- 
ics, accountants  and  all  people  who  are  intellectually 
and  socially  successful  and  owing  to  this  fact  presum- 
ably socially  desirable — are  probably  vanishing  in  all 
civilized  countries.  That  is,  they  are  probably 
vanishing  as  a  class  in  every  country.  There  are 
exceptional  types  and  families  within  these  classes  who 
are  not  vanishing  and  which  give  us  a  new  evolutionary 
hope ;  I  shall  later  present  the  evidence  in  support  of 
this  contention. 


But  it  seems  impossible  not  to  infer  that  the  main 
portions  of  the  successful  classes  are  simply  sweeping 
themselves  into  extinction.  Eecent  studies  of  the  birth 
rate  of  college  graduates  by  Dr.  John  Phillips,  who  has 
studied  the  graduates  of  Harvard  and  counted  their 


children,  and  of  Prof.  S.  J.  Holmes,  of  the  University 
of  California,  who  has  studied  the  families  from  whom 
the  students  of  that  university  spring,  certainly  give 
us  no  comfort,  to  say  the  least.  Phillips  shows  that 
the  Harvard  graduates  are  simply  disappearing  as  a 
species  of  animal  from  the  face  of  the  earth.  He  shows 
also  that  the  native-born  Americans  are  disappearing 
with  extreme  rapidity,  and  that  their  places  are  being 
taken  in  the  Harvard  population  by  the  children  of 
foreigners  who  have  recently  landed  on  our  shores. 
This  is  not  comforting  to  those  of  us  who  belong  to  the 
old  American  stock. 

Professor  Holmes  shows  that  down  to  1900  college 
families  in  California  were  probably  reproducing 
themselves.  The  actual  graduates  from  these  families, 
who  are  presumably  the  ablest  members  of  these  fam- 
ilies, are  probably  not  now  reproducing  their  stock.  At 
least,  from  all  we  know  we  are  almost  forced  to  infer 
that  the  college  families  of  California  have  entered  a 
decline  in  numbers  which  has  started  them  toward 
extinction.  One  could  multiply  data  of  this  sort 
indefinitely.  Our  journals  of  biolog^^  and  sociology,  as 
well  as  the  vital  statistics  of  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment, are  filled  with  data  bearing  out  the  general  infer- 
ence that  the  main  body  of  the  more  successful 
elements  of  the  population  are  simply  disappearing  as 
biological  specimens.  I  shall  ask  the  reader  to  note 
especially  here,  that  I  say  only  that  the  main  ho  dp  of 
these  successful  classes  is  disappearing.  There  is  a 
saving  remnant  that  is  not  disappearing,  and  we  shall 
see  as  the  argument  proceeds  that  upon  them  rest  the 
chief  biological  as  well  as  social  hopes  for  the  future  of 
mankind.  In  fact,  I  shall  indicate  later  who  constitute 
this  saving  remnant,  how  they  are  going  to  be  pre- 
served, what  are  the  influences  at  work  to  prevent  them 
from  dying  out,  and  what  are  the  new  biological  dis- 


coveries  which  cause  me  to  believe  that  they  will  form 
the  biological  basis  of  a  better  and  healthier  race  and 
will  usher  in  the  next  age  of  man. 

All  I  shall  note  at  this  point  is  that  we  discover  a 
great  many  unexpected  tendencies  in  the  way  in  which 
man  reproduces  his  species.  There  are  all  sorts  of 
currents  and  counter  currents  at  work  to  alter  the 
general  composition  and  the  general  biological  trend 
of  any  large  group  of  people.  We  talk  glibly  of  race 
degeneracy  and  race  improvement.  It  is  highly  prob- 
able that  there  are  no  such  things  as  general  race 
degeneracy  or  general  race  improvement  in  a  species 
of  animals  as  extensive  as  is  the  human  family.  The 
human  race  does  not  go  up  or  go  down  as  a  whole. 
Even  in  a  small  community  of  a  few  hundred,  some 
families  are  improving  and  some  are  degenerating. 

As  an  example  of  numerous  false  impressions  about 
the  tendencies  going  on  for  race  improvement  or  decay, 
there  is  one  concerning  the  birth  rate  of  morons  which 
has,  of  late,  gained  extensive  credence. 


I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  a  good  deal  of  this 
false  impression  has  been  given  to  the  public  by  over- 
enthusiastic  eugenists  themselves.  The  notion  is  that 
morons  and  stupid  people  generally  have  larger 
families  than  other  people  of  the  same  social  and 
economic  classes.  There  is  a  popular  impression  that 
feeble-minded  people  just  naturally  tend  to  have  an 
enormous  number  of  children.  Pearl's  evidence,  and 
his  opinions  drawn  from  this  evidence,  indicate  that 
there  is  no  basis  for  this  widespread  impression. 
Feeble-minded  persons  who  are  poor  have  no  more 
children  than  have  other  poor  people.  Morons  who  are 
rich  have  no  larger  families  than  other  rich  people.    It 


is  chiefly  the  economic  and  social  status  which  is  as- 
sociated with  the  size  of  families.  It  is  at  least  more 
closely  associated  with  it  than  is  any  other  feature  of 
the  environment  that  has  been  measured. 

There  is  another  curious  influence  which  wealth 
exerts  upon  man's  biological  make-up.  This  was 
called  to  my  attention  some  years  ago  by  Everett 
Dean  Martin.  Since  then  I  have  made  some  general 
observations  which  lead  me  to  believe  there  is  a  good 
deal  in  Martin's  suggestion.  This  phenomenon  is  that 
wealth  and  easy  economic  circumstances  tend  to  pre- 
serve stupidity  in  the  upper  social  classes.  The  way 
this  principle  operates  is  very  simple.  For  example, 
a  young  woman,  who  does  not  have  to  earn  her  own 
living,  or  one  who  does  not  have  the  intellectual  inter- 
est and  energy  to  assume  some  position,  undertake 
some  form  of  social  work  or  display  her  mental  quali- 
ties in  some  special  way,  can  quite  readily  **get  by" 
in  social  circles,  even  if  she  is  merely  a  high-grade 
moron.  Since  there  is  so  much  more  physical  beauty 
in  the  upper  economic  classes  than  among  the  less 
favored  sections,  it  seems  probable  that  even  stupidity 
would  be  endowed  with  better  looks  in  these  classes 
than  in  those  lower  in  the  social  scale.  A  woman  who 
is  in  employment  of  some  kind  quickly  reveals  whether 
she  is  intelligent  or  stupid.  But  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that  a  stupid  woman,  with  money  enough  to 
preserve  her  from  the  necessity  of  working,  especially 
if  she  possessed  a  modicum  of  good  looks,  would  be 
much  more  likely  to  be  undiscovered  and  to  secure  a 
husband  than  if  her  real  mental  abilities  were  brought 
out  by  some  occupation  requiring  intelligence.  Even 
a  good-looking  moron  may  pass  in  society  for  a  person 
of  intelligence,  if  all  she  has  to  do  is  to  learn  to  ride 
horseback,  swim,  dance,  dress  well  with  the  aid  of 
parents  and  a  maid,  look  sweet,  and  keep  smiling. 


This  tendency  is  by  no  means  confined  altogether 
to  the  preservation  of  moronity  among  the  women. 
Very  stupid  young  men  can  manage  to  **get  by''  in 
the  world,  and  they  often  succeed  in  marrying  women 
much  more  intelligent  than  themselves,  if  they  have 
money  and  leisure  and  limousines  and  the  like.  One 
can  scarcely  visit  our  fashionable  summer  resorts, 
take  a  trip  on  a  first-class  ocean  steamer,  or  attend  a 
few  fashionable  social  gatherings  in  any  of  our  cities, 
without  gaining  an  impression  that  while  the  average 
of  intelligence  in  these  classes  is  considerably  above 
that  of  the  general  population,  yet  an  undue  amount  of 
stupidity  is  also  being  protected,  preserved  and  bio- 
logically promoted. 

I  have,  however,  seen  no  more  impressive  picture 
of  the  high  association  between  economic  success  and 
small  families  on  the  one  hand,  and  economic  failure 
and  large  families  on  the  other,  than  the  one  which  I 
append  on  the  opposite  page,  entitled  Fifth  Avenue  vs. 
First  Avenue,  I  am  reproducing  it  here  from  the 
Journal  of  Heredity  by  the  courtesy  of  its  editor,  Mr. 
Robert  Cook,  and  also  of  the  Millbank  Memorial  Fund. 
The  chart  is  impressive,  and  fully  explains  itself.  It 
certainly  seems  a  strange  and  pathetic  fate  that 
nature  has  laid  upon  man,  that  those  among  his 
various  breeds  who  are  capable  of  building  civiliza- 
tions, of  creating  cultures,  of  giving  refinement  and 
beauty  and  meaning  to  his  existence,  are  the  very  ones 
who  are  sterilized  by  their  own  achievements.  The 
very  persons  who  lead  the  race  to  higher  levels  die 
out  when  those  levels  are  attained,  and  the  race  once 
more  slips  back  down  the  long,  difficult  hills  of  prog- 
ress. Charles  Darwin  said,  *'Man  breeds  from  his 
worst,  but  he  does  not  have  to.''  The  prime  objective 
of  this  book  is  to  prove  that  this  farsighted  vision  of 
Darwin  is  true,  provided  only  that  civilization  can 



continue  long  enough  to  set  going  a  new  cycle  of 
evolution.  Whether  or  not  that  stage  of  civilization 
has  been  reached  is  the  most  pressing  question  that 
can  possibly  concern  present-day  social  statesmanship. 


I  believe  we  have  reached  the  stage  where  man  is 
about  to  begin  to  breed  from  his  better  and  best,  and 
that  biology  has  made  some  startling  new  discoveries 
which  will  greatly  aid  this  happy  process.  Indeed,  as 
an  indication  in  this  direction,  we  have  seen  how  pop- 
ulations grow  from  small  tribal  beginnings  until  they 
fill  the  land  which  they  occupy,  and  that  then  they 
remain  relatively  stationary.  We  have  seen  also  that 
the  birth  rate  goes  down  as  civilization  goes  up.  Of 
course,  the  reader  may  ask  what  w^ould  happen  if 
science  should  suddenly  discover  or  create  great  new 
reservoirs  of  food?  As  the  graphs  of  population 
show,  this  would  merely  give  the  curve  of  population 
a  new  upward  impulse,  and,  of  course,  the  ultimate 
number  of  persons  in  the  population  would  be  greater 
than  with  a  meager  food  supply.  But  biological  history 
would  simply  repeat  itself,  and  a  point  of  equilibrium 
between  birth  rate  and  death  rate  would  soon  be 
reached  again. 

The  reader  may,  then,  inquire.  How  about  the  gen- 
eral predictions  of  race  suicide?  If  the  birth  rate 
drops  with  improving  conditions,  will  not  the  race 
vanish  if  science  and  social  organization  should  be 
finally  able  to  give  everybody  a  good  home,  com- 
parative luxury,  a  public-school  education,  a  radio, 
a  Ford  car,  and  fill  their  minds  with  social  ambitions  ? 

A  few  years  ago,  when  Prof.  Edward  A.  Ross, 
of  the  University  of  Wisconsin,  invented  the  term 
*'race  suicide,"  a  great  many  people  gained  the  im- 


pression  that  this  meant  that  the  whole  race  might 
die  out  and  just  as  we  got  ready  to  enter  the  millen- 
nium there  would  be  nobody  left  to  enter  it.  Professor 
Ross  merely  meant  to  point  out  that  the  more  favored 
social  classes  were  dying  out.  However,  a  good  many 
students  and  popular  writers,  who  ought  to  know  bet- 
ter, have  spread  the  fear  that  there  might  be  an  enor- 
mous decrease  in  the  population;  in  fact,  that  it  might 
even  vanish  altogether  and  the  animals  might  once 
more  take  possession  of  the  world.  AVe  have  had  even 
lurid  pictures  drawn  to  the  effect  that  if  the  size  of  the 
families  should  continue  to  decrease,  this  earth  would 
ere  long  become  once  more  a  zoological  garden,  with 
nothing  but  the  bones  of  man  to  indicate  that  he  had 
ever  been  here  and  had  won  his  temporary  triumph 
over  the  lower  kingdoms. 

A  little  reflection  will  convince  anyone  that  race 
suicide,  in  the  sense  of  a  race  vanishing,  is  a  biological 
absurdity.  Curious  as  it  may  seem,  race  suicide  in  the 
long  run  tends  not  to  a  decrease  but  to  an  increase  of 
the  population.  Just  how  this  principle  works  has 
never  been  better  described  than  in  a  brief  article 
which  Dr.  Alexander  Graham  Bell  published  in  the 
Journal  of  Heredity,  shortly  before  his  death.  Both 
because  of  my  personal  admiration  for  Doctor  Bell,  as 
one  of  the  finest  spirits  of  our  American  life  and  for 
his  numerous  admirable  researches  in  the  field  of 
eugenics,  and  the  great  work  he  did  on  the  problems  of 
deaf -mutism — most  of  which  good  works  are  unknown 
to  the  general  public — I  take  pleasure  in  reproducing 
in  this  place,  verbatim,  his  brief  discussion: 

**One  of  the  most  interesting  of  the  questions  of 
to-day  relates  to  the  powerful  influence  exerted  upon 
populations  by  what  we  might  almost  call  negative 
selection.  A  selection  that  produces  the  very  opposite 
of  that  expected. 


^^At  the  present  time  considerable  alarm  has  been 
expressed  at  the  apparently  growing  disinclination  of 
American  women  to  bear  children,  and  a  cry  has  been 
raised  against  w^hat  people  call  ^race  suicide/  What- 
ever the  cause,  it  is  undoubtedly  the  fact  that  in 
America  the  children  of  foreign-born  parents  are  in- 
creasing at  a  much  greater  rate  than  the  children  of 
native-born  parents,  and  the  position  is  sufficiently 
grave  for  serious  consideration. 

**The  desire  to  avoid  maternity  is  a  characteristic 
associated  with  lack  of  offspring,  and  cannot  therefore 
go  on  increasing  indefinitely  in  a  community.  Its  nat- 
ural tendency  is  to  die  out  through  lack  of  offspring  to 
inherit  it,  leaving  the  more  fertile  part  of  the  commu- 
nity alone  to  propagate  the  race. 

'^Eeflection  therefore  leads  to  the  somewhat  start- 
ling conclusion  that  even  wholesale  abstention  from 
children,  so  far  from  lessening  the  fertility  of  the 
community  as  a  whole  will  eventually  increase  it 
instead.  Actual  race  suicide  will  not  result  from  such 
a  cause  alone,  so  long  as  the  race  is  left  to  itself  to 
work  out  its  own  destiny. 


**In  order  to  appreciate  this,  imagine  our  native 
race  to  be  placed  upon  an  island  protected  by  suitable 
immigration  laws  from  competition  with  other  races. 
Then  it  becomes  obvious  that  the  sentiment  in  favor  of 
avoiding  the  production  of  offspring  must  necessarily 
diminish  in  process  of  time,  on  account  of  the  lack  of 
offspring  to  inherit  it;  and  that  the  opposite  sentiment 
of  a  desire  to  have  children  will  grow,  and  ultimately 
become  predominant,  because  each  succeeding  genera- 
tion will  be  composed  exclusively  of  the  descendants 
of  the  people  who  had  children.    If  the  desire  for  off- 


spring  is  an  inheritable  characteristic,  and  it  certainly 
is,  then  of  course  the  next  generation  will  inherit  it 
from  their  parents  to  a  certain  extent;  whereas  there 
will  be  no  descendants  at  all  to  inherit  the  characteris- 
tics of  those  who  abstained  from  offspring. 

**We  have  placed  the  people  upon  an  island,  and 
protected  them  from  interference  from  other  races,  so 
as  to  leave  them  to  themselves  to  carry  on  their  lives 
in  their  own  way,  as  they  desire. 

**Some  of  these  people  love  little  children,  and 
desire  to  have  children  of  their  own.  Others  look  upon 
children  as  nuisances,  perhaps  necessary  evils  for  the 
continuance  of  the  race — but  why  should  they  be  both- 
ered with  them  when  they  don't  want  them?  Let  oth- 
ers have  them  if  they  want  them,  but  leave  them  alone. 
Well — ^let  them  have  their  desires. 

**Let  those  who  desire  children  have  them,  and 
those  who  don't,  have  none,  and  see  how  it  will  all  work 

**Now,  does  it  not  become  at  once  evident  that  so 
long  as  any  of  the  people  desire  offspring  and  have 
them,  complete  race  suicide  is  impossible?  Some  off- 
spring will  be  produced  and  a  second  generation  will 

*  ^  Suppose,  for  example,  the  boom  against  maternity 
reaches  such  proportions  that  ninety-nine  per  cent,  of 
the  population  decides  to  have  no  children — and  surely 
this  is  an  extreme  case — will  the  race  die  outf  No — 
not  immediately  at  all  events.  There  will  be  another 
generation  composed  exclusively  of  the  descendants 
of  the  one  per  cent,  who  desire  to  have  children.  The 
whole  of  the  next  generation  will  be  composed  of  their 
children ;  and  there  will  be  no  descendants  at  all  of  the 
other  ninety-nine  per  cent. 

'^This  is  the  critical  time  for  our  islanders.  Only 
one  per  cent,  of  the  population  have  had  children,  and 


of  course  the  numbers  in  the  next  generation  will  be  so 
seriously  reduced  that  immigration  from  outside  would 
speedily  swamp  them — but  we  have  agreed  to  protect 
them  from  this  competition  with  other  races,  and  leave 
them  alone  to  work  out  their  destiny  to  the  bitter 

'*Well,  let  us  revisit  the  island  after  the  original 
population  has  passed  away.  We  find  the  population 
now  only  a  fraction  of  what  it  was  before;  and  the 
question  naturally  arises:  Will  the  population  con- 
tinue to  diminish  at  each  successive  generation  until 
actual  race  suicide  results  ? 

*'It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  sentiment  against 
maternity  will  disappear  in  one  generation.  The 
second  generation  will  therefore  undoubtedly  continue 
to  be  divided  upon  the  question  of  maternity,  some 
wishing  to  have  children,  others  not;  but  the  propor- 
tion desiring  children  will  necessarily  he  greater,  on 
account  of  heredity,  than  in  the  original  population; 
for  the  whole  of  this  second  generation  are  descended 
from  the  one  per  cent,  who  desired  offspring,  whereas 
the  ninety-nine  per  cent,  who  did  not  desire  them  left 
no  descendants, 

**  There  seems  to  be  no  escape  from  the  conclusion 
that  in  this  second  generation  more  than  one  per  cent, 
of  the  people  will  desire  children,  and  less  than  ninety- 
nine  per  cent,  will  abstain  from  their  production. 
Therefore,  the  proportion  of  the  second  generation 
who  will  have  children  will  be  greater  than  in  the  first, 
and  the  proportion  opposed  to  maternity  mil  be  less. 

**Thus  in  each  succeeding  generation  the  propor- 
tion who  desire  children  and  have  them  will  increase, 
and  the  proportion  avoiding  maternity  diminish,  with 
the  net  result  that  each  succeeding  generation  will  be 
more  fertile  than  the  last.  The  desire  to  avoid  ma- 
ternity will  die  out  to  a  great  extent  on  account  of  the 


lack  of  offspring  to  inherit  it.  The  spirit  of  race 
suicide  will  itself  commit  suicide,  and  leave  a  more  fer- 
tile race  than  before,** 


The  reader  will  miss  the  prime  point  of  Doctor 
Bell's  argument  unless  he  sees  how  it  indicates  that 
evolution  by  perfectly  natural  selection  is  still  going 
on  in  the  human  race.  Nearly  all  historians  and  also 
the  sociologists  of  the  past  generation,  such  as  Lester 
F.  Ward,  Benjamin  Kidd,  Herbert  Spencer,  and  even 
such  biologists  as  Huxley,  Lloyd  Morgan  and  others, 
believed  that  natural  selection  was  almost  entirely 
suspended  in  civilized  societies ;  and  the  most  of  them 
argued  that,  for  this  reason,  the  mean  standard  of  hu- 
man ability  and  character  was  on  the  wane.  It  may  be 
that  human  ability  is  decreasing.  I  doubt  it  very  much ; 
but  if  it  is,  it  is  not  due  to  the  waning  of  natural  selec- 
tion, but  to  the  mere  fact  that  civilization  has  given 
the  lower  half  of  the  population  the  higher  birth  rate. 
But  natural  selection  is  going  on  within  every  section 
of  the  population  just  the  same. 

As  I  shall  show  later,  we  have  no  means  of  knowing 
whether  human  ability  on  the  average  has  gone  down 
or  gone  up.  In  his  book.  Mental  and  Moral  Heredity 
in  Royalty,  Woods  quotes  Alfred  Russel  Wallace,  co- 
discoverer  with  Darwin  of  the  principle  of  natural 
selection  in  evolution,  as  saying:  **In  one  of  my  latest 
conversations  with  Darwin,  he  expressed  himself  very 
gloomily  on  the  future  of  humanity,  on  the  ground  that 
in  our  modern  civilization  natural  selection  had  no 
play,  and  the  fittest  did  not  survive."  Woods  also 
quotes  Lloyd  Morgan's  Eahit  and  Instinct,  where  he 
says:  ''Natural  selection  becomes  more  and  more 
subordinate  in  the  social  evolution  of  civilized  man- 


kind;  and  it  would  seem  probable  with  tbis  waning  of 
the  influence  of  natural  selection  there  has  been  a 
diminution  also  of  human  faculty." 

No  doubt,  as  I  noted  in  the  beginning  of  this  essay, 
many  forms  of  natural  selection  are  suspended  by  civ- 
ilization ;  but  it  is  my  purpose  to  show  that  other  forms 
of  natural  selection  are  substituted  which  keep  evo- 
lution going  and,  possibly,  accelerate  its  pace.  The 
only  question  at  issue  is  not  whether  evolution  has 
ceased  but  in  what  direction  is  it  going?  We  are 
evolving,  but  what  we  are  evolving  into  is  the  question 
which  I  wish  to  consider  from  now  on.  Are  we  evolv- 
ing into  a  worse  or  a  better  type  of  man? 


Even  Alfred  Russel  Wallace  noted  the  tendency  of 
the  wicked  and  vicious  to  eliminate  themselves  by 
their  own  folly.  As  I  have  said  elsewhere,  vice  puri- 
fies the  race  because  it  kills  the  vicious.  While  this 
does  not  raise  the  upper  sections  of  human  ability  and 
character,  it  does  have  a  tendency  to  elevate  the  gen- 
eral average.  However,  scarcely  any  large-scale  phe- 
nomenon now  in  process  illustrates  the  fact  that 
natural  selection  is  going  on,  and  the  way  in  which  it 
works,  more  clearly  than  the  marriage  rate  of  college 

A  number  of  studies  show  that  ninety  per  cent,  of 
the  women  of  the  United  States  marry  before  they  are 
forty  years  old;  but  fifty  per  cent,  of  America's  edu- 
cated women  never  marry  at  all. 

Is  education  driving  the  nation  to  race  suicide? 
Are  culture  and  Cupid  deadly  enemies?  Does  the 
possession  of  a  college  diploma  make  a  woman  less 
attractive  as  a  wife  and  mother  or  decrease  her  desir© 
for  marital  life? 


On  the  face  of  the  facts,  all  this  would  seem  to  be 
true.  If,  however,  we  survey  the  marriage  situation 
of  the  American  people  as  a  whole,  we  find  that  it  was 
never  more  encouraging. 

More  people  are  getting  married  in  the  United 
States  to-day  and  they  are  marrying  earlier  in  life 
than  at  any  time  within  the  past  generation.  While 
the  general  belief  is  that  the  number  of  unmarried 
women  and  old  bachelors  is  increasing  at  an  alarming 
rate,  it  is  comforting  to  find  from  the  census  reports 
that  this  is  not  true. 


Marriages  have  been  growing  more  and  more 
numerous  and  the  time  of  life  when  our  young  people 
contract  marriage  has  been  going  down  steadily  ever 
since  1890. 

We  seem  rapidly  approaching  the  point  where  we 
shall  be  the  most  married  people  in  the  world. 

When  we  analyze  the  situation  more  closely,  how- 
ever, we  come  upon  some  disturbing  factors.  A  mass 
of  evidence  indicates  that  the  more  education  a  woman 
has,  the  less  chance  she  has  of  getting  a  husband. 

For  while  the  general  marriage  rate  has  been  in- 
creasing, most  of  the  great  women's  colleges  and  a 
large  number  of  co-educational  colleges  show  a  slight 
decrease,  and  very  few  an  increase  in  the  marriage 
rate  of  their  women  graduates. 

The  tide  of  marriage  among  educated  women  seems 
to  be  setting  in  the  opposite  direction  from  the  general 
current  of  American  life. 


For  instance.  Prof.  Amy  Hewes,  of  Mount  Holyoke, 
shows  that  in  that  institution,  the  oldest  of  the  great 
women's  colleges,  back  in  the  'forties  and  'fifties  only 


fourteen  to  twenty-four  per  cent,  of  the  graduates 
remained  unmarried,  as  compared  to  fifty  per  cent. 
recently  remaining  celibate. 

At  Syracuse  University  in  New  York  the  number  of 
unmarried  women  graduates  made  the  astonishing 
increase  from  thirteen  per  hundred  to  fifty-two  per 
hundred  during  a  fifty-year  period.  The  foregoing 
figures  and  those  which  follow  are  taken  from  the 
latest  records  that  I  have  seen. 

Eunning  over  the  records  of  other  colleges  as  stud- 
ied by  Prof.  Eobert  J.  Sprague  of  Massachusetts  Agri- 
cultural College,  Prof.  Eoswell  Johnson  and  Bertha  J. 
Stutzman  of  the  University  of  Pittsburgh,  Doctor 
John  Phillips  of  Harvard,  and  others,  we  find  that 
Bryn  Mawr,  for  instance,  during  a  twelve-year  period 
graduated  three  hundred  and  seventy-six  young  women 
of  whom  only  one  hundred  and  sixty-five,  or  forty- 
three  and  nine-tenths  per  cent,  were  married  thirteen 
years  later. 

Correspondingly,  the  Vassar  graduates  show  only 
fifty-one  per  cent,  married,  while  the  records  for 
Wellesley  reveal  that  only  thirty-three  per  cent,  of 
its  girls  had  accepted  husbands. 


The  marriage  rate  among  men  college  graduates 
generally  shows  little  change.  Dr.  John  Phillips  has 
sho^vn  that  during  the  past  seventy-five  years  just 
about  seventy-five  out  of  every  one  hundred  Harvard 
graduates  have  married  and  of  the  Yale  graduates 
seventy-eight  per  cent,  have  married. 

Prof.  Samuel  J.  Holmes  of  the  University  of  Cali- 
fornia sums  up  the  situation  pungently  by  saying, 
*^Over  ninety-seven  per  cent,  of  Methodist  ministers 
marry,  over  ninety  per  cent,  of  American  men  of 
science  marry,  about  seventy-five  per  cent,  of  Harvard 


graduates  marry,  and  a  little  over  fifty  per  cent,  of  the 
graduates  of  most  women's  colleges  marry/' 

From  such  widely  separated  groups  as  the  much- 
marrying  Methodist  clergymen  to  the  little-marrying 
graduates  of  women's  colleges  it  is  impossible  to  draw 
any  common  principle,  but  if  we  confine  our  attention 
to  the  women  graduates  of  the  co-educational  institu- 
tions we  find  a  somewhat  more  encouraging  state  of 
affairs  although  even  out  in  the  **  great  open  spaces 
where  men  are  men"  it  seems  that  Cupid  has  a  tough 
time  of  it  on  the  college  campus. 


The  picture  as  given  in  The  Journal  of  Heredity  of 
women's  marriages  in  Western  colleges  during  a 
twenty-year  period  runs  as  follows: 

Per  cent. 
College  unmarried 

Ohio  State  University 46 

University  of  Wisconsin 48.2 

University  of  Illinois 46 

University  of  California  40 

Leland  Stanford  University 40 

Oberlin  College  35 

Kansas  Agricultural  College  32.4 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  at  Leland  Stanford  the 
rate  is  increasing,  and  the  same  seems  to  be  true  at  the 
University  of  California,  where  the  record  given  above 
is  not  quite  complete. 

If  we  turn  now  from  small  college  groups  to  the 
populations  of  entire  states  we  find  that  ninety-six 
per  cent,  of  the  ** Joans  of  Arkansas"  marry  before 
they  are  forty  years  old,  while  only  eighty  per  cent, 
of  their  sisters  in  Massachusetts  are  married  at  that 


age.  And  it  hardly  needs  discussion  to  prove  that  the 
general  average  of  education  is  higher  in  Massachu- 
setts than  in  Arkansas,  although  the  latter  state  has 
made  amazing  advances  in  this  respect  in  the  past 
twenty-five  years. 


The  foregoing  presents  an  entirely  too  brief  sum- 
mary of  the  main  facts  as  to  education  and  marriage  in 
the  United  States.  Will  the  reader  kindly  note  that 
I  have  not  so  far  suggested  my  own  belief  as  to  the 
underlying  causes? 

Two  solutions  have,  however,  been  offered. 

It  was  first  suggested  that  perhaps  college  women 
came  from  non-marrying  family  stocks  and  that  their 
sisters,  cousins  and  friends  of  the  same  social  and 
economic  class  would  be  found  to  have  just  as  low  a 
marriage  rate  as  their  better  educated  sisters. 

Miss  Mary  Roberts  Smith  made  a  study  of  this 
point  of  view  from  a  large  amount  of  data.  As  given 
by  Poponoe  and  Johnson,  the  data  showed  the  average 
ages  at  marriage  of  the  different  groups  to  be  as  fol- 

College    women   26.3  years 

Their  sisters 24.2  years 

Their  cousins  24.7  years 

Their  friends   24.2  years 

Plainly,  the  sisters,  cousins  and  friends  of  college 
women  are  preferred  as  wives  to  the  college  women 


Miss  Smith  further  found  that  if  we  take  college 
women  at  twenty-three  years  of  age  only  eight  and 
six-tenths  per  cent,  have  found  or  accepted  husbands, 


while  by  that  time  thirty  per  cent,  of  their  friends, 
consins  and  sisters  have  been  led  to  the  marriage 

Evidently  a  great  many  young  women  never  gef  as 
far  as  college  because  they  are  too  attractive  as  wives 
ever  to  get  that  far  with  their  education.  Indeed,  as 
we  shall  see,  this  may  be  the  very  crux  of  the  whole 

Another  solution  proposed  is  a  tax  on  bachelors. 
All  such  simple,  ready-made  solutions  of  social  prob- 
lems always  fill  me  with  suspicion.  As  a  rule,  they 
are  merely  personal  gestures,  and  show  a  naive  con- 
ception of  the  enormous  complexities  of  the  question 
at  issue. 

A  tax  on  bachelors  might  unfortunately  induce 
them  to  marry.  I  say  unfortunately j  since  men  who 
are  bachelors  by  choice  have  exhibited  a  x^ersonal 
selfishness  and  lack  of  human  interests  which  society 
can  scarcely  afford  to  have  reproduced  in  a  brood  of 
equally  selfish  children. 

For  abundant  evidence  shows  that  selfishness  is  an 
inherited  trait.  In  some  whole  families  it  is  bred  in 
the  bone.  Such  old  bachelors  should  be  allowed  to 
hang  themselves  by  their  own  ropes. 


On  the  other  hand,  men  who  have  remained  unmar- 
ried because  of  having  to  take  care  of  an  invalid 
father  or  mother  or  in  order  to  send  some  younger 
brother  or  sister  through  college,  instead  of  being 
taxed,  should,  if  anything,  be  given  a  pension  to  enable 
them  to  marry  and  reproduce  their  noble  natures  in  a 
group  of  similar  children.  And  the  same  is  true  of 
women  who  have  given  up  their  marriage  chances  for 
similar  reasons. 


We  thus  see  that  the  problem  as  to  whether  educa- 
tion does  or  does  not  make  women  unmarriageable  and 
lead  to  race  suicide  of  our  intellectuals  is  far-reaching 
and  profound.  When  these  low  marriage  rates  were 
first  published,  especially  those  for  separate  women's 
colleges,  several  investigators  leaped  to  the  conclusion, 
which,  as  I  have  said,  seems  obvious,  that  it  was  the 
type  of  education  and  the  ideals  of  college  life  that  led 
these  women  to  forego  marriage  or  else  made  them 
unattractive  to  men. 

One  would  easily  be  led  to  think  so  when  we  learn 
that  in  one  of  our  largest  women's  colleges  out  of  one 
hundred  and  fourteen  professors  and  instructors  one 
hundred  are  women,  and  of  these  only  two  have  ever 
married.  Such  an  atmosphere  hardly  seems  con- 
ducive to  raise  the  marriage  rate  of  the  students. 


I  think  myself  that  a  sound  eugenical  education 
from  the  early  grades  up  through  college  would  not 
only  make  many  of  these  young  women  desire  marriage 
more  than  they  do,  but  make  them  much  more  sought 
after  by  young  men  who  have  been  equally  educated 
in  eugenics. 

But  the  real  solution  is  to  the  credit  of  Dr.  Howard 
J.  Banker,  of  the  Eugenics  Eecord  Office  of  the  Car- 
negie Institution  who  has  uncovered  what  appears  to 
be  the  largest  factor  in  the  problem.  Doctor  Banker 
made  an  exhaustive  study  of  Syracuse  University 
in  this  respect.  He  compared  it  with  the  separate 
women's  colleges. 

Syracuse  has  nearly  everything  which  they  seemed 
to  lack,  namely,  plenty  of  men  professors,  ample  con- 
tact with  young  men,  domestic  science  training,  and 
the  like.    Yet  he  found  the  Syracuse  marriage  rate  for 


women  and  also  the  birth  rate  among  married  women 
graduates  almost  precisely  the  same  as  for  Wellesley. 
And  Wellesley  is  representative  of  women's  colleges 
in  general. 


I  think  that  Doctor  Banker  has  drawn  out  of  the 
investigation  the  true  cause,  namely,  that  college 
education  in  America  to-day,  both  in  co-educational  and 
separate  institutions,  gives  a  type  of  education  which 
attracts  especially  a  large  class  of  unmarriag cable  or 
at  least  unmarrying  women.  It  attracts  many  others 
also,  but  the  intellectually-minded,  serious  young 
woman  is  particularly  drawn  to  its  lofty  scholastic  life 
and  sees  in  it  more  an  opportunity  for  that  larger 
service  to  society  which  she  craves  than  she  does  in 
marriage  and  domestic  life. 

Many  of  these  women  would  never  have  married,  no 
matter  how  they  had  been  educated,  for  their  passions 
are  intellectual  and  spiritual;  and  many  of  them, 
instead  of  serving  one  man,  one  family  and  one  home, 
serve  a  whole  community,  a  state  or  even  the  nation. 

While  no  woman  can  offer  a  larger  service  to 
society  than  rearing  a  family  of  well-born,  healthy 
children,  yet  there  are  other  vast  and  necessary  serv- 
ices which  only  women  can  render.  These  noble  women 
fill  this  niche,  and  it  is  a  very  high  one  in  our  national 


Doctor  Banker  points  out  that  the  college  life  and 
ideals  have  been  the  means  of  selecting  from  the  gen- 
eral population  this  type  of  woman,  and  that  the  col- 
lege education  has  not  been  the  factor  that  has 
prevented  their  marriage. 


The  lesson  to  be  drawn  from  all  this  is,  in  Doctor 
Banker's  o\^ti  words,  that  the  present  college  courses 
**are  well  adapted  for  bringing  to  fruition  the  socially 
valuable  qualities  which  these  unmarried  women  pos- 
sess." But,  he  continues,  *'the  college  should  also 
provide  for  the  needs  of  their  sisters,  whose  domestic 
and  motherly  instincts  seek  equally,  if  less  obtrusively, 
for  full  development  and  expression.  The  result 
would  be  to  attract  to  a  higher  education  the  woman 
who  is  naturally  more  reproductive." 

The  highly  intellectual  women  who  prefer  scholar- 
ship and  a  career  to  husbands,  home  and  children  may 
be  intellectually  superior,  but  Doctor  Banker  thinks 
that  on  the  average  '4hey  are  not  superior  as  the  foun- 
dation for  a  great  racial  stock." 


His  reasoning  is  borne  out  by  the  high  marriage 
rate  of  Kansas  Agricultural  College,  which  we  found  to 
be  67.6  per  cent.,  and  where  almost  any  girl  can  find 
attractive  courses.  Such  institutions  are  thus  offering 
higher  education  to  the  more  homey,  motherly,  domes- 
tic yomig  women — indeed,  we  might  say,  ^^the  old- 
fashioned  girl" — whose  mothers  have  mothered  the 
national  stock  from  the  Puritan  and  Catholic  fore- 
fathers down. 

The  highly  intellectual  girl  who  is  ambitious  to 
become  a  social  worker,  teacher,  business  woman, 
research  student  or  executive,  should  be  encouraged, 
as  her  usefulness  is  beyond  calculation. 

Of  course,  thousands  of  college-bred  young  women 
should  get  husbands  who  do  not,  partly  from  the  fool- 
ish fact  that  when  they  go  to  their  work  in  some  new 
community  as  teacher,  librarian,  business  woman, 
social  worker,  stenographer  or  the  like,  most  of  the 


college  young  men  have  already  selected  their  mates 
and  the  non-college  young  man  is  afraid  of  them.  He 
fears  a  college-trained  young  woman  will  think  him 
inferior.  Sometimes  the  college-bred  woman  uses  very 
little  tact  in  breaking  down  this  diffidence,  and  misses  a 
perfectly  good  husband  as  a  result. 

This  brief  argument  has,  of  course,  presented  only 
one  or  two  angles  of  this  very  large  and  complex  prob- 
lem. But  the  young  woman  of  the  University  of  Wis- 
consin who  wrote  to  one  of  the  investigators  perhaps 
set  forth  the  crux  of  the  problem  when  she  said : 

**  You  ask  me  why  half  of  the  Wisconsin  University 
girls  don^t  marry.  I  think  it  is  because  they  never 
would  have  married,  educated  or  not  educated.  There 
are  a  lot  of  pretty  girls  here  and  an  awfully  large 
number  of  homely  ones,  and,  for  that  matter,  homely 
men.  A  lot  of  the  most  attractive  girls  don't  get  to  be 
seniors.  The  freshman  class  always  has  the  prettiest 

Since  I  have  presented  proof  elsewhere  from  other 
researches  that  beautiful  and  pretty  women  have  on 
the  average  more  brains  than  homely  ones,  although 
the  exceptions  are  legion,  it  may  be  that  these  pretty 
freshmen  and  sophomores  who  are  snapped  up  and 
carried  off  to  be  wives  and  mothers  represent  at  least 
a  very  high  average  of  intellect. 

The  pity  is  that  the  college  course  is  not  attractive 
enough  to  hold  them  a  while  longer,  or  else  that  their 
lovers  are  not  endowed  with  more  restraint  and  wis- 
dom, for  nothing  is  more  important  than  the  higher 
education  of  American  motherhood. 

Of  course,  the  reader  must  not  gain  the  idea  that 
the  passion  to  get  a  husband  and  rear  a  family  is  the 
sole  test  in  a  biologist's  mind  of  a  woman's  value  to 
society.  Their  social  fitness  is  one  thing,  and  their 
biological  fitness  is  another.    Many  of  the  noblest  and 


best  women  in  the  world  do  not  marry,  and  many  of 
them  do  not  desire  greatly  to  marry.  Also  a  great 
many  noble-minded  women  who  would  be  very  happy 
to  marry  refuse  the  most  flattering  offers  because  they 
believe,  in  this  humanitarian  age,  that  it  is  their  par- 
ticular duty  to  sacrifice  their  own  personal  happiness 
in  order  to  undertake  some  large  work  for  the  general 
social  good.  Consequently,  any  sweeping  notion  that 
merely  getting  a  husband  is  the  final  test  of  either  a 
woman  ^s  social  fitness  or  biological  fitness  would  be 
absurd.  The  foregoing  results  present  only  statistical 
averages,  and  for  this  very  reason  there  are  number- 
less individual  exceptions  to  these  generalized  results. 


The  prime  point  I  wish  to  bring  out  by  these  studies 
of  college  women  is  that  natural  selection,  and  what 
Darwin  calls  sexual  selection,  are  still  in  progress. 
The  best  adapted  to  the  circumstances  of  our  civiliza- 
tion are  the  ones  who,  in  a  general  rough,  average  way, 
are  the  ones  that  survive.  Of  course,  this  process  of 
college  selection  is  almost  entirely  a  sexual  selective 
process,  but  its  net  result  is  the  survival  of  the  best 
adapted.  There  are  a  number  of  other  studies,  how- 
ever, which  show  that  Darwin  was  wrong  in  supposing 
that  even  natural  death  selection  had  ceased  among 
human  beings.  For,  when  Darwin  wrote  The  Origin 
of  Species,  the  science  of  biometry,  which  is  the  appli- 
cation of  mathematics  to  biology,  especially  to  evolu- 
tion, was  only  being  invented  in  the  mind  of  his  cousin, 
Sir  Francis  Galton.  It  has  taken  half  a  century  to 
apply  it  with  much  success  to  the  measurement  of 
evolution  in  man.  By  using  these  new  methods,  Prof. 
Karl  Pearson  has  shown,  for  example,  that  natural 
selection  does  work  on  human  beings  just  about  as 


powerfully  as  ever.  He  has  shown  that  death  is  not  a 
random  archer,  but  selects  with  unerring  aim  the 
weak,  and  leaves  the  strong  to  live  out  at  least  J;he 
allotted  span  of  man.  Longevity  he  finds  is  a  purely 
inherited  trait,  the  same  as  brown  eyes  or  curly  hair 
or  any  other  natural  characteristic.  He  concluded 
after  a  statistical  study  of  a  large  group  of  Quaker 
families  that  sixty  per  cent,  of  the  deaths  were  purely 
selective  and  due  to  natural  inheritance.  Dr.  A.  Ploetz, 
whom  I  visited  some  years  ago  in  London,  the  leader 
of  the  eugenics  movement  in  Germany,  proved  that 
the  same  thing  is  true  among  the  royal  and  noble  fam- 
ilies of  Europe.  With  all  their  privileges  and  their 
command  of  modern  science,  nevertheless  they  inherit 
their  time  to  die  in  the  same  ratio  as  the  rest  of  us 
inherit  ours.  Doctor  Ploetz  showed  that  sixty  per 
cent,  of  their  death  rate  is  purely  selective  and  natural. 
Pearl  sums  up,  in  his  book.  The  Biology  of  Deaths  all 
the  evidence  we  have  on  the  subject  of  the  inheritance 
of  death.  As  he  points  out,  death  is  the  penalty  we 
pay  for  being  biologically  such  complicated  creatures. 
If  we  were  one-celled  organisms  such  as  the  amoeba  we 
could  live  for  ever.  Two  biologists,  Woodruff  and 
Erdman,  have  kept  one-celled  organisms  alive  through 
eight  thousand  of  their  generations.  They  grow  by 
simple  cell  division,  a  part  of  the  cell  simply  dividing 
and  making  a  new  cell  and,  thus,  a  new  individual. 
When  we  take  a  geranium  cutting  and  cause  it  to  grow, 
we  have  not  in  reality  raised  a  new  plant,  but  have 
simply  continued  the  life  of  the  old  plant.  In  this 
sense,  a  geranium  plant  can  be  kept  living  immortally. 
If  left  to  itself,  however,  it  will  die,  because  its 
numerous  cells  cannot  continue  indefinite  expansion; 
the  organism  becomes  clogged  with  waste  products, 
the  various  parts  of  the  machinery  cannot  continue  to 
work  harmoniously,  and,  most  of  all,  the  waste  pro- 


ducts  cannot  be  continuously  removed.  The  same  is 
true  of  human  beings.  Death  comes  from  the  sheer 
complexity  of  the  machinery.  But  death,  in  the  end, 
is  purely  a  mechanical  phenomenon.  If  the  waste 
products  could  be  continuously  removed,  there  would 
be  no  reason  for  dying  at  all.  Death  would  not  occur. 
Keeping  a  man  alive  forever  is,  no  doubt,  a  mere 
question  of  the  perfection  of  mechanical  technique. 

Dr.  Alexis  Carrel  has  a  segment  of  the  heart  of  an 
embryo  chicken  which  he  has  kept  living  and  growing 
for  over  thirteen  years.  This  is  longer,  by  a  number 
of  years,  than  the  chicken  itself  would  have  lived.  If 
the  same  processes  could  be  applied  to  the  entire 
chicken  and  all  its  organs  kept  alive  in  this  manner, 
evidently  the  whole  animal  would  now  be  a  living, 
functioning  organism.  If  we  could  apply  to  man  the 
same  mechanical  and  chemical  methods  which  Wood- 
ruff and  Erdman  have  applied  to  their  one-celled 
animals — that  is,  if  we  could  carry  a  man  through 
eight  thousand  of  his  generations  of  thirty-three  years 
each — this  would  give  him  some  two  hundred  and  fifty 
thousand  years  of  earthly  life.  Perhaps  by  that  time 
he  would  feel  he  had  outdistanced  '^the  oldest  in- 
habitant ' '  sufficiently  to  be  willing  to  resign  his  mortal 
commission  to  such  tender  youths  as  Methusaleh,  and 
explore  other  realms  of  being. 

Some  evidence  has  recently  been  brought  forward 
to  indicate  that  death  may  be  due  to  the  development — 
sometimes  rather  suddenly — of  old-age  poisons  which 
did  not  previously  exist.  This  theory  awaits  large 
investigation  and  prolonged  experiment.  If  this  be 
true  and  if  a  means  could  be  found  for  counteracting 
these  old-age  toxins,  the  lives  of  human  beings  might 
be  considerably,  or  even  indefinitely,  prolonged.  It 
certainly  opens  up  fascinating  realms  of  speculation. 

However,  natural  selection  is  still  at  work  in  man, 


evolving  him  toward  goals  that  are  at  present  beyond 
our  ken.  Even  our  care  for  the  lives  of  children,  and 
all  of  our  sympathy  and  science  combined,  cannot  stay 
the  onward  march  of  evolution  but  minister  to  its  pro- 
cesses. Mr.  E.  C.  Snow,  of  the  Galton  Laboratory, 
found  that  a  high  death  rate  among  babies  means  a 
low  death  rate  among  older  children.  Professor 
Pearson  and  Doctor  Ploetz  found  the  same  thing. 
This  means  that  the  weaker  and  less  fit  formerly 
perished,  while  those  of  sounder  and  tougher  constitu- 
tions survived.  But  our  science  saves  many  weak  and 
frail  babies  who  succumb  later,  in  early  childhood. 
Of  course,  the  reader  must  not  gain  the  idea  that  sci- 
ence and  sympathy  have  not  to  a  considerable  extent 
mitigated  this  ruthless  selection  of  nature.  These 
inquiries  merely  show  that  man  is  a  creature  of  nature 
and  cannot  altogether  escape  its  operations. 


Everywhere  we  turn — if  our  eyes  be  once  opened 
by  science  so  that  we  observe  it — we  see  evolution 
carrying  on  its  inunense  and  inspiring  efforts  to  im- 
prove its  products.  For  example,  one  would  not  sup- 
pose at  first  thought  that  if  we  took  a  group  of  a 
thousand  women  who  had  lived  to  the  age  of  fifty  or 
beyond — that  is,  past  the  child-bearing  period  of  their 
lives — the  ones  who  die  at  eighty  or  ninety  would  have 
produced  more  children  than  the  ones  who  died  be- 
tween fifty  and  seventy.  They  both  lived  the  same 
number  of  years  through  the  child-bearing  period; 
yet,  the  longer-lived  ones  bore  more  children  during 
that  period.  It  has  been  shown  that  this  is  the  case. 
The  longer  potential  life  which  a  woman  has,  the 
greater  on  the  average  will  be  the  number  of  children 
which  she  produces.    This  is  plainly  a  natural  selec- 


tion,  an  effort,  so  to  speak,  on  the  part  of  nature  to 
hand  on  its  achievement  of  longevity  and  sound  con- 
stitution to  a  larger  number  of  children,  and  to  hand 
on  frailty  and  a  weaker  constitution  to  a  small  number 
of  children.  In  this  way  longevity  is  the  means  of  its 
own  preservation  as  a  characteristic  of  the  race. 

Dr.  Alexander  Graham  Bell  made  an  extensive 
study  of  the  Hyde  family  in  America,  with  an  especial 
view  of  bringing  out  the  inheritance  of  longevity  and 
strength  of  constitution.  He  showed  from  this  study 
that  the  number  of  brothers  and  sisters  that  a  man  has 
are  a  pretty  good  indication  as  to  how  long  he  himself 
is  going  to  live.  In  families  of  only  one  child,  fifty- 
eight  per  cent,  of  such  children  died  before  the  age  of 
twenty,  and  only  four  and  eight-tenths  per  cent,  of 
these  **only  children''  lived  to  be  over  eighty.  In 
families  of  nine  and  ten  children,  only  thirty-two  per 
cent,  died  under  twenty,  while  nine  and  seven-tenths 
per  cent.,  or  nearly  twice  as  many  as  *'only"  children, 
lived  to  be  over  eighty.  In  short.  Doctor  Bell's  figures 
indicate  that  the  number  of  persons  who  live  beyond 
eighty  steadily  increases  with  the  size  of  the  family 
Up  to  ten  children.  Put  in  another  way,  this  means 
that  a  child  with  nine  brothers  and  sisters  has  on  the 
average  twice  as  good  a  chance  of  living  to  a  good  old 
age  as  has  the  child  with  only  a  single  brother  or  sister 
or  none  at  all.  The  plea  that  we  should  have  smaller 
families  on  the  ground  that  we  commonly  hear  ad- 
vanced— **fewer  and  better  children" — is  shown  to 
be  a  biological  impossibility.  Doctor  BeU  was  here 
studying  families  who  in  the  main  lived  prior  to  the 
introduction  of  birth  control.  The  institution  of  birth 
control  would  no  doubt  decrease  the  actual  number  of 
children  from  those  who  could  potentially  produce 
very  large  families ;  but  the  principle  of  the  inheritance 
of  longevity  is  not  impaired  in  the  least  by  this  factor. 
However,  it  is  conceivable  that,  with  the  introduction 


of  birth  control,  those  mothers  who  heretofore  have 
produced  only  one  or  two  children  would  still  produce 
the  same  number ;  while  those  who  formerly  produced 
from  six  to  ten  would  cut  down  their  quota  to  tw(T  or 
three.  If  this  is  happening,  a  thing  which  I  think  is 
highly  probable,  it  will  beyond  question  reduce  in  time 
the  average  length  of  life  of  human  beings. 

We  see  from  these  and  from  numerous  other  exam- 
ples that  could  be  cited  that  Darwin's  fear  is  not 
justified  in  so  far  as  it  pertains  to  the  slackening  of 
natural  selection.  We  see  that  longevity  has  a  tend- 
ency to  select  longevity.  And  there  can  be  little  doubt 
that  the  group  of  hereditary  factors  which  give  a  man 
long  life  is  the  most  powerful  group  in  giving  him  a 
healthy  body  and  a  sound  mind.  We  have  seen  also 
that  the  tendency  to  produce  large  families  is  an  in- 
herited trait.  Fertility  tends  to  perpetuate  fertility, 
and  thus  the  most  fecund  members  of  the  race  tend  to 
survive.  There  are  all  sorts  of  artificial  tendencies — 
that  is,  tendencies  that  are  under  the  control  of  human 
intelligence  and  emotion — which  work  for,  or  else 
work  against,  these  forces  of  natural  selection.  But 
natural  selection  holds  on  its  way,  regardless  of  the 
feeble  efforts  of  man  to  free  himself  from  its  relentless 

However,  all  this  does  not  answer  that  portion  of 
Darwin's  question,  **Is  the  natural  selection  which  is 
going  on  in  man  under  civilized  conditions  making  him 
better  or  Avorse  ? "  It  is  this  insistent  question  of  Dar- 
win which  I  shall  examine  in  the  concluding  section 
of  this  essay.  I  believe  that  we  now  have  at  hand 
some  material  which  would  have  given  a  little  com- 
fort, at  least,  to  the  author  of  the  most  brilliant  intel- 
lectual generalization  of  the  nineteenth  century — the 
generalization  of  the  origin  of  species  by  adaptation 
and  natural  selection. 



I  HAVE  frequently,  in  the  course  of  these  pages,  used 
the  terms  *^ human  evolution,"  *Hhe  evolution  of 
man,"  and  similar  phrases.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  how- 
ever, no  such  thing  as  general  evolution  of  the 
whole  species,  as  a  single,  unified  process,  is  probably 
now  going  on  or  ever  has  gone  on.  I  have  merely 
used  these  phrases  as  a  matter  of  convenience.  They 
do  not  describe  any  exact,  homogeneous  process.  After 
the  members  of  any  species  become  numerous  and  are 
spread  into  widely  different  habitats,  with  great  diver- 
sities in  their  environments  and  breeding  conditions, 
it  is  not  one  grand  evolution  of  the  whole  species  that 
is  going  on.  The  process  is  broken  up  into  a  vast  num- 
ber of  processes,  and  what  we  might  call  a  large  num- 
ber of  evolutions  are  thus  set  up.  When  we  come  to 
man,  this  tendency  is  much  more  marked  than  in  any 
other  species.  In  the  first  place,  he  is  more  widely  dis- 
tributed than  any  other  animal;  second,  he  is  much 
more  a  master  and  creator  of  his  own  environment  than 
any  other  animal,  and  this  environment,  in  turn,  reacts 
upon  his  own  evolution;  third,  he  develops  social 
classes.  Animal  communities  are  in  the  main  purely 
democratic.  But  man  is  by  nature  an  aristocrat.  He 
has  so  many  personal  likes  and  dislikes,  he  has  so  many 
varieties  of  ability  and  these  place  him  in  so  many  dff- 
ferent  worldly  positions  that,  even  in  the  same  geo- 
graphical area,  he  is  not  one  homogeneous,  democratic, 



evolving  species,  but  a  large  number  of  species,  varie- 
ties and  breeds.  Each  one  of  these  varieties  is 
undergoing  its  own  separate  evolution.  For  these 
reasons,  what  is  going  on  in  one  section  of  the  p"bp- 
ulation  may  be  wholly  different  from  what  is  happen- 
ing in  some  other  section.  One  section  may  be 
evolving  up,  and  right  by  its  side  another  section  may 
be  evolving  down. 

If  my  contention,  already  advanced,  be  true — that 
civilization  is  the  product  in  the  main  of  a  very  small 
portion  of  the  human  race — then  the  most  important 
question  is.  What  sort  of  evolution  is  going  on  in  those 
portions  from  which  these  leaders  and  creators  of 
civilization  mainly  spring?  If  race  suicide  is  really 
carrying  away  these  sections,  if  the  very  blood  from 
which  leaders  are  born  is  as  a  whole  vanishing,  then 
it  is  idle  to  hope  for  improvement  in  any  section  of  the 
human  race  or  in  the  health,  intelligence  and  character 
of  the  human  race  at  large.  The  masses  of  men  cannot 
discover  the  laws  of  nature  by  which  they  might  work 
their  own  improvement,  nor  could  they  apply  these 
laws  if  they  were  handed  to  them  gratis  by  some  kindly 
disposed  nature.  The  difficulty  of  spreading  a  knowl- 
edge of  so  simple  a  thing  as  birth  control  among  the 
less  intelligent  sections  is  ample  proof  of  this. 


A  vast  literature  has  been  written  upon  the  origin 
of  leaders  and  persons  of  genius.  It  is  evident  from 
all  studies  to  date  that  leaders  arise  chiefly  in  two 
ways.  The  first  is,  that  among  the  millions  of  mar- 
riages of  persons  who  are  themselves  quite  common- 
place there  is  now  and  then  a  chance  combi- 
nation of  hereditary  factors  in  some  particular 
germ-cell  which  gives  rise  to  an  extraordinary  per- 


son.  Every  person  carries  a  good  many  qualities  in 
his  geim-cells  which  do  not  show  in  him.  He  is  un- 
aware of  these  legacies  which  he  is  carrying  from  his 
ancestors.  If  he  has  good,  healthy  ancestry,  of  course 
these  qualities  are  of  a  higher  grade  than  if  he  has 
ancestors  of  poor  and  cheap  quality.  If  there  are 
nothing  but  poor  characters  in  the  germ-cells,  nothing 
but  children  of  poor  grade  can  possibly  be  born  from 
such  parents.  But  among  persons  of  good,  sound 
natures — such,  for  example,  as  the  ancestors  of  Abra- 
ham Lincoln — there  are  always  some  very  fine  char- 
acteristics. It  happens  now  and  then  that  a  large 
percentage  of  these  fine  characteristics  become  concen- 
trated, by  millions  of  chance  marriages,  in  one  germ- 
cell.  The  child  born  from  that  germ-cell  becomes, 
provided  environment  is  favorable,  one  of  the  glories 
of  the  human  race.  The  matter  has  not  received  the 
exact  study  which  it  deserves,  but  our  meager  knowl- 
edge of  the  ancestry  of  great  men  indicates  that  about 
half  of  them  sprang  from  parents  and  ancestors  of 
very  moderate  ability.  At  least  they  are  persons  of 
whom  none  has  made  notable  achievements. 

The  second  way  in  which  leaders  arise  is  by  the 
same  biological  and  social  process,  only  it  acts  with 
greater  intensity.  A  new  factor  also  enters;  namely, 
social  or  military  or  economic  selection.  How  these 
factors  of  social,  economic  and  military  selection  work 
has  never  been  better  described  than  by  Woods  in  His 
Influence  of  Monarchs.  Since  this  work  is  out  of  print 
and  unavailable  to  the  reader,  I  feel  constrained  to 
make  here  a  rather  extensive  abridgment  of  Woods's 
admirable  discussion. 

His  argument  runs,  in  the  main,  as  follows :  What 
is  going  on  in  one  section  of  the  population  may  be 
wholly  different  from  what  is  happening  in  another 
class,  although  the  two  may  be  living  side  by  side. 


Galton  believed  that  Greek  civilization  was  due  in  the 
main  to  a  very  small  group  of  families,  numbering  only 
a  few  thousands,  possibly  only  a  few  hundreds.  What- 
ever may  be  the  differences  between  the  ordinary  man 
and  the  man  of  genius,  the  differences  are  very  great  if 
judged  by  results.  Millions  of  men  may  be  living  in 
poverty  and  anarchy,  when  one  man  of  genius  lifts 
them  into  wealth  and  social  order.  How  very  impor- 
tant it  is,  therefore,  not  to  talk  of  peoples — such,  for 
example,  as  the  Eomans,  the  Greeks,  or  the  English — 
as  though  all  individuals  in  each  nation  were  alike. 
"We  often  hear  of  the  **  building  instinct  of  the 
Egyptians."  The  Egyptians  as  a  whole  probably 
never  had  any  building  instinct.  Their  architectural 
achievements  were  probably  due  to  the  building 
instinct  of  a  few  rulers.  The  Greeks  may  never  have 
been  artistic  and  intellectual,  although  a  small  per- 
centage certainly  were.  The  special  faculty  for  law 
and  government  ascribed  to  the  Eomans  was  probably 
confined  to  only  a  few  patrician  families.  The  Roman 
people  may  never  have  declined,  for  the  simple  reason 
that  the  Roman  people  may  never  have  risen.  But  a 
few  families  have  risen  in  every  country  that  has 
played  a  distinguished  part  upon  the  world's  stage. 
How  these  families  arose  and  exerted  their  influence 
is  of  great  importance.  It  is  also  important  to  see  how 
wealth  exerts  an  influence  upon  the  biological  situa- 


To  account  for  these  facts  Woods  advances  this 
general  hypothesis;  Man  first  made  his  appearance 
in  a  warm  country,  where  he  developed  life  in  small 
tribes.  As  his  numbers  grew,  the  more  ambitious 
pressed  into  the  cooler  regions.  The  colder  climate 
killed  off  the  less  hardy  and  left  those  endowed  with 


ambition  and  energy.  Under  these  conditions,  man 
became  adapted  to  the  hunter  stage  of  civilization. 
Probably  such  a  condition  existed  for  long  aeons  of 
time  in  central  Asia  and  Europe. 

Now,  should  any  of  these  northern  peoples  return 
to  the  tropical  river  valleys  they  would  easily  conquer 
the  races  that  had  never  had  the  energy  and  ambition 
to  force  their  way  into  colder  climates.  The  tropical 
races  would  doubtless  be  enslaved.  In  this  way,  castes 
made  up  of  the  ablest  members  of  the  conquering  races 
would  quickly  develop.  This  brings  a  change  within 
the  community,  due  largely  to  the  great  possibilities 
in  the  tropics  for  energetic  northern  men  to  accumu- 
late wealth  and  hand  it  on.  For  example,  in  the  hunter 
stage  in  the  colder  climates  the  accumulation  of  wealth 
is  not  easy.  Meat  and  fish  soon  spoil.  There  is  no  sur- 
plus to  be  striven  for  among  the  different  groups,  no 
property  to  be  handed  on,  no  rights  in  land,  buildings, 
cattle,  corn  and  slaves. 

When,  however,  these  energetic  men  return  to  the 
tropics  and  enslave  the  natives,  wealth  is  rapidly  accu- 
mulated by  the  abler  invaders.  The  tropical  native  is 
too  lazy  to  acquire  wealth.  He  has  no  desire  to  do  so. 
This  is  because  none  of  his  ancestors  has  ever  lived  for 
long  periods  of  time  where  natural  selection  would 
weed  out  the  lazy  and  thriftless  and  leave  the  mentally 
alert  and  acquisitive.  Otherwise,  how  are  we  to  ex- 
plain the  great  civilizations,  such  as  ancient  Egypt  and 
Babylon,  that  did  arise  in  hot  climates?  In  these 
regions  there  occurred  the  earliest  of  the  great  mental 
awakenings  of  humanity,  the  beginnings  of  architec- 
ture and  the  accumulations  of  thought. 

Now,  we  have  here  for  the  first  time  the  conditions 
for  the  production  of  great  military  and  governmental 
leaders.  An  able  set  of  men  whose  ability  and  energy 
have  been  produced  by  colder  climates  in  which  the 


accumulation  of  wealth  was  not  possible  has  moved 
into  a  region  where  the  accumulation  of  wealth  is  a 
natural  phenomenon.  A  strife  at  once  takes  place 
among  these  abler  men  for  the  wealth.  As  a  resnlt, 
the  ones  with  the  highest  organizing  and  acquisitive 
abilities  rise  to  power. 

At  this  point  another  factor  enters.  These  men  of 
wealth  desire  to  transmit  their  possessions  and  power. 
As  soon  as  property  is  handed  on  and  some  fathers  of 
families  possess  more  wealth  and  power  than  others, 
and  some  sons  and  daughters  are  the  prospective  heirs 
of  more  property  than  others,  there  naturally  arises 
an  ambition  on  the  part  of  parents  to  unite  their  chil- 
dren in  marriage  with  the  children  of  other  rich  men. 
The  ambitious  will  be  the  very  ones  most  inclined  to 
seek  such  unions.  Their  craftiness  and  abilities  are 
handed  on.  No  matter  how  much  mere  luck  enters  into 
the  acquisition  of  wealth,  those  will  acquire  the  most 
property  who  have  on  the  average  the  ability  so  to 
acquire  it.  Thus  the  richer  and  more  intelligent  fam- 
ilies (in  so  far  as  wealth  is  an  indication  of  intelli- 
gence) vdll  by  force  of  marriage  unions  be  brought 
together,  while  the  poorer  and  less  successful  will  be 
left  to  marry  among  themselves. 

By  this  process  two  situations  are  brought  about. 
The  upper  classes  are  separated  biologically  from  the 
lower  classes,  and  also  the  upper  classes  enter  a  new 
stage  of  evolution  where  they  can  preserve  new  hered- 
itary variations  around  higher  levels.  This  means 
that  while  some  children  would  not  be  equal  to  their 
parents,  yet  now  and  then  one  would  be  born  with  even 
higher  abilities.  Thus  the  tendency  to  pyramid  their 
biological  gains  and  to  increase  their  natural  abilities 
is  greatly  enhanced.  It  literally  happens  that  ''to  him 
that  hath  shall  be  given.'' 

Of  course,  in  time  a  new  danger  is  introduced.    By 


and  by  there  are  so  few  persons  in  this  supreme  class 
upon  whom  the  whole  destiny  of  the  nation  depends 
that  any  chance  misfortune  may  upset  the  pyramid 
and  the  whole  civilization  come  to  a  sudden  downfall. 
Beyond  question,  this  dramatic  phenomenon  has  taken 
place  time  and  again  in  history.  It  is  commonly 
referred  to  by  historians  as  the  downfall  of  peoples, 
but  it  is  nothing  of  the  sort.  The  peoples  have  not 
fallen,  because  they  have  not  risen.  It  is  the  downfall 
of  rulers.    When  they  pass  the  civilizations  pass. 

This,  Woods  believes,  is  the  true  biological  account 
of  all  the  early  states  of  civilization  and  the  creation 
of  those  upper  social  castes  which  furnished  the  social 
and  military  types  of  leadership.  He  has  submitted 
abundant  evidence  to  indicate  that  the  supposed  great 
strength  of  Spain  and  Portugal  and  several  other 
nations  of  modern  Europe  has  been  due  to  a  consid- 
erable extent  not  to  any  evolution  of  ability  in  the 
people,  but  to  the  evolution  of  ability  in  the  leaders. 

*'How  otherwise,"  asks  Woods,  ** could  the  su- 
premely important  few  have  been  engendered?  The 
aristocratic  force  is  made  up  of  impulses  lying  in  the 
germ-plasm.  No  matter  what  may  be  the  form  of 
government  nor  how  much  the  laws  of  man  give  power, 
in  theory,  to  the  people,  as  long  as  sexual  selection 
tends  to  mate  like  with  like  just  so  long  will  the  laws 
of  mental  heredity  work  toward  the  formation  of 
governing  classes  inherently  superior  to  the  sons  of 
other  men.  Universal  suffrage  and  universal  educa- 
tion, the  most  carefully  equalized  scheme  of  social 
opportunity,  cannot  prevent  this  tendency,  this  split- 
ting up  of  mankind  into  sub-varieties,  castes  and 
breeds.  Nor  does  all  this  fail  to  have  a  significant 
relation  to  the  future.  It  is  probable  that  this  separa- 
tion into  castes  is  increasing  rather  than  diminishing 
at  the  present  day  in  all  European  countries,  and 


especially  in  the  United  States,  where  the  opportuni- 
ties for  acquiring  wealth  are  particularly  abundant. 
Historical  science  can  scarcely  at  present  predict  the 
future,  but  it  can  interpret  the  past.  If  the  work  of 
the  world  has  been  initiated  and  directed  by  a  very  few 
great  men,  and  if  these  men  are  the  predetermined 
products,  not  of  outward  but  of  inward  differences, 
the  true  interpretation  of  history  must  hinge  upon  the 
germ-cell,  and  the  laws  of  history  will  be  found  to  be 
but  a  part  of  the  laws  which  govern  all  organic  life. ' ' 

We  see,  then,  clearly  from  all  this,  that  there  are 
two  immense  tendencies  at  work,  one  which  separates 
men  into  upper  and  lower  classes,  and  one  which  leads 
men  of  lower  classes  constantly  to  try  to  push  up  into 
the  upper  classes  and  secure  a  larger  share  of  their 
perquisites  of  wealth  and  power.  This  is  the  crux  of 
the  conflict  between  aristocracy  and  democracy.  They 
both  have  their  foundations  in  powerful  biological 
agencies  seated  in  the  very  constitution  of  mankind. 
Eight  here  also  is  the  center  of  the  problem  of  eugenics. 
As  I  shall  show  later,  the  more  successful  classes  are 
disappearing.  These  are  the  classes  whose  intermar- 
riages furnish  from  two  to  a  thousand  times  as  many 
of  those  combinations  of  germ-cells  from  which  lead- 
ers are  born  as  the  same  number  of  marriages  among 
the  lower  classes.  Those  classes  below,  among  whom 
it  takes  thousands  and  even  millions  of  marriages  to 
produce  one  great  leader,  are  going  to  furnish,  as  a 
mere  census  of  the  birth  rate  shows,  most  of  the  pop- 
ulation of  the  future.  If  all  the  upper  classes  vanish 
by  race  suicide  and  from  other  causes,  then  all  the 
leaders  must  come  from  these  rare  chance  combina- 
tions which  now  and  then  take  place  from  the  numerous 
marriages  of  the  common  and  subcommon  classes.  If 
eugenics  is  a  hopeless  program,  as  some  argue,  it  is 
obvious  that  the  future  of  man  is  altogether  a  matter 


of  depending  upon  these  chance  combinations,  from 
which  leaders  are  born,  to  be  numerous  enough  to  sup- 
ply a  complex  civilization  with  its  men  of  genius.  We 
have  seen  that  it  is  upon  these  men  of  genius  that  civ- 
ilization hangs.  It  is  my  purpose  to  argue  in  the  suc- 
ceeding pages  that  the  ablest  and  soundest  members 
of  the  upper  classes  are  not  vanishing  by  race  suicide, 
but  are  already  preparing  for  a  large  increase  in  their 
numbers.  I  think  they  are  getting  ready  for  a  genuine 
biological  expansion,  owing  to  new  discoveries  in  bi- 
ology. I  also  believe,  and  shall  endeavor  to  show, 
that  these  new  instrumentalities  which  the  biologist 
has  placed  in  our  hands  are  going  to  lead  to  a  great 
improvement,  among  the  common  and  subcommon 
classes,  in  ability,  character,  health  and  social  capac- 
ity. In  order  to  see  how  these  tendencies  are  going  to 
work,  we  shall  next  turn  to  a  consideration  of  the  evo- 
lution of  types  of  temperament  and  ability  now  being 
developed  in  the  general  population. 


We  all  use  the  expression  frequently,  *  *  That  man  is 
of  a  dominating  type."  We  also  speak  of  others  as 
being  of  a  gloomy  or  a  sanguine  or  a  vivacious  type. 
So  far  as  I  can  ascertain,  it  belongs  to  Dr.  Truman 
L.  Kelley  (previously  mentioned)  to  have  discerned 
what  this  means  in  the  analysis  of  the  structure  of  our 
mental  lives  and  also  in  the  progress  of  organic  evo- 
lution. We  have  just  seen  from  Woods's  analysis  that 
types  of  men  and  women  whom  we  might  designate 
as  being  of  the  masterful  type  are  constantly  evolving. 
We  have  seen  that  the  social  structure  which  these 
masterful  types  largely  originate  tends  to  the  per- 
petuation and  survival  of  their  own  kind  of  mental 


Upon  this  subject,  Doctor  Kelley  recently  read  a 
striking  paper  before  the  California  Educational  Re- 
search Association.  It  was  later  published  in  School 
and  Society.  In  this  address,  Kelley  gave  a  new  and 
profound  statistical  analysis  of  the  processes  by  which 
mental  types  of  all  sorts  arise  in  the  population  and 
perpetuate  themselves.  He  has  also  shown  that  there 
is  a  similarity  between  the  way  any  mental  trait  tends 
to  survive  within  an  individual's  own  make-up,  on  the 
one  hand,  and  Darwin's  survival  of  the  fittest,  on  the 
other.  As  a  natural  result,  types  of  mental  behavior 
which  tend  to  survive  and  become  a  permanent  char- 
acteristic of  the  individual  tend  to  survive  biologically 
in  the  population,  provided  this  characteristic  is  of 
social  value  and  is  agreeable  to  the  remainder  of  the 
population.  It  is  perhaps  not  possible  to  make  quite 
simple  and  easily  readable  Doctor  Kelley 's  statistical 
methods,  by  which  he  proves  this  position,  but  I  be- 
lieve his  main  hypothesis  can  be  made  clear.    He  says: 

**To  illustrate,  two  children  steal  apples  and  are 
separately  caught.  The  one  deliberates  between  con- 
fessing and  denying  his  offense,  but  chooses  the  latter 
and  though  his  shirt  is  bulging  with  apples,  he  denies 
that  he  has  taken  any  and  is  punished  as  a  thief  and 
a  liar. 

'*The  other  child,  confronted  with  the  same  two 
alternatives,  chooses  to  confess.  He  expresses  remorse 
and  offers  to  work  in  order  to  pay  for  the  damage 
done,  and  is  rather  readily  forgiven.  The  conduct  of 
the  second  child  has  had  'survival'  value,  for  it  has 
led  to  feelings  of  competency,  perhaps  buoyancy,  emo- 
tions which  will  be  welcomed  when  repeated;  while  the 
conduct  of  the  first  child  has  not  had  such  a  value.  He 
has  had  no  emotions  of  a  buoyant  nature,  but  rather 
an  unwelcome  uneasiness  and  feelings  of  general  men- 
tal incompetency.    Whatever  the  physiological  root  of 


these  feelings,  Thomdike's  law  of  effect  is  very 
serviceable  in  describing  their  practical  outcome — ^they 
tend  not  to  be  repeated. 

**The  little  apple-stealing  youngster  who  felt  re- 
morse and  desired  to  cooperate  and  appease  the  apple- 
tree  owner  expresses,  and  in  the  future  will  probably 
still  more  strongly  express,  an  attitude  which  serves 
in  time  of  trouble.  The  essential  note  of  his  conduct 
is  expressed  in  the  word  *  appease.'  This  may  easily 
become  a  rule  of  his  life.  The  said  youngster,  con- 
tinuing the  line  of  mental  development  upon  which  he 
has  set  out,  may  reach  in  his  adult  days  the  status  of 
a  department  store  floorwalker,  humoring  com- 
plainants while  courteously  extending  the  helping 
hand;  or  he  may  become  the  executive  of  a  service 
department,  or  a  Governor  or  a  Senator  or  such  a 
Vice-President  as  was  Marshall,  who  was  nominated 
and  elected  because  he  was  always  approachable, 
ready  to  listen,  to  smooth  out  difficulties,  and  because 
he  aroused  no  enmities.  Such  a  person  is  a  stable 
character.  His  maxim  is  the  same  as  that  of  a 
well-known  manufacturer  of  paint,  ^Save  the  surface 
and  you  save  all,*  for  if  this  individual  can  make 
each  separate  contact  agreeable,  then  all  life  is 
so.  .  .  .  It  is  an  admirable  trait,  as  is  every  mental 
type  which  has  the  characteristics  of  self -perpetuation. 
From  the  point  of  view  of  mental  stability  in  a  social 
structure,  the  character  carries  its  own  self -protection. 

**The  remorseful  apple-stealing  youngster  took  a 
firm  step  in  character  building  when  he  confessed  and 
felt  regret,  when  he  in  fact  reacted  in  a  type  manner. 
What  type  has  the  other  youngster  taken  a  step 
toward  becoming?  None  at  all.  His  unsuccessful  at- 
tempt at  lying  is  similar  to  one  of  thousands  of 
sporadic  variations  which  get  nowhere.  We  surely 
can  say  that,  known  or  unknown  to  the  subject,  each 


human  act,  together  with  its  attendant  thought  and 
emotion,  does  or  does  not  impel  the  individual  in  a 
convergent  or  divergent  manner — convergent  if 
toward  one  of  nature's  grooves  or  conditions  wherein 
stability  is  found,  and  divergent  if  toward  a  condition 
which  ultimately  is  unstable.  The  insane  person  is 
headed  along  a  tangential  or  divergent  path,  and  evi- 
dence of  stability  is  not  in  him.  Thus,  we  may  look 
upon  the  study  of  types  of  insanity  as  the  least  promis- 
ing of  all  mental  studies,  if  the  purpose  is  the  deter- 
mination of  normal  mental  types,  unless  perchance 
insane  types  should  assist  by  clearly  revealing  to  us 
what  are  not  normal  stable  types.  The  sex  pervert,  the 
introverts  and  extraverts,  the  paranoiacs  and  the 
maniacs  are  all  headed  away  from  stability.  Where 
they  are  going  is  as  definite  as  that  of  a  body  tangen- 
tially  thrown  off  of  a  rotating  surface.  We  will  not 
look  to  such  phases  of  life  to  reveal  that  which  is  en- 
during in  mental  structure." 

Prom  the  foregoing  and  from  other  examples, 
Dr.  Kelley  argues  that  relatively  large  anti-social 
classes  cannot  exist,  **for  I  take  it,"  he  says,  **that 
if  a  large  class  of  a  given  type  does  exist,  this  very  fact 
is  sufficient  evidence  that  the  condition  is  not  anti- 


The  reader  will  recall,  I  trust,  that  when  I  was 
arguing  that  good  traits  tend  to  be  correlated  I  re- 
marked I  should  later  show  this  rule  had  certain 
important  exceptions.  It  is  this  existence  of  types 
in  the  population  which  constitutes  the  exception  to 
the  rule.  I  suspect  it  is  this  exception  to  the  rule  of 
correlation  among  mental  traits  which  has  made 
civilization  possible.    Civilization  is  probably  due  to 


those  who  diverge  from  the  average,  but  whose 
divergence  is  not  that  of  the  insane  or  anti-social 
person  but  is  sufficiently  useful  and  social  to  per- 
petuate itself  and  survive  in  a  large  group  of  people. 
For  example,  the  dominating  traits  of  men  such  as 
Roosevelt  and  Mussolini  are  obviously  not  correlated 
strongly  with  the  **the-save-the-surface-and-you-save- 
air'  traits  of  a  man  such  as  the  late  Vice-President 
Thomas  R.  Marshall.  The  autocratic  traits  of 
Frederick  the  Great  and  Napoleon  Bonaparte  would 
hardly  correlate  highly  with  the  trait  of  intellectual 
analysis  and  the  careful  understanding  of  the  relation- 
ships among  social  forces.  In  the  presence  of  a 
difficult  situation,  the  dominating  type  such  as  the 
men  just  mentioned  beat  it  down,  according  to  Kelley. 
They  believe  in  the  doctrine  that  **God  is  on  the  side 
of  the  army  with  the  heaviest  artillery."  Roosevelt 
illustrated  this  perfectly  when  he  said,  *^  Speak  softly, 
but  carry  a  big  stick. ' '  But  those  given  to  intellectual 
analysis  and  the  appraisal  of  conflicting  social 
agencies  are  persons  who,  when  they  have  medium 
intelligence,  go  into  barter  and  trade.  A  little  higher 
in  the  scale  they  become  economists  and  social  in- 
vestigators. At  the  top  of  the  scale,  says  Kelley,  they 
become  the  **  great  conciliators  of  the  conflicts  between 
capital  and  labor,  the  renowned  formula-finders  whose 
plans  reconcile  international  differences,  and  the  great 
philosophers,  from  Confucius  and  Socrates  on,  whose 
mental  grasp  leads  to  personal  contentment  through 
the  recognition  of,  and  adaptation  to,  the  harmonious 
interplay  of  life's  processes." 

Such  men  believe  that  amid  all  the  conflicting 
passions  of  men  there  is  at  the  heart  of  things,  in  the 
midst  of  the  great  human  play  and  interplay,  a  com- 
mon formula  of  action  to  be  found  by  which  men  can 
find  stability  and  live  in  effective  harmony.     Col. 


Edward  M.  House  and  Jan  Smuts  represent  this  type, 
Kelley  believes. 

The  dominant  type,  such  as  Roosevelt,  Mussolini, 
Cecil  Rhodes  and  the  like,  Kelley  remarks,  **  adopted 
the  slogan,  *It  pays  to  advertise,'  and  then  invented 
the  loud  speaker  to  carry  it  out."  '* Whatever  may 
be  the  case,"  he  adds,  **for  one  whose  life  lies  else- 
where, certainly  humility  and  modesty  are  not  virtues 
for  one  whose  evolution  lies  along  this  path.  In  the 
more  primitive  phases,  those  of  this  type  are  men  of 
strong  passions  whose  virtues  are  personal  loyalty  and 
abundant  vim.  Society's  exhorters  are  of  this  class; 
also  her  revivalists,  her  community  boosters,  and 
many  more.  Further  up  the  scale,  we  find  her  forceful 
executives  and  military  leaders  and,  near  the  top,  her 
occasional  empire  builders." 

The  social-service  type  of  which  Marshall  is  a 
representative  is  also  found  in  the  earnest  public 
servant,  the  librarian  and  the  happy  teacher.  In  its 
higher  ranges,  it  takes  in  such  men  as  Tolstoi  and  Fra 
Angelico,  and  in  its  very  highest  reaches  Buddha  and 

We  can  see,  then,  that  if  all  good  traits  in  the  adult 
population  were  evenly  correlated,  the  mental  struc- 
ture of  a  community  or  a  nation  would  be  represented 
by  a  smooth,  regular  bell-shaped  curve.  Those  per- 
sons who  possessed  a  small  amount  of  the  human 
traits  common  to  all  would  be  at  the  lower  end  of  the 
curve,  and  at  the  upper  end  would  be  those  who 
possessed  a  great  many  of  these  traits.  Those  at  any 
point  on  the  curve  would  be  mentally  all  alike.  There 
would  be  no  chance  for  distinctive  social  types. 
Society  would  be  a  very  monotonous  affair,  and  it  is 
highly  probable  that  great  distinctive  achievements 
which  lift  society  forward  would  not  occur.  There 
are,  therefore,  as  Kelley  has  shown,  some  traits  that 


do  not  extend  throughout  all  the  population.  If  you 
took  a  random  sample  of  the  people  you  would  there- 
fore find  that  these  traits  characteristic  only  of  cer- 
tain gi'oups  '^correlate  to  zero,"  as  the  statistician 
would  express  it.  You  can  pick  out  certain  groups 
and  find  that  these  particular  traits,  such  as  the  social- 
service  trait  or  the  analytical  trait,  correlate  within 
these  groups.  But  you  would  find  a  great  many  other 
people  of  just  as  much  general  intelligence,  just  as 
great  longevity,  health,  sanity  and  the  like,  who  do 
not  possess  all  of  these  specific  type  traits.  Therefore, 
the  principle  that  all  good  traits  tend  to  be  correlated 
has  to  deal  with  this  special  exception. 


Of  course,  every  man  has  characteristics  in  his 
make-up  which  are  common  to  all  men.  But  it  Is 
probable  that  every  man  also  possesses  a  few  traits 
which  he  has  in  common  with  only  a  limited  number 
of  other  men.  It  is  this  group  of  traits  which  sets  him 
off  into  his  particular  group  or  type.  Kelley  thinks 
there  are  not  very  many  of  these  type  groups,  and 
that  they  very  definitely  exist  and  can  be  defined  and 
discovered.  A  man's  common  traits  are,  therefore, 
correlated  with  those  of  all  other  men,  but  his  type 
traits  are  ^'correlated  to  zero"  with  these  universal 
human  traits.  His  type  traits  correlate  highly  with 
the  type  traits  of  his  group.  Otherwise  we  would 
have  no  such  thing  as  mental  types.  Now  and  then 
a  man  has  some  trait  which  happens  to  be  annoying 
to  his  fellows,  such  as  a  tendency  to  steal  his  neigh- 
bor's goods  or  his  wife,  or  to  set  fire  to  his  neighbor's 
house.  His  neighbors  get  together  and  see  that  this 
trait  of  his  does  not  survive.  It  is  possessed  by  so  few 
that  it  is  a  fairly  simple  matter  to  stamp  it  out.    In 


a  pirate  state  however,  such  as  was  Venice  in  her  early 
days,  this  tendency  to  steal  and  murder  is  the  very 
essence  of  sociability.  It  is  this  tendency  which 
creates  the  group  of  pirates  and  enables  them  to  sur- 
vive. But  in  civilized  society  this  trait  cannot  be 
tolerated  and  must  be  ruthlessly  eliminated.  The  con- 
sequence is,  as  Kelley  points  out,  that  those  type 
traits  which  persist  in  the  population  are  of  necessity 
of  more  or  less  social  value,  and  anti-social  types,  such 
as  criminals,  cannot  permanently  survive.  Criminals 
are  merely  sporadic  and  temporary  variations  from 
the  social  average,  but  they  cannot  survive  long 
enough  to  become  permanent  social  groups  such  as 
teachers,  clergymen,  politicians  and  the  like. 

We  are  now  in  a  position,  I  think,  to  consider  what 
these  facts  mean  in  human  evolution.  They  do  not 
destroy  the  principle  that,  in  general,  good  traits  are 
correlated;  they  merely  emphasize  the  fact  that  the 
failure  of  a  few  traits  of  a  desirable  character  to  be 
correlated  with  all  other  desirable  traits  in  all  in- 
dividuals makes  possible  the  building  up  of  social 
groups  possessing  some  outstanding  characteristics, 
such  as  trade,  teaching,  social  uplift,  art  and  the  like. 

Now,  the  building  up  of  specific  social  groups, 
endowed  by  nature  with  rather  particularized  mental 
gifts,  is  to  my  mind  the  most  important  factor  in  social 
evolution.  I  have  already  shown  from  Woods  what 
the  building  up  of  military  and  governmental  types 
has  meant  in  developing  the  whole  civilization  of 
modem  Europe.  I  wish  now  to  show  that  this 
phenomenon  is  going  on  all  the  time  wherever  men 
come  together  and  become  parties  to  the  social  con- 
flict. I  suggested  at  the  beginning  that  probably  our 
present  industrial  order  is  developing  commercial 
types,  sales  types,  business  executive  types,  teaching 
and  professorial  types,  mechanical  types  and  the  like. 


Probably  there  was  in  Western  civilization ,  up  to 
recent  times,  a  pretty  large  pioneering  type  whose 
members  were  always  to  be  found  on  the  **fringe  of 
the  frontier."  If  there  were  such  a  type,  we  can  see 
how  it  might  easily  have  been  perpetuated.  It  would 
have  a  type  of  behavior  which  would  not  only  survive 
within  the  individual  and  become  an  outstanding  part 
of  his  own  personality  picture,  but  by  propinquity  and 
assortative  mating  it  would  tend  to  be  handed  down 
this  type  of  behavior  to  a  group  of  children.  These 
would  intermarry  just  as  the  military  types  have  done, 
and  thus  intensify  the  pioneering  traits.  I  think  there 
can  be  little  question  that  this  same  phenomenon  is 
occurring  throughout  the  population  generally  in  the 
selection  and  intensification  of  mental  types. 


I  am  compelled  once  more,  for  the  support  of  this 
conception,  to  appeal  to  the  work  of  F.  A.  Woods.  In 
order  to  describe  the  tendency  of  persons  within  a 
social  group  to  marry  each  other  and  intensify  the 
traits  which  have  given  character — and,  in  some  cases, 
social  power — ^to  that  particular  group,  Woods  has 
invented  the  excellent  term  **  social  conification. "  As 
I  understand  Woods,  by  the  term  **conification"  he 
means  that  where  a  trait  or  a  group  of  traits  has  en- 
abled certain  individuals  to  make  social  achievements 
and  bring  about  social  conditions  which  give  them 
power  and  influence,  there  is  a  tendency  for  these 
persons  and  their  families  to  intermarry  and  thus  to 
pyramid  their  biological  as  well  as  their  social  gains. 
This  is  due,  he  thinks,  to  two  forces:  First,  to  the 
general  tendency  of  like  to  mate  with  like — that  is,  to 
assortative  mating;  and,  second,  to  the  tendency  of 
like  to  beget  like — that  is,  the  tendency  of  mentaland 
physical  characters  to  be  inherited. 


'*The  question  resulting  from  these  facts,'*  says 
Woods,  *4s,  Do  these  inner  forces,  assortative  mat- 
ing combined  with  heredity,  outweigh  the  environ- 
mental leveling  and  democratic  forces?  Do  nations 
and  social  groups,  if  left  to  themselves,  actually 
conify — or,  in  other  words,  become  more  aristocratic! 
The  evidence  is  that  they  do." 

We  have  already  seen  that  this  took  place  in  the 
royal  families  of  Europe.  They  intermarried,  and 
immensely  conified  their  talents  for  war,  diplomacy 
and  government.  As  a  result  they  produced  at  least 
twenty  men,  out  of  less  than  eight  hundred,  whose 
eminence  in  these  fields  will  never  be  questioned.  The 
proof  of  conification  is  contained  in  the  fact  that  most 
of  these  twenty  persons  were  closely  related  by  blood. 

There  can  be  little  question  that  this  same  conifica- 
tion of  governmental  genius  has  been  the  determining 
factor  in  building  up  all  the  great  ruling  families  of 
history.  The  Ptolemies  were  able  by  this  simple 
biological  process  to  rule  Egypt  for  three  centuries. 
This  family  was  doubtless  the  largest  single  impulse 
in  the  wonderful  civilization  of  that  time.  As  another 
example,  we  read  in  Prescott  and  in  the  fascinating 
novels  of  Frank  E.  Stockton  of  what  a  wonderful 
people  the  Incas  of  South  America  were.  I  doubt  that 
they  were  any  more  wonderful  than  a  great  many 
other  Indian  tribes.  I  doubt  that  the  Aztecs  were 
greatly  different  from  the  present  native  Mexicans.  I 
think,  as  previously  noted  in  The  Influence  of  Mon- 
archs,  it  is  probable  that  in  each  nation,  by  the  slow 
processes  of  selection  or  conification,  a  great  family 
arose,  the  Montezumas  in  Mexico  and  the  Inca  family 
in  South  America.  I  think  it  likely  that  these  two 
families  were  the  largest  impulses  in  those  great 
civilizations.  At  least,  the  evidence  we  have  so  far 
surveyed  as  to  the  causes  of  social  phenomena  would 
suggest  this  belief. 



There  is  additional  evidence  of  conification,  as 
Woods  points  out,  to  be  derived  from  a  study  of  the 
British  Dictionary  of  Natiotial  Biography,  I  have 
alluded  to  this  fact,  and  have  discussed  its  meaning 
to  democracy,  in  my  New  Decalogue  of  Science,  Mr. 
Alleyne  Ireland,  in  his  book,  Democracy  and  the 
Human  Equation,  also  discusses  the  significance  of 
this  phenomenon  in  relation  to  the  theory  of 
democracy.  The  facts  shown  in  the  Dictionary  are 
these:  From  the  earliest  times  in  Great  Britain  to  the 
year  1800,  the  sons  of  craftsmen,  artisans  and  un- 
skilled laborers  furnished  nearly  twelve  per  cent,  of 
the  eminent  men  of  British  history.  These  same 
classes  during  the  next  quarter  of  a  century  furnished 
barely  more  than  seven  per  cent.;  and  during  the 
second  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century  barely  more 
than  four  per  cent,  of  Great  Britain's  eminent  men 
were  bom  from  the  working  classes. 

It  was  Havelock  Ellis  who  first  noted  the  existence 
of  this  progressive  decline  in  the  production  of  emi- 
nent men  by  the  laboring  classes,  but  it  was  Woods 
who  suggested  its  cause  and  significance.  Woods  finds 
in  it  an  example  of  social  conification  directly  result- 
ing from  assortative  mating  combined  with  heredity. 
Democratic  opportunity  gave  a  new  chance  for  the 
ablest  members  of  the  laboring  classes  to  rise.  They 
married  in  the  upper  classes  to  which  they  rose,  and 
intensified  the  talents  which  enabled  them  to  rise. 
We  see  thus  that  democracy  is  apparently  at  war 
biologically  with  itself.  Instead  of  building  up  the 
general  masses  to  a  higher  biological  level  and  mak- 
ing every  man  a  king,  it  tends  to  produce  an  aristocracy 
by  the  very  opportunity  it  opens  for  the  ablest  men 
and  women  in  the  masses  to  rise.    It  builds  up  the 


higher  classes  at  the  expense  of  the  lower  and  thus 
drains  the  lower  classes  dry  of  their  richest  blood. 
Consequently,  in  the  end  democracy  separates  the 
masses  from  the  dominant  classes  farther  than  ever. 
Of  course,  the  elevation  of  these  persons  of  ability 
to  the  higher  ranks  of  wealth  and  social  influence 
might  easily  lead  to  a  great  improvement  and  eleva- 
tion of  the  economic  conditions  of  the  masses.  This 
has  probably  resulted.  All  classes  are  in  better  con- 
dition now;  they  get  more  of  this  world's  goods  and 
pleasures  than  they  did  before  this  conifying  move- 
ment began.  However,  I  am  not  speaking  of  their 
economic  condition  but  of  their  biological  situation. 
Democracy  seems  to  make  their  biological  situation 
worse.  They  are  bereft  of  their  natural  leaders  and 
farther  removed  than  they  ever  were,  from  the  classes 
who  carry  in  their  veins  the  blood  of  leadership.  And, 
as  I  shall  show  in  a  moment  from  new  data  presented 
by  Woods,  while  the  common  classes  have  risen  the 
leading  classes  have  risen  still  farther.  As  a  final 
result,  the  two  classes  are  separated  both  biologically, 
and  also  economically  and  socially,  more  widely  than 
they  ever  were. 


I  know  of  scarcely  anything  that  is  so  important 
as  to  see  the  biological  consequences  of  any  social  or 
political  theory.  The  passion  and  dream  of  this  age 
is  democracy.  Yet  scarcely  anyone  has  asked  whether 
it  will  make  men  naturally  better  or  worse  or  whether 
it  will  provide  the  mechanisms  for  its  own  biological 
continuance.  Mr.  Ireland  wrote  to  me  recently,  deal- 
ing with  this  matter,  to  which  he  has  given  more  at- 
tention than  anyone  else;  namely,  the  application  of 
biology  to  democracy.    He  says: 


**  Recently,  in  order  to  secure  some  kind  of  con- 
firmation of  the  figures  which  Woods  and  I  found,  I 
selected  from  the  first  three  volumes  of  the  English 
Dictionary  of  National  Biography  all  the  more  im- 
portant names  of  those  persons  born  between  1700  and 
1800.  The  phrase  *more  important'  means  that  the 
biographies  of  these  persons  covered  two  pages  or 
more  in  the  Dictionary.  I  thus  got  a  total  of  one  hun- 
dred and  twenty  persons,  of  which  twenty-seven,  or 
twenty-two  and  five-tenths  per  cent.,  were  drawn  from 
the  artisans,  craftsmen  and  unskilled  laborers.  I  then 
went  through  the  same  process  with  the  names  in  the 
supplementary  volume  which  contains  almost  exclu- 
sively the  names  of  persons  bom  since  1825.  I  got 
one  hundred  and  twelve  names,  of  which  only  six,  or 
five  and  three-tenths  per  cent.,  were  drawn  from  these 
lower  economic  orders. 

**The  significance  of  these  figures  seems  to  me  to 
be  that  democratic  opportunity  is  lifting  up  out  of 
these  lower  orders  all  that  is  most  worthy  in  them.  As 
this  process  goes  on,  these  lower  orders  will  be 
stripped  of  their  higher  types  of  ability  and  tempera- 
ment. ' ' 

We  see,  thus,  that  just  in  so  far  as  democracy 
works  successfully  it  defeats  its  own  end  biologically. 
While  it  is  an  enchanting  human  dream,  yet  when  we 
consider  the  details  of  its  biological  machinery,  we 
are  forced  to  ask  the  grim  question,  *'Will  democracy 
work,  not  temporarily  as  a  holiday  excursion,  but  as 
the  permanent  earthly  life  of  man?" 

I  think  the  answer  lies  right  here:  If  democracy 
has  the  vision,  the  continuity  of  social  effort  and  co- 
operativeness,  the  economic  and  educational  wisdom, 
to  set  up  those  conditions  which  will  discover  and 
promote  its  natural  leaders — leaders  not  only  in 
politics  but  in  every  phase  and  form  of  education  and 


social  engineering;  if,  then,  it  sees  to  it  that  these 
precious  persons  and  their  families  more  than  repro- 
duce their  kind  and  do  not  consume  their  priceless 
breeds  in  the  fires  of  their  own  ambitions,  then  democ- 
racy will  at  least  have  provided  the  biological  material 
for  its  own  survival.  In  fact,  after  the  leaders  are 
found  and  trained  and  given  power  and  responsibility, 
if  they  do  not  then  commit  race  suicide,  I  think  democ- 
racy, thus  provided  continuously  with  its  own  true, 
biological  aristocracy  to  guide  it,  can  be  preserved  as 
the  permanent  temple  in  which  humanity  can  dwell 
most  effectively  and  happily.  But  if  democracy  can- 
not devise  the  social  medium  and  stimulus  by  which 
the  leaders  of  the  race  and  the  creators  of  culture  can 
themselves  make  the  supreme  adaptation  of  keeping 
their  own  breeds  going,  then,  as  a  student  of  biology, 
I  do  not  see  how  democracy  can  possibly  outlast  the 
present  century. 

Certainly,  this  is  one  of  the  gravest  questions  which 
can  confront  the  whole  liberal  and  democratic  theory 
of  civilization.  The  mere  fact  that  the  rewards  of  free 
opportunity  constantly  drain  the  best  ability  from  the 
masses;  the  fact  that  the  vortex  of  human  ambition 
constantly  bleeds  the  masses  whiter  and  whiter;  the 
fact  that  education,  as  we  have  seen  in  discussing 
acquired  characters,  cannot  replace  this  lost  blood  of 
leadershij) — these  facts  do  not  necessarily  mean  that 
the  dream  of  democracy  will  have  to  be  abandoned. 
This  is  not  a  necessary  inference.  But  these  facts  do 
mean  that  these  hopes  must  be  abandoned;  that  democ- 
racy and  liberalism  do  sow  the  seeds  of  their  own 
destruction ;  that  they  will  fail  as  often  as  they  are  set 
up,  no  matter  how  grand  may  be  the  paraphernalia 
and  pageantry  which  surround  them;  that  they  will, 
by  their  own  dynamics,  periodically  plunge  men  back 
into  a  social  and  intellectual  Dark  Ages,  unless  men 


have  the  will  and  vision  to  provide  a  constant  and 
adequate  eugenical  remedy  for  the  biological  disaster 
brought  about  by  their  own  success. 


I  think  myself  that  democracy — indeed,  any  form 
of  goverimaent  yet  devised  or  any  type  of  political 
society  yet  undertaken — ^will  periodically  fail,  unless 
science  has  some  new  remedy  to  offer  for  this  bio- 
logical impasse.  I  am  beginning  to  cherish  the  hope, 
as  I  shall  show  in  my  concluding  pages,  that  biology 
does  have  a  partial  remedy,  at  least,  to  offer  for  the 
disaster  which  the  machinations  and  social  ambitions 
of  men  have  heretofore  brought  upon  themselves.  To 
put  it  plainly,  in  my  belief  democracy  and  liberalism 
must  espouse  eugenics  as  the  very  essence  and 
dynamics  of  their  creed,  or  else  they  will  die.  But  I 
believe  biology  has  penetrated  far  enough  into  the 
secrets  of  man's  own  biological  mechanism,  partic- 
ularly the  mechanism  of  his  heredity  and  reproduc- 
tion, that  it  can  now  offer  effective  methods,  not  only 
for  elevating  the  inborn  health,  sanity  and  social 
power  of  the  masses,  but  for  preserving  and  indeed 
multiplying  the  numbers  of  leaders  upon  which  the 
social  fortunes  of  the  masses  depend.  To  show  the 
present  biological  situation  of  democracy,  and  to  sub- 
mit these  helpful  discoveries  of  the  biologist  to  its 
leaders,  is  the  purpose  the  writer  has  in  view.  How 
these  discoveries  are  to  be  applied,  how  an  effective 
eugenical  civilization  is  to  be  built  and  carried  on,  we 
must  then  leave  to  the  social  statesman,  the  educator 
and  the  philanthropist. 

Let  us,  however,  look  just  a  little  further  at  what 
is  now  going  on  of  social  and  political  significance  in 
human  biology.  As  I  said  a  moment  ago.  Woods  has 
recently  presented  new  evidence  that  social  conifica- 


tion  is  working  just  as  effectively  in  the  so-called 
democratic  community  of  America  as  it  has  been  work- 
ing in  the  royal  and  noble  families  of  the  Old  World. 
I  lay  special  stress  upon  this  fact  of  social  conificafion 
and  its  development  of  types  of  leaders  because  I  have 
little  doubt  that  it  has  been  the  most  effective  single 
set  of  agencies  in  bringing  about  the  larger  social  and 
political  changes  in  man's  history,  and,  indeed,  as  has 
already  been  said,  it  probably  brought  about  the  thmg 
we  call  civilization  itself. 


These  new  data  on  social  conification  were  pre- 
sented by  Woods  in  a  paper  at  the  Second  Interna- 
tional Congress  of  Eugenics  held  in  New  York  City,  in 
September,  1921.  The  data  may  be  found  in  full  in  the 
published  proceedings  of  this  Congress.  The  main 
facts  are  as  follows: 

The  Massachusetts  Bay  Colony  was  settled  chiefly 
by  three  classes  of  English  immigrants.  The  main 
body  of  these  immigrants  was  drawn  from  the  classes 
of  artisans,  small  shopkeepers  and  farmers  of  England, 
commonly  called,  in  that  day,  yeomen.  Next  above 
these  in  social  standing  was  a  smaller  class  of  officers 
which  Woods  designates  as  ** officer  yeomen."  The 
third  class  was  made  up  of  a  sprinkling  of  about  five 
per  cent,  of  gentry,  who  belonged  to  the  recorded 
gentle  families  of  England;  in  other  words,  they  had 
the  right  to  a  coat  of  arms.  It  is  surprising  how  few 
members  of  the  landed  gentry  and  of  the  really  noble 
families  of  England  ever  came  to  this  country  at  all. 
Woods  believes  that  even  of  the  lesser  gentry  and 
peerage  of  England  there  were  never  more  than 
seventy-five  families  that  ever  settled  in  all  New 

It  has  been  a  very  favorite  sport  of  newspaper 


paragraphers  and  uncritical  critics  of  eugenics  to 
point  out  that  although  the  early  New  England 
families  came,  in  the  main,  from  the  middle  and  even 
the  somewhat  lower  classes  of  England,  yet  they  have 
furnished  a  large  number  of  distinguished  persons  to 
American  history.  In  fact,  they  have  done  almost  as 
well  as  the  more  aristocratic  Englanders  have  done  in 
their  own  country  during  the  modem  period.  They 
attribute  this  all  to  the  fact  that  American  democracy 
has  given  these  middle-class  people  a  chance  to  show 
what  they  could  do.  This  is  doubtless  true,  but  not  in 
the  sense  in  which  our  critics  imagine.  The  chief 
thing  which  happened  in  America  was,  in  my  opinion 
(from  Woods's  evidence)  that  it  merely  gave  the  im- 
migrants a  chance  to  start  a  new  breeding  experiment. 
In  other  words,  a  new  selection  at  once  set  in.  Our 
critics  have  not  reckoned  with  the  process  of  conifica- 
tion;  they  even  deny  its  existence,  if  they  have  ever 
thought  about  it  at  all;  they  have  not  the  slightest 
conception  of  how  quickly  it  sets  in  and  how  rapidly 
it  works.  I  frequently  get  letters  from  persons  in 
Australia  who  evidently  are  of  the  environmental  turn 
of  mind,  pointing  out  that  heredity  does  not  count. 
As  proof  of  this  they  cite  the  fact  that  while  the  orig- 
inal settlers  of  Sydney  were  largely  convicts  and  un- 
desirables shipped  there  by  Great  Britain,  yet  many  of 
their  descendants  are  now  merchants,  college  profes- 
sors, social  and  political  leaders.  There  is  nothing 
surprising  about  this.  Instead  of  being  a  disproof  of 
heredity,  it  merely  illustrates  how  both  environment 
and  heredity  work.  Beyond  question,  the  environment 
enabled  a  few  of  the  able  convicts,  especially  many 
who  under  the  old  criminal  practice  of  England  were 
naturally  able  men  and  were  sent  there  unjustly,  to 
rise,  and  to  start  a  new  selective  conification.  As  I 
have  argued  all  through  this  volume,  the  great  func- 


tion  of  the  environment  is  not  that  it  directly  alters 
heredity,  but  that  it  gives  heredity  a  chance  to  operate. 
As  heredity  operates,  the  environment  selects  out  and 
kills  off  those  who  are  not  adapted  to  it.  In  this  -vfay 
the  good  heredity  survives  and  carries  on.  It  is  this 
which  is  the  very  foundation  of  eugenics;  namely,  tEe 
fact  that  the  environment  can  be  so  shaped  that  it  wfll 
guide  this  selection  of  heredity  to  higher  goals.  In 
this  way  environment  can  be  made  to  elevate  the 
heredity  of  mankind. 

Now,  this  is  precisely  what  Woods  found  in  New 
England.  He  first  took  the  Eegister  of  the  Massachu- 
setts Society  of  Colonial  Dames  and  from  it  selected 
the  names  of  all  the  families  which  settled  in  the 
Massachusetts  Bay  Colony  prior  to  1692.  From  these 
he  then  selected  those  families  which  have  at  the 
present  day  three  or  more  members  eligible  as  an- 
cestors for  the  Colonial  Dames,  and  who  now  live  in 
Boston,  Charlestown,  Watertown,  Eoxbury,  Cam- 
bridge, Concord,  Woburn  or  Groton.  This  furnished 
him  a  list  of  seventy-one  families  or  male  lines.  Out 
of  this  seventy-one,  forty,  whose  names  are  appended 
in  a  foot-note,  were  chosen.*    Woods  chose  this  group 

*Note:  FollowTiig  are  the  names  of  tlie  families  of  the  gentry 
aad  *' officer  yeomanry"  in  Boston  and  vicinity  included  in  Woods's 
research  into  social  conifieation. 

Those  in  the  first  series  are  the  entire  list  of  the  forty  studied. 
In  the  second  list  are  tho  preeminent  thirteen  families  of  Colonial 
times.  The  third  list  are  the  twelve  families  whose  descendants  have 
been  studied  in  order  to  compare  their  marriages  with  the  Colonial 

(1)  Adams,  Appleton,  Bigelow,  Boylston,  Bradstreet,  Breek, 
Brooks,  Bulkley,  Chandler,  Chauncy,  Cheever,  Converse,  Coolidge,  Dud- 
ley, Farwell,  French  of  Cambridge,  etc.,  Frothingham,  Hancock, 
Hunnewell,  Johnson  of  Woburn,  Lawrence  of  Groton,  Learned,  Lynde, 
Mather,  ^Minot,  Oliver,  Phillips,  Prescott,  Quincy,  Russell,  Ruggles, 
Saltonstall,  Sparhawk,  Stearns  of  Watertown,  Symmes,  Tarbell,  Willard, 
Winthrop,  Woods  of  Groton,  Wjonan. 

(2)  Appleton,  Bradstreet,  Bulkley,  Chauncy,  Dudley,  Mather, 
Minot,  Oliver,  Phillips,   Quincy,   Eussell,  SaltonstaU,  Winthrop. 

(3)  Adams,  Appleton,  Bigelow,  Brooks,  Coolidge,  Frothingham, 
Hunnewell,   Lawrence  of  Grgton,  Minot,   Phillips,  Quincy,   Saltonstall. 


of  forty  partly  because  he  knew  many  of  these  families 
personally  as  they  are  represented  to-day  by  de- 
scendants of  more  or  less  prominence;  also  partly 
because  they  happen  to  be  connected  with  those  taken 
at  the  start,  so  that  the  inclusion  of  one  person  led  to 
the  inclusion  of  another  as  the  pedigree  charts  ex- 
panded, until  a  sufficiently  great  group  of  names  had 
been  obtained.  This  gave  him  a  list  of  three  thousand 
persons  descended  from  the  original  forty  families. 
There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  had  he  studied  the 
remaining  thirty-one  families  whose  names  are  also 
given  in  the  foot-note,  the  conclusions  would  have  been 
affected  in  any  way. 

The  aim  of  the  research  was  to  select,  without  bias, 
a  characteristic  leading  class  in  America  in  early 
days,  compare  them  then  with  a  lower  class  of  that 
period,  and  then  compare  these  two  groups  with 
similar  groups  living  in  the  nineteenth  and  twentieth 
centuries.  The  upper  class  in  the  early  days  was 
separated  from  the  lower  class  by  only  a  moderate 
interval.  The  striking  fact  is  that  the  upper  portion 
of  the  hody  social,  as  represented  hy  the  descendants 
of  these  same  gentry,  is  more  separated  from  the  mass 
to-day  than  it  was  in  Colonial  times.  At  least,  in  two 
very  important  respects  these  two  classes  are  now 
more  widely  separated  from  each  other  than  they  were 
in  those  days.  The  first  is  wealth  and  the  second  is 
intermarriage.  Intermarriage  between  the  yeomanry 
and  gentry — that  is,  between  the  lower  and  upper 
classes — in  Colonial  days  was  very  common.  Such  a 
marriage  now  is  so  extraordinary  that  it  is  exploited 
in  big  head-lines  across  three  or  four  columns  of  our 
daily  newspapers. 


For  example,  Woods  finds  that  the  average  yeoman 


©f  that  day  possessed,  as  shown  by  wills  and  other 
documents,  from  $500  to  $1,500.  If  a  man  possessed 
more  than  $1,500  he  was  permitted  to  wear  lace  on  his 
clothes.  There  was  a  law  that  a  man  worth  less  tRan 
this  could  not  wear  lace.  The  well-to-do  yeomen,  and 
the  officer-yeomen  and  gentry,  often  possessed  from 
$2,500  to  ten  or  fifteen  thousand.  Eobert  Kane,  one  of 
the  richest  men,  left  in  1656  an  estate  valued,  roughly, 
at  $12,500.  Captain  Thomas  Brattle  died  in  1683, 
leaving  an  estate  of  £7,827;  roughly,  about  $40,000. 
One  historian.  Savage,  states  that  this  was  *' probably 
the  largest  in  New  England." 

Thus  we  see  that  the  very  richest  men  were  not 
more  than  fifty  times  as  rich  as  the  average.  By  the 
year  1750,  a  hundred  years  later,  a  few  fortunes  are 
listed  at  half  a  million  dollars  each.  This  would  make 
the  very  richest  man  at  that  time  perhaps  three  hun- 
dred times  as  rich  as  the  average  citizen. 

By  the  year  1851  the  millionaire  had  actually  begun 
to  appear  in  America.  A  number  of  persons  at  that 
time  are  given  in  various  records  as  possessing  a 
million  each,  and  one  man  is  listed  at  three  millions. 
This  was  probably  six  hundred  times  the  wealth  of 
the  average.  Of  course,  the  average  wealth  had  no 
doubt  risen  somewhat,  but  the  supreme  wealth  of  the 
few  had  risen  relatively  faster. 

In  Woods's  own  remarks  on  this  point  he  says: 
'*The  differences  increase  as  we  approach  the  present 
day,  during  which  time  many  persons  in  New  England 
have  left  estates  valued  at  twenty  millions  or  more, 
that  is,  several  thousand  times  the  average.  If  we 
consider  the  United  States  as  a  whole,  the  very  richest 
men  to-day,  those  who  are  worth  $100,000,000  or  more, 
are  certainly  as  much  as  10,000  times  to  100,000  times 
as  rich  as  the  average.  There  can  be  no  question,  as 
far  as  the  distribution  of  wealth  is  concerned,  there 


has  been  in  America  a  process  of  conification.  The 
average  wealth  has  risen  somewhat,  but  the  point  of 
the  cone  has  risen  faster  than  the  mass.  If  the  mass 
be  represented  in  a  graph  as  being  6  inches  high,  the 
top  of  the  drawing,  representing  the  very  rich,  would 
have  to  be  carried  up  at  least  5,000  feet  in  the  air." 


Let  us  now  turn  to  the  question  of  intermarriages. 
We  commonly  think  of  the  classes  being  very  strictly 
separated  in  Colonial  days.  They  were  strict  about 
some  matters  of  precedence,  such  as  the  way  in  which 
they  were  seated  in  church  and  the  way  in  which  their 
names  were  arranged  in  the  college  catalogues  and  a 
few  other  matters  of  this  sort,  but,  as  Woods  says; 
**When  it  comes  to  the  matter  of  marriage  and  inter- 
marriage among  the  three  different  social  classes ;  that 
is,  between  the  yeoman  and  the  officer-yeoman  and 
gentry,  we  find  a  surprising  lack  of  just  this  class  dis- 
tinction. There  is  certainly  no  better  test  than  inter- 
marriage between  classes  to  show  whether  different 
castes  mingle  freely  in  a  social  way.  At  least,  this  is 
the  biological  or  eugenic  test  par  excellence,  as  it  is 
the  one  which  determines  the  heredity  of  the  next 
generation. ' ' 

Of  course,  the  gentry  intermarried  among  them- 
selves freely,  as  they  do  everywhere.  Characteristic 
families  of  this  description  are  represented  by  those 
of  the  Governors  of  the  Colony  such  as  Dudley,  Brad- 
street,  Winthrop  and  Saltonstall;  also  the  wealthy 
Russell  family  of  Charlestown,  and  the  ancient  pedi- 
greed families  of  Bulkeley  and  Chauncy.  There  are 
thirteen  of  these  families  prior  to  1721  which  Woods 
selects  out  of  the  total  of  the  forty  families  studied  as 
being  preeminent  in  wealth  and  social  position.    But 


even  among  these  who  represent  the  creme  de  la  creme, 
there  are  a  good  many  examples  of  marriage  with  the 

In  order  to  make  the  classification  as  unbiased  "^s 
possible,  Woods  had  Mr.  J.  Gardner  Bartlett,  the 
eminent  genealogist,  of  Boston,  assist  him  in  deter- 
mining who  should  be  put  in  the  upper  and  who  in  the 
lower  grades.  It  is  probable  that  there  was  no  man  in 
New  England  better  qualified  to  do  this  than  Mr. 
Bartlett.  Out  of  the  forty  families  (male  lines)  in- 
cluded in  the  entire  study,  thirteen,  as  I  have  already 
noted,  were  finally  selected  as  undoubtedly  belonging 
in  the  highest  social  position  during  the  period  prior 
to  1721.  Their  names  are  given  in  the  foot-note  on 
page  292. 

The  research  disclosed  the  surprising  fact  that  out 
of  two  hundred  and  four  marriages  prior  to  1721, 
forty-eight  of  them — that  is,  twenty-three  and  five- 
tenths  per  cent. — ^were  marriages  of  the  children  of 
these  preeminent  gentry  with  the  children  of  yeomen. 
In  other  words,  nearly  one-fourth  of  these  cases  were 
cross-marriages  between  the  upper  and  the  lower 
classes  of  that  day. 

In  order  to  corroborate  so  astonishing  a  fact. 
Woods  then  made  a  careful  examination  of  a  volume 
known  as  the  Memorial  History  of  Boston,  It  is  a 
standard  work  of  four  volumes  prepared  by  a  group 
of  scholars  and  specialists.  Concerning  the  facts  of 
social  history  in  this  book,  Woods  says:  **Here  were 
a  good  many  names  not  included  in  my  research. 
These  were  families  strictly  associated  with  Boston 
and  not  with  the  outlying  towns.  Fearing  that  my 
own  list  did  not  represent  a  true  selection  of  the  most 
important  names  and  so  might  falsely  over-estimate 
the  amount  of  cross-marriage  of  gentry  with  yeo- 
manry, I  looked  up  the  records  of  the  first  seventeen 


of  these  families  and  found  that  the  first  Eundred 
marriages  yielded  again  approximately  twenty-three 
per  cent,  of  cross-marriages  between  the  upper  and 
lower  of  the  same  three  grades.'' 

So  much  for  the  interchange  of  blood  between  the 
upper  and  lower  classes  in  Colonial  times.  Let  us  next 
contrast  these  conditions  with  what  has  taken  place 
within  the  past  hundred  years.  Woods  selected  twelve 
families  descended  from  the  forty  included  in  the  first 
study.  These  are  all  families  which  have  had  during 
the  past  century,  as  nearly  as  could  be  judged,  the 
greatest  amount  of  social  and  financial  prominence. 
Their  names  are  also  listed  in  the  foot-note  on  page 
292.  W^oods  states  the  conclusion  from  this  research 
as  follows: 

^^The  result  of  looking  up  the  records  of  marriage 
and  parentage  in  the  12  families  that  happened  to  be 
included  shows  within  the  last  century  that  out  of 
152  marriages,  at  least  143,  or  over  94  per  cent.,  are 
certainly  marriages  within  their  own  class.  There 
are  not  more  than  two  instances  of  known  marriages 
distinctly  outside  the  social  class  to  which  these  people 
belong.  The  parentages  of  a  few  of  the  persons  who 
happen  to  fall  within  this  group  are  very  difficult  to 
trace  in  any  printed  records;  probably  most  of  them 
came  from  a  class  somewhat  between  the  two  ex- 
tremes, persons  such  as  for  the  Colonial  period  we 
have  called  officer-yeomen.  But  it  is  not  necessary  to 
know  the  exact  ancestry  of  these  few  persons.  Even 
if  they  are  considered  as  yeomen,  nevertheless  the 
percentage  of  cross-marriages  of  gentry  with  yeo- 
manry has  been  reduced  from  23  to  less  than  6.  If  we 
look  at  it  in  another  way,  out  of  204  marriages  from 
families  of  the  gentry  in  the  earliest  period,  119,  or 
only  58.3  per  cent.,  were  within  their  own  grade.  Dur- 
ing the  modern  period — ^that  is,  between  1820  and 


1920— at  least  94  per  cent,  have  been  strictly  between 
members  of  the  same  social  class.  The  tendency 
towards  caste  marriages  has  increased  markedly  and 
has  increased  recently. 

**  These  facts,  taken  in  conjunction  with  the  in- 
creasingly uneven  distribution  of  wealth,  prove  that 
social  conification  does  take  place.  It  is  probably 
inevitable  whenever  a  population,  at  first  composed  of 
comparatively  similar  persons,  lives  in  a  territory 
where  inheritable  wealth  can  be  acquired.  It  is  prob- 
ably working  all  the  time  in  all  civilized  countries, 
though  it  may,  since  it  requires  several  generations 
to  show  its  results,  be  masked  superficially  or  buried 
under  the  wreckage  of  revolutionary  debacle. 

^^  Recently,  in  Germany,  Austria,  and  Russia,  for 
instance,  there  have  been  gigantic  examples  of  the 
breaking  down  of  cones.  Probably  many  social  cones 
tend  to  break,  some  for  one  reason  and  some  for  an- 
other, as  they  become  over-conified  or  too  much  pointed 
at  the  top,  but  they  certainly  tend  to  form,  and  it  is 
merely  to  bring  forth  statistical  and  historical  evidence 
of  such  formation  that  the  present  research  has  been 
prepared. ' ' 

A  most  interesting  side  result  comes  out  of  this  re- 
search. It  has  long  been  known  that  people  of  the  upper 
social  classes  make  far  greater  achievements  and  fur- 
nish a  much  higher  percentage  of  persons  who  become 
famous  than  do  the  lower  orders.  We  have  just  seen 
evidence  of  this  worked  out  by  Ellis,  Woods  and 
Ireland,  from  the  English  Dictionary  of  National 
Biography.  There  is  abundant  other  evidence  in  re- 
searches by  Galton,  Cattell,  Odin,  De  Candolle,  Clarke, 
Cox  and  Terman.  In  finishing  the  study  of  his  Colonial 
families,  it  occurred  to  Woods  to  see  how  many 
distinguished  persons  had  descended  from  the  204 
members  of  the  old  Colonial  gentry  whose  marriages 


he  studied.  These  ancestors  were  selected  not  for  in- 
telligence but  strictly  because  of  wealth  and  social 
position  ill  the  early  days.  It  should  be  remembered 
that  about  three-fourths  of  these  persons  married  in 
Colonial  times  members  of  the  gentry,  and  about  one- 
fourth  married  into  the  families  of  the  yeomenry. 
Among  their  descendants  who  would  rank  at  or  above 
the  standard  of  inclusion  of  Wko^s  Who  in  America 
Woods  easily  counted  nineteen  persons,  many  of  them 
very  famous  Americans.  The  names  are  as  follows: 
Charles  Francis  Adams  (born  1809),  Charles  Francis 
Adams  (born  1835),  Henry  Adams,  Brooks  Adams,  Dr. 
Henry  J.  Bigelow,  Phillips  Brooks,  Algernon  T.  Jeffer- 
son, John  Randolph;  Julian  L.  and  Archibald  C. 
Coolidge ;  the  Rev.  Nathaniel,  the  Rev.  Octavius  B.,  the 
Rev.  Paul  and  Louis  A.  Frothingham;  Amos  A.  and 
Bishop  William  Lawrence;  Dr.  Charles  S.  Minot  and 
Wendell  Phillips. 

While  it  is  a  very  common  national  sport  to  belittle 
the  financial  ability  of  the  sons  of  rich  men  and  families 
whose  members  are  born  to  wealth  and  high  social 
position,  yet,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  there  is  going  on  now  an  immense  conification  of 
the  financial  ability  of  the  world.  Wealthy  families, 
as  never  before  in  history,  are  meeting  each  other  at 
the  pleasure  grounds  and  watering  places  where  they 
congregate  and  on  steamships  and  the  like,  and  their 
sons  and  daughters  are  intermarrying  and  building  up 
cones  of  financial  genius  all  through  the  leading  coun- 
tries. There  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind  that,  whatever 
it  is  in  human  intelligence,  temperament  and  physique 
which  enables  men  to  acquire  wealth,  these  qualities 
are  being  powerfully  conified  by  this  intermarriage 
process.  These  wealthy  families  are  building  up 
financial  genius,  just  as  in  past  ages  military  genius 
has  been  built  up,  by  intermarriage  and  conification. 


These  families  are  going  to  control  the  world  for  a 
long  time  to  come.  They  will  be,  of  course,  to  some 
extent  recruited  from  the  ranks.  They  may  even,  for 
their  o^ti  good,  devise  measures,  such  as  profit-sharing 
schemes  and  the  like,  which  will  give  better  opportunity 
for  a  man  from  the  ranks  to  rise  than  he  has  ever  had. 
These  schemes  may  also  distribute  wealth  more  widely 
and  generously  than  ever  before,  and  bring  about  a 
greater  general  well-being  than  otherwise  would  be 
possible.  We  have  seen  that  the  great  and  able  mon- 
archs,  by  the  very  fact  of  their  high  ability,  enormously 
and  suddenly  increased  the  well-being  of  whole  nations, 
when  their  genius  took  charge  of  public  affairs.  For 
these  reasons,  I  have  no  fear  that  this  conification  of 
financial  genius  means  oppression  of  the  masses  or 
a  decrease  in  the  opportunity  of  the  common  man.  / 
never  have  any  fear  of  genius.  It  is  about  the  only 
thing  in  the  world  that  we  do  not  need  to  be  afraid  of. 
The  thing  I'm  afraid  of  is  always  the  second-class 
man.  When  he  gets  into  power,  the  liberties  of  men 
are  put  in  jeopardy,  and  the  wealth  and  well-being  and 
opportunities  for  the  free  pursuit  of  happiness  of 
common  men  always  decline. 


We  hear,  of  course,  a  good  deal  about  the  ^*  gilded 
fool."  The  reason  we  hear  about  him  is  because  he  is 
so  rare.  The  majority  of  fools  are  poor,  their  families 
are  poor,  and  they  are  not  gilded  in  the  least.  Along 
with  this  is  the  well-nigh  universal  impression  that  the 
sons  of  rich  men  nearly  all  go  to  the  devil.  Again,  it 
is  because  this  phenomenon  is  so  rare  that  it  attracts 
attention  and  gets  on  the  front  page  of  the  newspapers. 
It  is  true  that,  even  in  these  times  of  prohibition,  rich 
men's  sons  can  purchase  champagne  and  publicity  and 


go  to  the  devil  more  conspicuously  than  poor  men's 
sons.  But  there  is  no  evidence  that  they  do  so  at  any 
higher  rate,  in  proportion  to  their  number,  than  the 
sons  of  poor  men.  The  majority  of  the  much  adver- 
tised *^poor  little  rich  children"  are  rather  better  be- 
haved, although  not  conspicuously  better  behaved,  than 
average,  unselected  children.  No  one  can  visit  a  large 
number  of  private  schools  all  over  the  country,  as  the 
writer  has  done,  and  not  be  impressed  with  this  fact. 
These  schools  are  composed  very  largely  of  the  chil- 
dren of  the  wealthy,  with  quite  an  extensive  sprinkling 
of  the  children  of  the  more  successful  professional 
classes.  Most  of  these  are  what  I  should  call  pretty 
well-to-do.  Their  incomes  range  from  $5,000  up.  One 
is,  at  least,  not  impressed  on  visiting  these  select 
schools  with  the  idea  that  the  students  are  notably 
worse  than  those  in  our  public  schools  or  junior  col- 
leges. Their  average  moral  reactions  are  somewhat 
better.  Part  of  this  good  behavior  is,  no  doubt,  due 
to  superior  home  training.  I  should  not  be  surprised 
if  a  good  deal  of  it  is  due  to  that.  But  this  in  itself  is 
due  quite  largely  to  the  good,  inherited  intelligence  of 
the  parents.  Part  of  this  good  behavior,  however,  we 
have  ample  ground  for  believing,  is  based  on  the  in- 
herited intelligence  and  moral  character  of  the  young 
persons  themselves. 

My  point  here  is  that  if  our  economists  succeed  in 
devising  means  whereby  an  enormous  number  of  our 
people  get  rich,  it  will  not  ruin  the  moral  character  of 
the  country.  *^ Ruined  by  too  much  money"  is  an  im- 
memorial adage.  But  there  is  not  the  slightest  evi- 
dence of  a  crucial  nature  that  money  in  itself  ever 
ruined  anybody.  People  can  exhibit  their  ruination 
more  widely  if  they  have  the  money  to  advertise  it; 
but  if  money  really  ruins  people  or  is  in  any  sense  a 
moral  danger,  I  do  not  believe  we  have  any  knowledge 


of  it.  It  may  be  true;  but,  if  so,  nobody  has  devised 
the  critical  methods  necessary  to  prove  so  unexpected 
and  important  a  fact  in  the  biological,  as  well  as  social 
and  economic  history  of  mankind. 

But  the  prime  consideration  which  I  have  wished 
to  advance  in  this  section  is  that  leaders  arise  in  the 
population  by  perfectly  natural  and  not  by  mystical 
processes.  If  this  be  true,  then  one  of  the  great  tasks 
of  eugenics  is  to  discover  these  leaders,  and  promote 
those  conditions  of  civilized  life  which  will  increase 
their  number  and  lead  to  the  reproduction  in  still 
greater  numbers  of  those  classes  of  the  population 
from  which  they  spring.  In  the  next  section  I  wish  to 
examine  the  problem  of  what  conditions  now  obtain 
for  the  recognition  of  our  leaders  in  social  and  political 
life  and  for  the  replenishment  of  their  ranks. 




Before  considering  what  the  writer  believes  is  the 
next  step  in  man's  earthly  life,  let  us  look  back  for 
just  a  moment  over  the  features  of  human  nature 
which  we  have  so  far  considered.  We  have  seen  that 
civilization,  instead  of  stopping  evolution,  merely 
changes  its  trend  and  probably  sets  it  going  at  a 
higher  pace.  We  have  also  noted  that  while  civiliza- 
tion runs  counter  to  a  good  many  traits  which  man 
found  useful  in  his  prehistoric  days,  yet,  notwithstand- 
ing this  fact,  civilization  is  after  all  mostly  a  natural 
product,  the  outcome  of  a  great  many  of  man's  inborn, 
fundamental  passions  and  desires.  The  so-called 
*' natural  man"  is  commonly  pictured,  especially  in 
theological  literature,  as  being  only  the  evil  portion, 
of  human  nature.  The  natural  man  is  supposed  to  be 
at  war  with  some  sort  of  a  hypothetical  ^'good  man," 
or  ** spiritual  man."  This  good  man  always  appeared 
to  me  to  be  the  natural  man  with  all  the  fun  taken  out 
of  him.  Pretty  nearly  everything  which  a  man  desires 
to  do  has — in  modern  times,  at  least — been  pictured  as 
being  '^natural"  and  therefore  bad;  and  almost  every- 
thing that  he  does  not  want  to  do  has  been  pictured  as 
being  spiritual  and  therefore  good. 

However,  I  trust  the  considerations  so  far  sub- 
mitted have  indicated,  at  least,  that  the  good  which 
we  find  in  human  society  is  mostly  the  outcome  of  the 
natural  goodness  that  is  in  men.     Just  trusting  to 



general  observation,  the  thing  that  continually  aston- 
ishes and  delights  me,  as  I  go  about  the  world,  is  the 
enormous  amount  of  goodness  in  human  nature  and  the 
little  amount  of  badness.  There  is  scarcely  any 'end 
of  goodness  everywhere  we  go.  The  mere  fact  that 
in  the  midst  of  hundreds  of  millions  of  people  a  little 
ehi^  i  of  ^ve  or  six  years  can  be  put  on  a  train  at  New 
York  with  a  tag  around  its  neck,  and  supplied  with  a 
basket  of  provisions,  and  shipped  safely  to  San  Fran- 
cisco, impresses  me  with  the  idea  that  there  is  not  a 
vast  amount  of  innate  deviltry  in  human  nature.  It 
seems  to  me  that  on  the  whole  man  is  a  pretty  success- 
ful evolutionary  product.  There  seems  to  be  an  almost 
universal  willingness  to  do  the  right  thing.  The  ques- 
tion in  my  mind  is  whether  there  is  enough  sheer 
intellectual  ability  to  make  this  good  will  socially 
effective  in  wise  ways  and  to  keep  so  enormously  com- 
plicated a  machine  going  as  a  world-wide,  scientific 
civilization.  The  prime  difficulty,  as  I  have  noted,  is 
to  keep  society  going  and  not  set  up  at  the  same 
time  those  tendencies  which  will  cause  too  much 
moderate  and  low  intelligence,  and  too  little  high  in- 
telligence, to  survive. 


As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  not  because  of  any  natural 
wickedness  in  men,  but  partly  because  of  a  lack  of 
education  and  partly  because  high  intelligence  is  so 
unique  and  rare  a  thing  that  it  cannot  be  understood 
and  appreciated  by  mediocre  intelligence,  that  we 
have  to-day,  especially  in  America,  one  of  the  strangest 
spectacles  in  all  human  history.  This  amazing 
spectacle  is  that  in  the  main  our  leaders  do  not  lead. 
While  this  scientific  civilization  is  chiefly  the  product 
of  a  few  men  of  supreme  genius,  nevertheless  much  of 


it  is  under  the  manag-ement  of  second-class  men.  We 
rarely  find  our  really  first-class  and  great  men  in 
control  anywhere.  While  we  have  the  most  com- 
plicated society  that  men  have  ever  constructed,  yet 
that  society  is  not  in  control  of  the  men  who  created 
it  and  made  it  possible. 

It  is  no  purpose  of  mine  merely  to  utter  a  few  rather 
obvious  criticisms  of  the  low  state  to  which  American 
political  life  has  descended.  But  it  is  certainly  not 
encouraging  that,  just  as  the  problems  of  political 
government  have  become  larger,  more  numerous  and 
harder  to  solve,  the  American  people  send  more  and 
more  mediocre  and  stupid  men  to  their  legislatures 
and  their  National  Government  for  the  purpose  of 
solving  them.  One  investigation  has  sho^ai  that  fifty 
per  cent,  of  the  members  of  these  legislatures  have 
never  had  a  high-school  education,  and  a  very  high 
percentage  of  the  members  of  our  Congress  have 
never  even  attained  that  small  modicum  of  educatioa 
which  is  attested  by  a  college  diploma. 


Discussing  this  point  of  the  failure  of  our  real 
leaders  of  to-day  to  control,  some  years  ago,  in  the 
Century  Magazine,  Mr.  Alleyne  Ireland  wrote  perhaps 
the  ablest  analysis  of  the  operations  of  constitutional 
government  that  has  been  penned  during  this  gener- 
ation. Mr.  Ireland  showed  that  if  the  present  de- 
linquency of  government  is  not  somehow  remedied,  the 
Bolshevists,  the  Syndicalists,  and  other  revolutionary 
factions  will  take  the  control  of  goverimient  away  from 
those  who  believe  in  the  present  constitutional  govern- 
ment of  our  nation.  The  reason  for  this  is,  as  Mr. 
Ireland  says,  *^the  circumstance  that  every  group  of 
anti-constitutionalists  has  a  clear  and  well  defined  plan 


to  offer  for  the  regeneration  of  the  politico-social  com- 
plex, while  the  constitutionalists  have  nothing  to  offer 
which  is  less  illusory  than  the  renewal  of  the  v^ry 
promises  which  the  world  has  been  finally  driven  to 
regard  with  the  deepest  distrust.  If  the  constitutional- 
ists cannot  do  better  than  this,  nothing  is  more  certain 
than  that,  sooner  or  latter,  the  control  of  Government 
will  be  taken  away  from  them." 

For  this  situation,  Mr.  Ireland  proposed  a  definite 
and  comprehensive  remedy.  He  has  lived  under 
twenty  different  governments  and  has  made  extended 
analyses  of  the  operation  of  governments  in  various 
parts  of  the  world.  A  number  of  his  analyses  have  had 
much  influence  upon  large  legislative  measures.  Out 
of  this  experience,  probably  unequaled  by  that  of  any 
other  living  student  of  government,  Mr.  Ireland  made 
the  following  suggestion,  which  I  quote  from  his  stimu- 
lating paper: 


*^  Establish  an  International  Society  for  the  Scien- 
tific Study  of  Comparative  Government,  supported 
partly  by  membership  subscriptions  and  partly  by  en- 
dowTnent.  Let  this  society  conduct,  through  the  agency 
of  an  International  Research  Institute,  a  continuing 
investigation,  of  the  highest  scientific  character,  of 
every  question  of  form  and  function  in  government — 
on  the  basis  of  a  wide  comparison — and  upon  the  re- 
sults of  these  investigations  let  it  establish  in  respect 
of  every  function  of  government  the  correlations  be- 
tween aims,  methods,  costs  and  results. 

**This  Society  will  have  to  conform,  in  its  structure 
and  its  operation,  to  certain  rigid  conditions,  if  it  is 
to  acquire  the  authoritative  standing  upon  which  the 
whole  of  its  usefulness  would  depend.'' 


Mr.  Ireland  then  enumerates  what  these  conditions 
must  be  as  follows: 

**A.  The  Society  must  be  an  absolutely  new  society, 
and  must  not  be  made  up  by  amalgamating  societies 
and  institutions  now  in  existence. 
**B.  The  Society  would  operate  through  a  research 
institute.  Government  itself  cannot  perform  effec- 
tively the  work  of  such  a  research  institute;  first,  be- 
cause its  analysis  of  its  own  operations  could  not  be 
made  scientifically  objective;  second,  because  govern- 
ment, having  the  power  to  enforce  its  views,  is  under 
no  pressure  to  find  a  scientific  solution  for  its  prob- 
lems ;  third,  because  the  people  could  never  be  brought 
to  believe  that  its  enquiries  were  not  tainted  by 
political  partisanship.  The  executive  authority  of  the 
Institute  would  be  located  in  a  committee  of  scientists, 
men  of  the  highest  distinction  in  one  or  the  other  of 
the  analytical  sciences. 

*'C.  The  investigating  staff  would  not  be  gathered 
together  as  a  permanent  body  within  the  Institute. 
Each  investigation  would  be  assigned  to  a  staff  of 
specialists  drawn  from  different  parts  of  the  world, 
on  temporary  appointment.  This  arrangement  would 
have  two  highly  important  results :  First,  the  investi- 
gators would  not  develop  an  institutional  psychology, 
of  which  the  effect  usually  is  to  divide  a  man 's  loyalty 
between  the  pursuit  of  truth  and  the  desire  to  shield 
the  reputation  of  the  Institute  or  of  one  or  more  of  its 
employees.  Second,  as  one  investigation  might  be 
undertaken  by  a  Dane,  a  Scotsman  and  an  Australian, 
and  another  by  an  American,  a  Frenchman  and  a 
Russian,  the  work  of  the  Institute  would  reflect  all  that 
was  best  in  the  science  and  culture  of  every  nation. 
**D.  The  work  of  the  central  staff  would  consist  in 
analyzing  and  publishing  the  reports  of  the  investi- 


^*E.  The  Eesearch  Institute  would  have  nothing 
whatever  to  do  with  propaganda  or  with  the  advocacy 
of  any  course  of  action.  It  would  hold  itself  rigorously 
to  the  single  task  of  making  knowledge  about  govern- 
ment available  to  all.  Its  sole  interest  would  be  truth, 
*  *  F.  The  Institute  would  have  to  have  sufficient  money 
to  enable  it  to  secure  the  services  of  the  most  able  and 
experienced  men  living. ' ' 

If  the  reader  will  reflect  upon  the  utter  difference 
in  method  and  aim  between  the  investigations  of  such 
an  institute  and  the  investigations  made  by  govern- 
ment commissions — such,  for  example,  as  the  present 
investigation  being  made  by  the  Senate  of  alleged 
irregularities  in  the  election  of  some  of  its  members — 
he  will  see  that  the  object  of  the  former  is  solely  to 
arrive  at  truth ;  while  very  often  the  object  of  the  latter 
is  to  arrive  at  a  partisan  solution  of  the  difficulty  in 
hand,  and  gain  votes  for  the  next  election.  It  does  not 
reflect  upon  the  honesty  of  the  men  who  make  govern- 
mental investigations  to  say  that  very  often  their 
object  is  not  truth  but  party  loyalty.  And  even  at 
best,  all  reports  by  governmental  commissions  are 
merely  descriptions  of  government  in  its  own  terms, 
whether  these  be  made  by  friends  or  enemies.  A  man's 
description  of  himself  has  been  found  by  psychologists 
to  be  usually  far  from  the  truth,  although  he  does  his 
best.  Again,  if  he  is  described  by  his  friends  he  is 
rated  too  high,  and  if  by  his  enemies,  too  low.  The 
same  thing  happens  in  government,  and  on  a  large 
scale,  affecting  the  lives  and  fortunes  of  millions. 
The  difficulty  is,  however,  as  Ireland  suggests,  that  the 
chief  wish  of  government  is  to  enforce  its  views.  If 
a  bad  man  had  friends  with  the  power  to  enforce  the 
view  that  he  was  a  good  man,  or  if  a  good  man  had 
enemies  who  could  cram  down  the  throats  of  the  world 
that  he  was  a  bad  man,  we  would  have  precisely  the 


same  situation  as  we  now  have  in  every  form  and  type 
of  governmental  investigation.  Government  has  no 
object  in  finding  the  truth;  the  very  condition  of  its 
existence  is  not  that  it  find  the  truth,  but  that  it  shall 
carry  out  the  thing  which  it  wishes  to  do. 

Since  Mr.  Ireland  announced  this  comprehensive 
plan — which  I  think  is  the  most  hopeful  thing  of  our 
time — for  bringing  a  real  remedy  into  the  vexed  and 
vexing  maelstrom  of  governmental  affairs  and  oper- 
ations, a  number  of  publicists  and  societies  have  an- 
nounced somewhat  similar,  but  much  less  definite  and 
comprehensive,  plans  for  linking  human  learning  and 
science  with  the  art  of  government. 


I  have  cited  this  paper  of  Mr.  Ireland  ^s  at  length 
for  two  reasons:  First,  because  I  believe  that  the  in- 
troduction of  science  and  its  analytical  methods  into 
human  government,  or  the  failure  to  introduce  such 
methods  into  government,  will  have  far-reaching  conse- 
quences in  the  future  biological  and  eugenical  evolution 
of  man.  (It  would  require  another  volume  the  size  of 
this  one,  and  also  a  good  many  researches  which  have 
not  yet  been  made,  to  set  forth  what  seems  to  me  to  be 
the  eugenical  influence  of  good  and  bad  government.) 
Second,  Mr.  Ireland's  paper  shows  how  discouragingly 
little  interest  people  generally  take  in  securing  real 
leaders  in  their  government,  and  their  contempt  and 
neglect  of  the  men  who  are  the  real  intellectual  leaders 
of  our  time.  I  might  be  permitted  to  make  a  personal 
reference  in  support  of  this  point.  When  Mr.  Ireland 
announced  his  comprehensive  plan  for  bringing  in- 
telligence and  science  into  government  and  preserving 
the  constitutional  rights,  liberties  and  pursuit  of  happi- 
ness of  the  common  people,  I  was  so  struck  with  its 


obvious  wisdom  and  common  sense  that  I  dropped  all 
of  my  other  work  and  spent  several  months  in  en- 
deavoring to  assist  Mr.  Ireland  in  a  joint  effort  to 
raise  a  fund  of  at  least  ten  million  dollars  in  order  to 
get  such  an  Institute  under  way.  It  seemed  to  me  the 
need  was  pressing  and  the  situation  critical.  I  have 
not  changed  my  point  of  view  in  this  respect.  I  think 
that  men  of  wealth,  if  they  discern  what  is  really 
happening,  will  see  that  immense  forces  are  going  on 
underneath  the  surface,  which  if  not  forestalled  by  the 
introduction  of  intelligence,  common  sense  and  science, 
into  government,  will  in  no  great  time  result  in  their 
having  their  wealth  taken  away  from  them.  If  any 
such  economic  debacle  as  this  should  come  about,  I 
personally  am  as  much  interested  in  what  I  think 
would  be  the  unfortunate  biological  results  as  I  am  in 
the  destruction  of  constitutional  government  and  of 
the  development  of  our  liberties.  However,  after  some 
six  months  of  work  on  the  part  of  both  of  us,  during 
which  time  Mr.  Ireland  expended  a  large  portion  of 
his  private  funds,  and  during  which  time  the  plan  was 
comprehensively  submitted  to  a  large  number  of  men 
of  wealth  and  political  power,  one  generous  soul 
finally  donated  ten  dollars  towards  our  proposed  fund 
of  ten  million  dollars  in  order  to  provide  the  two  or 
three  hundred  millions  of  people  of  the  Western 
World,  whose  fortunes  are,  I  think,  largely  at  stake 
in  some  such  enterprise,  with  an  International  Society 
for  the  Scientific  Study  of  Comparative  Government! 
The  astonishing  thing  was  that  the  men  whom  Mr. 
Ireland  approached  and  the  men  whom  I  endeavored  to 
interest  in  this  simple  and  common  sense  undertaking 
were  among  the  real  leaders  of  America  in  point  of 
intelligence;  and  most  of  them  were  men  of  large 
wealth.  But  notwithstanding  that  they  are  America's 
leaders,  to  a  man  they  refused  to  lead.    Of  course,  the 


proposal  may  not  have  been  presented  with  sujSicient 
prestige  and  personal  eloquence.  I  hardly  believe, 
however,  that  this  v/as  the  cause  of  the  refusal,  for  the 
simple  reason  that,  without  exception,  every  man  was 
immensely  enthusiastic  over  the  project.  Not  a  man 
who  did  not  say  with  great  emphasis,  ^^It  is  a  supreme 
necessity,  it  must  be  done."  But  also  without  excep- 
tion each  man  said,  *^I  do  not  believe  I  should  lead  in 
such  an  enterprise. ' '  I  could  give  more  details  of  this 
experience,  but  I  think  it  is  a  little  straw  which  shows 
the  way  the  currents  are  flowing.  And  these  currents, 
it  seems  to  me,  are  steadily  sweeping  the  second-class 
man  into  power  everywhere.  I  was  talking  vnih 
Everett  Dean  Martin  the  other  day  on  this  important 
matter.    He  said: 


**The  modern  world  is  a  ship  with  an  empty  pilot 
house,  speeding  through  a  fog.  The  lack  of  intellectual 
leadership  in  political  matters  is  a  subject  of  frequent 
comment,  but  few  of  those  who  have  noted  this  fact 
realize  that  the  same  lack  of  leadership  extends  to 
other  spheres  of  human  interest  and  activity.  Every- 
where, choices  are  determined  and  behavior  is  in- 
fluenced by  impersonal  forces,  by  economic  consider- 
ations, by  the  aims  of  organizations,  the  prejudices 
and  passions  of  the  ^man  on  the  street.' 

*  ^  Scholarship  we  have,  and  we  pride  ourselves  upon 
our  great  scientific  progress;  and  yet  outside  the 
popular  acceptance  of  scientific  inventions,  scholarship 
and  intelligence  are  tangent  to  the  circle  of  our  com- 
mon life,  not  penetrating  its  circumference.  Our 
intellectual  leaders  simply  do  not  lead,  and  this  fact  is, 
I  believe,  new  in  history.  The  masses  in  China,  Greece 
and  India  respected  and  followed  their  ^.eachers.    The 


same  was  true  of  the  Middle  Ages,  and  of  the  ancient 
Hebrews  whose  rabbis  had  a  tremendous  influence  on 
the  daily  life  and  choices  of  the  people. 

**In  contrast  with  this,  consider  the  present  leader- 
ship in  religion  in  America.  How  many  real  scholars 
are  there  in  the  Protestant  ministry  in  this  country? 
No  doubt,  there  are  scattered  here  and  there  clergymen 
who  possess  rich  knowledge  and  genuine  appreciation 
of  values,  but  one  scarcely  hears  of  them.  The  leaders 
are  almost  to  a  man  ignorant  and  narrow-minded  men. 
We  moderns  look  back  upon  the  Middle  Ages  as  an  age 
of  ignorance  and  superstitution ;  but  I  believe  it  is 
fair  to  say  that  at  no  time  in  Christian  history  has 
the  leadership  in  matters  of  religion  been  more 
ignorant  than  it  is  to-day  in  Protestant  America.  A 
similar  situation  exists  in  journalism,  and  until  recent 
years  has  prevailed  in  our  literature,  notably  the  novel. 

^*  Scholars  are  frequently  criticized  for  their  alleged 
aloofness.  I  do  not  believe  that  they  are  essentially 
disdainful  and  aloof,  but  rather  that  life  is  so  or- 
ganized and  standardized  that  the  rare,  the  subtle,  the 
profound  and  the  sincere  can  scarcely  get  a  hearing. 
With  our  quantity  production  in  matters  spiritual,  the 
syndicated  article,  the  organization  of  education,  the 
desire  for  quick  ^turn  over'  on  the  part  of  the  publisher 
in  the  exploitation  of  the  best  seller,  all  these  and 
other  characteristics  of  our  organized  life  give  to  the 
*man  on  the  street'  a  power  to  decide  which  values 
are  to  survive.  Heretofore,  this  power  has  been  ex- 
ercised by  the  educated.  To-day,  it  is  exercised  by  the 
uneducated;  and  we  cannot  have  a  civilization  until 
people  learn  to  respect  some  things  they  do  not  clearly 
understand.  The  most  serious  problem  in  modern 
civilization  is  that  of  the  restoration  of  intellectual 

Not  everyone  needs  to  endorse  all  of  the  severe 


phraseology  of  Mr.  Martin  in  order  to  agree,  as  I  do 
heartily,  with  his  general  point  of  view.  Not  only  has 
religion  in  America  fallen  under  the  dominance,  to 
a  great  degree,  of  second-rate  minds,  but  there  are 
signs  that  even  education  itself — which,  after  all,  is 
man's  chief  spiritual  salvation — is  trending  in  the 
same  direction.  While  I  believe  that  America  is  to-day 
standing  at  the  beginning  of  a  great  fulfillment,  a  ful- 
fillment of  art,  leisure,  manners,  appreciation  of 
beauty  and  science — in  short,  a  great  renaissance  of 
humanism — yet  I  believe  the  agencies  of  this  fulfill- 
ment are  working  mostly  outside  the  field  of  education 
and  religion.  One  of  America's  ablest,  and,  therefore, 
most  conservative  psychologists,  a  man  who  has  had  a 
distinctive  influence  upon  American  education,  and 
who  has  done  notable  original  work  in  the  measure- 
ment of  mental  quantities,  said  to  me  just  the  other 

"College  professors  are  as  a  rule  not  very  able 
men.  I  know  the  mentality  of  hundreds,  perhaps 
thousands  of  them;  I  have  worked  with  them  for  a 
generation;  as  men  of  sound  character  and  good  in- 
tentions, I  have  the  utmost  respect  for  them ;  but  their 
actual  mentality  will  not  average  very  high.  I  wish  we 
could  draw  our  ablest  men,  at  least  a  much  higher 
percentage  of  them,  into  education.  Of  course,  we 
have  quite  a  number  of  the  ablest  men  in  the  world,  but 
the  men  who  have  originality  in  research  or  personal 
inspiration,  charm  and  leadership — oh,  they  are  so 

^Ye  must  remember,  of  course,  that  this  man's 
ideals  of  what  makes  the  big,  all-round,  inspiring  col- 
lege professor  are  very  high.  But  cayi  they  be  too 
high?  As  I  write  this  very  passage,  my  eye  chances 
to  fall  upon  an  article  in  the  Scientific  Monthly  which 
the  postman  has  just  left  on  my  desk.    It  is  entitled 


The  Passing  of  the  Professor,  by  Dean  Otto  Heller  of 
Washington  University,  St.  Louis.  I  do  not  know  that 
Dean  Heller  would  altogether  agree  with  the  foregoing 
remark,  nevertheless,  I  quote  from  his  discussion  -the 
concluding  paragraph,  which  is  certainly  not  precisely 
a  general  eulogy  of  the  present  situation  in  American 
collegiate  life.    He  says : 

'*For  my  dimitto  nunc,  a  bright  word  of  cheer 
might  perhaps  seem  more  in  order  than  the  occasional 
touch  of  flippancy  which  my  presentation  of  this  sad- 
dening subject  has  indulged  in.  It  will  be  readily 
supplied  by  the  rampant  optimism  of  the  profession. 
I  have  to  confess  myself  so  unacclimated  to  the  educa- 
tional topsy-turvy  that  I  have  to  laugh  at  it  now  and 
then  to  stop  myself  from  weeping.  And  I  will  not  even 
close  with  an  orison  for  better  things,  for  I  should  be 
praying  to  gods  that  are  no  more,  than  which  earth 
holds  no  sharper  exile.  I  am  too  near  the  end  of  my 
career  to  be  swayed  in  my  viewpoints  by  personal 
hopes  and  fears.  Moreover,  I  know  that  to  most  of  my 
colleagues  the  change  of  which  I  complain  looks  like 
honest-to-goodness  progress.  The  American  college 
has  passed  through  several  distinct  stages  of  control. 
At  first  it  was  governed  by  the  church.  Later  by  the 
president  and  the  trustees.  Faculty  control,  as  the 
next  natural  step,  was  reached  by  but  few  institutions. 
The  present  trend  is  very  rapid  toward  government 
by  the  community  and  the  students.  In  the  immediate 
future,  success  in  the  professorial  career  must  hinge 
on  an  ability  to  please  the  students  and  the  to^oi. 
There  is  no  collective  disposition  among  the  advocates 
of  education  to  pull  against  the  mock-educational  tend- 
ency of  the  times.  I  have  stated  things  as  I  see  them 
and  have  no  remedy  to  offer.  Only  this  curious  ques- 
tion: Shall  some  tidal  wave  of  culture  return  the 
college  professor  soon  or  late  to  his  former  honorific 


place  in  society?  Or  is  the  demobilization  of  the  pro- 
fessor a  premonitory  phase  of  the  disarmament  of  old 
moral  and  intellectual  world  forces?" 

When  the  colleges  of  America  are  run,  not  by  a 
corps  of  able  leaders  who  have  clearly  defined  ideals 
of  education  and  are  possessed  of  the  will  and  power 
to  enforce  them,  but  by  the  students  and  the  villagers 
in  the  neighborhood,  there  is  at  least  a  certain  high 
tone  and  spirit  of  culture  which  I  believe  we  older 
fellows  can  say,  without  egotism,  that  we  miss  when 
we  go  back  for  reminiscence,  and  in  hopes  of  spiritual 
renewal,  to  the  old  college  campus.  We  are  accused 
by  the  younger  fellows  of  being  old  fogy  and  out  of 
tune;  perhaps  we  are.  But,  even  if  so,  it  hardly 
presages  well  for  future  American  leadership  and  the 
hope  of  passing  it  on  to  genuinely  educated  men,  when 
even  the  educator  cannot  run  his  own  institution  and 
is  dominated  by  the  local  banker,  manufacturers,  the 
man  in  the  street,  the  students  and  the  people  of  the 

However,  I  still  possess,  perhaps,  some  of  what 
Dean  Heller  calls  '* rampant  optimism."  Just  as  we 
have  learned  that  one  *^ cannot  indict  a  whole  people," 
so  one  cannot  indict  a  whole  system  of  education. 
There  are  too  many  grand,  new  and  hopeful  things 
going  on  in  American  education  to  require  any 
particularly  rampant  optimism  in  order  to  have  a 
great  deal  of  faith  in  them. 


Experimental  education  is  going  forward  with  such 
significant  achievement,  and  is  in  the  hands  of  so  many 
brilliant  and  qualified  men,  that  I  am  prone  to  believe 
that  just  here  lie  the  chief  hopes  of  our  country's 
future.    I  am  sure  that  here  lie  also  our  chief  hopes  of 


eugenics,  for  I  believe  that  education,  both  in  America 
and  Europe,  is  marching  steadily  forward  towards 
four  significant  goals.  * 

The  first  of  the  neiv  goals  of  education  is  the  meas- 
urement of  the  mind.  This  has  given  educators,  for 
the  first  time  in  the  world's  history,  a  true  knowledge 
of  what  it  is  they  are  trying  to  educate.  Of  course, 
this  means  the  measurement  of  all  kinds  of  individual 
differences  in  intellect,  temperament  and  character. 
It  is  a  temptation  to  expand  this  point  into  another 
volume.  I  hope  to  do  so  within  the  next  year  or  two, 
because  I  hardly  believe  the  general  public  and 
particularly  our  industrial  managers  fully  appreciate 
that  the  measurement  of  individual  differences  can  be 
made  into  one  of  the  most  powerful  instruments  we 
have — possibly  the  most  powerful — for  making  men 
happy  and  effective.  It  is  interesting  to  note  in  this 
connection  that  apparently  the  first  recognition  in 
education  of  the  fact  that  persons  are  not  all  equal 
occurred  in  the  inaugural  address  of  President  Charles 
W.  Eliot,  of  Harvard  College,  on  October  19,  1869. 
This  famous  address  was  entitled  Educational  Reform, 
and  it  marked  the  beginning  of  a  new  era  in  American 
education.  We  owe  the  existence  of  true  universities, 
fostering  distinctive  and  advanced  learning  and  re- 
search, to  President  Eliot  far  more  than  to  any  other 
one  man.  The  following  from  this  inaugural  address 
was  called  to  my  attention  by  Dr.  Frank  P.  Graves, 
Commissioner  of  Education  of  the  State  of  New  York. 
Dr.  Graves  believes  it  is  the  first  definite  statement  of 
the  problem  of  individual  differences  and  their  signif- 
icance in  education.    President  Eliot  said: 

^^In  education,  the  individual  traits  of  different 
minds  have  not  been  sufficiently  attended  to. 

'^When  the  revelation  of  his  own  peculiar  taste  and 
capacity  comes  to  a  young  man,  let  him  reverently  giYj^ 


it  welcome,  thank  God,  and  take  courage.  Thereafter 
he  knows  his  way  to  happy,  enthusiastic  work,  and  God 
willing,  to  usefulness  and  success.  The  civilization  of 
a  people  may  be  inferred  from  the  variety  of  its  tools. 
There  are  thousands  of  years  between  the  stone 
hatchet  and  the  machine  shop.  As  tools  multiply,  each 
is  more  ingeniously  adapted  to  its  own  exclusive  pur- 
pose. So  with  the  men  that  make  the  state.  For  the 
individual,  concentration  and  the  highest  development 
of  his  own  peculiar  faculty  is  the  only  prudence.  But 
for  the  state,  it  is  variety,  not  uniformity,  of  intellec- 
tual product,  which  is  needful. 

**  These  principles  are  the  justification  of  the 
system  of  elective  studies  which  has  been  gradually 
developed  in  this  college  during  the  past  forty  years. ' ' 

The  second  goal  towards  which  education  is  advanc- 
ing, is,  I  think,  the  measurement  of  educational  pro- 
gress, so  that  we  can  tell,  as  never  before,  just  how 
much  or  how  little  educated  a  man  really  is.  The  field 
of  educational  measurements  also  deserves  a  volume 
of  popular  description,  in  order  that  the  public  may 
judge  whether  a  man  is  educated  or  whether  he  is  not. 
At  least,  educational  measurements  bear  rich  promise 
of  enabling  an  institution  to  certify  with  much  greater 
accuracy  how  much  education  a  man  has  and  how 
effectively  he  can  use  it.  They  also  are  giving  edu- 
cators a  new  set  of  instruments  for  measuring  both  the 
validity  and  the  reliability  of  their  own  work.  They 
also  furnish  a  new  basis  for  certifying  to  the  public 
and  to  the  supporters  of  education  the  actual  educa- 
tional power  and  worth  of  an  institution  such  as  a 
public  school,  a  college  or  a  university. 

The  third  goal  towards  which  experimental  educa- 
tion is  traveling  is  the  adjustment  of  men  and  women 
in  industry,  and  in  economic  and  political  life.  Perhaps 
more  unhappiness  comes  to  human  beings  from  finding 


themselves  subjected  for  life  to  the  wrong  occupation, 
the  wrong  kind  of  work,  than  from  any  other  single 
cause.  On  this  point  I  shall  simply  quote  the  remark 
made  to  me  recently  by  Dr.  David  A.  Mitchell,  Chair- 
man of  the  Division  of  Clinical  Psychology  of  the 
American  Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Science. 
He  said:  **If  a  man  comes  to  me  or  to  any  other 
psychologist  who  is  thoroughly  trained  in  this  field, 
and  he  does  not  know  either  what  he  can  do  best  or 
what  he  would  like  best  to  do,  if  we  can  have  him  for 
several  hours,  sometimes  covering  a  period  of  a  few 
weeks,  at  the  end  of  that  time  we  can  tell  him  what  he 
can  do  best  and  the  thing  that  he  would  like  best  to  do. 
Some  of  my  psychological  friends  may  believe  this  is 
claiming  too  much,  but  I  feel  that  modern  psychology 
has  advanced  to  the  point  where  it  can  safely  set  forth 
this  claim  to  the  general  public.'' 

The  fourth  goal  of  education,  is,  as  I  see  it,  the 
measurement  and  education  of  moral  character. 
Education  has  nearly  all  been  devoted  to  the  training 
of  the  intellect.  Of  course,  as  Aristotle  and  the  Greeks 
looked  at  education,  its  object  was  to  train  men  for  the 
*'good  life."  And  the  good  life  to  the  Greeks  did  not 
connote,  as  it  has  to  both  the  Protestant  and  the 
Catholic  in  modern  centuries,  a  life  whose  values  were 
to  be  determined  and  measured  by  their  agreement 
with  preconceived  creeds  and  dogmas.  To  all  religious 
denominations,  goodness  means  conformity  to  stand- 
ards of  goodness  which  have  been  set  up  by  other  men 
or,  perchance,  by  divine  revelation.  But  the  good  life 
to  the  Greek  meant  nothing  of  the  sort.  It  meant  a 
brave  and  clear-eyed  facing  of  life  and  its  problems, 
with  the  intelligence  and  judgment  of  each  man  as  the 
final  measure  of  right  and  wrong.  It  meant  the  use  of 
the  trained  intelligence  and  the  seasoned  judgment  to 
determine  what  was  good  and  worthy  and  what  was 


bad  and  unworthy.  It  meant  that  each  man  was  in  his 
own  right  a  unique  and  wonderful  individual,  capabk 
of  determining  the  values  and  the  meanings  of  his  own 

I  have  considerable  hopes  that  scientific  character 
education  in  our  American  colleges  is  trending  towards 
this  noble  ideal.  Extensive  experiments  are  going  on 
in  this  field  of  education,  particularly  at  Columbia 
University  under  Dr.  Mark  May  and  his  colleagues, 
and  at  Iowa  University  under  Prof.  Edwin  D.  Star- 

Indeed  Professor  Starbuck  was  chairman  of  what 
is  now  known  as  the  *^Iowa  Plan  of  Character  Educa- 
tion'' which  was  awarded  in  1922  a  prize  of  $20,000  by 
a  private  donor  who  offered  this  award  for  the  best 
plan  for  character  education.  This  plan  is  being  made 
the  basis  of  researches  in  character  building  now  be- 
ing carried  on  at  Iowa  University  and  other  institu- 
tions. The  training  of  moral  character  by  the  exact 
and  exacting  methods  of  educational  psychology  is 
the  most  hopeful  thing  in  present-day  education  of 
which  I  know.  It  is  bound  to  mean  an  overhauling  of 
all  our  so-called  moral  and  character  standards.  It  is 
also  bound  to  mean  new  methods  in  objectives  in  our 
so-caUed  great  moral  agencies.  One  investigation,  the 
results  of  which  are  not  yet  published,  and  which  I  am 
not  privileged  to  divulge  fully,  seems  to  indicate  that 
the  moral  influence  of  the  Sunday  school,  for  example, 
is  almost  absolutely  nil.  This  investigation  also  indi- 
cates that  the  moral  influence  of  the  church  is  so  slight 
that  it  can  scarcely  be  measured  by  any  instruments 
yet  invented.  It  indicates  that  the  moral  influence  of 
the  home  is  many,  many  times  greater  than  all  other 
agencies  combined.  I  am  only  privileged  to  say  that 
these  things  are  indicated.  I  do  not  say  they  are 
proved.    But  they  are  so  strongly  indicated  that  they 


can  but  strengthen  the  suspicion  that  the  Sunday 
school  and  the  church,  which  are  commonly  referred  to 
as  'Hhe  moral  influences  of  the  country/'  are  not  lead- 
ing the  minds  of  men  towards  any  dynamic  moral 
liberty  or  any  sound  religious  development.  Liberty — 
the  absolute  moral  liberty  of  the  individual— is  the 
most  precious  hope  of  civilization.  Certainly,  the 
church  to-day  is  not  the  custodian  of  this  ideal.  It 
never  will  be,  as  long  as  it  is  under  the  guidance  of  men 
of  less  than  first-class  ability. 


I  have  already  pointed  out  repeatedly  the  type  and 
class  of  men  who  have  led  the  nation  into  the  immense 
project  of  prohibition.  Some  first-class  men  may  be 
followers  of  this  fantastic  experiment,  but  I  doubt  that 
a  single  one  has  numbered  among  its  originators  and 
professional  propagandists.  As  another  example. 
What  is  the  real  intellectual  caliber  of  the  men  who  are 
leading  the  Fundamentalist  movement  of  our  time? 
Mr.  Bryan  has  passed  into  history,  and  we  shall  let  his 
intellectual  qualifications  be  judged  by  history.  But 
such  men  as  John  Roach  Straton  and  the  Eev.  William 
Riley  and  other  leaders  of  Fundamentalism,  and  also, 
E.  Y.  Clarke,  ^*  Grand  Sovereign  of  the  Supreme  King- 
dom," and  one  of  the  organizers  of  the  Ku  Klux  Klan, 
give  forth  utterances  in  the  newspapers— which  indi- 
cate— at  least  if  correctly  quoted — that  these  men  are 
apparently  of  about  the  intellectual  level  of  ordinary, 
unselected  school  boys.  Not  a  single  one  of  them 
seems  ever  to  have  made  an  intellectual  achievement 
of  scholarly  rank  and  cultural  distinction ;  not  a  single 
one  seems  ever  to  have  given  evidence  that  he  either 
understands  the  modern  biological  and  psychological 
sciences  or  that  he  is  capable  of  doing  so.    Yet  these 


men  are  among  the  authenticated  leaders  of  two  of 
the  most  powerful  and  destructive  movements  of  our 
time.  If  the  newspaper  report  printed  below,  which  I 
clipped  from  a  recent  paper,  be  a  correct  transcript  of 
utterances  of  Messrs.  Straton  and  Clarke,  I  leave  the 
reader  of  this  volume  to  contemplate  the  situation  of 
a  civilization  when  men  of  this  apparently  low-grade 
intelligence  and  destructive  temperament  gain  such 
enormous  power.    Following  is  the  report  referred  to : 




Atlanta,  (a.  p.)— An  address  on  '*Man  or  Monkey, 
Which!'*  delivered  here  by  Dr.  John  Roach  Straton, 
pastor  of  the  Calvary  Baptist  Church  of  New  York 
City,  was  brought  to  a  tumultuous  close  last  night  when 
Dr.  Wither  spoon  Dodge,  pastor  of  the  Central  Congre- 
gational Church  of  Atlanta,  sought  to  question  the 
speaker  on  the  accuracy  of  his  interpretation  of  evolu- 

After  a  few  heated  questions  and  answers  had 
been  exchanged.  Doctor  Straton  shouted:  **I  know 
what  I  am.  You  don't  know  what  you  are.  And  I 
know  too  that  any  man  who  believes  in  evolution  won't 
be  saved.    I  know  I  will  go  to  heaven." 

**I  doubt  it,"  flung  back  Doctor  Dodge,  his  face  red 
with  anger,  as  he  was  shouted  down  by  the  audience. 

Announcement  was  made  of  a  national  convention 
to  be  held  at  St.  Louis  next  March  of  the  Supreme 
Kingdom,  a  fraternal  organization,  formed  here 
several  months  ago,  for  the  avow^ed  purpose  of  com- 
bating the  teaching  of  evolution. 


In  announcing  the  convention,  its  Sovereign,  E.  Y. 
Clarke  of  Atlanta,  who  also  organized  the  Ku  Klnx 
Klan,  sounded  the  watchword  of  the  Supreme  King- 
dom *Ho  wage  an  aggressive  warfare  against  ev^ry 
doctrine  and  every  theory  which  seeks  to  rob  God  of 
His  supreme  majesty  as  Creator  and  reflect  on  man  as 
His  highest  creation. 

'*"With  this  purpose  in  view,"  he  said,  *^we  shall 
attempt  to  remove  every  teacher  and  every  book  whick 
teaches  evolution  or  atheism  from  our  schools." 

I  have  brought  forward  all  these  considerations 
with  reference  to  leadership  to  remind  the  reader  again 
of  the  arguments  which  I  have  assembled  in  the  pre- 
vious pages  to  show  that  civilization  is  chiefly  what  its 
leaders  make  it.  But  our  situation  is  peculiar.  Our 
civilization,  from  the  Eenaissance  onward,  has  beea 
created  in  the  main  by  supreme  men.  But  in  our  time 
the  largest  and  most  complex  social  order  that  the 
world  has  ever  seen  has  fallen  chiefly  into  the  hands  of 
low-grade  and  mediocre  intelligence  for  its  practical 
management.  The  supreme  geniuses  who  create  things 
have  invented  those  devices  of  printing  and  cheap 
communication  which  have  put  into  the  hands  of  these 
low-grade  men  a  power  of  propaganda  never  dreamed 
of  before.  I  cannot  here  go  extensively  into  this 
phenomenon,  but  it  is  probable  that  the  power  of 
propaganda  which  science  has  placed  in  the  hands  of 
second-rate  men  is  the  most  fundamental  danger 
which  confronts  civilized  men.  My  own  point  here, 
however,  is  that  any  program  of  eugenics  or  race  im- 
provement is  too  intricate,  too  subtle,  too  delicate,  and 
requires  too  much  scientific  knowledge,  to  be  led  by 
any  except  the  first-class  men  of  the  race. 



My  chief  point  of  interest  in  this  whole  problem  of 
leadership  and  the  application  of  science  to  govern- 
ment, as  implied  in  Mr.  Ireland's  Institute  for  the 
Study  of  Government,  is  at  the  moment  that  eugenics 
and  the  social  engineering  of  which  it  is  to  be  the  out- 
come can  never  succeed  except  under  first-class  men, 
who  are  the  only  ones  who  can  give  us  first-class 
government.  When  civilization  permits  men  of  second 
grade  to  play  the  leading  role  in  social  affairs,  it 
simply  means  that  that  type  of  man  is  the  kind  the 
community  admires.  Consequently,  he  is  the  kind  who 
is  going  to  survive  and  people  the  nation.  He  becomes 
a  hero  to  the  youth  of  the  land.  They  wish  to  be  like 
him.  The  ideals  he  stands  for  become  the  ideals  of  the 
community.  The  things  which  seem  valuable  to  him 
and  worth  striving  for,  which  are  usually  money  and 
political  power,  become  the  values  most  sought  after 
by  the  body  of  the  citizens.  The  way  in  which  he 
builds  his  house,  the  way  in  which  he  furnishes  it,  the 
books  he  reads  (provided  he  reads  any  at  all),  the 
manners  he  cultivates,  the  kind  of  social  affairs  he 
gives  in  his  home,  the  very  speech  he  utters,  which  is 
usually  an  uncouth  patois,  become  the  artistic,  social, 
moral,  linguistic  and  cultural  ideals  of  his  fellow- 
citizens.  His  moral  problems,  which  he  cannot  solve 
himself,  he  enacts  into  law,  and  thus  he  seeks  to  im- 
pose the  solution  of  his  own  dilemmas  upon  every- 
body. Obeying  or  disobeying  these  laws  becomes  the 
criterion  in  the  community  of  what  constitutes  good- 
ness and  badness.  Unless  another  comes  up  to  his 
ideas  of  the  good  life,  the  offender  is  promptly  fined 
or  jailed  or  even  hanged.  His  aim  is  not  to  enact  laws 
to  give  men  more  liberty,  but  to  take  it  away  from 
them.    He  loudly  proclaims  liberty  as  his  motto,  and 

'326  THE  NEXT  AGE  OF  MAN 

eulogizes  it  upon  every  occasion;  but  liberty  is  the 
one  thing  which  second-class  men  are  always  afraid 
of,  and  the  one  thing  which  they  teach  their  followers 
to  be  afraid  of.  This  is  because  they  do  not  know  iTow 
to  use  liberty.  They  imagine  it  means  license.  It 
usually  does  to  a  second-class  man.  But  to  a  first- 
class  man  it  means  only  opportunity  for  moral 
development  and  the  truly  good  life. 

Men  will  attain  the  good  life  and  build  a  good 
civilization,  and  see  the  necessity  for  setting  up  the 
kind  of  life  that  will  give  survival  value  to  superior- 
ity— that  is,  will  encourage  superior  people  to  produce 
more  children  than  inferior  people  do — only  when  they 
themselves  learn  to  reverence  superiority,  and  give 
their  most  superior  men  and  women  social  and 
political  power.  Consequently,  the  problem  of  high 
social,  economic,  educational,  religious  and  political 
leadership  is  one  of  the  first  concerns  of  eugenics. 
But  our  youth  have  become  so  accustomed  to  second- 
class  leadership  that  they  hold  leadership  itself  in 
contempt.  The  idea  of  giving  leadership  to  superior 
men  strikes  them  as  positively  comical.  In  proof  of 
this,  let  me  cite  my  friend  Mr.  Montaville  Flowers, 
the  publicist,  who  recently  made  careful  inquiries  of 
twenty-five  thousand  high-school  students  as  to  their 
future  life  plans.  He  inquired  of  each  group  if  any- 
one of  them  intended  to  become  a  preacher  or  a 
politician.  In  the  old  Greek  and  Eoman  days  of 
virtue — when  virtue  meant  more  than  mere  sex  con- 
formity, which  is  what  the  word  chiefly  connotes 
now — a  politician  was  their  most  '^virtuous"  and  most 
honored  man.  He  ranked  with  the  artist  and  the 
philosopher,  at  least.  But  it  hardly  augurs  well  for 
our  future  leadership  in  either  politics  or  religion 
when  Mr.  Flowers  found  his  question,  whether  any  one 
of  these   twenty-five   thousand   high-school   students 


proposed  to  become  a  preacher  or  a  politician,  greeted 
with  a  loud  guffaw. 

Let  the  reader,  however,  not  forget  that  my  chief 
interest  is  in  the  biological  effects  which  the  fear  and 
distrust  of  superiority  and  the  worship  of  mediocrity 
are  likely  to  work  upon  the  race.  For  if  men  admire 
second-rate  intelligence  and  spirit  and  give  inferior 
men  survival  value,  just  as  sure  as  fate  they  will  breed 
their  sons  and  daughters  towards  that  type  of  intelli- 
gence and  character.  A  civilization  which  worships 
mediocrity  will  breed  the  race  downward  towards  that 
biological  level  of  its  own  mediocrity.  If  I  may  venture 
to  repeat  what  I  said  in  my  New  Decalogue  of  Science, 
men  will  breed  biologically  towards  the  man  they  are 
looking  at. 


When  it  comes  to  such  a  movement  as  eugenics,  it 
is  fortunate  that  it  has  been  organized  and  is  so  far 
being  directed  by  very  able  men.  They  are  organizing 
and  leading  the  eugenics  movement  in  America, 
England,  Prance,  Germany,  Sweden,  Norway  and 
other  countries.  The  Eugenics  Society  of  America 
has  been  founded  by  excellent  scientific  men,  and  so 
long  as  they  remain  in  control  the  eugenics  movement 
will  be  safe  and  sane. 

The  President  of  the  American  Society  is  Prof. 
Roswell  H.  Johnson,  of  the  University  of  Pittsburgh, 
co-author  with  Dr.  Popenoe  of  Applied  Eugenics.  The 
Vice-President  is  Charles  B.  Davenport,  of  the  Car- 
negie Institution,  and  the  Secretary  and  Treasurer  is 
Dr.  Henry  Pratt  Pairchild  of  the  University  of  New 
York,  expert  on  immigration.  The  other  members  of 
the  Board  of  Directors  are  Dr.  Henry  E.  Crampton, 
eminent   biologist,    of    Columbia   University;    Irving 


Fisher,  distinguished  economist,  of  Yale  University; 
Madison  Grant,  an  eminent  student  of  anthropology; 
Dr.  Harry  H.  Laughlin,  Director  of  the  Eugenics 
Record  Office  of  the  Carnegie  Institution ;  Dr.  Clarence 
C.  Little,  President  of  the  University  of  Michigan;  and 
Harry  Olson,  Chief  Justice  of  the  Municipal  Court  of 
Chicago,  expert  in  criminology.  Mr.  Leon  F.  Whitney, 
joint  author,  with  Professor  Ellsworth  Huntington  of 
Yale  University,  of  a  penetrating  and  original  study 
of  our  biological  origins  and  assets,  entitled  Builders 
of  America,  is  the  Field  and  Financial  Secretary  of 
the  Eugenics  Society.  The  headquarters  of  this  society 
are  at  185  Church  Street,  New  Haven,  Connecticut. 
I  think  everyone  who  would  send  to  this  address  for 
a  pamphlet  entitled  A  Catechism  of  Eugenics  would 
find  it  very  helpful  in  understanding  eugenics.  This 
Catechism  has  been  prepared  by  a  large  committee  of 
scientific  men  and  will  be  sent  free  of  charge.  It  states 
succinctly  and  clearly  the  aims  of  eugenics  and  the 
methods  by  which  it  is  hoped  to  make  eugenics  the 
next  great  social  and  educational  program  of  the 
human  race. 

Since  the  Eugenics  Society  of  America  is  working 
out  a  great  many  plans  to  make  eugenics  a  practical 
program,  and  because  there  are  two  or  three  excellent 
books  such  as  Popenoe  and  Johnson's  Applied 
Eugenics  and  Prof.  Michael  Guyer's  large,  new, 
standard  textbook  of  eugenics  entitled  Being  Well- 
Born,  I  have  not  gone  extensively  into  the  practical 
methods  of  eugenics  in  this  volume. 

1  might  mention,  however,  that  it  is  hoped  to  make 
it,  in  time,  a  requirement  of  graduation  from  our 
colleges  and  ultimately  even  from  our  high  schools, 
that  every  student  shall  have  worked  up  and  charted 
out  in  a  technical  manner  the  pedigree  of  his  own 
family,  its  achievements,  health,  longevity,  mental  and 


temperamental  characteristics.  It  is  believed  that  in 
this  way  the  pedigrees  of  practically  all  of  the  families 
in  America  will  be  a  matter  of  exact  record  within  a 
comparatively  short  time.  Unless  we  know  the  facts 
about  the  human  herd,  how  it  reproduces  itself,  and 
whom  it  is  reproducing,  it  seems  pretty  hopeless  to 
attempt  either  legislation  or  the  regulation  of  social 
life  in  those  directions  which  will,  in  the  first  place, 
prevent  race  deterioration,  and,  in  the  second  place, 
bring  about  race  improvement. 


Looking  back  again  over  the  preceding  pages,  the 
reader  will,  I  trust,  also  recall  that  in  the  second  sec- 
tion I  pointed  out  that  man  has  four  great  agencies  of 
race  improvement  which  biology  has  discovered,  and 
which  I  showed  are  in  some  measure  subject  to  manipu- 
lation by  human  intelligence.  These  agencies  are,  first, 
the  inheritance  of  mental  and  physical  characteristics 
through  the  same  mechanism,  namely,  the  fertilized 
egg;  second,  the  correlation  of  good  traits  within  man's 
constitutional  make-up,  which  insures  us  that  if  we 
can  improve  man  in  any  one  significant  trait  this  im- 
provement will  pull  him  up  in  some  degree  in  prac- 
tically all  of  his  useful  characteristics;  third,  that 
characteristics  acquired  by  the  parents,  especially  such 
habits  as  result  from  education,  are  not  in  themselves 
strongly  transmitted  from  parent  to  child,  which  in- 
sures us  that  if  we  could  in  any  way  improve  the  race 
this  improvement  would  not  be  readily  broken  down; 
and,  fourth,  the  fact  that  like  tends  to  select  like  in 
marriage  and  in  this  way  good  qualities  are  intensified 
and  handed  on  as  permanent  possessions  of  the  race. 

We  also  noted  that  there  are  some  exceptions  to 
the  rule  that  good  traits  are  always  correlated,  as  we 


saw  that  some  traits  which  set  men  off  in  types,  such  as 
the  dominant  or  reflective  or  analytical  types,  are  not 
correlated  with  each  other ;  and  we  saw  that  this  is  an 
aid  instead  of  a  drawback  to  both  social  and  biological 

We  next  noted  how  man  has  multiplied  and  replen- 
ished the  earth,  and  sketched  the  laws  which  govern 
the  growth  of  populations.  And,  last,  we  described  the 
tendency  for  cones  of  leadership  to  be  thrown  up  within 
the  mass  of  the  population,  by  which  the  race  becomes 
more  and  more  fruitful  in  the  production  of  genius. 
We  also  pointed  out  considerable  evidence  to  indicate 
that  it  is  this  biological  truth  which  is  probably  the 
largest  single  factor  in  creating  the  thing  we  call 

The  reader  may  at  times  have  become  wearied 
because  in  my  discussion  of  these  matters  I  have  wan- 
dered (at  least  as  it  may  have  seemed  to  him)  far 
afield  and  have  discussed  problems  of  government, 
education,  public  health,  leadership  and  social  life. 
But  the  aim  of  this  book  has  been  to  discuss  in  an 
entirely  nontechnical  way  some  of  the  simpler  aspects 
of  eugenics.  And,  to  do  so,  I  have  touched  purposely 
upon  a  number  of  the  social  forces  at  work  in  national 
life,  just  to  show  that  they  all  bear  very  directly  upon 
the  biological  constitution  of  the  race.  It  is  man's 
environment,  the  character  of  his  leadership,  the  kind 
of  government  he  has,  the  sort  of  social  and  religious 
ideals  which  his  leaders  give  him  and  which  develop 
out  of  his  folk-lore,  the  kind  of  education  he  gets — 
above  all,  the  way  he  makes  his  living  and  the  economic 
conditions  that  surround  him ;  it  is  these  which  improve 
him  biologically  or  deteriorate  him.  They  improve 
him  if  they  are  eugenical,  and  deteriorate  him  if  they 
are  dysgenical.  I  have  also  discussed  these  social 
forces,  in  order  to  show  that  eugenics  is  a  social  and 


environmental  problem  or  set  of  problems  just  as  much 
as  it  is  a  problem  of  pure  biology  and  heredity.  I  have 
been  truly  distressed  within  the  past  year  to  learn  the 
point  of  view  which  a  number  of  reputable  biologists 
and  psychologists  hold  toward  what  might  now  be 
pretty  definitely  called  the  eugenics  movement. 

As  an  example  of  that  attitude,  a  number  of  profes- 
sional biologists  and  psychologists  have  recently 
expressed  themselves  to  me  with  almost  identically 
the  same  remark:  **I  don't  as  yet  go  very  strong  on 
eugenics,  because  I  believe  a  good  deal  in  environ- 
ment.'' As  though  the  eugenists  were  not  themselves 
proclaiming  this  as  loudly  as  possible!  Eugenics  is 
essentially  an  effort  to  direct  environment  so  that 
superiority  will  survive.  It  is  also  a  faith  that  this  can 
be  done.  Eugenics  is  a  belief  that  some  families,  some 
strains  of  the  human  herd,  are  better  than  others ;  and 
it  is  the  desire  of  its  advocates  to  bring  about  those 
economic  and  social  conditions  which  will  both  permit 
and  encourage  these  strains  to  carry  on  permanently  a 
somewhat  higher  net  birth-force  than  those  of  less 
social  worth.  What  could  be  more  sensible?  Even  if 
eugenics  never  did  any  good  to  man's  natural  health 
and  capacity,  I  cannot  conceive  of  a  nobler  moral  and 
religious  ideal  that  could  animate  our  social  and  civic 


If  all  men  and  women  had  the  same  sized  families 
and  the  same  number  of  children  who  lived  to  maturity, 
and  then  in  turn  these  children  had  the  same  number  of 
children  for  each  married  couple,  it  is  probable  that 
the  human  race  would  neither  progress  nor  regress. 
But  if,  as  we  saw  in  discussing  race  suicide,  some  mar- 
ried couples  reared  more  children  to  maturity  than 
others,  the  race  would  tend  more  and  more  to  be  made 


up  of  that  type  of  individuals  who  had  the  most  chil- 
dren. If  this  type  that  had  the  most  children  were  the 
most  intelligent  and  socially  worthy,  the  race  would  all 
the  time  be  tending  to  become  abler  mentally  and  more 
capable  socially.  But,  as  Pearl  showed  in  discussing 
the  Algerian  population  situation,  as  men  secure  more 
and  more  of  the  wealth  and  other  rewards  of  improved 
social  life,  the  numbers  of  their  children  automatically 
decrease.  The  growth  of  population  slows  down  more 
rapidly  among  those  sections  which  bring  about  social 
development  and  create  wealth  than  among  those  of 
less  creative  capacity.  Prof.  Karl  Pearson  showed 
years  ago  that  one-fourth  of  each  generation  gives 
birth  to  one-half  of  the  next;  in  the  next  generation 
this  super-fertile  one-half  gives  birth  to  seventy-eight 
per  cent,  of  the  following  generation ;  and  in  turn  this 
seventy-eight  per  cent,  produces  ninety-eight  per  cent. 
or  practically  all  of  the  third  generation.  In  other 
words,  there  exists  now  somewhere  in  the  American 
people  one-fourth  of  its  members  who  will  be  the  great- 
great-grandparents  of  practically  all  the  American 
people  within  one  hundred  or  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
five  years  from  to-day.  There  could,  therefore,  be  no 
question  of  greater  moment,  it  would  seem  on  the 
surface  at  least,  than  the  question  whether  this  super- 
fertile  one-fourth,  -whose  great-great-grandchildren 
will  in  reality  constitute  the  American  people,  comes 
chiefly  from  the  more  able  or  the  less  able,  from  the 
more  healthy  or  less  healthy,  from  the  more  moral  or 
less  moral  sections  of  the  nation.  If  this  super-fertile 
one-fourth  of  our  population  is  composed  mainly  of 
skilled  working  men,  successful  farmers,  traders, 
merchants,  lawyers,  clergymen,  teachers,  dentists, 
professors,  physicians,  scientists  and  spirited  and 
energetic  citizens  generally  then  eugenics  has  little 
more  to  ask.    True,  there  would  still  remain  a  large 


eugenical  program  to  be  carried  out;  but  it  would  be 
mainly  the  encouragement  of  this  process  already 
working  so  beneficially. 


If  this  be  what  is  taking  place,  then  civilization  is, 
after  all,  by  its  own  agencies  creating  a  rising  tide  of 
social  and  biological  capacity.  And  I  am  frank  to  con- 
fess that  the  conviction  is  growing  in  my  mind  that 
this  is  precisely  what  we  are  going  to  discover  after  all 
the  elements  of  the  situation  shall  be  thought  out  and 
the  numerous  extremely  obscure  factors  brought  to 
light.  There  are  so  many  unknown  factors  in  the  pop- 
ulation and  in  eugenical  problems  that  a  eugenist 
whose  mind  is  not  constantly  open  to  quite  marked 
changes  of  conviction,  and  who  is  not  constantly  seek- 
ing for  new  light  upon  the  enormously  technical  and 
involved  agencies  and  counter  agencies  which  work 
for  the  growth  and  decay  of  peoples,  cannot  be  of  much 
service.  In  speaking  in  November,  1926,  before  the 
Graduate  School  of  Iowa  University,  I  advanced  the 
thesis  that,  while  there  may  be  increasing  degeneracy 
going  on  and  an  increasing  number  of  social  incompe- 
tents which  eugenics  must  somehow  find  methods  for 
decreasing  and  in  time  eliminating  altogether,  yet 
there  are  selective  agencies  at  work  which  are  bring- 
ing about  a  rising  tide  of  social  and  biological  power 
among  civilized  races. 


I  did  not  have  the  benefit,  at  that  time,  of  knowing 
the  results  of  an  important  research  which  Dr.  Ray- 
mond Pearl  presented  to  the  American  Association  for 
the  Advancement  of  Science  in  Philadelphia  at  its 
meeting  in  December,  1926.    This  research  is  entitled 


Differential  Fertility  and  has  since  been  published  in 
the  Quarterly  Review  of  Biology,  Vol.  II,  No.  1,  March, 
1927,  and  will  no  doubt  later  appear  in  book  forna.  I 
trust  that  all  who  are  technically  interested  in  eugenics 
will  consult  this  paper  with  great  care,  as  it  presents 
some  new  considerations  which  are  of  very  great  sig- 
nificance to  eugenics.  Some  technicians  may  not  agree 
entirely  with  the  conclusions  which  Pearl  draws  from 
his  data.  I  cannot  find  myself  at  present  in  agreement 
with  all  of  his  conclusions,  but  they  are  no  doubt  of  the 
very  greatest  significance,  and  I  am  quite  willing  to  be 

Doctor  Pearl  seems  to  advance  what  might  be 
termed  a  law  of  bio-economic  supply  and  demand ;  that 
is,  if  workers  in  any  field  of  industry  are  needed,  there 
is  a  tendency  for  the  birth  rate  to  be  high  in  those  sec- 
tions of  the  population  which  supply  the  need.  He 
adduces  very  critical  evidence  to  show  that  the  birth 
rate  has  been  and  still  is  very  high  in  the  agricultural, 
manufacturing  and  mining  classes  of  the  population. 
The  birth  rate  in  other  classes  of  the  population,  which 
he  designates  as  professional,  clerical,  trade,  domestic 
and  personal  service,  transportation  and  public  serv- 
ice, he  finds  correspondingly  low.  Indeed,  he  finds 
that  these  classes  are  not  reproducing  themselves.  If 
left  to  themselves  and  with  no  counter  currents  of 
selection  setting  in  which  might  in  time  enable  the 
super-fertile  members  of  these  groups  to  repopulate 
their  o^vn  classes — a  thing  which  I  shall  later  argue  is 
already  beginning  to  take  place  and  will  soon  be  ac- 
celerated— then  these  groups  will  in  the  course  of 
time  reach  the  point  of  extinction. 

Pearl  takes  the  very  optimistic  view,  however,  that 
if  the  latter  six  sections  of  the  population — which  are 
chiefly  the  ** white-collar"  sections — do  not  reproduce 
themselves,  any  deficit  in  their  numbers  wdll  readily 


be  filled  up  by  recruits  of  ample  ability  and  character 
from  the  three  sections  designated  as  agricultural, 
manufacturing  and  mining. 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  throughout  American 
history,  and  possibly  throughout  all  history,  the  chance 
combinations  in  marriages  have  furnished  a  good  deal 
of  ability  from  these  proletarian  classes.  Some  doubts 
have  come  into  my  own  mind  as  to  whether,  in  the 
peculiar  kind  of  machine-made  civilization  which  we 
have,  this  will  continue  to  be  true.  I  shall  not  argue 
the  question  here,  since  I  feel  that  before  any  offhand 
objections  are  raised  to  the  results  of  Pearl's  research 
they  should  run  the  gauntlet  of  much  more  technical 
criticism  and  profound  analysis  than  I  have  given 
them  or  than,  in  many  ways,  T  am  capable  of  giving 
them.  Pearl  believes  that  the  dying  out  of  our  so- 
called  superior  strains — that  is,  those  recruited  mainly 
from  the  college  graduate  and  more  successful  eco- 
nomic classes — is  not  a  cause  for  profound  alarm.  He 
believes  their  ranks  will  be  readily  recruited  from  the 
more  fertile  classes  of  farmers,  factory  workers  and 
miners.  Just  because  we  are  a  mechanical  and  indus- 
trial civilization  demanding  a  large  supply  of  indus- 
trial workers  and  a  small  supply  of  foremen,  college 
professors,  salesmen,  lawyers,  and  the  like.  Pearl  be- 
lieves that  this  is  biologically  just  as  it  should  be.  If 
this  be  true,  then  it  is  true  and  is  extremely  encourag- 
ing. It  does  not,  however,  do  away  with  the  fact  that 
we  need  ten  or  a  hundred  times  as  many  able  persons 
everywhere  as  any  economic  or  social  system  has  ever 
given  us. 

A  great  many  propagandists  for  special  causes  of 
human  improvement  are  keenly  disappointed  if  they 
find  that  the  problem  which  they  are  propagandising 
about  has  suddenly  solved  itself  or  else  never  existed. 
I  have  no  such  temperamental  reaction  with  reference 


to  eugenics.  If  all  is  well  eugenically  and  thie  race  is 
going  along  healthfully  and  merrily  and  cannot  be 
improved,  then  I  am  glad  of  it.  As  I  endeavor  to  show 
later  on,  a  good  deal  of  our  alarm  over  the  dying  T)ut 
of  the  more  favored  and  better  educated  classes  is  not 
justified,  because  some  of  them  are  not  dying  out  but 
are  getting  ready  to  increase.  My  only  point  here  is 
that  I  do  not  feel  that  Pearl's  belief  in  the  high  future 
production  of  geniuses  from  the  working  classes  is  suf- 
ficient warrant  for  decreasing  our  efforts  to  improve 
the  race.  If,  for  example,  the  college  graduate  pop- 
ulation can  be  kept  at  its  present  high  level  by  recruits 
from  the  farms,  factories  and  mines,  I  think  we  should 
rejoice  over  this  fact.  I  have  doubts  that  it  is  true, 
but  it  is  a  most  comforting  fact  if  it  is  true. 


Granted,  however,  that  Pearl's  conclusion  that  our 
future  leaders  must  largely  come  from  the  farms,  fac- 
tories and  mines  shall  be  entirely  justified,  I  do  not 
see  any  reason  for  decreasing  our  efforts  to  improve 
the  quality  of  these  sections  of  the  population.  I 
rather  believe  the  colleges  would  be  grateful  if  we 
could  somehow  raise  the  quality  of  their  candidates 
and  increase  their  number  in  the  population,  even 
though  they  died  out  when  they  got  this  education,  by 
refusing  to  reproduce  themselves.  Eugenics  is  not 
dedicated  to  an  effort  to  breed  the  human  race  solely 
from  its  intellectuals.  In  my  judgment,  physical 
health,  longevity  and  good  moral  character,  outrank 
everything  else  as  happy  and  effective  human  pos- 
sessions. If  we  can  induce  these  qualities  in  a  larger 
degree  in  the  population,  whether  it  be  the  *Svhite- 
collar"  or  the  hard-handed  classes,  I  think  eugenics 
has  a  happy  and  an  exalting  program.  But  I  am  cer- 
tainly glad  if  Pearl's  position  be  correct  that  there  is 



no  immediate  danger  of  these  qualities  declining  ia 
the  population,  and  that  there  is  no  danger  of  a  decline 
in  the  abundance,  quality  and  power  of  our  leaders. 
At  the  very  least,  it  is  a  great  pleasure  for  me  to 
give  the  reader  the  opportunity  of  seeing  set  out  in 
clear,  graphic  form  what  is  now  going  on  in  the  birth 
rates  of  the  various  classes  of  our  American  people. 
Doctor  Pearl  has  very  kindly  given  me  the  privilege  of 
reproducing  his  beautiful  diagram,  which  brings  out, 
more  clearly  and  exactly  than  has  ever  been  done  be- 
fore, the  differences  in  the  fertility  of  the  various 

Pnfessioful  Oefical         Trade      Domes/fc      Public    Trons^rtmofi  Manufacture  Aykuttuif  Mining, 

Pearl's  table  of  figures  are  portrayed  in  the  foregoing  chart. 
The  figures  below  show  mathematically  what  the  chart  reveals  graph- 
ically; namely,  the  fertility  of  the  occupational  groups  relative  to  the 
total  population. 

Occupational  Claae 
Professional  service 

Per  cent 

in  each 

class  in 

1920  of 

males  45 

and  over 



Per  cent 
of  more 
in  1923 




Per  cent 

of  total 


ever  born 

to  families 

in  col.  b. 


Clerical    occupations    




Domestic  and  personal  service    

. . . .        9.69 


Public    service    






Manufacturing  and  mechanical  industries     31.13 
Agriculture,  forestry  and  animal 

husbandry    29.39 

Extraction   of   minerals 2_.'i9 


5«  3 


....   100.00 




classes.  The  graph  entitled  The  Differential  Fertility 
of  the  American  People,  on  page  337,  together  with 
PearPs  table  of  figures  which  the  graph  is  drawn  to 
illustrate  and  which  is  appended,  will  surely  leave 'no 
doubt  in  the  reader's  mind  as  to  what  is  taking  place. 

Speaking  personally  to  the  reader,  let  me  say,  you 
will  notice  in  this  graph  that  the  population  is  divided 
into  nine  classes,  namely,  professional,  clerical,  trade, 
domestic  and  personal  service,  public  service,  trans- 
portation, manufacturing  and  mechanical  industries, 
agriculture,  and  mining.  Above  each  of  these  classes 
are  three  columns,  each  of  which  tells  a  diferent  but 
biologically  connected  story.  The  solid  column,  at  the 
left  of  the  three,  in  each  case  represents  the  number  of 
men  in  each  occupation  who  were  45  years  of  age  or 
over,  as  reported  in  the  1920  census.  The  figures  at 
the  right  and  left  of  the  graph  represent  percentages. 
This  means  that  if  all  the  solid  columns  were  placed 
on  top  of  each  other  they  would  run  up  to  100  per 
cent.  This  is  true  also  of  the  other  two  columns.  Each 
one  adds  up  to  100  per  cent.  Consequently,  the  height 
of  each  column  above  each  occupation  represents  its 
percentage  proportion  of  the  classes  to  be  considered. 

For  example,  the  solid  column  above  the  word 
** Professional"  runs  up  almost  to  10  per  cent. — ^to 
be  exact,  9.66  per  cent.  This  means  that  9.66  per  cent, 
of  the  men  45  years  of  age  or  over  in  this  large  sample 
of  the  American  people  are  engaged  in  the  professions. 
The  other  solid  columns,  representing  the  relative 
number  of  men  45  years  old  and  over  in  eight  other 
occupations,  run  as  follows:  Clerical,  3.33  per  cent.; 
trade,  9.69 ;  domestic  and  personal  service,  4.59 ;  public 
service,  2.19;  transportation,  7.43;  manufacturing, 
31.13;  agriculture,  29.39;  mining,  2.59.  This  makes  a 
total  of  100  per  cent.  The  reader  should  also  scan  the 
table  below  the  graph  to  get  clearly  the  figures. 


Now,  the  second  column  is  of  extraordinary  sig- 
nificance.   It  represents  the  percentage  in  each  class 
of  these  men  45  years  of  age  and  over  whose  wives 
produced  a  baby  in  the  year  1923.    It  is  not  quite  pos- 
sible to  compare  1920  with  the  year  1923  in  all  respects, 
but  the  difference  is  of  little  significance.    What  Pearl 
wishes  to  show  is  that  men  of  45  years  of  age  and 
over  who  are  still  producing  children,  probably  form 
an  especially  fertile  group  of  men.    These  he  terms  his 
**more  fertile"  group.    Pearl  assumes,  on  the  basis  of 
abundant  data,  that  such  men  also  produce  more  chil- 
dren during  their  lives  than  those  who  do  not  beget 
children  in  the  years  beyond  45.    The  proportion  of 
these  men  in  each  group  is  therefore  shown  in  the 
second  column  of  each  occupation.    The  proportion  of 
such  men,  for  example,  in  the  ** Professional  group," 
you  will  see  by  the  graph,  runs  a  little  above  5  per 
cent.    This  does  not  mean  5  per  cent,  of  the  column 
just  to  the  left  of  it,  which  you  will  remember  repre- 
sents the  percentage  of  45-year-old  men  and  over,  in 
the  ** Professional"  group.    It  means  that  of  all  the 
super-fertile  men  in  the  entire  population  studied — 
that  is,  of  all  the  men  whose  wives  produced  a  baby  m 
1923,  slightly  over  5  per  cent,  (to  be  exact,  5.77  per 
cent.)  were  ** Professional"  men.     The  shares  of  the 
other  groups,  as  each  column  indicates,  are  as  follows : 
Clerical,  1.66  per  cent. ;  trade,  6.71  per  cent. ;  domestic, 
2.40  per  cent.;  public  service,  .94  per  cent.;  transpor- 
tation, 4.44  per  cent.;  manufacturing,  32.57  per  cent.; 
agriculture,  41.43  per  cent. ;  mining,  4.08  per  cent.  The 
prime  thing  to  notice  is  that  in  all  the  first  six  groups 
the  second  column  is  shorter  than  the  first  column,  and 
in  the  last  three  groups  the  second  column  is  longer 
than  the  first  one.    This  gives  us  the  remarkable  fact 
that  there  was  a  smaller  percentage  of  these  highly 
fertile  men  in  the  first  six  groups  than  was  the  per- 


centage  of  45-year-old  men  and  over  in  the  whole  pop- 
ulation; while  in  the  last  three  groups  their  percentage 
of  highly  fertile  men  was  greater  than  the  share  which 
these  groups  formed  of  the  total  population. 


I  hope  the  reader  will  see  this  clearly,  because  it  is 
of  great  importance.  To  appreciate  fully  what  Is 
shown,  let  the  reader  contrast  the  two  classes,  pro- 
fessional and  agricultural.  He  will  notice  that  the 
percentage  of  professional  men  45  years  and  over  was 
nearly  10  per  cent,  of  the  total  number  of  such  men, 
while  the  percentage  of  highly  fertile  men  of  this  class 
was  only  a  little  over  5  per  cent,  of  the  total  number  of 
such  men.  But  in  the  agricultural  group  (and  also  in 
the  manufacturing  and  mining)  the  whole  picture  of 
family  life  is  reversed.  Here  the  percentage  of  the 
agricultural  men  45  years  of  age  and  over  constitutes 
only  about  30  per  cent,  of  the  total  number  of  such 
men,  but  the  percentage  of  such  men  who  were  still 
producing  children  constituted  over  40  per  cent,  of  the 
total  number  of  highly  fertile  men.  This  important 
fact  sharply  distinguishes  the  last  three  groups  from 
the  first  six  and  shows  distinctly  from  which  classes 
the  American  people  of  the  future  are  going  to  be 

The  third  column  tells  the  same  story  with  refer- 
ence to  the  total  number  of  children  which  these  highly 
fertile  men  have  ever  produced.  In  the  professional 
group,  for  example,  the  third  column  is  shorter  than 
the  second  and  this  is  true  in  all  the  first  six  groups; 
but  in  the  last  three  groups  this  column  is  the  longest 
one  of  all.  This  means  that  even  the  more  fertile  men 
in  the  first  six  groups  have  a  smaller  share  of  the  total 
number  of  children  produced  by  such  men  in  the  entire 


population,  and  in  the  last  three  groups,  these  men 
have  produced  a  larger  total  number  of  children  dur- 
ing their  lives  than  their  share,  even  when  competing 
with  the  highly  fertile  members  of  the  first  six  groups. 

Plainly,  this  whole  picture  means  that  the  future 
American  people  are  going  to  rise  mainly  from  the 
farmers,  factory  workers  and  miners.  Whether  this  is 
inevitable  or  not  would  seem  to  be  the  problem  which 
lies  before  eugenics  to  ascertain.  If  it  be  inevitable  we 
must  make  the  most  of  it  and,  it  seems  to  me,  concen- 
trate attention  upon  bettering  the  conditions,  the 
education  and  social  life,  the  religious  and  ethical 
taboos  and  ideals  which  may  encourage  both  better 
mate  selection  in  these  groups,  and  an  improvement  in 
the  birth  rate  of  the  more  richly  endowed  families  in 
these  occupations.  As  I  shall  argue  later,  the  most 
immediate  thing  is  the  spread  of  the  knowledge  of 
birth  control  in  these  classes  in  order  that  they  may 
automatically  improve  themselves. 

I  should  certainly  give  a  good  deal  personally  to 
know  just  who  these  ^^more  fertile^*  men  are  in  all 
these  groups — that  is,  who  are  the  ones  that  are  now 
producing  more  than  their  share  of  the  children.  I 
should  like  to  know  w^hether  they  are  the  men  of  the 
better  and  best  ability  and  character,  or  the  mediocre 
and  the  worst.  I  am  strongly  inclined  to  think  that 
they  are,  on  the  average,  of  the  sounder,  healthier  and 
better  sort.  If  so,  I  believe  the  new  discoveries  in 
biology  discussed  later  are  going  to  give  them  a  still 
better  chance  to  reproduce  their  excellent  breeds. 
Certainly,  their  superior  vitality  is  well  nigh  a  com- 
plete proof  of  their  better  mental  and  physical  health 
and  general  soundness  of  constitution.  And  the 
evidence  I  have  already  submitted,  that  healthy  and 
long-lived  people  are,  on  the  average,  more  intelligent 
and  of  better  moral  character  than  short-lived  and 

342  THE  NEXT  AG^E  OF  MAN 

unhealthy  people,  leads  us  to  infer  that  probably  it  is 
the  most  desirable  elements  everywhere  which  are 
recruiting  the  coming  generations  to  a  greater  extent, 
at  least,  than  the  less  desirable.  If  so,  these  are 'all 
points  in  favor  of  PearPs  position  of  satisfaction  with 
the  present  situation.  However,  my  own  point  of  view 
is  that  these  processes  can  all  he  strengthened  by  intel- 
ligent eugenical  effort ,  and  that  it  is  the  duty  and  priv- 
ilege of  students  of  eugenics  to  devise  ways  and  means 
to  aid  these  beneficent  and  dependable  forces  of  nature. 
To  do  this  intelKgently  will  require  all  the  sanity, 
judgment  and  scientific  training  of  the  economist,  the 
psychologist,  the  biologist,  the  educator,  the  religious 
teacher,  the  man  of  medicine,  the  welfare  worker,  the 
philanthropist  and  statesman  combined.  Indeed  the 
improvement  of  the  human  race  is  fraught  with  so 
many  difficulties,  pitfalls,  obscurities,  intricacies  and 
dangers,  that  it  is  the  last  and  most  arduous — ^but  at 
the  same  time,  the  highest — challenge  to  human  intelli- 
gence and  character. 


H.  G.  Wells  is  quoted  as  saying  in  a  recent  dispatch 
in  the  New  York  Times :  *  *  There  is  a  biological  revolu- 
tion in  progress  of  far  profounder  moment  than  any 
French  or  Russian  revolution  that  ever  happened.  The 
facts  come  dripping  in  to  us,  here  a  paragraph  in  the 
newspaper,  there  a  book,  now  a  chance  remark ;  we  are 
busy  about  our  personal  affairs  and  rarely  find  time  to 
sit  back  and  consider  the  immense  significance  of  the 
whole  continuing  process  ....  The  ways  and  expe- 
riences of  our  children  and  our  children's  children 
promise  to  be  profoundly  different  from  the  life  we 
lead  at  the  present  time.  We  should  give  a  rest  to  our 
practical  working  belief  in  the  security  of  things  as 


they  are.    We  should  take  the  rest  and  refreshment  of 
a  few  glances  at  the  longer  realities. ' ' 

I  agree  mth  Mr.  Wells  tliat  a  biological  revolution 
is  in  progress,  although  I  doubt  that  it  is  either  due  to 
the  causes  or  going  in  the  direction  that  Mr.  Wells 
imagines,  as  he  has  not  heretofore  shown  himself  pro- 
foundly informed  upon  the  deeper  biology  of  popula- 
tion development.  But  he  is  certainly  right  in  his 
opinion  that  we  should  take  an  earnest  look  at  the 
*  longer  realities.''  It  is  these  longer  realities  with 
which  eugenics  must  deal.  And  researches  such  as 
Pearl  has  given  us  here  and  which  he  is  pouring  from 
his  laboratories  come  as  powerful  aids  to  our  minds  in 
seeing  just  what  these  long  realities  are.  If  Pearl  be 
right  that  the  race  is  not  deteriorating,  and  we  can 
depend  upon  natural  forces  ceaselessly  at  work  to  keep 
it  at  least  stationary,  so  much  the  better.  It  gives 
eugenics  a  higher  starting  point.  While  some  of  us 
have  thought  that  the  evidence  indicated  a  rather 
ominous  decay  of  the  best  elements  of  the  population, 
yet  race  deterioration  is  not  a  necessity  of  eugenics,  as 
some  have  seemed  to  believe.  I  hope  Pearl  is  right.  I 
merely  voice  here  some  questioning  fear  that  his  faith 
in  the  continued  supply  of  racial  saviors  and  leaders 
from  our  working  population  may  not,  as  time  goes  on, 
be  completely  fulfilled.  But  his  research  gives  me 
renewed  hope  that  civilization  is  evolving  and  can  be 
depended  upon  to  evolve  a  naturally  civilized  man^ 
capable  of  sustaining  his  biological  virility  amidst  the 
abundant  enjoyment  of  all  the  values  and  luxuries  of 
culture.  To  submit  evidence  that  this  is  probable  and 
also  that  eugenics  can  aid  the  process  is  the  ultimate 
objective  of  this  book  and  the  evidence  will  be  pre- 
sented in  the  next  section. 




Practically  all  of  the  considerations  which  have 
been  advanced  so  far  with  reference  to  the  laws  which 
govern  the  reproduction  of  human  beings  in  general 
and  of  the  different  sections  of  the  population  in  par- 
ticular have  assumed  that  we  were  dealing  with  nat- 
ural fertility  at  its  maximum  and  without  any- 
conscious  and  deliberate  birth  control.  Of  course, 
there  are  a  great  many  more  or  less  conscious  factors 
which  influence  marriage  rates,  birth  rates,  death 
rates  and  the  general  processes  of  sexual  reproduction. 
But  there  is  one  factor  that  is  always  the  product  of 
personal  forethought  on  the  part  of  parents.  Because 
of  its  immense  importance,  I  have  so  far  purposely 
kept  it  out  of  the  discussion.  This  factor  is  deliberate 
and  conscious  determination  by  the  parents  of  the  num- 
ber of  children  which  they  shall  produce.  It  is  com- 
monly referred  to  as  birth  control. 

Intentional  and  deliberate  birth  control  is  so  new 
a  thing  in  the  world 's  history  that  we  must  say  frankly 
we  do  not  know  in  any  detail  either  what  it  is  doing  or 
what  it  may  do  in  the  future  to  the  human  race.  Con- 
sequently, from  this  point  on,  this  essay  is  largely 
speculative.  I  venture  to  believe,  however,  that  the 
speculations  are  sound  and  are  in  the  main  almost  a 
necessary  inference  from  what  we  know  of  the  mechan- 
ics of  heredity,  the  selective  forces  at  work  in  the 
population  and  the  general  theory  of  organic  evolution. 



At  the  outset  I  may  state  my  own  belief  that  voluntary 
birth  control  is  the  overshadowing  fact  of  the  modern 
world.  This  conviction  may  be  outrunning  the  data  at 
hand,  but  I  do  not  feel  it  does  so  to  any  great  extent. 
It  is  true  we  are  in  pressing  need  of  countless  investi- 
gations in  this  field,  but  present-day  knowledge, 
meager  as  it  is,  inclines  me  to  believe  that  direct  birth 
control  may  be  the  decisive  agent  in  determining  man's 
earthly  destiny  and  character,  and  in  shaping  the  fu- 
ture of  his  civilization. 

Let  us  reflect  for  just  a  moment  on  what  birth  con- 
trol actually  is,  as  a  fact  in  organic  life.  Perhaps  I 
should  not  have  made  this  suggestion,  because,  in  order 
to  reflect  intelligently  upon  it,  one  is  almost  forced  to 
run  his  mind  over  the  whole  range  of  evolutionary 
thought.  But  certain  it  is  that  no  species  of  plant  or 
animal  ever  possessed  control  over  its  own  reproduc- 
tion. The  plant  is  forced  by  its  own  constitution  to 
load  its  branches  with  seeds  which  at  once  are  scattered 
far  and  wide  by  the  birds  of  the  air,  the  beasts  of  the 
field,  the  currents  of  water  and  even  the  winds  of 
heaven.  Each  seed  must  grow  where  it  falls,  and  fight 
its  own  battle  in  the  world-old  struggle  for  existence. 
The  reproduction  and  carrying  on  of  the  species  itself 
is  so  vastly  more  important  than  the  life  of  any  one 
individual  that,  as  Emerson  said,  **  nature  has  im- 
mensely overloaded  the  sexual  passion.''  For  every 
fish  that  survives  millions  have  to  be  born.  Tennyson 
observed  that  nature  is  always  careless  of  the  individ- 
ual and  careful  of  the  race. 

But  at  last  there  comes  upon  the  evolutionary  stage 
a  being  which  has  not  only  conquered  all  the  other 
species  of  the  animal  kingdom,  but  bids  fair,  in  the 
reproduction  of  his  own  species,  to  conquer  nature  her- 
self. We  can  readily  see  what  birth  control  among 
plants  and  animals  has  meant  for  their  improvement 


when  carried  out  by  the  all-mastering  hand  of  man. 
It  is  by  no  other  means  than  selection  and  birth  control 
that  man  has  produced  the  bewildering  variety  of 
plants  and  animals  which  give  him  food,  add  to  his 
comfort  and  delight  his  sense  of  beauty. 

All  of  this  birth  control,  however,  has  been  admin- 
istered from  an  outside  source.  We  can  only  imagine 
Tvhat  might  have  happened  if  at  some  stage  some 
animal — the  horse,  for  example — had  gained  the  power 
to  control  its  own  reproduction  and  knew  which 
members  of  its  species  to  select  for  perpetuation. 
Such  an  animal  might  have  taken  possession  of  the 
earth,  and  never  allowed  man  a  chance  to  rise  to 
sovereign  power. 

However,  man  has  become  possessed  of  this  power, 
and  it  remains  to  be  seen  whether  he  has  the  intelli- 
gence to  determine  who  shall  survive,  any  better  than 
the  unbridled  passions  and  impulses  of  his  undisci- 
plined nature  has  always  heretofore  determined. 


Now,  there  are  a  great  many  methods  which  the 
human  race  has  followed  to  control  reproduction.  One 
method  is  hanging.  Probably  our  radical  birth  con- 
trollers have  not  contemplated  putting  this  method 
into  general  use,  but  execution  has  no  doubt  played 
quite  a  part  in  determining  reproduction  and  survival. 
It  has  probably  been  far  more  often  applied  to  persons 
of  character  and  ability  than  to  criminals,  in  the  sense 
in  which  we  now  use  the  word  criminal.  During  the 
one  hundred  and  fifty  years  of  the  so-called  Reforma- 
tion the  Eoman  Catholics  and  Protestants  executed 
each  other,  especially  the  leaders,  at  a  merry  rate. 
Some  historians  have  estimated  that  during  the  In- 
quisition at  least  one  hundred  thousand  Protestants, 
chiefly  of  the  leading  class,  were  put  to  death. 


War  is  another  effective  method  of  birth  control. 
Notwithstanding  all  the  literature  on  the  biological 
effects  of  war,  it  is  still  an  extremely  obscure^ and 
unanswered  problem.  We  really  do  not  know  whether 
war  kills  off  the  best  or  the  worst  or  the  average.  We 
hear  from  peace  societies  that  war  is  deteriorating  the 
breed ;  but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  we  simply  do  not  know. 
Beyond  question,  the  introduction  of  gas  warfare  has 
made  war  vastly  more  humane  and  less  destructive. 
The  public  impression  is  quite  to  the  contrary,  but,  as 
I  have  already  pointed  out,  the  public  impression  about 
any  matter  of  fact  can  be  safely  ** banked  upon*'  as 
being  wrong.  "Whether  war  has  been  a  dysgenic  or 
eugenic  agency  is  yet  to  be  discovered. 

There  have  also  been,  in  all  ages,  all  kinds  of  mar- 
riage taboos  which  have  affected  the  birth  rate  to  some 
extent.  There  is  just  now  a  powerful  taboo  in  many 
states  and  sections  against  the  marriage  of  first  cous- 
ins. The  public  believes  very  strongly  that  the  mar- 
riage of  persons  near  of  kin  creates  defects  in  the 
offspring.  This  is  not  true.  If  defects  exist  they  are 
intensified;  if  virtues  exist  they  are,  likewise,  intensi- 
fied. However,  the  same  results  would  happen  if  the 
same  defects  and  virtues  were  united  by  persons  who 
were  not  related  by  blood.  The  blood  relationship  of 
itself  has  no  effect  one  way  or  the  other. 


Another  method  which  provides  one  hundred  per 
cent,  birth  control  in  the  individuals  affected,  and 
which  is  an  invention  of  biology  and  surgery  combined, 
is  sterilization.  The  public  has  considerably  misunder- 
stood this  simple  and  harmless  method  of  cutting  off 
undesirable  strains  in  the  population.  The  Supreme 
Court  of  Iowa  not  long  since  declared  unconstitutional 


the  sterilization  law  passed  by  the  legislature  of  that 
State.  The  grounds  of  the  decision,  as  reported  in  the 
press,  were  that  it  enforced  **  cruel  and  unusual  pun- 
ishment." While  it  may  be  unusual,  it  is  not  a  punish- 
ment nor  is  it  in  the  slightest  degree  cruel.  It  Is  not 
nearly  so  severe  a  surgical  interference  as  removing 
tonsils  or  pulling  abscessed  teeth.  These  operations 
are  not  regarded  in  the  light  of  pleasures,  but  are  not 
regarded  as  cruelty,  even  where  they  are  enforced  by 
school  boards  and  other  authorities.  Sterilization  in 
no  way  interferes  with  the  physical  health  and  happi- 
ness of  the  individual  and  should,  therefore,  be  re- 
garded as  a  mere  civil  procedure  on  the  part  of  the 
State  to  determine  the  quality  and  character  of  its 
future  citizens.  It  should  be  regarded  the  same  as  an 
immigration  law  or  any  regulation  limiting  the  intro- 
duction of  undesirable  citizens.  A  new  method  for 
the  sterilization  of  women  has  recently  been  devised, 
by  Doctor  Dickinson,  which  is  claimed  upon  good 
authority  to  be  an  even  milder  procedure  than  that 
utilized  for  the  sterilization  of  men.  The  whole  method 
and  purpose  are  both  humane  and  merciful,  and  war- 
rants the  support  of  every  thoughtful  citizen  who 
wishes  to  decrease  the  number  of  miserable  and  un- 
happy people  born  into  the  world. 

I  might  add  a  little  information  as  to  the  present 
status  of  sterilization.  It  was  first  effectively  under- 
taken in  Indiana,  where  something  over  six  hundred 
chronic  criminals  were  sterilized  before  the  law  was 
very  foolishly  repealed.  There  are  now  some  twenty- 
two  states  which  have  more  or  less  effective  laws  on 
their  statute  books.  The  most  effective  work  has  been 
done  by  California.  Prof.  Samuel  J.  Holmes,  of  the 
University  of  California,  informs  me  that  about  four 
thousand  five  hundred  persons  have  received  steriliza- 
tion treatment  in  that  state.    I  do  not  have  the  data 


on  Micliigan  for  1926,  but  during  1925  some  f orty-fiye 
men  and  women  were  sterilized  in  that  state.  Other 
states  have  had  more  or  less  successful  records. 


The  encouraging  thing  about  sterilization  is  that, 
contrary  to  public  belief,  the  majority  of  operations 
are  not  performed  under  duress  and  legal  pressure, 
but  are  merely  instituted  through  persuasion  of  the 
individuals  on  the  part  of  tactful  physicians  and 
prison  officials.  Professor  Holmes  teUs  me  that  per- 
suasion has  been  the  most  effective  method  in  Cali- 
fornia for  carrying  on  sterilization.  Most  criminals 
are,  after  all,  pretty  good  fellows.  The  notion  that 
they  are  bad  all  through  is  merely  a  romantic  fantasy. 
The  notion  that  they  cannot  be  reasoned  with,  outside 
of  the  few  low  feeble-minded  and  insane  criminals,  is 
not  correct.  As  one  prison  official  said  to  me:  **Most 
of  these  fellows  are  pretty  good  chaps,  and  when  we 
think  it  best  that  their  type  should  not  be  reproduced 
we  have  a  good,  sympathetic  talk  with  them  about 
sterilization.  When  it  has  been  explained  to  them  that 
it  will  not  injure  their  health  or  happiness,  they  often 
say,  *Well,  we  don't  want  to  get  out  of  here  and  get 
drunk  and  carry  on  with  some  woman  and  have  a  boy 
or  a  girl  back  here  like  us  in  fifteen  or  twenty  years; 
and,  if  you  say,  doc,  that  it  won't  hurt  us,  why,  go 
right  ahead.'  " 

It  seems  evident  from  experience  to  date  that  a  lot 
of  foolish  sentimentality  has  been  wasted  by  those  op- 
posed to  sterilization.  Its  opponents  have  pictured 
the  advocates  of  eugenics  as  getting  ready  to  go  out 
and  sterilize  about  one-fourth  of  the  population.  No 
eugenist  has  ever  believed  that  at  present  this  method 
could  be  applied  properly  and  safely  to  more  than  the 
positively   feeble-minded   and   the   chronic   criminal. 


These  do  not  constitute  more  than  two  per  cent,  of  the 
population;  and,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  no  eugenist  has 
ever  advocated  the  immediate  sterilization  of  more 
than  one  per  cent.,  and  the  most  of  us  have  confined 
our  present  hopes  to  perhaps  half  of  one  per  cent. 

We  have  also  heard  a  great  deal  of  sentimental  talk 
that  this  method  would  likely  sterilize  unwittingly 
nearly  all  the  parents  of  the  future  LincoLus,  Faradays, 
Edisons  and  the  like.  This  talk  comes  from  persons 
who  are  not  familiar  with  the  theory  of  probability  on 
the  one  hand,  or  ^vith  the  present-day  methods  of 
mental  and  personality  measurements  on  the  other. 

If  one  takes  the  actual  families  of  geniuses  and  the 
families  of  feeble-minded  and  chronic  criminals,  a  little 
calculation  would  show,  I  am  sure,  that  the  prob- 
ability of  unknowingly  sterilizing  the  parents  of  any 
of  our  future  geniuses  or  saviors  would  be  about  one 
in  several  billions.  We  do  not  refrain  from  hanging  a 
man  in  the  belief  that  he  Avill  likely  procreate  a  future 
prophet  or  seer  if  allowed  to  run  loose  in  the  com- 
munity. Nor  do  we  hesitate  to  segregate,  for  life, 
extreme  criminals,  feeble-minded  and  insane  persons. 
Yet  when  it  comes  to  a  much  simpler,  happier,  cheaper 
and  more  healthful  method  of  cutting  off  these  crim- 
inalistic and  anti-social  strains,  we  suddenly  find  that 
they  have  been  the  chief  progenitors  of  our  most 
worthy  citizens  and  persons  of  genius! 


Another  objection  to  sterilization  has  been  made 
which  deserves  thoughtful  consideration.  I  think  the 
failure  to  meet  this  objection  is  a  fault  of  the  eugenists 
themselves.  Many  kind-hearted  persons  point  out  that 
it  is  a  pity  to  deprive  persons  who  should  be  sterilized 
of  the  companionship  of  marriage.  I  think  it  is  not 
only  a  pity  but  a  social  danger.     Many  tubercular 


people,  diabetics,  and  the  like,  will  no  doubt  live  years 
and  years  longer  and  become  much  more  happy  and 
effective  citizens  if  they  can  marry,  have  a  home  with 
its  health-giving  atmosphere,  and  the  like.  The  olily 
restrictions  that  should  be  imposed  upon  such  persons 
is  that  they  either  submit  to  sterilization  or  refrain 
from  producing  children.  Many  of  them  are  of  the 
highest  ability  and  character,  and  some  have  been 
among  the  world's  geniuses. 

Many  physicians  who  are  not  familiar  with  the  laws 
of  heredity  will  point  out  to  such  persons  that  tubercu- 
losis or  diabetes,  should  either  occur  in  the  children, 
can  now  be  cured.  Certainly,  and  this  is  a  triumph  of 
medical  genius.  But  the  grandchildren  and  great- 
grandchildren, at  least  some  of  them,  would  likewise 
have  to  be  cured.  Moreover,  by  continued  marriages 
down  the  line  they  would  tend  to  bring  more  and  more 
afflicted  individuals  into  the  world.  This  is  well  illus- 
trated by  the  large  amount  of  tuberculosis  among  the 
young  people  now  in  Arizona,  southern  California  and 
other  health  resorts. 

"What  I  have  said  with  reference  to  diabetes  and 
tuberculosis  applies  even  more  strongly  to  deaf- 
mutism.  As  Alexander  Graham  Bell  has  shown,  some 
forms  of  deaf -mutism  are  inheritable  and  some  are  not. 
Where  deafness  or  deaf-mutism  arises  from  some 
childhood  disease  or  injury,  of  course  it  is  not  inher- 
ited. This  is  again  a  beneficent  result  of  the  non- 
heritability  of  acquired  characters.  But  a  large 
percentage  of  deafness  and  deaf -mutism  is  heritable. 
Even  so,  however,  it  is  absurd  to  prevent  these 
excellent  people  from  the  happy  and  wholesome 
companionship  of  married  life,  provided  they  will 
refrain  from  producing  children  or  submit  to  steril- 

This  also  applies,  in  my  judgment,  to  feeble-mind- 


edness.  Feeble-minded  people  are  merely  mental 
cliildren.  They  become  dangerous  children,  however, 
if  they  are  not  given  as  normal  a  life  as  possible. 
Marriage  is  a  normal  life.  Many  of  them  can  maintain 
homes  and  be  quite  effective  people  if  properly 
encouraged  and  aided  by  the  community.  Nothing 
could  be  more  dangerous,  however,  than  to  deny  them 
marriage  unless  they  are  confined  in  institutions.  If 
they  are  allowed  to  be  at  large,  what  is  needed  is  to 
persuade  them  to  submit  to  sterilization.  This  espe- 
cially applies  to  the  higher  grades  of  feeble-minded- 
ness,  the  morons.  Many  morons  are  most  effective 
factory  workers  and  enjoy  the  monotony  of  tending 
simple  machines  or  carr\dng  out  simple  industrial 
processes.  They  should,  if  anything,  be  encouraged  to 
set  up  homes  and  marry  each  other  and  carry  on  a 
normal  life.  They  become  a  danger  only  where  they 
are  not  given  normal  life,  nor  studied  and  aided  by  a 
friendly,  understanding  s^Tiipathy,  and  allowed  to 
increase  their  numbers  in  a  brood  of  children. 

While  I  myself  think  that  persuasion  and  education 
are  always  more  effective  means  of  attaining  any  social 
object  than  is  legislation,  yet,  in  order  to  overcome  all 
reasonable  objections  to  sterilization,  the  law  passed 
some  two  years  ago  in  Oregon  impresses  me  as  pro- 
viding a  way  out  of  the  difficulty.  In  effect,  it  provides 
that  if  the  members  of  a  community  believe  a  citizen 
is  bringing  or  likely  to  bring  extremely  undesirable 
children  into  the  community,  he  can  by  various  legal 
means  be  brought  to  trial  before  a  jury  in  order  to  test 
the  question  as  to  whether  he  is  fit  to  be  an  ancestor. 
The  State  will  provide  him  with  legal  and  medical 
counsel,  so  the  humblest  citizen  has  ample  means  of 
self -protection.  It  seems  to  me  that  if  a  man  cannot 
prove  to  his  fellow  citizens,  when  his  case  is  carefully 
considered  by  a  jury  of  his  peers — the  good,  average 


citizens  of  his  community — that  he  should  contribute 
his  blood  and  character  to  the  life  about  him,  it  is  a 
perfectly  fair  and  just  conclusion  that  he  be  deprived, 
by  this  merciful  means  of  science,  of  this  social  and 
biological  privilege. 


All  kinds  of  religious  decrees  and  beliefs  have  like- 
wise been  direct  or  indirect  methods  of  birth  control. 
The  Koman  Catholic  Church,  for  example,  compels  its 
clergy,  nuns  and  sisterhood  to  remain  celibate;  al- 
though, I  understand,  under  special  circumstances 
these  rules  are  abated  in  the  case  of  the  sisterhoods. 
While  I  am  not  familiar  with  Eoman  Catholic  law  or 
theology,  I  believe  we  are  given  every  evidence  in  the 
public  prints  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  preaches 
very  strongly  against  birth  control  among  its  laity.  I 
have  no  criticism  whatsoever  to  make  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  religion  or  theology;  as,  to  my  mind,  the 
merits  of  a  religious  system  are  chiefly  determined  by 
its  effect  in  teaching  people  right  relationships  and  at- 
titudes toward  one  another.  How  to  live  in  this  world 
happily  and  effectively  is,  I  think,  going  to  be  more 
and  more  the  chief  objective  of  religion.  However 
that  may  be,  speaking  purely  from  the  standpoint  of 
biology,  I  do  not  see  how  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
could  have  devised  more  ingenious  methods  for  bring- 
ing about  its  own  downfall  and  loss  of  power  than  the 
biological  course  which  it  has  taken — provided  I  am 
correctly  informed  that  it  strongly  urges  its  adherents 
as  a  matter  of  religious  duty  to  refrain  from  birth 
regulation.  In  the  first  place,  this  process  effectively 
cuts  off  its  leaders  at  the  top  and  increases  the  num- 
bers who  need  leadership  at  the  bottom.  It  also 
destroys  all  possibility  of  building  up  those  powerful 


cones  of  ability  wliicii  we  have  seen  have  been  such 
effective  agencies  in  the  control  of  civilization.  It  is 
probably  not  so  far-fetched  a  conception  that  this  very 
policy  may  have  been  the  thing  which  caused  the  loss 
of  the  temporal  power  of  the  Catholic  Church  at  the 
close  of  the  Middle  Ages.  It  would  be  at  least  as  good 
a  guess  as  are  the  numerous  fanciful  theories  which 
many  historians  have  set  out,  with  dogmatic  certainty, 
as  to  what  brought  about  this  remarkable  historical 

It  is  a  matter  worthy  of  note  that  the  Catholic 
colony  of  Maryland  provided  religious  freedom  prior 
to  the  Protestant  colony  of  Massachusetts  which  was 
founded  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  religious  liberty. 
Freedom  for  both  Catholics  and  Protestants  was  guar- 
anteed by  the  Maryland  charter.  With  so  many  things 
to  the  credit  of  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church  in  the 
development  of  intellectual  liberty,  it  may  not  be  too 
much  for  a  humble  student  of  science  to  hope  that 
in  time  the  Catholic  rulers  will  bring  about  changes  in 
this  imtoward  biological  situation,  which  I  cannot  but 
believe  is  continually  depriving  the  race  of  a  consider- 
able amount  of  ability  and  social  capacity  of  a  very 
high  order. 

In  the  days  that  lie  ahead,  confronted  as  we  are 
with  what  Prof.  William  McDougall  aptly  calls 
*'the  structural  overloading  of  civilization, ' '  we  are 
going  to  need  every  ounce  of  leadership  that  the  race 
can  summon.  And,  with  an  entire  lack  of  any  attitude 
of  personal  criticism,  a  student  of  eugenics  is  bound  to 
hope  that  the  leaders  of  the  Catholic  world  may  recon- 
^sider,  in  the  light  of  the  new  knowledge  which  biology 
has  brought  to  us,  this  very  large  problem  in  their  own 
future.  At  least,  I  am  sure  that  the  Catholic  Church 
will  be  forced  to  reckon  with  the  very  powerful  agen- 
cies of  both  racial  and  social  change  which,  as  I  shall 


point  out  in  the  next  few  pages,  biology  is  about  to  let 
loose  upon  the  world.  I  believe  that  the  biologists  are 
about  to  turn  loose  from  their  laboratories  forces 
which,  while  less  spectacular,  will  be  in  reality  mare 
powerful  engines  in  shaping  man's  earthly  future  and 
determining  his  inborn  happiness  and  capacity  than 
have  been  all  the  inventions  of  the  physicist  and  the 
chemist  and  the  electrical  engineer.  Every  social, 
political,  religious  and  educational  agency  is  bound  to 
be  affected  by  these  new  inventions  of  the  biologist. 
For  they  are  inventions,  just  as  much  as  any  that  have 
been  devised  by  Hertz  or  Faraday  or  Clerk-Maxwell  or 
Marconi  or  Edison  or  the  Wrights  or  Pupin.  The  only 
difference  is  that  they  will  go  directly  to  the  roots  of 
human  nature  and  determine,  as  no  single  set  of  agen- 
cies has  ever  determined,  what  sort  of  human  nature 
shall  survive  and,  in  the  future,  replenish  the  earth. 


In  addition  to  the  methods  of  influencing  the  human 
birth  rate  already  noted,  most  of  which  are  social 
rather  than  individual,  there  have  been  in  all  ages 
great  efforts  made  by  which  the  individual  might  con- 
trol sexual  reproduction.  Until  science  attacked  the 
problem  within  the  past  half  century,  most  of  these 
methods  have  been  extremely  harmful  and  have  caused 
untold  ill  health  and  misery,  especially  among  woman- 
kind. The  effort  to  lift  from  the  life  of  woman  the 
burden  of  Eve  has  gone  on,  usually  with  tragic  results, 
all  through  the  ages.  Within  the  past  half  century, 
medical  science,  chemistry  and  mechanics  have  all 
combined  their  efforts  to  solve  this  world-old  problem. 
These  efforts  have  been  fairly  successful.  During  the 
past  generation,  fairly  healthful  methods  of  birth  reg- 
ulation have  been  devised.    It  is  wholly  unnecessary  to 


discuss  them  here.  The  point  is  that  they  have  all 
been  chiefly  mechanical  or  chemical. 

Owing  to  the  facts  cited  in  the  foregoing  para- 
graph, all  methods  of  birth  control  up  to  the  present 
time  have  involved  quite  elaborate  technique  which 
has  necessitated  the  use  of  considerable  intelligence 
and  no  small  degree  of  personal  character,  forethought 
and  self-control.  Just  for  this  very  reason  it  has  been 
only  the  intelligent  by  whom  birth  control  has  been 
utilized.  It  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  a  more  ingenious 
device  for  eliminating  the  intelligence  of  the  com- 
munity than  this.  It  is  precisely  the  same  situation 
which  would  obtain  if  a  farmer  should  spread  a  knowl- 
edge of  birth  control  among  his  best  animals  and 
induce  them  by  every  possible  means  to  make  use  of  it, 
and  should  withhold  this  knowledge  from  the  worst 
specimens  of  his  breeds.  It  is  obvious  that  his  herds 
would  rapidly  deteriorate. 

Now  let  us  consider  this  situation  among  human 
beings.  Science  has  devised  technical  methods  by 
which  those  endowed  with  intelligence  and  judgment 
can  prevent  the  reproduction  of  their  intelligence  and 
judgment  in  a  brood  of  children.  At  the  same  time 
these  inventions  have  required  so  much  intelligence, 
judgment  and  character  that  those  who  do  not  possess 
these  natural  endowments,  quite  naturally  cannot  thus 
limit  their  offspring.  While  as  Pearl  has  shown,  the 
pressure  of  population,  the  general  increase  of  wealth, 
the  improvement  in  the  well-being  of  even  the  poorest 
sections  of  the  community,  lead  to  a  natural  decline  in 
the  birth  rate  of  all  classes,  yet  conscious  birth  reg- 
ulation has  been  limited  to  the  more  intelligent  strata 
of  society.  I  use  the  word  strata  with  intention,  since 
society  is  pretty  clearly  a  stratified  affair.  And  it  is 
the  more  richly  endowed  strata  that  have  artificially 
reduced   the   numbers   of   their   children.     In   other 


words,  biological  capacity  by  this  process  tends  not 
to  be  reproduced,  while  biological  incapacity  continues 
to  replenish  the  population.  A  mere  reduction  in  the 
birth  rate  in  order  that  the  children  who  are  bom  may 
have  the  benefit  of  wealth  and  culture  is  not  only  not 
a  calamity  but  it  is  the  only  way  in  which  wealth  and 
comfort  can  be  very  widely  distributed.  The  large 
families  of  Colonial  days,  which  indeed  continued  with 
very  little  diminution  down  to  a  half  century  ago,  are 
a  sheer  physical  impossibility  now,  if  the  children  are 
to  partake  of  the  multitudinous  benefits  which  our  in- 
creased well-being  has  provided. 

Unfortunately,  therefore,  birth  control  so  far  has 
tended  steadily  to  eliminate  those  with  the  greatest 
forethought  and  judgment  and  to  leave  in  control  of 
the  biological  field  those  of  lesser  character  and  intelli- 
gence. As  if  this  natural  process  were  not  enough  and 
did  not  reduce  our  national  intelligence  and  character 
fast  enough,  our  social  and  moral  regulators  have 
sought  by  stringent  legislation  to  prevent  all  knowl- 
edge of  birth  control  being  given  to  anyone  by  our 
physicians  and  scientific  men.  For  example,  if  I  should 
mention  at  this  point  any  method  of  birth  regulation,  I 
should  be  promptly  and  unceremoniously  jailed  as  a 
common  criminal. 

Our  morality  improvers  and  the  saviors-of -society- 
by-legislation,  had  they  possessed  the  necessary  wit, 
would  have  seen  that,  despite  their  legislation,  the 
shrewd  and  intelligent,  the  thoughtful  and  far-seeing 
would  get  what  they  wanted  anyhow;  while  lesser  en- 
dowed folks  would  not  have  the  power,  influence  and 
ingenuity  to  secure  this  knowledge.  The  results  have 
been  precisely  the  same  as  those  which  have  accom- 
panied prohibition.  The  same  disastrous  results  fol- 
low all  prohibitory  social  legislation. 

The  effects,  therefore,  of  birth  control  have  up  to 


the  present  time  tended  in  the  wrong  direction,  to  say 
the  least.  However,  I  think  the  hour  has  come  when 
this  situation  is  going  to  be  changed  radically.  And  I 
think  that  it  is  going  to  be  beyond  the  will  and  the 
wit  of  man  to  stop  what  in  my  belief  is  about  to  happen 
to  mankind.  I  may  be  sadly  mistaken,  as  I  often  am, 
but  it  is  impossible  for  me  not  to  believe  that  the 
biologists  are  about  to  precipitate  a  crisis  in  the 
world's  history.  This  is  due  to  discoveries  In  the 
biology  of  reproduction  of  which  this  volume  is  the 
first  general  public  announcement. 

The  history  of  this  epoch-making  discovery  is, 
roughly,  as  follows:  Eleven  years  ago  a  group  of 
biologists  began  the  study,  by  entirely  new  technical 
methods,  of  the  processes  of  reproduction,  especially  in 
mammals  such  as  rabbits  and  guinea  pigs.  Reproduc- 
tion is  a  purely  biological  process,  and  it  is  perfectly 
natural  that  the  control  of  reproduction  should  come 
within  the  biological  field  instead  of,  as  heretofore,  in 
the  field  of  the  surgeon,  the  mechanician  and  the 
chemist.  Up  to  a  decade  ago,  however,  very  little  was 
known  of  the  reproductive  processes  of  animals,  par- 
ticularly as  to  why  the  reproductive  period  should 
gradually  rise,  come  to  a  crisis,  and  then  rather  sud- 
denly subside. 

It  is  these  intricate,  obscure  and  at  the  same  time 
fascinating  problems  of  the  reproductive  mechanism 
that  have  engaged  the  attention  of  a  group  of  em- 
bryologists  and  biochemists  for  a  number  of  years, 
with  progi^essively  satisfying  results.  Practically  all 
of  this  work  has  been  done  in  American  laboratories. 
It  has  led  to  the  development  of  a  whole  new  field  of 
science  in  which  the  discoveries  have  been  as  fascinat- 
ing and  romantic  as  in  the  fields  of  chemistry  and 
physics.  The  latter  seem,  of  course,  more  romantic 
to  the  general  public  because  they  lead  to  such  things 


as  radio,  electric  light  and  airplanes.  These  are  things 
that  a  common  man  can  use,  even  though  he  has  no 
idea  of  the  long  train  of  intellectual  achievements  of 
which  these  inventions  are  the  spectacular  result.' 

But  this  field  of  biochemistry  concerned  with  re- 
production is  about  to  yield  intellectual  triumphs, 
which  I  think  will  influence  the  future  lives  and  char- 
acters of  men  as  much  as  or  more  than  all  the  other 
discoveries  of  science  combined.  I  say  this  because  I 
am  privileged  to  announce  here  for  the  first  time  to  the 
general  public  that  these  obscure  and  unknown 
biologists  have  achieved  an  understanding  of  the  re- 
productive processes  in  the  higher  animals  and  in  man 
sufficient  to  warrant  us  in  believing  that  the  complete 
control  of  reproduction  will  very  shortly  be  placed  in 
human  hands. 

The  net  result  of  this  long  series  of  painstaking  in- 
vestigations has  been  the  discovery  that  reproduction 
is  in  the  main  under  control  of  two  hormones.  Hor- 
mones, the  reader  will  doubtless  recall,  are  tiny  chem- 
ical messengers,  first  described  by  Starling,  an  Eng- 
lish scientist,  some  twenty  or  more  years  ago.  These 
hormones  travel  in  the  blood  and  lymph  streams  of 
the  body,  and  cause  significant  reactions  to  take  place 
as  the  result  of  their  presence.  These  biochemists  find, 
to  put  it  roughly,  that  there  is  one  hormone  in  the 
female  which  brings  about  the  periodic  process  known 
as  ovulation — that  is,  the  production  of  the  ovum  or 
egg.  There  is  also  a  second  hormone  which  subse- 
quently brings  this  process  of  ovulation  to  an  end  and 
for  a  time  suspends  this  group  of  reactions.  Now,  it 
occurred  to  these  workers  that  if  these  hormones  could 
be  isolated,  they  could  be  used  at  the  will  of  the  ex- 
perimenter either  to  set  going  the  processes  of  repro- 
duction or  to  suspend  them  entirely. 

Since  the   exact   statement   of   such   a  piece   of 


scientific  work — one  which  I  believe  is  fraught  with 
immense  consequences  to  human  beings — is  extremely 
important,  I  have  been  privileged  to  elaborate  a  state- 
ment of  the  matter  with  one  of  the  leading  workers 
in  this  field.  The  composition  of  this  statement  is 
mainly  his,  and  it  has  received  his  full  approval  and 
that  of  his  colleagues.    It  is  as  follows: 

**This  new  field  of  biological  investigation  is 
chiefly  based  on  the  exact  study  of  ovarian  biochem- 
istry and  an  analysis  of  those  mysterious  chemical 
factors,  the  so-called  hormones,  which  are  elaborated 
in  some  of  the  glands  of  our  body  and  which  exert  a 
powerful  and  specific  effect  upon  our  physiological 
functions  and  upon  our  own  psychology.  The  analysis 
and  study  of  these  very  specific  glandular  secretions  is 
one  of  the  most  charming  and  promising  chapters  of 
modem  biology  and  biochemistry. 

*^Let  us  take  as  an  example  the  ovarian  gland.  It 
usually  secretes  a  very  useful  chemical  agent  which 
stimulates  specifically  the  growth,  development  and 
proper  functioning  of  the  uterus  and  the  whole  female 
genital  tract.  This  is  the  so-called  female  sex  hor- 
mone or  follicular  hormone.  Without  it  the  female 
sexual  function  would  be  entirely  impossible. 

**But  this  does  not  constitute  the  only  specific  fac- 
tor secreted  by  the  ovarian  gland.  It  has  been  dis- 
covered that  at  certain  specific  periods  a  new  agent  is 
necessary  and  promptly  comes  into  play,  a  regulatory 
agent  which  gives  that  surprising  clock-like  precision 
and  rhythm  to  the  female  functions.  It  is  a  suppressive 
agent;  it  counteracts,  antagonizes  and  stops  all  that 
wonderful  and  precise  ovarian  and  menstrual  activity 
and  rhythm. 

**Very  exact  and  minute  experiments  with  animals 
have  shown  that  this  second  hormone,  the  so-called 
MuteaP  hormone,  if  given  in  small  hypodermic  injec- 


tions  from  time  to  time  can  stop  the  whole  ovarian 
and  female  mechanism  and  bring  it  to  a  complete 
standstill.  Under  the  effect  of  this  injection,  the  egg 
production  is  entirely  suppressed  in  the  ovary  and 
reappears  in  regular  order  sometime  after  the  dis- 
continuance of  the  treatment. 

^^  These  facts  have  been  brought  out  within  recent 
years  by  very  exact  analytical  work  done  in  this 
country  with  the  most  modern  methods.  Allen  and 
Doisy  have  analyzed  and  described  the  effect  of  the 
first  secretion  designated  above  as  the  female  sex  hor- 
mone ;  and  the  inhibitive,  suppressing  effect  of  the  sec- 
ond secretion,  designated  as  the  luteal  hormone,  has 
been  very  recently  announced  by  Dr.  George  N.  Papa- 
nicolaou of  the  Cornell  Medical  School,  in  the  Journal 
of  tJie  American  Medical  Association, 

^^To  those  who  are  well  informed  at  the  present 
time  about  these  two  counteracting  factors  which  reg- 
ulate the  whole  female  sexual  mechanism,  it  seems  to 
be  only  a  matter  of  time  when  these  specific  chemical 
bodies,  that  is,  the  female  sex  hormone  and  the  luteal 
hormone,  will  both  be  fully  available  for  a  more  ex- 
tensive experimentation  and  study,  particularly  in  our 
own  human  species.  A  few  minor  details  have  yet  to 
be  worked  out.  This  is  already  being  done  by  a  large 
number  of  chemists,  who  are  trying  further  to  isolate 
and  purify  these  bodies  and  to  obtain  them  in  a  proper 
solvent.  When  this  is  done  a  new  human  biological 
field  will  have  been  established.  The  control  of  the 
complex  female  function  and  the  possibility  of  stim- 
ulating or  suppressing  at  will  the  egg  production  may 
revolutionize  to  a  certain  extent  our  social  founda- 
tions; indeed  it  may  easily  bo  that  the  establishment 
of  a  sound  and  healthful  biological  control  of  the  re- 
productive functions  and  mechanisms  may  be  the  pre- 
cursor of  a  new  age  of  man/* 



I  might  go  further  in  explanation  of  the  foregoing 
technical  facts  and  explain  that  at  present  the  hor- 
mones have  proved  soluble  only  in  solutions  of  oil. 
This  presents  some  slight  disadvantages  in  their  ad- 
ministration, which  is  at  present  accomplished  in 
the  main  by  hypodermic  injections.  A  number  of 
chemists  are  working  on  the  problem  of  securing  their 
isolation  and  dissolution  in  water.  If  this  can  be  ac- 
complished, of  which  there  can  be  little  doubt,  it  will 
make  their  administration  much  simpler.  It  even 
presents  the  very  reasonable  probability  that  they  may 
be  reduced  to  some  such  form  as  tablets  or  some  other 
type  easy  of  administration.  This  is  doubtless  some 
years  ahead,  although  it  is  quite  possible  that  it  will 
be  only  a  very  few  years.  It  seems  reasonable  to 
believe  that  even  less  than  a  decade  will  see  a  com- 
plete triumph  in  this  difficult  field  of  biochemical 


The  further  speculations  which  I  submit  to  the 
reader  upon  the  possibilities  of  universal  birth  control 
are  entirely  my  own  and  not  those  of  the  biochemists. 
Their  object  is  to  solve  this  problem  of  pure  knowl- 
edge, and  not  to  discuss  social,  ethical,  religious, 
economic  and  political  results  of  the  application  of 
their  knowledge.  But  I  confess  that  it  rather  thrills 
and  terrifies  the  imagination  to  contemplate  the  social 
and  biological  outcome  of  birth  regulation,  should  it, 
as  seems  quite  possible — indeed,  I  think  well  nigh  a 
certainty — become  procurable  at  the  drug  stores  and 
news  stands  as  we  now  purchase  chewing  gum  or 
aspirin.    Let  us  suppose  that  this  racial  determiner^ 


this  arbiter  of  future  liuman  life,  should  become 
readily  and  easily  obtainable  in  a  simple  form,  such  as 
capsules  or  tablets.  If  perfectly  healthful,  biological 
birth  control  becomes,  as  I  believe  it  will,  a  mere  mat- 
ter  of  women  swallowing  a  few  tablets  each  month,  it 
places  an  evolutionary  engine  in  human  hands  of  per- 
fectly staggering  possibilities  for  good  or  ill.  There 
is  scarcely  any  indoor  sport  which  humanity  seems  to 
enjoy  more  than  swallowing  tablets  of  both  known  and 
unknown  composition  and  effect.  Consequently,  I 
think  we  can  count  upon  the  fact  that  even  so  highly 
concentrated  an  agent  of  evolutionary  determinism 
will  be  swallowed  by  all  classes,  faiths,  races,  tongues, 
colors  and  previous  conditions  of  either  biological  free- 
dom or  servitude. 

If  we  should  add  to  the  foregoing  another  biologi- 
cal discovery,  another  evolutionary  determinant,  which 
those  biologists  most  competent  to  judge  believe  is  not 
far  over  the  horizon — namely,  the  determination  of 
the  sex  of  the  offspring  by  the  parents — it  seems  to  me 
that  man  may  well  tremble  at  the  biological  Franken- 
stein monsters  of  his  own  creation.  Plainly,  it  is 
a  crisis  in  the  affairs  of  human  beings.  It  is  probably 
a  great  turning  point  in  man's  evolutionary  history, 
second  only  to  that  far-away  time  when  man — naked, 
barehanded,  and  with  nothing  to  guide  him  except  his 
intelligence — ^lifted  his  body  erect  and  started  up 
the  long  pathway  towards  the  adventures,  the  trag- 
edies, the  pleasures  and  the  disciplines  of  culture. 


If  we  take  a  long  look  into  the  future  and  contem- 
plate not  merely  the  to-morrow,  but  endeavor  to  see 
with  just  as  stern  realism  to-morrow's  to-morrow,  and 
then  that  morrow's  to-morrow,  we  are  bound  to  ask  in 


a  new  way,  Who  shall  survive  when  human  intelligence, 
passion  and  desire  and  not  merely  brute  natural  selec- 
tion can  determine  the  kind  of  human  beings  who  shall 
and  who  shall  not  be  born?  What  sort  of  beings  will 
they  be?  What  manner  of  man  shall  come  to  people 
the  earth?  Will  he  be  better  or  worse  than  we  are? 
Will  he  be  wiser,  saner,  healthier,  more  beautiful,  more 
social,  more  civilized  than  we  are?  Or,  will  he  be  an 
atavistic  product,  intellectual  but  brutal,  frail  of  body, 
nimioral,  selfish  and  unsocial,  retaining  only  the  intel- 
ligence to  preserve  this  one  instrument  which  deter- 
mines the  direction  of  his  own  evolution  ? 

We  know  there  are  men  and  women  in  the  world 
who  are  naturally  glorious.  They  truly  seem  to  be 
children  of  the  gods.  You  and  I  personally  know  a 
number  of  them  among  our  own  friends  and  acquaint- 
ances. They  are  naturally  healthy,  strong,  sane, 
beautiful  and  wise ;  they  seem  born  to  be  happy  and  to 
make  the  world  happy.  They  are  intensely  social  in 
all  their  interests  and  passions.  They  throw  all  their 
energies  into  the  building  up  of  the  community.  With- 
out ostentation  or  blare  of  trumpets,  they  are  partners 
and  leaders  in  every  community  movement  that  tends 
towards  goodness  and  beauty  and  truth.  In  every 
emergency  people  lean  upon  them,  and  do  not  feel 
afraid  behind  their  leadership.  They  naturally  love 
music  and  art  and  all  the  great  cultural  disciplines 
which  men  have  developed,  the  disciplines  which  we 
call  science,  philosophy,  ethics  and  the  higher  things  of 
sociology  and  politics.  They  move  the  world  forward 
and,  as  Woodrow  Wilson  said,  *' increase  the  world's 
fitness  for  affairs." 

The  opponents  of  eugenics  say  we  eugenists  have  no 
ideals,  that  we  do  not  know  what  kind  of  beings  we 
want  men  to  be.  Yes,  we  do.  We  want  men  to  be  like 
these  glorious  people.    There  is  not  the  slightest  diffi- 


culty  in  finding  them.  They  exist  all  about  ns.  There 
are  just  thousands  upon  thousands  of  them.  They  are 
naturally  civilized,  and  they  are  the  people  who  have 
made  civilization  as  civilized  as  it  is. 


Now,  under  universal  birth  control  will  people  of 
that  sort  undertake  the  burdens  of  parenthood?  Will 
they  be  the  sort  of  people  who  shall  survive,  or  will  it 
be  some  other  sort?  Will  parenthood  be  undertaken 
by  the  gay  and  thoughtless  as  a  pleasing  social  diver- 
sion and  a  bid  for  publicity,  as  seems  now  often  to  be 
the  case ;  or  will  it  be  undertaken  by  those  too  ignorant 
and  stupid  to  care  for  the  morrow ;  or  will  it  be  chiefly 
those  of  rich  and  abundant  natures  whose  contributions 
will  be  of  the  greatest  value  both  to  our  racial  and 
national  fortunes  ? 

WILL    THE    PRINCE    OR    THE    PAUPER,    THE    MAID    OR    THE 

The  reader  may,  if  he  be  of  a  jocose  turn  of  mind, 
amuse  himself  by  imagining  that  I  am  merely  turning 
about  the  comic  facets  of  some  biological  joke.  How- 
ever, to  the  reflective  reader,  I  am  proposing  what  I 
feel  perfectly  certain  are  the  stern  problems  which 
men  must  face  in  the  age  which  is  now  already  diffus- 
ing its  rays  through  the  dawn.  Men  must,  at  least,  aslc 
these  questions ;  they  must  likewise  seek  to  aid  nature 
in  solving  them;  for  in  my  belief  not  only  the  future 
character,  intelligence  and  health  of  their  race  are  at 
stake,  but  the  future  of  their  social  and  political  insti- 
tutions as  well. 

Now,  at  first  glance,  it  would  seem  that  present-day 
civilization  is  nearly  all  rigged  against  the  survival  of 


intelligence  and  virtue.  This  is  because  it  is  a  far 
greater  burden  for  a  man  of  character  and  cultivation 
to  undertake  parenthood  than  it  is  for  a  man  who  does 
not  have  these  social  and  biological  possessions  and  the 
high  ambitions  which  go  ^vith  them.  By  his  very 
nature  he  desires  to  give  his  children  a  better  chance 
for  individual  development,  more  of  this  world's 
opportunities,  adventures,  goods  and  cultures,  than  he 
and  the  mother  of  his  children  themselves  had.  It  is 
his  inborn  drives  which  make  him  desire  these  things 
and  make  him  willing  to  spend  his  energies  in  securing 
them.  The  man  who  is  lower  in  the  economic  scale — 
which  means,  on  the  average,  that  he  is  lower  also  in 
the  scale  of  intelligence  and  character — is  by  his  very 
make-up  lacking  in  those  towering  passions,  those  far- 
away longings  and  that  divine  discontent  which  lead 
men  to  strive  to  secure  both  for  themselves  and  for 
their  children  a  better  ^  *  coign  of  vantage ' '  in  the  social 
and  economic  structure. 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  at  present  these 
differences  between  the  upper  and  the  lower  man  have 
worked  in  the  main  dysgenically.  This  is  because  the 
lower  man  has  little  or  no  power  to  control  his  birth 
rate,  while  the  upper  man — for  the  past  generation  or 
two,  at  least — has  had  this  powerful  biological  as  well 
as  social  and  economic  instrument  in  his  possession. 
Consequently,  the  lower  man  has  multiplied  while  the 
npper  man  has  died  out.  When,  however,  both  prince 
and  pauper,  mistress  and  maid,  moron  and  genius, 
alike,  can  determine  who  shall  undertake  parenthood,  a 
totally  new  biological  as  well  as  economic  situation  is 
going  to  confront  mankind. 

Now,  when  this  situation  arrives,  as  I  feel  sure  it 
soon  will  arrive — a  situation  wholly  new  in  the  history 
of  life — it  would  still  seem  eugenicaily  unfortunate 
that  the  economic   scales   should  be  loaded   against 


those  with  desirable  qualities.  But  can  we  be  sure  that 
this  inference  is  true?  We  eugenists  have  been  talking 
constantly  about  removing  the  economic  and  social 
pressures  against  parenthood.  But  are  we  altogether 
wise  1  It  seems  to  me  that  precisely  the  opposite  influ- 
ence is  probably  just  as  valid;  and,  furthermore,  I 
doubt  that  the  economic  pressure  against  desirable 
parenthood  can  possibly  be  removed. 


Let  us  reflect  for  a  moment  upon  this  point.  The 
parents  who  have  the  qualities  which  we  believe  are 
the  most  desirable  for  the  highest  type  of  social  and 
cultural  life  are  the  very  ones  who  not  only  desire  all 
the  benefits  of  so  teeming,  luxurious  a  culture,  but  they 
are  the  very  ones  who  must  create  all  these  values  of 
civilization.  Should  any  of  these  more  successful  per- 
sons— ^let  us  say,  for  example,  skilled  mechanics  or 
college  professors — be  situated  economically  so  that 
they  could  not  rear  a  good-sized  family,  it  might  seem 
wise  to  provide  for  them  bonuses  from  the  State  or 
from  their  employers,  or  in  some  way  give  them  out  of 
the  public  purse  the  economic  freedom  for  rearing 
children  which  they  have  not  been  able  to  win  for 

I  am  inclined  to  feel  that  this  conclusion  should  not 
be  too  hastily  drawn.  At  least,  I  believe  more  thought 
and  investigation  should  be  given  to  it  than  it  has  so 
far  received.  It  seems  worth  pointing  out  that  possibly 
just  the  opposite  conclusion  might  be  safely  reached 
from  the  premises  in  hand.  It  may  be,  after  all,  that  in 
a  fairly  open  economic  competition,  when  due  allow- 
ances are  made  for  personal  exceptions,  it  is  the  best 
man  who  wins.  It  would  seem,  at  any  rate,  that  on  the 
general  average  those  who  could  win  the  values  of  cul- 
ture, including  wealth,  education  and  social  influence, 


are  thf»  ones  best  fitted  for  carrying  on  these  values 
and  best  able  to  create  new  ones.  There  are  always 
exceptions  to  any  social  or  biological  generalization 
which  includes  so  many  factors.  But  I  think  those 
exceptions  might  be  dealt  with  better  by  devoting 
specific  intelligence  to  specific  cases,  than  by  trying  by 
some  blanket  bonus  of  some  sort  to  stem  the  tide  of 
biological  selection.  A  bonus  for  babies  whose  parents 
had  made  certain  commendable  achievements  might  be 
advisable,  so  long  as  birth  control  is  known,  as  hereto- 
fore, only  to  the  more  successful  economic  and  profes- 
sional classes.  But  when  birth  control  becomes  univer- 
sally known  and,  as  I  believe  it  will  be,  well-nigh 
universally  applied,  a  vast  new  biological  situation  is 
going  to  develop.  It  may  well  be,  w^hen  birth  control 
becomes  universal,  that  the  stronger  the  sodial  order 
makes  the  economic  and  cultural  pressures  against 
parenthood,  the  higher  will  be  the  biological  values 
which  survive.  Certainly,  in  the  tropics,  where 
economic  pressure  is  very  slight  against  parenthood, 
this  situation  has  not  resulted  in  any  measurable  race 
improvement.  It  seems  pretty  clear  that  it  has  brought 
about  precisely  the  opposite  results. 

Of  course,  even  under  universal  birth  control  the 
economic  and  social  balance  would  still  seem,  at  first 
glance,  to  be  more  heavily  loaded  against  the  prince 
and  the  genius  than  against  the  pauper  and  the  moron. 
But  this  is  in  all  probability  as  it  should  be,  and  the 
weighting  of  the  scales  against  desirable  qualities  is 
probably  more  apparent  than  real.  We  have  seen 
already  that  as  men  increase  in  ability  and  character 
they  increase  in  an  even  higher  ratio  in  their  power  to 
control  and  create  environment.  The  five-talent  man 
probably  has  less  difficulty  in  doubling  his  capital  than 
the  one-talent  man  has  in  doubling  his.  Some  philoso- 
pher— Emerson  I  believe — said  that  it  was  probably 


easier  for  great  men  to  do  great  things  than  for  little 
men  to  do  little  things.  At  least,  I  doubt  that  any  large 
race  improvement  can  be  brought  about,  when  wq  suc- 
ceed in  making  birth  control  the  common  property  and 
privilege  of  all  (as  I  sincerely  hope  we  shall  soon  be 
able  to  do),  by  handing  out  economic  doles  to  certain 
individuals  or  classes  whom  some  politically  appointed 
body  of  either  learned  or  unlearned  men  may  select  as 
being  the  special  pets  of  organic  evolution.  I  think 
something,  of  course,  can  in  time  be  accomplished  by 
direct  eugenical  procedures  of  this  sort;  in  fact,  I 
believe  a  great  deal  can  be  done,  for  no  doubt  a  vast 
amount  of  ability  and  character  mil  be  lost  if  encour- 
agement is  not  given  in  the  right  way  to  the  right  sort 
of  married  couples.  But  I  sincerely  hope  such 
measures  will  be  undertaken  with  a  great  deal  of  cau- 
tion and  only  after  further  research  has  been  devoted 
to  the  study  of  the  very  complex  factors  involved. 


The  thing  above  all  else  which  impresses  my  mind 
is  that  universal  birth  control  will  usher  in  a  new  sort 
of  natural  selection.  Evolution  will  not  cease.  Evo- 
lution cannot  cease.  Just  as  always  heretofore,  the  best 
adapted  will  survive.  But  I  believe  that  at  last  those 
best  adapted  to  culture  and  civilized  values  will  come 
out  of  this  humane  and  beautiful  process.  A  new, 
perfectly  natural  Natural  Selection  will  arise;  but  it 
will  have  lost  all  the  red  tooth  and  claw  of  the  old 
natural  selection;  and,  while  it  will  be  equally  effec- 
tive, the  process  itself  will  be  happy,  peaceful  and 

If  bringing  or  not  bringing  of  children  into  the 
world  can  be  easily,  healthfully  and  happily  deter- 
mined by  everybody,  it  seems  evident  that  it  will  be 


the  relative  power  of  the  parental  instinct  which  will 
determine  who  shall  undertake  parenthood  and  who 
shall  not.  As  it  is  already  among  educated  classes, 
those  who  want  children  are  the  ones  who,  as  a  rule, 
have  them.  Among  these  classes,  beyond  question,  the 
race  has  been  running  for  a  generation  between 
parental  instinct  on  the  one  hand  and  social  and  eco- 
nomic ambitions  on  the  other.  With  some,  ambition 
has  won  and  the  life  of  the  race  has  been  sacrificed 
upon  its  altar.  Among  other  people,  the  old  biolog- 
ical instincts  of  family  and  home  have  won.  Which 
of  these  classes  is  the  better,  is  the  question.  Wliether 
this  selection  has  made  these  classes  better  or  worse 
is  probably  the  largest  question  w^hich  can  be  asked. 
But  one  thing  seems  evident :  That  when  birth  control 
becomes  a  much  simpler  matter  than  it  has  been  here- 
tofore, even  among  these  privileged  classes,  and  when 
it  is  extended  to  all  classes,  there  will  not  only  be  a 
race  between  parental  ambition  and  social  ambition 
within  each  class ,  but  there  will  be  a  race  between  the 
classes  the  like  of  which  the  world  has  never  witnessed 
before.  It  will  be  a  race  not  only  for  worldly  success 
but  a  race  by  each  class  for  the  survival  of  its  species 
and  to  its  particular  kind  of  people.  The  relative 
power  of  parental  instinct  to  break  through  all  eco- 
nomic and  social  barriers  and  pressures  is  the  thing 
that  will  then  determine  which  classes  of  human  beings 
are  going  to  survive  and  spread  over  the  face  of  the 


The  highest  question,  then,  which  lies  before  bio- 
logical and  social  research,  the  most  insistent  and  vivid 
problem  that  should  immediately  engross  all  the  inter- 
est and  abilities  of  the  statesmen,  it  seems  to  me,  Is 


this :  7s  there  any  biological  linkage,  any  natural  cor- 
relation, any  necessary  hereditary  association,  in  the 
human  constitution,  between  intelligence,  health,J,on- 
gevity,  beauty,  sanity,  moral  character  and  social 
capacity  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  parental  instinct, 
the  passion  for  home  and  children,  the  age-old  passion 
for  reproduction,  on  the  other?  Do  the  good  people  of 
the  world,  those  who  have  the  things  in  their  inborn 
natures  which  the  race  has  learned  to  idealize,  those 
virtues  which  sculptors  have  carved  in  their  deathless 
marbles,  which  painters  have  made  to  live  and  move 
across  their  canvases,  and  which  poets  have  en- 
shrined in  their  verses — do  these  people  love  children 
any  more  than  those  in  whom  the  great  personal  and 
social  qualities  have  never  come  to  such  luxuriant  and 
exuberant  fruition?  In  short,  the  problem  of  the  racial 
future  simply  figures  down  to  this:  Does  the  maid  or 
the  mistress,  the  prince  or  the  pauper,  the  moron  or 
the  genius,  desire  children  the  more! 

Eugenics  does  not  want  to  make  a  new  kind  of  man. 
It  merely  wants  the  best  man  to  survive.  We  shall 
never  find  a  better  set  of  virtues  than  the  good,  old- 
fashioned  ones.  Heroism  and  gentility,  strength  and 
sympathy,  virility  and  tenderness,  power  and  delicacy, 
fortitude  and  reserve,  intrepidity  and  urbanity,  and 
all  those  gallantries  and  valors  which  the  race  has 
come  to  worship,  all  those  attributes  which  are  the 
outcome  of  sincerity,  prudence,  elegance,  polish  and 
grace  of  body  and  mind — no,  eugenics  will  never  in- 
vent a  better  list  of  virtues  than  these.  It  does  not 
wish  to.  The  animus  of  its  dream  is  that  these  quali- 
ties shall  be  combined  in  as  large  a  number  of  indi- 
viduals as  possible  and  that  these  individuals  shall 
be  the  ones  to  whom  the  social  order  shall  give  the 
best  biological  chance,  the  chance  to  hand  on  this 
lavish  biological  heritage.    Its  hope  is  that  these  qual- 


ities  shall  become  the  heritage  of  all  men.  And  if  man 
is  going  to  have  put  into  his  own  hands  this  instru- 
ment of  birth  control,  then  the  problem  of  all  problems 
is  whether  the  people  who  possess  this  heritage  in 
the  most  bounteous  degree  are  the  ones  who  have  the 
greatest  passion  to  hand  on  this  inheritance  and  live 
themselves,  immortally,  in  the  long  stream  of  future 
evolution.  No  other  problem  equals  this  in  impor- 
tance, no  other  question  approaches  it. 


This,  then,  it  seems  to  me,  is  the  future  world  stage 
of  man,  the  world  stage  which  the  intelligence  of  man 
has  set,  the  stage  upon  which  the  last  act  of  the  long 
drama  of  evolution  is  to  be  played  before  the  curtain 
of  life  shall  have  been  rung  down  by  the  hand  of  Time. 
If  this  be  true,  then  the  question  which  must  penetrate 
deepest  both  into  our  minds  and  hearts  is :  Have  we  any 
evidence  that  will  aid  us  in  making  even  the  vaguest 
prophecy  as  to  how  the  drama  shall  proceed  or  who 
shall  be  the  successful  actors  in  the  final  scene,  and 
how  the  play  shall  end?  Is  man  going  to  deteriorate 
gradually,  as  some  animals  have  deteriorated,  until  his 
species  comes  to  a  disgraceful  lower  form  which  is 
finally  unable  to  negotiate  even  its  own  survival?  Or 
will  the  human  race  go  on  about  as  it  is  going  now  and 
has  been  going  on  for  ten  thousand  years — a  general 
mixture  of  good,  bad  and  indifferent,  the  bad  elements 
sometimes  in  control  of  society  and  culture,  with  ^^  right 
upon  the  scaffold"  and  * 'wrong  upon  the  throne";  the 
indiff^erent  elements  sometimes  in  control,  which  is 
much  the  case  at  present;  and  at  other  blossoming 
times,  such  as  the  Alexandrian  and  the  **most  high  and 
palmy  state  of  Eome"  and  Greece,  with  society  under 
the  control  of  the  able  and  the  good!    In  other  words, 


What  sort  of  man  is  going  to  reproduce  his  kind? 
Have  we  any  evidence  that  there  is  a  true  biological 
linkage  between  the  qualities  that  make  what  the  race 
has  come  to  look  upon  as  a  good  man,  and  the  passion 
to  reproduce  these  good  qualities  in  his  children? 

I  cannot  conceive  of  a  more  pressing  problem  for 
research  than  this.  Our  evidence  is  extremely  meager, 
but  what  we  have  is  mostly  to  the  good.  I  have  already 
submitted  evidence  that  intelligent  people  live  longer 
than  mediocre  and  stupid  ones.  "We  are  thoroughly 
justified  in  arguing  from  this  that  intelligence  is  asso- 
ciated with  greater  biological  capacity.  This  hardly 
proves,  how^ever,  that  this  long-lived  intelligence  has 
any  stronger  parental  instinct  and  greater  desire  to 
rear  a  family  and  build  a  home  to  provide  for  its  fur- 
ther survival ;  although  on  general  evolutionary  theory 
we  would  expect  this  to  be  true.  I  have  also  submitted 
Pearson's  evidence  upon  the  correlation  between 
duration  of  life  and  the  number  of  offspring.  The 
reader  will  also  remember  that  research  proves  that 
women  who  live  to  be  seventy-five  years  of  age  or 
more  produce  on  the  average  more  children  than 
women  who  die  at  fifty  or  sixty  or  seventy,  even 
though  the  child-bearing  period  in  these  different 
groups  might  be  approximately  the  same.  Since 
intelligence  is  also  associated  with  long  life,  there  is 
evidently  a  tendency  for  intelligence  to  be  associated 
with  the  instinct  and  capacity  to  reproduce  itself 
in  its  offspring.  I  also  described  Doctor  Bell's  ex- 
haustive study  of  the  genealogy  of  the  Hyde  family 
in  America,  which  you  may  recall  showed  that  one-  and 
two-child  families  tend  to  die  out  more  rapidly  than 
four-  and  five-  and  six-child  families.  If  a  man  has  ^ve 
or  six  brothers  and  sisters  he  has  much  greater  chance 
of  producing  a  good  family  of  his  OT\m  than  a  man  who 
has  only  one  or  two  brothers  and  sisters  or  none  at  all. 


The  same  is  true,  of  course,  of  a  woman  who  has  sev- 
eral brothers  and  sisters,  or  one  who  is  from  a  small 
family  or  is  an  only  child. 

I  have  little  doubt  that  an  exhaustive  research 
would  disclose  that  at  least  up  to  the  birth-control 
period  of  recent  times,  small  families  have  had  less 
intelligence  and  have  been  of  worse  moral  character 
than  large  families  because  they  have  been  of  inferior 
biological  quality.  The  general  theory  of  evolution 
would  hardly  leave  us  room  for  any  other  conclusion. 
However,  with  birth  control  in  the  possession  of  the 
more  intelligent  and  denied  to  the  less  intelligent,  this 
tendency  has  doubtless  been  greatly  obscured  and  even 
reversed.  The  question  at  issue  is  then:  Will  not 
universal  birth  control  restore  this  beneficent  tendency 
to  its  rightful  place  in  man's  biological  development? 
If  it  does,  as  I  think  it  will,  it  seems  to  me  that 
scarcely  any  higher  call,  both  to  personal  and  social 
ethics,  has  ever  come  from  the  voice  of  nature.  Those 
who  fight  the  spread  of  birth  control  are,  it  would 
seem,  deliberately  setting  the  stage  for  the  breeding 
of  stupidity,  ill-health,  shortness  of  life,  and  the 
natural  immorality  which  is  the  necessary  outcome 
of  these  things. 

The  reader  will  also  recall  that  Woods's  study  of 
the  royal  families  disclosed  the  fact  that  those  most 
celebrated  for  intellect  and  morals  also  reared  to  ma- 
turity the  greatest  number  of  children.  If  we  only 
knew  this  to  be  true  in  the  general  population,  it  would 
be  the  answer  we  are  seeking  to  our  question — namely, 
Is  parental  instinct  linked  with  social  capacity  and 
intelligence  1 

The  difficulty  with  this  evidence  is  that  it  may  be 
'Bharged  that  breeding  among  the  royal  families  pro- 
ceeds under  different  conditions  from  those  which 
obtain   in  the   ordinary   family.     It   may   easily  be 


alleged  that  great  political  and  even  military  pressure, 
and  all  sorts  of  selfish  motives,  have  induced  the  royal 
families  to  produce  children  to  the  very  limit  of  their 
capacity.  Pearl  has  produced  evidence  that  wealth 
and  general  economic  and  social  well-being  in  them- 
selves lead  to  a  decline  of  sex  activity  and  interest,  and 
that  the  high  birth  rate  of  the  poor  is  not  the  result  of 
stupidity,  but  is  chiefly  the  result  of  their  greater  sex 
activity  and  interest.  He  thinks  that  the  poor  seek  in 
greater  sex  indulgence  a  compensation  for  the  mis- 
eries of  their  existence.  Perhaps  the  fact  that  follow- 
ing strikes  and  periods  of  idleness  there  is  an  increase 
in  the  birth  rate  of  the  laboring  classes  would,  if 
examined,  furnish  further  evidence  in  support  of 
PearPs  conclusion.  However,  wealth  and  worldly 
success  did  not  act  in  this  way  upon  the  royal  families. 
Their  high  birth  rate  has  always  continued  in  the  mids^ 
of  luxury,  social  and  political  power. 

Of  course,  there  has  probably  been  in  this  privileged 
group  a  genuine  survival  of  fecundity.  Down  through 
the  centuries,  owing  to  the  fact  that  this  group  has 
been  set  apart  from  the  remainder  of  mankind,  this 
tendency  has  had  free  play.  The  long-lived  ones  with 
many  children  have  inherited  the  thrones  and  other 
instruments  of  survival.  A  king  with  a  large  number 
of  sons,  such  as  Charlemagne,  who  probably  had  one 
hundred  or  more,  and  King  Priam,  who  had  fifty, 
certainly  had  a  greater  chance  of  having  a  military 
genius  crop  up  among  them  than  a  king  who  had  only 
one  or  a  very  small  number.  Both  the  military  genius 
and  the  fecundity  of  the  fathers  would  be,  thus,  handed 
on  down  the  line.  I  merely  mean  to  point  out  that  the 
evidence  in  the  royal  families  that  the  parental  instinct 
is  linked  with  highly  desirable  human  qualities  may 
not  apply  to  the  population  at  large.  I  have  little 
doubt  that  it  does  apply,  but  we  need  further  proof. 



As  a  direct  answer  to  the  all-important  question  as 
to  whether  the  instinct  of  parenthood  is  linked  with 
intelligence  and  character,  I  know  of  but  one  piece  of 
crucial  evidence.  This  evidence  has  just  recently  been 
handed  to  me  by  Dr.  F.  A.  Woods  and  this  is  its  first 
publication  in  book  form.  It  seems  to  me  to  be  highly 
significant.  Woods  has  taken  the  Harvard  graduates 
for  the  classes  of  1890,  '92,  '94  and  '98,  including  over 
one  thousand  men,  and  has  calculated  their  relative 
entries  into  Who's  Who  as  associated  with  their 
marriages  and  the  numbers  of  their  children. 

Without  taking  the  space  to  spread  out  all  of  the 
data  here,  let  me  say  that  Woods  finds  that  of  the  men 
in  these  classes  who  have  been  admitted  into  Who's 
Who  only  9.71  per  cent,  are  bachelors.  Those  who  have 
married  but  have  no  children  constitute  16.44  per  cent, 
of  those  who  have  achieved  distinction.  Those  who 
have  married  and  have  only  one  child  constitute  16.91 
per  cent,  of  these  distinguished  persons.  At  this  point 
there  comes  quite  a  distinct  advance  in  that  type  of 
achievement  which  leads  to  inclusion  in  this  roster  of 
American  fame.  Those  with  three  children  run  18.92 
per  cent,  in  their  proportion  of  the  admissions  and 
those  with  four  children  make  up  18.09  per  cent,  of 
those  who  have  gained  entry.  The  rise  is  fairly  reg- 
ular from  those  men  who  have  married  but  have  no 
children  up  to  those  with  four  children  or  more.  Tlie 
slight  drop  between  the  two-to-three-child  men  and 
the  three-to-four-child  men  would  probably  be  ironed 
out  with  larger  numbers. 

The  two  striking  things  to  be  noted  from  this 
inquiry  are  the  much  higher  ratio  of  the  married  men 
over  the  bachelors,  and  the  distinct  advantage  of  the 
three-and-four-child  men  over  the  childless  and  the 


one-and-two-child  men.  Owing  to  the  great  advantage 
of  the  married  men  over  the  unmarried,  it  might  be 
charged  that  a  man's  wife  boosts  him  into  Who's 
Who;  but  I  hardly  think  that  any  man  of  experience 
will  claim  that  four  children  are  likely  to  do  so !  This 
would  seem  to  furnish  new  evidence  that  the  project 
to  tax  old  bachelors  Nvith  a  view  of  inducing  them  to 
marry  and  reproduce  their  inability  to  achieve  worldly 
success  m  a  brood  of  children — unless  it  be  looked 
upon  by  married  men  as  a  tax  on  luxury — might  prove 
to  be  a  very  dysgenic  undertaking. 



I  do  not  wish  to  draw  unwarranted  conclusions, 
but  it  seems  to  me  that  Woods  has  here  given  us  the 
first  direct  proof,  just  as  he  gave  us  the  first  proof  of 
mental  and  moral  correlations,  that  in  the  general 
population,  as  well  as  in  the  royal  families,  the  instinct 
of  parenthood,  the  passion  and  capacity  for  an  abun- 
dant, happy  and  wholesome  family  life,  is  associated  in 
man's  body  and  mind  with  those  other  mental  abilities 
and  temperamental  qualities  which  lead  to  intellectual 
achievement  and  social  success.  It  seems  evident  that 
we  are  not  only  building  up  social  cones,  but  home- 
loving,  home-building,  child-rearing  cones  as  well. 

If  we  dare  draw  any  generalizations  from  such  a 
limited  amount  of  evidence — and  I  think  we  can,  be- 
cause the  evidence  seems  to  be  rather  crucial — it  may 
be,  after  all,  that  our  alarm  over  the  declining  birth 
rate  of  our  intellectual  leaders  and  our  successful  citi- 
zens generally,  such  as  our  lawyers,  doctors,  clergy- 
men, teachers,  writers,  skilled  mechanics  and  the  like, 
is  only  partly  justified.  Quite  a  part  of  it,  at  leas?, 
is  surely  only  an  indication  of  a  new  selection,  an  in- 


(Jication  that  a  new  type — and  apparently  a  better 
type — of  citizen  is  going  to  survive  and  in  time  people 
the  country.  It  may  be  merely  evidence  that  nature 
is  shuffling  her  deck  of  evolutionary  cards  anew.  She 
may  be  getting  ready  for  a  new  deal ;  and  the  child  of 
the  future  may  find  that  he  has  drawn  a  strong  hand — 
indeed,  possibly,  all  the  aces  in  the  deck. 

There  can  be  little  question  that,  taken  as  a  class, 
the  more  successful  sections  of  our  population  are  dy- 
ing out.  Pearl's  graph  showed  that,  and  there  is 
abundant  other  evidence.  The  upper  ten  per  cent,  of 
intelligence,  for  instance,  which  furnishes  practically 
all  of  our  college  graduates,  from  whom  come  nearly 
three-fourths  of  our  leaders,  is  probably  vanishing. 
As  a  class  these  people  are  decreasing  in  numbers 
pretty  rapidly.  The  casual  observer  would  say  they 
were  dying  out  and  would  soon  all  be  gone.  He  may 
be  reckoning,  however,  without  taking  into  account 
that  never-ending,  never-to-be-defeated  determination 
of  living  nature  to  adapt  her  species  to  the  circum- 
stances immediately  at  hand.  If  one  kind  of  life  will 
not  survive,  nature  tries  another  kind.  From  the 
standpoint  of  our  ideals,  this  new  type  of  life  may  be 
higher  or  lower,  but  from  the  viewpoint  of  nature  her 
species  are  always  ideal.  From  the  standpoint  of  our 
ideals  the  Eskimo,  for  example,  may  be  a  pretty  poor 
specimen ;  but  from  the  standpoint  of  nature,  he,  with 
his  small  body  to  keep  warm  in  a  cold  climate,  would 
appear  to  be  an  evolutionary  triumph.  At  least,  tEe 
type  which  survives  any  change  of  conditions  is  a  type 
better  adapted  to  survive  amid  those  conditions. 

Just  so,  this  may  be  what  is  happening  in  the  ap- 
parent d3ring  out  of  our  intellectual  and  economically 
successful  classes.  The  dying  out  may  be  more  ap- 
parent than  real.  It  may  be  that  the  most  successful 
ones  are  not  dying  out.     Their  actual  numbers   are 


at  present  decreasing.  But  it  may  be  only  a  tem- 
porary decrease.  It  may  be  the  beginning  of  an 
abundant  increase  soon,  due  to  the  preservation  of  the 
best  and  most  prolific  strains. 

I  think  myself  that  this  is  exactly  what  is  happen- 
ing. I  think  it  is  happening  at  a  pretty  rapid  rate 
and  on  a  pretty  large  scale.  And  when  birth  reg- 
ulation becomes  a  mere  routine  matter,  when  all  chil- 
dren shall  be  brought  into  the  world  by  the  definite 
planning  and  forethought  of  the  parents,  I  think  this 
process  will  work  much  more  rapidly  and  on  a  much 
larger  scale.  Our  college  graduates  and  our  intellec- 
tual and  business  leaders,  as  a  class,  are  passing 
away — ^but  not  all  of  them.  It  is  highly  probable  that 
only  those  are  vanishing  who  are  not  gifted  by  nature 
with  the  one  supreme  capacity  for  adaptation — the 
adaptation  of  reproducing  their  kind  amid  the  con- 
ditions of  civilized  life.  Those  who  are  adapted  to 
this  vast  new  change  in  environment,  this  change  from 
the  jungle  to  polite  society,  from  the  wild,  hunting, 
fighting  stage  to  the  economic  and  cultural  struggle 
for  existence — these  are  surviving;  they  are  carrying 
on  and  will  furnish  the  hereditary  foundations  for  a 
new  and  greater  race.  We  have  heard  much  of  late 
of  **The  Passing  of  the  Great  Eace";  it  may  be  that 
in  quite  another  sense  from  that  which  the  author  of 
this  famous  phrase  had  in  mind,  the  truly  great  race 
is  just  coming  into  its  own. 


The  reader  should  not  gain  the  idea  that  this  new 
agency,  by  which  the  race  is  expected  to  improve  itself 
by  the  use  of  its  own  volition  and  passions,  will  mean 
the  abandonment  of  the  program  of  eugenics.  Quite 
the  contrary.    It  will  only  add  to  its  effectiveness. 


Pearl  expresses  doubt  that  idealistic  appeals  will  in- 
duce persons  of  rich  racial  qualifications  to  increase 
the  number  of  their  children.  With  the  economic  and 
social  burdens  of  parenthood  as  great  as  they  are  now, 
he  doubts  that  even  the  most  patriotic  appeal  will  in- 
duce even  high-minded  people  to  increase  their  load. 
I  find  it  difficult  to  share  this  doubt. 

There  can  be  little  question  that  in  all  ages  re- 
ligious appeals,  for  example,  have  influenced  the  birth 
rate.  As  an  illustration,  the  Mormon  people  of  Utah, 
under  the  influence  of  their  religious  beliefs,  have  kept 
up  a  higher  birth  rate  among  their  intellectual  and 
professional  classes  than  the  people  of  any  other  State 
of  the  Union.  Their  theology  teaches  that  every  child 
that  is  born  means  that  this  act  by  human  beings  gives 
another  soul  its  opportunity  to  pass  from  a  lower  stage 
of  existence,  through  the  trial  state  of  this  bodily  life, 
on  to  a  higher  plane  of  spiritual  evolution.  I  per- 
sonally have  no  more  belief  in  the  Mormon  theology 
than  I  have  in  any  other  theology.  Science  is  giving 
men,  I  think,  a  better  religion  and  a  better  idea  of 
God  than  any  dogmatic  theology  has  ever  given 
them.  It  may  easily  be  charged,  and  perhaps  with 
considerable  justice,  that  science  is  merely  giving  men 
a  new  dogmatic  theology,  even  more  dogmatic  than 
the  old.  However  that  may  be,  Prof.  Roswell  H.  John- 
son of  the  University  of  Pittsburgh,  president  of  the 
American  Eugenics  Society,  who  has  recently  studied 
the  Mormon  religion  at  first  hand  and  has  lived  for  a 
time  among  its  people,  believes  that  the  Mormon  re- 
ligion is  the  most  eugenical  religion  in  the  world.  He 
is  speaking  purely  of  its  biological  effect  and  not  of 
its  scriptural  or  theological  verity.  One  can  readily 
see  that  if  the  birth  of  each  child  were  regarded  as  a 
lofty  and  disinterested  act  of  spiritual  devotion,  a  pro- 
found and  inspiring  act  of  faith  and  worship,  this 


belief  would  be  pretty  certain  to  influence  conduct. 
And  it  would  seem  that  this  belief  would  have  the 
deepest  effect  upon  the  noblest  and  finest  minds  ^nd 
spirits  of  the  race.  At  least,  the  statistical  evidence 
now  in  hand,  recently  gathered  by  Professor  Johnson, 
leaves  a  clear  conviction  that  this  has  been  the  bio- 
logical effect  produced  by  the  Mormon  faith. 

I  trust  the  reader  will  have  the  tolerance  to  under- 
stand that  this  is  no  indorsement  of  the  Mormon 
religion,  but  merely  a  presentation  of  the  scientific 
facts.  I  feel  convinced  that  in  time  a  still  more 
eugenical  religion  and  a  still  deeper  and  sounder 
biological  conscience  can  be  developed  by  the  teach- 
ings of  pure  science,  especially  among  those  robust 
and  wholesome  people  whom  we  wish  to  see  as  the 
parents  of  the  next  great  race  of  men. 


If  we  look  at  other  religions,  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that  they  have  affected  the  biological  life  of 
the  people.  I  have  already  pointed  out  that  the  Roman 
Catholic  church  has  probably  affected  the  birth  rate 
of  its  adherents  in  an  unfavorable  way,  if  we  are  per- 
mitted to  look  upon  the  results  in  a  purely  scientific 
spirit.  The  Catholic  church  may  have  in  view  other 
spiritual  ends  which  in  its  judgment  outweigh  any 
untoward  biological  results;  but  from  a  purely  scien- 
tific standpoint  I  cannot  avoid  the  impression  that  the 
net  result  is  unfavorable  to  the  future  of  Roman 
Catholicism  as  an  effectively  organized  religious  faith. 

The  Japanese  and  Chinese  religions  have  some 
powerful  eugenical  appeals  contained  in  their  doc- 
trines. The  worship  of  ancestors  and  the  effort  to  im- 
prove the  spiritual  state  by  producing  a  large  number 
of  children  afford  surely  a  powerful  inducement  to 


undertake  the  rearing  of  a  family.  Since  this  also 
improves  the  chances  of  the  devotee  himself  of  ob- 
taining a  high  standing  in  the  next  world,  it  would 
seem,  again,  that  it  would  be  the  best  and  most  spir- 
itual persons  who  would  be  most  profoundly  affected 
by  this  religious  conviction.  That  it  tends,  at  least, 
toward  the  biological  survival  of  the  religious  tem- 
perament, I  see  no  reason  to  doubt. 

As  another  example,  the  Jewish  religion  contains 
many  excellent  eugenical  elements.  This  is  particu- 
larly true  of  their  lofty  ideals  of  home  life  and  of 
chastity,  of  their  stern  preachments  against  anything 
approaching  free  love,  and  their  strong  tendencies  to 
hold  their  families  together  and  take  care  of  their  own 
kin.  All  of  these  have  probably  worked  marked  ben- 
efits, in  a  biological  way,  to  this  race. 

I  do  not  believe  I  am  romancing  in  saying  it  is  at 
least  conceivable  that  when  birth  control  becomes  a 
part  of  ordinary  human  life  it  will  set  up  a  new  kind  of 
rivalry  among  religions  as  to  which  shall  be  able  to 
formulate  in  its  doctrines  the  profoundest  eugenical 
appeals.  It  seems  quite  possible  that  that  religion 
which  could  devise  the  most  effective  spiritual  induce- 
ments to  its  adherents  to  bring  large  families  into  the 
world  would,  in  the  long  run,  provide  itself  with  the 
largest  number  of  adherents.  Out  of  such  a  religious 
rivalry,  when  the  very  loftiest  motives  that  exist  in 
human  nature  should  be  appealed  to,  it  again  seems 
that  it  would  be  the  best  people  of  the  race  who  would 

Indeed,  it  may  well  be  that  profound  changes  will 
occur  in  the  racial  composition  of  various  nations. 
Upon  this  point  I  am  merely  speculating.  One  fact 
worth  thinking  of,  however,  is  that  the  Jewish  race,  by 
its  long,  long  life  for  many  centuries  in  the  ghettos  of 
the  world-  has  become  especially  adapted  to  survival 


amid  city  conditions.  The  Jews  have  a  high  immunity 
from  tuberculosis  and  other  diseases  under  which 
other  races  dwelling  by  their  sides  go  down.  We  have 
come,  through  science,  to  be  a  world  of  city  dwellers 
and,  no  telling,  the  Jewish  race  may  be  the  one  that  will 
win  out  amid  such  an  environment.  These  are  idle 
speculations,  of  course,  but  they  do  float  across  the 
imagination  of  a  student  of  biology  who  is  trying  to 
penetrate  the  future.  Should  this  speculation  prove 
true,  that  other  races  will  be  out-bred  and  supplanted 
by  the  Jew,  or  by  some  other  race  even  better  adapted 
to  city  life,  then  if  we  are  going  to  be  true  to  our  much- 
vaunted  Nordic  traditions  of  sportsmanship,  we  should 
say,  *^Let  the  best  man  win!" 

I  believe,  however,  that  idealistic  appeals  will 
have  some  effect.  If  I  am  permitted  a  personal 
reference,  I  might  say  that  a  number  of  parents — 
surely  two  score  or  more — ^have  either  written  me  or 
told  me  personally  that,  since  reading  my  book,  The 
Fruit  of  the  Family  Tree,  they  had  already  added  or 
planned  to  add  one  or  two  children  to  their  families. 
If  such  a  slight  appeal  as  this  has  such  an  effect,  I 
think  it  reasonable  to  believe  that  appeals  of  a  pro- 
founder  and  a  more  far-reaching  nature  will  have  a 
much  more  beneficial  effect  upon  the  birth  rate  of  those 
very  classes  upon  which  civilization  depends  for  its 
creation  and  upkeep. 

I  submitted,  in  the  above  mentioned  book,  evidence 
first  collected  by  Woods  and  later  supplemented  by  my 
own  researches,  that  indicated  that  the  introduction  of 
the  Greek  ideals  of  facial  beauty  following  the  Renais- 
sance changed  the  bony  structure  and  facial  appear- 
ance of  the  people  of  northern  Europe.  Of  late  I  have 
been  studying  still  more  portraits  of  the  north  Euro- 
pean peoples  of  the  past  three  hundred  years,  and  my 
conviction  grows  that  the  facial  anatomy  of  the  north 


European  races,  especially  the  structures  about  the 
nose  and  eyes,  has  undergone  a  marked  change,  with 
the  result  of  a  great  improvement  in  personal  beauty. 
This  change  may  be  due  to  glandular  or  chemical 
changes  of  some  sort  which  are  correlated  with  certain 
types  of  bony  structure  and  musculature.  However,  I 
think  Woods 's  suggestion  that  men  learned  to  admire 
the  Greek  ideals  of  beauty  which  were  introduced  by 
the  Eenaissance,  and  that  this  led  them  to  select  wives 
of  that  type  and  breed  children  from  these  types  of 
beauty,  is  the  most  plausible  explanation.  If  this  be 
the  correct  interpretation,  it  furnishes  strong  evidence 
of  the  power  which  eugenical  appeals  can  be  made  to 
have  as  they  are  consciously  formulated  in  the  future. 
The  experiments  in  the  education  of  character  now 
going  on  at  several  universities,  I  have  little  doubt  will 
ultimately  have  profound  effects  in  determining  mate 
selection.  I  look  for  scientific  character  education  to 
be  a  very  powerful  aid  in  the  biological  improvement 
of  mankind.  I  also  look  for  educational  psychology, 
as  it  is  able  more  and  more  to  measure  the  abilities  and 
aptitudes  of  men  and  as  we  rear  our  children  in  an 
atmosphere  charged  with  the  values  and  meanings  of 
the  differences  in  biological  and  spiritual  excellence 
among  men,  to  have  its  effect  upon  mate  selection ;  and 
I  believe  that  effect  will  be  very  considerable.  When 
children  grow  up  with  a  keen  sense  of  the  meaning  of 
mental  and  character  measurements  and  see  w^hat  these 
inborn  differences  mean  and  realize  these  differences 
are  inherited,  it  will,  I  feel  sure,  profoundly  influence 
young  men  and  women  in  their  marriage  choices.  Out- 
side of  numerous  effects  in  improving  compatability 
among  married  persons,  it  is  quite  conceivable  that  the 
ideal  of  fertility — that  is,  the  possibility  of  abundant 
children — would,  in  itself,  become  a  very  significant 
factor  in  determining  marriage  choices.    For  example, 


it  is  quite  conceivable  that  a  young  man  who  had  grown 
up  amid  a  family  of  four  or  five  brothers  and  sisters,  a 
man  endowed  with  the  same  biological  capacity, and 
imbued  with  the  happiness  and  privileges  of  an 
abounding  home  life,  when  he  once  understood  that 
fecundity  is  a  very  definitely  inherited  trait,  would,  to 
put  it  plainly,  steer  clear  of  marrying  a  woman  who 
was  an  only  child  or  who  had  perhaps  only  one  brother' 
or  sister.  And  of  course,  the  same  tendency  would 
work  even  more  powerfully  with  women  endowed  by 
nature  with  large  and  generous  instincts  of  maternity. 
I  do  not  wish  the  reader  to  gather  that  I  am  assert- 
ing dogmatically  that  any  of  these  things  will  take 
place.  The  factors  involved  are  so  bewildering  m 
number  and  complexity,  and  so  many  of  them  are  still 
in  such  obscurity  or  else  completely  unknown,  that 
neither  I  nor  any  one  else  can  predict  with  certainty 
what  is  going  to  happen.  I  am  only  placing  before 
the  reader,  after  years  of  reflection  and  after  studying 
all  the  available  evidence,  what  seems  to  me  is  most 
likely  to  happen.  I  think  eugenics  has  an  immense 
future.  I  think  universal  birth  regulation  will  be  one 
of  its  chief  instruments,  but  by  no  means  its  only 
instrument,  for  lifting  the  race  to  higher  levels  of 
health  and  sanity. 


Of  course,  it  may  be  that  with  universal  birth  con- 
trol there  might  come  an  actual  reduction  in  the 
numbers  of  the  race.  If  so,  this  could  be  temporary 
only.  If  the  reader  will  recall  the  arguments  by  Dr. 
Alexander  Graham  Bell  upon  the  point  of  race  suicide, 
it  appears  that  in  the  end  it  would  be  the  most  fertile 
members  of  the  race  that  would  survive.  Should  our 
race  even  be  reduced  to  its  original  single  pair,  it  is  o5- 


vious  that  this  second  Adam  and  Eve  would  be  the 
inheritors  of  the  accumulating  fecundity  of  a  long 
period  of  selection  with  this  end  in  view.  I  do  not  think 
we  need  concern  ourselves  about  any  such  possibilities. 
The  iron  law  of  population  growth  will  go  marching  on 
irrespective  of  the  feeble  efforts  of  man.  But  I  think 
man  can  to  a  considerable  extent  alter  the  quality  of 
the  population  that  shall  come  out  of  the  process. 

It  may  be  also,  of  course,  that  universal  birth  con- 
trol will  lead  to  a  still  further  reduction  in  the  birth 
rate  of  our  leaders.  It  is  even  possible  that  the  neces- 
sary quota  of  leaders  would  be  so  reduced  that  our 
present  social  order  would  disappear.  There  was 
never  a  time  when  society  needed  so  many  leaders  of 
so  many  different  types  as  it  needs  to-day.  A 
great  many  of  these  leaders  are  childless  at  present. 
As  we  have  seen,  nearly  ten  per  cent,  of  the  Harvard 
graduates  reaching  distinction  were  bachelors.  About 
sixteen  per  cent,  were  married  but  childless.  Such 
men  and  women  furnish  a  very  high  percentage  of  our 
ablest  social  servants;  however,  since  they  do  not  re- 
produce anyhow,  further  birth  control  will  not  mate- 
rially affect  them.  But  even  if  our  present  society 
should  go  under,  if  the  priceless  boon  of  birth 
regulation  should  remain  in  the  hands  of  the  race, 
then  in  time  we  may  still  hope  that  another  race, 
better  adapted  to  a  life  of  culture,  manners  and  intel- 
lectual adventure  will  rise  and  will  build  again  a 
civilization  of  even  greater  polish  and  grandeur. 

But  I  believe  that  with  the  use  of  the  educational 
methods  and  the  multiple  agencies  of  social  appeal 
which  science  has  placed  in  our  hands  even  such  a 
temporary  catastrophe  can  be  avoided.  It  would  surely 
seem,  that  man,  with  all  the  instruments  of  science  in 
his  hands,  can  save  his  present  social  order  and  its 
cultural  achievements,  and  at  the  same  time  do  some- 


thing  to  improve  his  breed,  something  which  shall 
decrease  the  inborn  misery  and  increase  the  inborn 
happiness  of  the  men  of  to-morrow.  Surely  he, can 
make  use  of  the  intelligence  which  evolution  has  given 
him  to  influence  that  evolution  in  the  future,  just  as 
he  now  bends  other  laws  of  nature  to  the  uses  of  his 
intelligence  and  will.  Man  has  paid  such  a  fearful 
price  for  his  intelligence  and  his  capacity  for  moral 
emotion  that  it  does  seem  he  ought  to  be  able  to  make 
them  pay  for  themselves,  not  merely  in  giving  him  an 
occasional  cultural,  economic  and  political  joy-ride, 
but  in  improving  the  might  and  quality  of  his  own 
intellect  and  character.  I,  for  one,  believe  he  can  do 
this  and  I  believe  he  will. 


Of  course,  there  will  continue  to  be  objectors  to 
birth  control,  but  in  my  belief  no  efforts  of  man  can 
now  stop  or  greatly  retard  its  universal  application. 
Societies  and  organizations  for  birth  control  propa- 
ganda will  likely  be  unnecessary.  They  wdll  probably 
go  out  of  business  because  their  objective  has  been 
achieved.  Neither  thunders  of  the  Church  nor  the 
efforts  of  the  State  to  prevent  the  use  of  this  means  of 
human  happiness  and  health,  will,  I  think,  be  of  much 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  if  both  Church  and  State  would 
take  a  long  and  sympathetic  look  ahead,  they  would 
see  that  probably  no  greater  moral  agency  has  ever 
been  devised  than  the  power  to  determine  whether 
moral  or  immoral  people  shall  be  born.  There  are 
some  people  who  are  naturally  good;  there  are  others 
who  find  it  very  difficult  to  be  good;  while  there 
are  still  others  upon  whom  we  have  to  use  all  the 
agencies  of  education  and  the  powers  of  the  police,  to 
compel  them  to  be  good.    If  this  be  true,  and  no  one 


except  our  extreme  Behaviorists  seems  to  doubt  it, 
then  nothing  would  add  more  to  the  moral  beauty  of 
the  world  than  that  its  children  should  be  born  from 
those  parents  who  are  naturally  good.  And  universal 
birth  control  will,  I  think,  rapidly  breed  the  race  in 
the  direction  of  natural  goodness.  It  is  often  objected 
that  the  spread  of  birth  control  will  lead  to  an  increase 
in  promiscuous  sex  relations  and  sex  immorality.  I 
think  it  quite  possible  that  we  may  have  to  reckon 
temporarily  with  this  difficulty.  But  it  is  perfectly 
obvious  that  if  the  possession  of  birth  control  is  a 
thing  which  leads  to  sex  immorality,  it  is  itself  the 
very  means  for  bringing  immoral  people  of  this  kind 
to  their  own  end.  The  mere  fact  that  they  do  not 
reproduce  their  own  unchastity  is  the  very  thing  which 
weeds  this  kind  of  sterile  passion  out  of  the  race  at 

We  could  bring  the  same  objection  that  sex  im- 
morality is  increased  by  the  building  of  cities  or  the 
inventing  of  automobiles,  or  indeed  anything  which 
increases  human  contacts  and  gives  free  play  to 
human  passion,  with  no  objective  except  its  own  im- 
mediate gratification.  As  I  have  repeatedly  pointed 
out,  man  has  made  such  stupendous  efforts  for  ten 
thousand  years  or  more  to  keep  alive  his  incompetent, 
stupid  and  immoral  strains,  that  we  may  have  to  pay 
a  temporary  penalty,  in  wiping  them  out.  We  may 
have,  at  least,  to  endure  for  a  while  the  spectacle  of 
seeing  them  wipe  themselves  out  by  the  most  dramatic, 
bio-ethical  process  which  the  world  has  ever  seen.  The 
silly  flapper,  the  Bohemian,  the  devotees  of  night- 
clubdom  and  those  addicted  to  pleasure  for  its  own 
sake  without  thought  of  the  morrow  or  sense  of  re- 
sponsibility to  the  race  will  leave  no  children  behind 
them  to  perpetuate  their  unchaste  and  unsocial  breeds ; 
and  the  places  that  knew  them  shall  know  them  no 


more.  The  fool,  when  even  he  can  prevent  the  repro- 
duction of  his  own  stupidity,  will,  as  never  before, 
perish  by  his  own  folly,  and  his  breed  will  vanish  with 
him.  Thus  birth  control  will  purge  the  race  on  a 
grand  and  dramatic  scale,  and  at  last  give  to  chastity, 
when  it  is  coupled  with  great  social  abilities  and  re- 
productive passions,  its  chance  to  survive  and  to 
people  the  world  with  its  possessors. 


We  see  thus  that  while  conscious  and  positive 
eugenics  is  still  the  largest  human  program  that  con- 
fronts our  intelligence,  while  it  can  enormously  aid  the 
processes  of  human  evolution,  yet  it  may  well  be,  as  I 
have  observed,  that  universal  birth  control  will  set 
going  a  new,  perfectly  natural.  Natural  Selection.  The 
agencies  of  this  natural  selection  will  be  man's  noblest 
impulses  and  his  largest  social  capacities.  It  is  always 
**the  man  who  is  left,"  whether  he  be  left  behind  by 
war  or  pestilence  or  famine  or  birth  control,  who  will 
people  the  world.  And  since  this  man  will  be  de- 
scended from  the  ablest  and  best,  the  most  far-seeing 
and  unselfish,  it  follows  that  civilization  will,  through 
the  aid  of  science,  evolve  a  naturally  civilized  man, 
instead  of  the  veneered  barbarian  whom  we  are  trying, 
with  indifferent  success,  to  civilize  to-day. 

It  may  be  objected  that  such  a  creature  will  be 
merely  a  sort  of  glorified  mollycoddle  who  has  lost  the 
old  daring,  chivalry,  love  of  adventure,  and  fighting 
trends  of  the  race.  I  hardly  think  we  need  to  feel 
alarmed.  Any  man  who,  in  this  complex  social  order, 
with  all  the  hardships  that  it  entails,  rears  four 
or  &ve  children  and  at  the  same  time  fights  his  way 
to  intellectual  distinction,  leadership  and  worldly 
fame,  will  surely  possess,  of  necessity,  those  organic 
driTfep.  and  powers  of  social  coherence  essential  for 


keeping  his  own  society  going  and  furnishing  men  at 
the  same  time  abundant  values  for  which  and  by  which 
to  live. 


Evolution  has  been  a  bitter  process.  **A11  wild 
animals  die  a  tragic  death. ' '  They  die  fighting  to  their 
last  breath  for  the  chance  to  live.  To  some  extent, 
man  has  been  able  to  suspend  this  process;  but,  after 
all,  until  he  could  control  his  reproduction,  he  had  no 
way  to  escape  the  red  tooth  and  claw  of  nature,  in 
order  to  improve  his  breed.  But  now,  at  last,  by  the 
discoveries  of  the  laws  of  his  own  biology  and  his 
control  of  reproduction,  it  is  within  his  power  to  set 
his  feet  upon  a  new  pathway  of  evolution  that  will 
lead  him  under  sunnier  skies  and  towards  happier 
goals.  For  if  there  really  are,  as  the  researches  I  have 
presented  strongly  indicate,  here  and  there  in  the 
population  those  rare  and  choice  spirits  who  are  en- 
dowed with  both  rich  social  and  racial  powers  and 
who,  from  their  very  natures  rear  large  families,  then 
under  universal  birth  regulation  they  and  their  chil- 
dren will  at  last  have  their  true  biological  opportunity. 
They  will  still  be,  just  as  in  the  old  days  of  brute 
natural  selection,  what  Huxley  called  *Hhe  darlings 
of  destiny."  They  and,  in  time,  they  alone,  will  carry 
on  the  reproduction  of  the  race  and  constantly  select 
it  upwards  by  the  benign  and  happy  processes  of  cul- 
ture and  lofty  social  passion.  Man  will  no  longer  have 
to  wade,  as  death  selection  has  always  heretofore 
compelled  him  to  wade,  through  the  bloody  mire  of 
natural  selection,  in  order  to  win  his  biological  gains. 


The  progress  of  man  from  savagery  to  libraries, 
from  unmitigated  brutality  to  the  Red  Cross,  from 


the  medicine  man's  tom-tom  to  the  modern  hospital, 
from  incantation  to  bacteriology,  from  caves  to  sky- 
scrapers, from  word  of  mouth  to  newspapers  and  radio, 
from  walking  to  airplanes,  from  cannibalism  lo  a 
world-wide  cuisine,  is,  to  a  man  of  imagination,  a 
drama  of  never-ending  significance  and  grandeur. 
Here  and  there  someone  has  thought  of  something  new, 
and  straightway  the  whole  environment  of  man  has 
been  changed ;  and  new  selective  agencies  have  at  once 
set  to  work  to  fit  his  constitution  to  the  new  life  into 
which  he  has  thus  been  ushered. 

It  was,  perhaps,  just  some  one  lonely  genius  who 
first  learned  to  fashion  spears  and  arrows  and  to 
sharpen  flints.  He  thus  lifted  the  whole  race  from  a 
barehanded  conflict  with  nature  into  the  Stone  Age. 
Some  other  genius — I  wish  I  knew  who  he  was — mixed 
nine  parts  of  copper  with  one  part  of  tin  and  Iffted 
the  race  from  the  stone  into  the  Metal  Age.  Buddha, 
Confucius,  Jesus  and  other  great  prophets  and  saviors, 
lifted  men  into  the  Humanitarian  Age.  Galileo,  New- 
ton and  Bacon  lifted  the  race  into  the  Scientific  Age. 
These  same  men,  and  such  men  as  Faraday,  Clerk- 
Maxwell,  Franklin,  Gibbs,  Edison,  Marconi,  have  lifted 
us  into  the  Electrical  Age.  And  now  it  is  evident  that 
Darwin,  Weismann,  Mendel,  Morgan,  Galton,  "Woods, 
Pearson,  Pearl,  Papanicalaou,  Wundt,  Hall,  James, 
Seashore,  Giddings,  Osborn,  Terman,  Thorndike  and 
their  great  confreres,  are,  without  the  world  realizing 
it,  lifting  the  race  into  the  Biological  and  Psycholog- 
ical Age.  This  will  be  the  age  when  a  knowledge  of 
man's  psychical  and  physical  nature  will  be  the  de- 
ciding factors  in  determining  his  customs,  his  educa- 
tion, his  economic  and  political  structures,  his  social 
behavior,  and,  above  all,  will  determine  his  reproduc- 
tion. These  will  be  the  forces  that  will  determine  the 
man  who  shall  be  left;  and  the  man  who  is  selected 


by  these  happy  processes  to  be  left  is  the  man  whose 
noble  nature  and  whose  virile  but  gentle  temperament 
will  fill  the  atmosphere  of  the  future  world. 


If,  finally,  the  considerations  of  this  book  be  valid, 
this  Bio-Psychological  Age  will  be  the  next  and  prob- 
ably the  last  great  age  of  man.  To  what  heights  man 
may  yet  climb,  he  does  not  and  cannot  know.  But, 
despite  the  follies  of  his  own  civilizations,  his  reversed 
birth  rates,  and  similar  unfortunate  biological  obstruc- 
tions, I  am  convinced  his  evolution  has  not  ceased ;  he 
is  steadily  surging  forward,  and  these  new  controls  of 
the  forces  of  his  own  reproduction  will  only  accelerate 
his  pace.  Cities,  drawing  rooms,  soft  bedsj  luxurious 
foods,  counting  rooms  and  machine  shops,  cannot  stop 
the  ceaseless  march  of  men  whose  innate  natures  are 
driving  them  on  to  unknown  but  higher  organic  goals. 


Consequently,  after  twenty  years  and  more  of  in- 
tensive study  and  reflection,  this  is  what  this  new 
word,  eugenics,  has  come  to  mean  to  me.  It  means  to 
me  not  merely  men  well  born  by  some  intelligent 
choice  of  their  immediate  ancestry,  as  Galton  and 
many  others  have  conceived  it.  It  seems  to  me,  with  the 
new  vision  which  biology  has  given  us  since  Galton 's 
great  conception,  that  eugenics  has  come  at  last  to 
mean  a  benign  evolution^  set  going  hy  man'*s  own 
control  over  natural  forces.  The  chief  agent  of  this 
new  evolution  will  be  the  joyous  exercise  of  man's 
richest  moral  and  social  emotions  and  capacities.  In 
this  light  the  word  eugenics  means  the  institution  of 
intelligent  and  happy  processes  of  a  natural  and  beau- 


tiful  hirth  selection  in  the  place  of  the  bloody,  natural 
death  selection  which  has  so  far  been  the  unhappy  lot 
of  all  organic  beings. 


The  symbols  and  the  instruments  of  this  next  age 
of  human  evolution  will  be  the  cradle,  the  home,  the 
school,  and  the  temples  of  religion,  art  and  culture. 
These  will  be  the  determining  forces  which  shall  decide 
who  shall  continue  the  race,  instead  of  the  bloodsoaked 
battlefield  of  the  struggle  for  existence  on  which  every 
previous  gain  of  biological  capital  has  been  won. 

Just  what  kind  of  creatures  these  men  and  women 
who  will  people  the  world  during  the  next!  age  of  man 
will  be  I  think  we  know.  They  will  be  good  people, 
healthy  people,  intelligent  people,  civilized  people. 
But  what  kind  of  social  order  they  will  build  we  do 
not  know  nor  do  we  very  much  care.  For,  if  the  social 
order  be  the  outcome  of  the  natures  of  men  and  women 
we  can  safely  believe  that  such  men  and  women  will 
build  a  society  that  will  give  fulfillment  to  their  ex- 
cellent natures.  I  believe,  however,  that  we  can 
already  see  the  direction  in  which  that  social  order 
will  trend  and  prophesy  with  some  assurance  its  gen- 
eral character  and  tone. 

At  this  point  I  recall  incompletely  through  the  mist 
of  the  years  a  boyhood  memory  of  a  noble  passage 
from  the  writings  of  Brooke  Foss  Westcott,  Bishop  of 
Durham,  the  great  promoter  of  cooperatives  in  Eng- 
land. And,  in  bringing  this  volume  to  a  conclusion 
this  passage  aids  my  imagination  to  picture  the  kind 
of  world  which  I  think  intelligent  and  good-natured 
men  in  time  will  build  for  themselves  and  their  chil- 
dren to  live  in. 

Elaborating  this  passage  very  greatly,  what  we  of 


all  faiths,  all  parties  and  all  creeds,  look  for,  hope  for 
and  pray  for,  is  a  society  where  class  shall  be  bound  to 
class  by  the  fact  that  the  humblest  man  as  well  as  the 
greatest  man  shall  participate  to  the  limits  of  his 
capacity  in  the  great  treasures  of  the  common  life — 
the  treasures  of  wealth  and  leisure,  the  treasures  of 
knowledge,  religion  and  education,  the  treasures  of 
art,  adventure  and  beauty;  a  society  where  the  mem- 
bers of  each  group  of  workers  shall  be  fitted  and  ad- 
justed to  their  work  by  vocational  guidance  and 
training,  by  psychological  and  personality  measure- 
ments, by  the  disciplines  and  inspirations  of  educa- 
tion, by  economic  and  industrial  adjustments,  and  by 
political  procedures  and  social  processes,  so  that 
they  tvill  find  in  their  work  the  development  of  their 
character  and  the  consecration  of  their  powers;  a 
society  where  the  highest  ambitions  of  men  shall 
be  to  become  leaders  in  their  o^vn  various  social 
classes,  each  using  his  own  special  powers  without 
waste  and  each  following  the  common  traditions  on 
to  noble  issues;  a  society  where  every  man's  education 
and  his  social  and  industrial  freedom  shall  cause  him 
to  feel  that  he  is  not  a  mere  cog  in  a  great  world 
economic  and  social  machine,  but  that,  by  the  token 
of  whatever  powers  nature  may  have  given  him, 
trained  to  the  full,  he  will  know  himself  to  be  a  unique 
and  wonderful  person,  capable  in  his  own  right  of 
determining  the  meanings  and  the  values  for  which 
and  by  which  he  shall  live;  a  society  where  every  man 
shall  know  and  be  stimulated  by  the  knowledge  that 
he  labors  not  for  himself  alone  nor  for  his  family  alone 
nor  for  his  country  alone,  but  where  every  man  shall 
labor,  amid  a  free  air  of  hope  and  opportunity,  for 
individual  completeness  and  social  effectiveness,  for  a 
better,  healthier  and  happier  human  race,  and  for  tlie 
three  great  things  that  men  live  by  and  die  by,  namely. 


liberty,  beauty,  and  *Hhat  high  unknown  purpose  of 
the  world,  which  we  call  God.'' 

Thus,  it  seems  to  me,  intelligent  men  can  to-day 
cherish  a  strong  and  reasonable  faith  that  man  Vill 
weather  the  evolutionary  storms  that  have  swept  his 
life  throughout  all  the  tides  of  history,  even  the  storms 
set  going  by  the  biological  follies  of  his  own  ambi- 
tions and  his  own  cultures.  It  seems  to  me  that  in- 
telligent men  can  to-day  hold  a  reasonable  conviction 
that  man  is  going  to  come  at  last  into  a  peaceful  port 
where  he  may  dwell  happily  in  a  universe  which  he 
has  won  to  friendliness  by  his  own  science — a  science 
created  by  the  very  intelligence  and  moral  emotions 
which  his  forbears  purchased  for  him  with  their  blood. 

Perhaps,  after  all,  this  was  what  the  majestic  mind 
of  Galton  did  envision  when  he  said,  **  Eugenics  will 
sweep  the  world  like  a  new  religion.''  For,  it  seems 
to  me,  if  men  are  privileged  to  aid — as  I  think  all  right- 
minded  men  can  now  aid — ^in  the  boundless  and 
abounding  process  of  improving  the  inborn  natures  of 
the  race  that  is  to  be,  surely  this  is  religion  enough, 
ethics  enough,  culture  enough,  to  satisfy  all  the  organic 
trends  that  mortal  flesh  is  heir  to,  whatever  may  be 
the  **new  varieties  of  untried  being"  which  may  lie 
ahead  in  that  ** bourn  from  which  no  traveler  e'er 

It  was  Saint  Paul  who  said:  **We  all,  with  open 
face  beholding  as  in  a  glass  the  glory  of  the  Lord, 
are  changed  into  the  same  image  from  glory  to 
glory.  ..." 

And  I  see  no  reason  why  men  cannot  cherish  a  well- 
grounded  and  constructive  faith  that,  through  their 
own  science,  they  shall  go  on  with  open  faces,  behold- 
ing the  glory  of  the  Lord,  making  intelligent  use  of 
His  laws  to  guide  their  own  evolution  from  glory  to 
glory;  evolving  by  their  own  intelligence  toward  that 


Divine  Image  which  is  the  most  beautiful  and  alluring 
vision  within  them.  In  this  sense,  eugenics  is  as  large 
as  man's  capacity  to  hope  and  dream,  as  deep  as  his 
capacity  to  penetrate  and  control  the  laws  of  his  own 
nature,  and  as  wide  as  his  capacity  to  organize  his 
social  efforts  to  ever  more  and  more  fruitful  ends, 



Ability  as   influenced  by  heredity 
and  environment,  150,  152 

Achievement,  record  of,  221  et  seq. 

*' Acquired"  characters  not  inher- 
ited, 163  et  seq. 

Adaptability   to    environment,    the 
potato  parable,  21-25 

Adjustment  to  life,  319-320 

Adopted   children,    study   of,    152- 

Aims     of     high-school     students, 

Alcohol,  see  Prohibition 

Alcohol  and  Longevity,  50  et  seq. 

Algeria,  French,  birth  control  in, 

Ambition,   social  vs.   love   of   chil- 
dren, 373  et  seq. 

Americans,    future,    where    from? 
333  et  seq. 

Ancestry  of  gifted  children,   153- 

Animal  and  plant  merge  into  each 
other,  42 

Applied  Eugenics,  328 


And  democracy,  274-275 
Created      by      democracy,      290 

et  seq. 
Extreme,  not  feasible,  56 
Origin,  273-274 

Trend  toward   **  social   conifica- 
tion,"  283  et  seq. 

Aristotle  quoted,  31 

Arithmetic,  ability  in,  150-152 

Assortative    mating,    211-218,    283 

et  seq. 
Australia,     work     of    environment 

and  heredity,  291-292 
Automobile,     effect     on     eugenics, 



Bonuses  for,  370-372 
Environment  and  heredity,  155- 

In  Who's  Who,  379-380 
Tax  on,  254 
Bain,  H.  Foster,  quoted,  35-36 
Ballot,   see   Suffrage. 

Meets  demand,  334  et  seq. 
Banker,    Howard    J.,    solution    of 

marriage  question,  255 
Bavaria,  drinking  in,  48-50 
Beautiful     and     famous     women, 


And   brains    associated,    200    et 

seq,,    207-211 
And   race    betterment,    208-211 
Experiment  with,  202-203 
Improvement  in  recent  centuries, 
Beecher,  Henry  Ward,  quoted,  131 
Behaviorism,  131  et  seq. 

Experiments   with    infants,    156 

et  seq. 
Fatalism,  169-171 
Eefutation  of  claim,  158 




Behaviorism,  con't. 

View,  141-142 

Being  Well-Born,  328 

Bell,  Alexander  Graham,  study  of 

large  families,  263-264 

Views  on  race  suicide,  244-248 

Betterment  of  the  race  and  beauty, 

* '  Bible  of  Prohibition, '  ^  49-50 
Biologists  and  biology 

Biological       and       evolutionary 

progress,  93  et  seq. 
Biological   and    social   capacity, 

Biological  incapacity  of  man  for 

permanent  civilization,  18 
Biological  revolution,  342-343 
Biological    sciences,    four    great 

discoveries,  127  et  seq. 
Biological  supply  and  ecoaomic 

demand,  333  et  seq. 
Biologist's  view  of  civilization, 
Of  heredity,  30 
Of  human  nature,  17 
Of  ** species,"  42 
Biology  in  need  of  research,  36 

et  seq. 
Biology  of  wealth,  270  et  seq. 
Biology  of  Death,  260 
Biology    of    Population     Growth, 

228  et  seq. 
Biometricians      appraise      human 

nature,  17 
Biometrics,  66 
Biometry,  invention  of,  259 
Bio-physical  age,  the,  395 
Birth  control,  231,  et  seq.,  237  et 
seq.,  268 
Biological,  358 
Dissemination       of       knowledge 

banned,  360 
Meaning  to  mankind,  347  et  seq. 

Birth  control,  can't. 

New   and  vitally   important   re- 
searches, 362  et  seq. 
Preserves    love    of    home,.  380 

et  seq. 
Purchasable  with  ease,  365-366 
Survival      of      better      classes 
through  birth  control,  381- 
Will  increase  morality,  390-392 
Birth  rate 

And  civilization,  243  et  seq. 
And  property  valuation,  238 
Differential,  value  of,  331-333 
Of  morons,  240-241 
Eeligion  and  birth  rate,  356-357 
Birth    selection   instead    of    death 

selection,  395  et  seq. 
Bonuses  for  babies,  370-372 
Brains  and  beauty  associated,  200 

et  seq. 
Brains,  rewards  for,  237  et  seq. 
Bryan,     William     Jennings,     and 
development  of  species,  41 
View  of  evolution,  43 
Bryn   Mawr   graduates   and   mar- 
riage, 251 
Burks,  Barbara,  study  of  adopted 
children,  152-153 

California  and  scientific  truth, 

Cancer,  heredity  of,  64,  65 

Capacity  and  incapacity,  social, 

Capacity,  biological  and  social, 

Carrel,  Alexis,  experiment  in  lon- 
gevity, 261 

Carter,  John,  Man  Is  War,  78-82 

Castle,  Cora,  list  of  eminent 
women,  205 

Cathecism  of  Eugenics,  328 



Catholic      Church,      see      Romaa 

CaUell,  J.  M.,  cited,  177 
Cell,  human  germ-,  see  Germ-plasm. 
Character  and  reputation,  161-163 
Character  education,  320-322,  387- 

Character,  rewards  for,  237  et  seq. 
Child  prodigies,  192-193 

Environment  and  heredity,  154- 

Gifted,  ancestry  of,  153-154 

Love  of,  373  et  seq. 

More,    from    long-lived    wome», 
Chromosomes,  148 
City  life,  adaptation  to,  386 

A  success,  15 

Affects  man  adversely,  120-121 

And    human    germ-plasm,     119 
et  seq. 

As  viewed  by  a  biologist,  21-25 

Birth  rate  in,  243  et  seq. 

Comforts,  15 

Downfall      through       biological 
incapacity?  18 

Due    to     divergence    from    the 
average,  278  et  seq. 

Evolution  of,  227,  et  seq. 

Failure  of,  119  et  seq. 

Genesis  of,  113 

How  to  keep  going,  306 

In  danger,  53 

Maa's   progress   in   civilization, 

New,  114-115 

Not  natural  to  man,  19-20 

Not  permanent,  18 

Product  of  a  few,  268 

Promise  of,  15 

Civilization,  con't. 

Reverses,  natural  evolution,  27- 

Eise  and  fall,  16-17 
Saves  the  unfit,  27-29 
Three  possibilities,  77 
Tinkers      with      human      germ- 
plasm,  31  et  seq. 
Will  not  fail,  388  et  seq. 
Civilizations,  fate  of,  121,  272-274 
Civilized  man  of  the  future,  392 

et  seq. 
Classes,  social,  ordained  by  nature, 

Classes,  upper,  dying  out,  381-382 

Attract  unmarrying  women,  256 

et  seq. 
Change  in  control,  316 
Graduates  and  marriage,  251 
Graduates   disappearing   or  sur- 
viving, 238-240,  379 
Women  students  and  marriage, 
249  et  seq. 
''Compensation,     law     of,'*     not 

true,  175  et  seq. 
Congress,   statisticians   needed   in, 

'  *  Conification, "  financial,   299-302 
"  Conification, "     social,     283     et 

seq.,  298  et  seq. 
Conklin,     Professor,     quoted,     41, 

Conservative,  useless,  87-88 
Constitution,  United  States,  chief 

aim,  54 
Constitutional        government        in 

danger,  307  et  seq. 
Consumption,  see  Tuberculosis. 
Conveniences,  modern,  15 
Cooperative    man    and    the    non- 
cooperative,  28 
Correlation  of  traits,  176  et  aeq. 



Correlation  of  traits,  con't. 

Due  to  heredity,  184 
''Correlation  to  zero,"  281  et  seq. 
Cousins,  marriage  of,  350 
Cox,  Catharine  M.,  Early  Mental 
Traits    of    Three    Hundred 
Geniuses,  192 
Criminals,   281-282 

Psychology   can  cure   criminals, 

Sterilization  of,  352-353 
Crowd  psychology,  102-103 
Culture  and  eugenics,  124  et  seq. 

Darrow,       Clarence,      views      on 

eugenics,  29-34 
Darwin,  Charles,  123 

On     loss     of     natural     death 

selection,  259-264 
Origin  of  Species,  259 
Quoted,  242 
Darwinian  selection,  19 
Davenport,  Charles  B.,  cited,  214 
Deaf  mutism,  354 
Death,  studied,  260  et  seq. 
Death  selection,  natural,  259-264 
Eeplaced  by  birth  selection,  395 
et  seq. 
Decline  of  the  West,  Spengler,  39 
Degeneracy  not  caused  by  alcohol, 


And  aristocracy,  274-275 
Creates  aristocracy,  290  et  seq. 
Extreme,  not  feasible,  56 
Makes  human  biology  worse,  286 
Must  provide  leaders  for  itself, 

287  et  seq. 
Needs  eugenics,  289-290 
Democracy      and      the       Human 

Equation,  285,  286  et  seq. 
Destiny  of  man,  26 
Development  of  species,  41  et  seq. 

Dictionary  of  National  Biography, 

285,  287 
Differentiation     of     species,     se« 

Species.  ^ 

Differential  Fertility,  333  et  seq. 
Dinosaur,  The,  182-183 
Disease,  lack  of  resistance  to,  168 

Transmissible,  354 
Dissatisfaction     with     civilization, 

15,  16 
Distinction,  in  human  history,  221 

et  seq. 
Doctors'     degrees,     futile     theses 

for,  37 
Dominant  types,  280 
Domination  by  others  preferred  by 

some  men,  35 
Drinking,  see  Prohibition. 
Dualistic       conception       of       the 

universe,  134-135 
Dunlop,  Knight,  Personal  Beauty 

and  Race  Betterment,  201 

Early    Mental    Traits    of    Three 

Hundred  Geniuses,  192 
Economic    demand   and    biological 

supply,  333  e^  seq. 
Economic  selection,  269  et  seq. 
Educated  men  do  not  lead,  313-315 
Aim  of,  96 

And  heredity,  158-159 
And  mental  and  spiritual  traits, 

And  selection,  225 
Change    in   control   of   colleges, 

Four  new  goals,  317-322 
Futile  experiments,  173 
Moral,   better  than  intellectual, 

Not  inherited,  171  et  seq. 
Oyster  theory  of,  141-142 



EducatioM,  con^t. 

Passing    of    the   professor,    315- 

Progress,  319 
Pseudo,  106  et  seq. 
Psychology,  96 
Educational     Psychology     quoted, 

Educational  Eeform,  318-319 
Edwards    family    and    the    Jukes 

family,  30-34 
Egg-cell,  human,   see  Germ-plasm. 
Eliot,     Charles     W.,     Educational 

Eeform,  318-319 
Ellis,     Havelock,     on     decline     of 

working  classes,  285 
Emerson,  Ealph  Waldo,  cited,  176 

On  sexual  passion,  348 
Eminence,  Galton's  definition,  223 

And  education,  158-159 
And  heredity,  97-100,  123,  150- 
152,    154    et    seq.,    173-175 
(and  throughout  work) 
In  Australia,  291-292 
Behaviorism,  131  et  seq. 
Cannot    manipulate    itself,    138- 

Good,  value  of,  139 
Early,  importance  of,  156 
Effect  of   (the  potato  parable), 

Expected   and   unexpected,    145- 

InflueBce     decreases     as     choice 

increases,  143 
Influence,  diminishing,  140-141 
Not  dependable,  173-175 
Power  to  manipulate,  138 
View,    environmental,    is    pessi- 
mistic, 135  et  seq. 
Environmentalists   challenged,    171 

Views  on  education,  141-142 
Epicureanism,  biological,  125 

Equality  of  man,  96 

Estabrook,  Arthur,  researches  into 

effects       of       environment, 

Work,  28 

Appeal  of,  45 

Birth  of,  29,  121 

Books  on,  328 

Concerned    with    both    heredity 

and  environment,  123 
Critics  refuted,  200 
Darrow's  views,  29-34 
Definition,  40 
Effect  of  automobile,  32-33 
Flowering  of  culture,  124  et  seq. 
Future  of,  398 
Genesis  of,  29,  121 
Ideal  of,  126 
la  daily  life,  127  et  seq. 
In  everything,  40 
Movement,  leaders  of,  327-329 
Necessity  of  democracy,  289-290 
New  statesmanship,  125 
Not  destructive,  121  et  seq. 
Objectives    and    problems,     125 

et  seq. 
Of  the  jungle,  25  et  seq. 
Opposition  to,  29-34 
Origin  of  name,  29 
Significance  based  on  evolution, 

Subjects  for  research  suggested, 

Tariff  and  eugenics,  33-34 
Value  of  historical  study,  39-40 
Eugenics  Secord  Office,  record  of 

distinction  among  men,  221 

et  seq. 
Eugenics     Society     of     America, 


Attack  on,  323-324 



Evolution,  conH. 
Ceaseless,  in  life,  40 
Central  fact  in  life,  40 
Definition,  simple,  41-42 
Going  on  all  the  time,  113-114 
Man's,  a  success,  306 

And  social  progress,  17-19 
Measured     by     correlation     of 

traits,  181-182 
Obstacles  to  popular  acceptance, 

Of  the  future,  392  et  seq. 
Potato  parable,  21-25 
Products  are  logical,  179-180 
Eeversed  by  civilization,  27-29 
Takes  place  in  germ-cells,  43-45 
Truth  demonstrated,  43-45 
Proved  by  genes,  43-45 
Evolution  for  John  Doe,  42 
Evolutionary  and  biological  prog- 
ress, 93  et  seq. 
Experience      made      possible      by 
heredity,  138 

Fame,  Hall  of,  153-154 

Families,    large,    mean    longevity, 

Families,  large  and  small,  377 

Among  rich  and  poor,  242-243 
Famous  from  upper  social  classes, 

298  et  seq. 
Famous  persons  since  world  began, 

221  et  seq. 
Fatalism,  135  et  seq. 

Behavioristic,  169-171 
Feeble-minded,  355 

Not  self -reproducing,   240-241 
Females,  biochemistry  of,  362-366 
Fertility    of    occupational    groups, 

333  et  seq. 
"Fewer    and   better    children"    a 

fallacy,  263-264 
Fifth  Avenue  vs.  First  Avenue,  242 

Filene  peace  prize,  77 

Financial  '  *  conification, "  299-302 

First  cousins,  marriage  of,  350 

Fittest,  survival  of,  23,  26 

Five  thousand  persons  of  distinc- 
tion since  world  began,  221 
et  seq. 

Flowers,  Montaville,  inquiry  of 
high-school  students,  326- 

Frank,  Glenn,  quoted,  37 

Franklin,  Benjamin,  on  popula- 
tion growth,  231-232 

Freeman,  Frank  N.,  study  of 
adopted  children,  152-153 

French  Algeria,  birth  control  in, 

Fruit  of  the  Family  Tree,  180,  386 

Fundamentalism,  leaders,  323 
et  seq. 


Civilized  man  of  the  future,  329 

et  seq. 
Of  eugenics,  398 
Of     humanity,     Alfred     Bussel 

Wallace  on,  248 
Of  man,  396  et  seq. 

Future  Americans,  where  from, 
333  et  seq. 

Galton,  Sir  Francis 

Definition  of  '' eminence,"  223 
Discoverer  of  assortative  mating, 

Gave  name  to  eugenics,  29 
Invention  of  biometry,  259 
Motto,  66 

On  future  of  eugenics,  398 
Galton  Eugenics  Laboratory,  65 
Gas   warfare   more    merciful   than 

sword,  78 
Generalization,  ability  to  general- 
ize, 141 



Genes,  148 

Afford     evidence     of    truth     of 

evolutiom,  43-45 
Authorities  on,  43 
Units  of  heredity  in  germ-cells, 

And  morality,  184  et  seq. 

List  of,  189 

Geniuses,  early,  192-193 

Have  good  health,  194  et  seq. 
Unknown  to  masses,  226 

"Acquired"      characters,      163 

et  seq. 
Contents  and   development,   146 

et  seq. 
Effect  of  civilization  upon,  119 
et  seq. 
''Tinkering"  with,  30 
Experiments  with,  157-158 
Genes  inside  germ-cells,  43-45 
Human,    civilization 's    tinkering 

with,  31  e*  seq. 
Influence  on  history,  93  et  seq. 
Not  a  sieve,  172-173 
Qualities  carried  in,  269 
Seat    of    evolutionary    process, 
Germ-plasm,  see  Germ-cells. 
Gesell,  Arnold,  experiments,  156 
Gibbs,     Josiah     Willard,     genius, 

God,  definition  of,  128 
Good     health     of     geniuses,     194 

et  seq. 
Good   qualities    found   in    associa- 
tion, 175  et  seq. 
Goodness,  natural,  305  et  seq. 
Goring,    Charles,    investigation    of 
tuberculosis,  64 
Study  of  marriage,  213  et  seq. 

Governing  classes,  origim  of,  273- 

Government,  in  danger,  307  et  seq. 
Science  in,  307  et  seq.,  325 
Society    for    study    of    govern- 
ment proposed,  307-311 
Grant,  Madison,  quoted,  18 
Grayson,  David,  quoted,  140 
Greek  view  of  life,  320-321 

Eahit  and  Instinct,  248 

Hall,  Stanley,  quoted,  18 

Hall  of  Fame,  153-154 

Hanly,    J.    Frank,    as    Prohibition 

orator,  47 
Harvard  graduates,  and  marriage, 
Disappearing  or  surviving,  238- 
240,  379 
Health,    good,    of    geniuses,     194 

et  seq. 
Hebrews  and  eugenics,  385-386 
Heller,     Otto,     Passing     of     the 

Professor,  316-317 
Hens,  evolution  by  genes,  44 

''Acquired"    character    not    in- 
herited, 163  et  seq. 
Ancestry  of  gifted  children,  153- 

And    environment,    97-100,    123, 
150-152     et     seq.,     173-175 
(and  throughout  work) 
In  Australia,  291-292 
Biologist's  view,  30 
Cancer,  64-65 

Definite  and  measurable,  148 
Dependable,  173-175 
Disbelief  in,  129  et  seq. 
Gives   power   over   environment, 

In    character    and    destiny,    136 
et  seq. 



Heredity,  con't. 

Lost  traits  not  replaceable,  169 
Makes  man  master  of  his  fate, 

138  et  seq. 
Mental,  temperamental  and  spir- 
itual traits,  129  et  seq. 
Overcoming,  159-160 
Potato  parable,  21-25 
Eoyaltj,  see  Royalty. 
Tubercular,  62  et  seq. 
Twins,  149 

What    heredity    really    is,    145 
et  seq. 
High-school     students,     aims     of, 

History,    influence    of    germ-cells, 
93  et  seq. 
Study  by  statistical  and  biomet- 
rical  methods,  39 
History  of  the   American  People, 

Hobson,  Richmond  P.,  as  Prohibi- 
tion orator,  48 
Holmes,  S.  J.,  cited,  239 
Home,  moral  influence,  321 

Symbol  of  man's  next  age,  396 
et  seq. 
Home-loving    preserved    by    birth 

control,  380  et  seq. 
Hoover,     Herbert     C,     plea     for 

science,  108-110 
Hormones  of  reproduction,  362-366 
Hrdlicka,  Ales,  on  human  develop- 
ment, 25-26 
Human   egg-cell,    see    Germ-plasm. 
Human  nature,  92,  305  et  seq. 
Appraised  by  scientists,  17 
Evolution,  248  et  seq.,  267  et  seq. 
Humanitarianism,   see    Sympathy 
Humanity,      future      of,      Alfred 

Russel  Wallace  on,  248 
Humankind,  see  Man. 
Huntington,  Ellsworth,  quoted,  119 

Ideal  men  and  women,  367 
Immigrants,  welcome  to,  35 
Immigration    and    the     Americaui 
germ-plasm,  35  , 


Bred  by  morality,  27  c*  seq. 
Linked  with  stupidity,  192 
Not     characteristic     of     genius, 

185  et  seq. 
Sex,    reduced   by   birth    control, 
Immortality,  definition  of,  186 
Imperialism,  81 
Improvement,    race,    agencies    of, 

Incapacity    and    capacity,    social, 

Indians  and  alcohol,  167-169 
Industrial   machine,   fate  of,   110- 

Infants '      psychology,     researches 

into,  156  et  seq. 
Influence  of  Monarchs,  94  et  seq., 

269  et  seq. 
Influence  of  Nurture  upon  Native 

Differences,  152 
Inheritance,  see  Heredity. 
Inheritance  of  wealth,  272  et  seq. 
Insanity,  278 

(see  also  Eeeble-Minded,  Mo- 

And  beauty,  207-211 

And  longevity,  193  et  seq. 

Needed    in    human    affairs,    84 

et  seq. 
Survival  of,  375  et  seq. 
Intelligent  classes  dying   out,  238 
Intelligence   tests,   96,   207,   318 

et  seq. 
Intermarriage    of    rich    and    poor, 
295  et  seq. 



International  Society  for  Study  of 
Government,  307-311 

**Iowa  Plan  of  Character  Educa- 
tion," 321 

Iowa  sterilization  law,  350-351 

Ireland,  Alleyne,  analysis  of  con- 
stitutional government,  307- 
Democracy     and     the     Hmnan 

Equation,  285,  286  et  seq. 
Quoted,  130 

Is  War  Diminishing?  82 

Ishmaelite  family,  history  of,  28-29 

Jennings,  Herbert  S.,  Prometheus, 

Jews,  adaptation  to  city  life,  386 
And  eugenics,  385-386 
Drunkards  rare  among,  60 
Johnson,    Koswell    H.,    study    of 

Mormons,  383-384 
Jungle,  a  hard  school,  19 
Eugenics  of,  25  et  seq. 
Law  of,  26 
Jukes    family,    and    the    Edwards 
family,  30-34 

Kansas  Agricultural  College,  high 

marriage  rate,  257 
Karn,     Doctor,     tuberculosis     re- 
search, 65  et  seq. 
KeUey,  Truman  L. 
Cited,  159 

Influence  of  Nurture  upon  Na- 
tive Differences,  152 
On  mental  types,  276-278 
Eesearches   into   mental   correla- 
tion, 179 
Study  of  heredity  and  environ- 
ment, 150-152 
Knowledge      made      possible      by 

heredity,  138 
Ku  Klux  Klan,  322-324 

Laird,  Donald  A.,  cited,  170 
*^Law  of  compensation"  not  true, 

175  et  seq. 
Law  of  Population  Growth,  227  et 

Laws  ia  United  States,  too  many, 

Leacock,  Stephen,  quoted,  37 

Biological  meaning  of,  325-327 
Do  not  lead,  306  et  seq. 
Future  leaders,  where  from,  333 

et  seq. 
How  they  arise,  268 
Natural,    denied    right    to    lead, 

Needed    by    democracy,    287    et 

Origin,  227  et  seq. 
Reduction  in  numbers,  389 
Second-class  men,  322  et  seq. 
Vanishing,  313-315 
Legislators  not  educated,  307 
Liberalism,  old  and  aew,  90  et  seq., 
101  et  seq. 
Wrong  conception  of,  91 
Life,  long,  see  Longevity. 
Life,  organic,  is  ''species,"  42 
''Like  begets  like,"  283  et  seq. 
Lincoln,  Abraham,  not  ugly,  200 
Liquor,  see  Prohibition. 

And  intelligence,  193  et  seq. 
Large  families  mean  longer  life, 

Means  many  children,  262-264 
Study  of,  260  et  seq. 
Los  Angeles  and  scientific  truth, 


Cooperative      aad      nom      cooper- 
ative, 28 



Man,  conH. 

Creature  of  many  Bpeeies,  267- 

Destiny,  26 
Deterioration    or    improvememt  f 

375  et  seq. 
Equality  of,  96 
Future,  396  et  seq. 
Jungle  animal,  113 
Naturally  an  aristocrat,  267-268 
Nature  of,  92 

Product  of  his  age,  144-145 
Progress  hard  earned,  25-27 
Progress  in  civilization,  18 
Social  and  non-social,  28 
Successful  product  of  evolution, 
Man  Is  War,  78-82 

Assortative,  211-218,  283  et  seq. 
College    women    and    marriage, 

249  et  seq. 
''Like  marries  like,"  211 
Not  dying  out  in  America,  250 
Poor  have  little  choice,  214-215 
Selection   in,   124,    163,    211-218 
Taboos,  350 
Married  men  in  Who's  Who,  379- 

Martin,   Everett   Dean,   cited,   91, 
241,  313-315 
On  liberalism,  91 
On  vanishing  leadership,  313-315 
Massachusetts,  see  Pilgrims. 
Masses  not  credited  with  progress, 

224  et  seq. 
Mating,  see  Marriage. 
May,    Mark,    study    of    character 

education,  321 
McDougall,    William,    quoted,    61, 

Measles,  susceptibility  to,  168 
Of  educational  progress,  319 

Measurement,  can't. 

Of  the  mind,  318-319 
Mechanistic  view  of  life  and  man, 

132  et  seq.,  170 
Mediterranean   peoples,   drunkards 

rare  among,  60 
Men  and  potatoes,  21-25 
Menstruation,      biochemistry      of, 

Mental    and    Moral    Heredity    in 

Royalty,  180-181,  248 

Mental  traits,  correlation  of,  176- 


Effect  of  education  upon,  129 

Mental    types,    evolution    of,    275 

et  seq. 
Mexico,  a  backward  nation,  226 
Migration,  motives  for,  34 

Of  peoples,  270  et  seq. 
Military  selection,  269  et  seq. 
Millennium  always  just  ahead,  16 
Millionaire,  first,  in  America,  294 
''Mind"  in  the  universe,  134-135 
Mind  measurement,  318-319 
"Missing  links,"  44 
Mitchell,  David  A.,  quoted,  96,  320 

On  adjustment  to  life,  320 
Mob  psychology,  102-103 
Modern  man,  77  et  seq. 
Monarchs,  see  Eoyalty. 
Moral  character,  and  wealth,  300- 
Education      and      measurement, 
Moral  education  better  than  Intel- 

lectual,  58 

And  genius,  184  et  seq. 
And  good  citizenship,  190-191 
Breeds  immorality,  27  et  seq. 
Definition  of,  162,  187 
Increased  by  birth  control,  390- 

Survival  of,  375  et  seq. 



Morgan,    Lloyd,    Habit    and    In- 
stinct, 248 

Mormons  and  eugenics,  383-384 

Morons,  355 

Not  self -reproducing,  240-241 

** Mother  Nature,"   indifferent  to 
man,  92-93 

Motor  car,  effect  on  eugenics,  32-33 

Muller,  J.  H.,  study  of  twins,  149 

Musical  endowment  measured,  96 

Napoleon,  genius  of,  144 
Nationalism,  80-81 
Natural  man,  305  et  seq. 
Natural  progress  and  social  prog- 
ress, 20 
Natural     selection,     18-19,     21-25, 
248  et  seq.,  259  et  seq.,  392 
et  seq. 
Of  human  race,  still  going  on, 

248  et  seq. 
Of  the  future,  392  et  seq. 
Potatoes  and  men,  21-25 
Still  at  work,  259  et  seq. 
Working  in  civilized  life,  19 
Nature,      human,      see       Human 

''Nature,  Mother,"  indifferent  to 

man,  92-93 
Nature  on  side  of  eugenics,  216 
Nature-nurture     problem,     152     et 

''Necessities"  of  civilized  life,  15 
Negative  selection,  244-248 
Negro     characteristics     described, 

New   Decalogue   of   Science,    285, 

New  England,  see  Pilgrims. 
Nietzsche,  Frederick,  views,  122 
Normans,  18 

North  Europeans,  improvement  ia 
beauty,  386-387 

Northerners,  introvert,  60 
Nurture -nature    problem,    152    et 

' '  Optimisms  of  Science, ' '  64 
Optimist,  useless,  86 
Oregon  sterilization  law,  355 
Origin  of  Species,  259 
Ovarian  biochemistry,  362-366 
Oyster  theory   of   education,   141- 

Pacifism,  79 

Papanicolaou,      George      N.,      re- 
searches   into    female    bio- 
chemistry, 364 
Parental  instinct,  372  et  seq. 
Parenthood,      who      will      assume 

burdens?  368  et  seq. 
Passing  of  the  Professor,  316-317 
Passion,  sexual,  Emerson  on,  348 
Patrick,  G.  W.  T.,  quoted,  19-20 
Peace,  world,  efforts  for,  77  et  seq. 
Pearl,  Eaymond,  cited  and  quoted, 
50  et  seq.,  63  et  seq.,  228  et 
seq.,  260,  333  et  seq.,  359, 
378,  381 
Biology  of  Death,  260 
Differential  Fertility,  333  et  seq. 
Investigation     of     alcohol,     50 

et  seq. 
Investigation  of  tuberculosis,  63 

et  seq. 
Law  of  Population  Growth,  228 
et  seq. 
Pearson,   Karl,  cited  and  quoted, 
65,  179,  211  et  seq.,  259-260, 
Director,  Galton  Eugenics  Lab- 
oratory, 65 
On  correlation  of  traits,  179 
Proves  natural  selection  among 
humans,  259-260 



Pearson,  Karl,  con't. 

Study  of  marriage,  211  et  seq. 
Pension  for  unmarried,  254 
People  of  a  race  not  all  alike,  270 
Persecution,  religious,  as  type   of 

birth  control,  349 
Personal  Beauty  and  Mace  Better- 
ment, 201 
(See  also  Beauty) 
Perversion,  278 
Pessimist  useless,  87 
Phillips,  John,  cited,  238 
Philosophers,  279 
Philosophy,  industrial,  110-112 
Philosophy,  social,  needed,  112 
Phthisis,  see   Tuberculosis. 
Pilgrims    and    their    descendants, 

290  et  seq. 
Pioneer  type,  283 
Plant  and  animal  merge  into  each 

other,  42 
Plasm,  germ-,  see  Germ-cell. 
Ploetz,  A.,  study  of  longevity,  260 
Politics,    social    engineers    needed, 

85  et  seq. 

And     rich,     intermarriage,     295 

et  seq. 
Have  greater  interest  in  sex,  378 
Have  little   choice   in   marriage, 

Poverty  and  wealth,  influence  of, 

Why  they  are  poor,  236-238 
(See  also  Wealth) 
Popular  ideas  always  wrong,  212- 

213,  215-216 
Population,  spread  of,  227  et  seq. 
Possibilities,  world,  77  et  seq. 
Prodigies,  child,  192-193 
Professors    not    very    able,    315- 

Biological    and    evolutionary,    93 
et  seq. 
Created    by    men    unkno^m    to 

masses,  226 
Man's,  hard  earned,  25-27 
Not    caused   by  masses,    224  et 

Not  through  revolution,  89-90 
Social,  see  Social  progress. 

Abstainers    and    moderate    and 

heavy  drinkers,  51  et  seq. 

A  curse  to  some  only,  49 
Alcohol  and  Longevity,  Pearl, 

50  et  seq. 
And  race  improvement,  46-47 
Does  not  cause  degeneracy,  48 
In  history,  58-61 
Bavaria,  drinking  in,  49-50 
*' Bible  of  Prohibition,"  49-50 
Drinking :     . 

And    offspring,    46-47,    50    et 

At  ordinations,  188 
Lurid  picture,  47 
Moderate,  not  harmful,  52 
Effect  on  human  race  not  known, 

Eugenical  question,  45  et  seq. 
Faith  in,  not  justified,  167-169 
Hastily  entered  upon,  46 
Leaders  second-class  men,  323 
Moderate     drinking     and     lon- 
gevity, 50  e*  seq. 
Moderate  drinking  not  harmful, 

Motive    behind    prohibition    in- 
spiring, 56 
Objections  to,  55 



Prohibition,  oon*t. 

Pearl,    Eajmond,    investigation, 

50  et  seq. 
Psjehologist  the  true  doctor  for 
alcoholism  and  crime,  57-58 
Put  over  by  town  drunkard,  61 
Why  it  will  not  work,  58-59 
Frometheus,  146 
Property    qualification    and    birth 

rate,  238 
Pseudo-education,  106  et  seq. 
Psycho-analysis,  166 
Psychologist   the   true    doctor  for 
alcoholism  and  crime,  57-58 
Psychologists       appraise       human 

nature,  17 
Psychology,  educational,  96 
Psychology,  mob,  102-103 

Quakers,  longevity  among,  260 
Qualities  found  in  association,  175 

et  seq. 
Qu^telet,    Belgian    mathematician, 


Eaee  improvement,  agencies  of,  329 

And  beauty,  207-211 
Race  suicide,  234  et  seq.,  244-248, 

Bell,  Alexander  Graham,  views, 

Is  it  possible?  243  et  seq. 
Eadicals,  15,  16 

Useless,  89 
Reformation  and  Renaissance,  90 

And  birth  rate,  356-357 

And  eugenics,  383-386 

Not  inherited,  171  et  seq. 

Present  leadership,  314 

Varying  views,  172 
Religious   persecution   as   type   of 
birth  control,  349 

Renaissance  and  Reformation,  90 
Reproduction,    hormonei    of,    362- 

Restriction    a    biological    neces- 
sity, 126 
Right  of,  see  Sterilization. 
Reputation  and  character,  161-163 
Research  needed  in  biology,  36  et 

Resistance  to  disease,  lack  of,  168 
Revolution,  biologic,  342-343 
Revolutions  retard  progress,  89-90 
Rewards  for  brains  and  character, 

237  et  seq. 
Rhythm  and  war,  79-80 
Rich  and  poor,  see  Poor. 
*' Rights  of  man,"  91 
Riley,  William,  322-324 
Roman  Catholic  church,  adaptation 

to  humanity,  81 
And  birth  control,  356-358 
Ross,  Edward  A.,  inventor  of  term 

''race  suicide,"  243-244 
Quoted,  59-60 
Rousseau,  Jean  Jaques,  91,  95 
Royalty,  influence  on  people,  94-95, 

see  also  180-181,  248 
Mental  and  moral  heredity,  180- 

181,  248 
Superior,     and    large    families, 


Sanitarium  treatment  of  tubercu- 
losis, 65-73 
Schiller,  F.  C.  S.,  quoted,  27 

And   world    industrial   machine, 

104  et  seq. 
Control    of    nature    by    intelli- 
gence, 114 
Hoover's  plea  for,  108-110 
Hostility  toward,  110-112 
In  government,  307  et  seq.,  325 



Science,  con't. 

Most  important  factor  in  enTi- 

ronment,  73 
Scientist,  mental  attitude  of,  36 
Scientist     qualified     to     manage 

modern  life,  106  et  seq. 
Scientists   are    of    good   morals, 
Seashore,  Carl  E.,  measures  musi- 
cal endowment,  96 
Seed  stock,  selection  of,  24 

And  education,  225 

Economic,    military    and    social, 

269  et  seq. 
In  marriage,  see  Marriage. 
Natural,  see  Natural  Selection. 
Negative,  244-248 
Self-rule,  conditions  of,  92 
Sex  activity  greatest  among  poor, 

Sexual  passion,   Emerson    on,   348 
Sexual  selection  still  at  work,  259 

et  seq. 
Sherrington,  English  psychologist, 

cited,  140 
Slye,  Maude,  cancer  research,  64-65 
Social  Classes,  etc. 

Ambition   or   love    of   children? 

373  et  seq. 
And  biological  capacity,  333 
Capacity  and  incapacity,  27-29 
Classes  ordained  by  nature,  216 
**Conification,"  283  et  seq.,  298 

et  seq. 
Philosophy,  needed,  112 
Progress,  and  evolution  of  man, 

Progress,  and  natural  progress, 

Selection,  269   et  seq. 
Service  types,  280 
Social   engineers   needed,   85   et 

Social  Classes,  con't. 

Types,  meaning  of,  281  et  seq. 
Socialism,  166,  236 
Southerners,  extravert,  60     * 
Species,  development  of,  41  et  seq. 
"Species"    only    organic    life    to 

the  biologist,  42 
Spencer,  Herbert,  cited,  141 
Spengler,   Oswald,  Decline  of  the 

West,  39 
Spinoza,  Benedict,  philosophy,  54 
** Spirit'*  in  the  universe,  134-135 
Spiritual   traits,    effect    of    educa- 
tion on,  129 
Sports,  public  interest  in,  20 
Starbuck,     Edwin     D.,     character 

education,  321-322 
Statisticians   needed   in   Congress, 

Sterilization,  21,  25,  27,  28-29,  126, 

163,  350-356 
As  type   of  birth  control,  350- 

Of  the  unfit,  350-356 
Oregon  law,  355 
Stocks,    Doctor,    tuberculosis    re 

search,  65  et  seq. 
Straton,  John  Eoach,  322-324 
Students,     high-school,     aims     of 

Stupidity    in    upper    classes    self 

reproducing,  241  et  seq. 
Stupidity  linked  with  immorality, 

Successful  classes  dying  out,  381 

Suffrage  not  brimger  of  millennium; 

Sunday  school,  moral  influence  al 

most  nil,  321 
Super-man,  not  the  aim  of  eugen 

ics,  122 
*' Supreme  Kingdom,'*  323-324 



Survival  and  correlation  of  desir- 
able traits,  183 

Survival  of  better  classes  through 
birth  control,  381-382 

Survival  of  the  fittest,  23,  26 

Sympathy,  28,  83-84 
Harmfulness  of,  28 

Taboos,  marriage,  350 

Tariff  a  eugenical  question,  33-34 

Tasmanians,       susceptibility       to 

measles,  168 
Tax  on  bachelors,  254 
Taylor,  Bert  Leston,  The  Dinosaur, 

Ten  Commandments  the  work  of  a 

genius,  186 
Terman,  Lewis  M.,  study  of  gifted 

children,  153-154 
Tests,  intelligence,  96,  207,  318 
Theses,  futile,  for  doctor 's  degrees, 

Thorndike,     Edward     L.,     Educa- 
tional Psychology,  176-177 
On    correlation    of    mental    and 

moral  traits,  180 
On    heredity    and    environment, 
Traits  correlated,  176  et  seq.,  280 
et  seq. 
Inherited  and  acquired,  148-149 
Tjipe,  not  correlated,  278  et  seq. 
Tuberculosis,    heredity    optimistic, 
64  et  seq. 
Partly  hereditary,  62  et  seq. 
Sanitarium     treatment     investi- 
gated, 65-73 
Twins  and  heredity,  149 
Types,  ''correlation  to  zero,'*  281 
et  seq. 
Evolution  of,  282  et  seq. 
Of  men,  evolution  of,  275  et  seq. 
Traits  not  correlated,  278  et  seq. 

Unfit,  allowed  to  reproduce,  28-29, 
Sterilization,  28-29,  350-356. 
Survive   in   civilized   life,    27-29 
United  States,  population  growth, 

231  et  seq. 
Unmarried,  pension  for,  254 
Upper  classes  dying  out,  381-382 

Vassar    graduates    and    marriage, 

Virtues,   old-fashioned,  374 
Vitalistic  view  of  life,  132  et  seq. 
Vote,  see  Suffrage. 
Voters,  intelligence  of,  100 

Wallace,  Alfred  Eussel, 
quoted  on  future  of  humanity, 

As  type   of  birth  control,   350 
Has  not  decreased  in  300  years, 

7s  War  Diminishing?    82 
Primitive  urges  to  war,  79-80 
Ehythm  and  war,  79-80 
Still  a  possibility,  77  et  seq. 
Ward,     Henshaw,     Evolution    for 

John  Doe,  41-42 
Watson,  John  B.,  a  great  philos- 
opher, 170 
Cited,  170 
Experiments,  156 

And  moral  character,   300-302 
And  poverty,  influence  of,  155- 

Biology  of,  270  et  seq. 
Growth  of,  in  America,  293-295 
Leads  to  sex  decline,  378 
Preserves     stupidity     in    upper 

classes,  241 
Transmission  of,  272  et  seq. 



Wealth,  con't. 

Wealthy  men  not   interested  in 
government,  311-313 
(see  also  Poor) 
Wellesley  graduates  and  marriage, 

Wells,  H.  G.,  on  biological  revolu- 
tion, 342-343 
Westeott,  Brooke  Foss,  on  man's 

future,  396  et  seq. 
Wheat,  parable  of  the,  21-25 
Wheeler,  William,  cited  and  quoted, 

37,  170 
"White  collar"  classes  not  repro- 
ducing, 334  et  seq. 
Who's     Who,    married    men    and 

bachelors  in,  379-380 
Wilson,  Woodrow,  History  of  the 

American  People,  188 
Wisconsin     University,      marriage 

rate,  258 

Average,  not  beautiful,  203-205 
Beautiful,  of  history,  205-207 
Biochemistry  of  ovulation,  362-366 

Lack  of  achievement  due  to  en- 
vironment,   144-145 

Long  life  means  many  children, 

Women,  oon't. 

Many   do   not   desire   marriage, 

Most      famous      •women     "Vera 
beautiful,  205-207 
Woods,   F.    A.,   cited   and  quoted, 
82-84,   94-95,    140-141,    143- 
145,  154,  180-181,  187,  191, 
269   et  seq.,   283,  285,   290, 
377-380,  386-387 
Influence    of    Moriarchs,    94-95, 

269  et  seq. 
Is  War  Diminishing?    82 
On  environment,  140-141 
On    *' social    conification, "    283 
et  seq. 
Woods  Hole,  Mass.,  place  of  court- 
ship, 211-212 
Working     classes     decreasing     in 

ability,  285  et  seq. 
World  industrial  machine,  fate  of, 

World,  new,  and  new  liberal,  102 

et  seq. 
World  possibilities,  77  et  seq. 

Yale  graduates  and  marriage,  251