{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_19560/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_19560","id":"gutenberg_19560","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19560","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Science - Biology","Category: Sociology","Eugenics","Racism","Sociology"],"text":"Produced by Audrey Longhurst, Janet Blenkinship and the\nOnline Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\n(This file was produced from images from the Home Economics\nArchive: Research, Tradition and History, Albert R. Mann\nLibrary, Cornell University)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n APPLIED EUGENICS\n\n BY\n\n PAUL POPENOE\n\n EDITOR OF THE JOURNAL OF HEREDITY (ORGAN OF\n THE AMERICAN GENETIC ASSOCIATION),\n WASHINGTON, D. C.\n\n AND\n\n ROSWELL HILL JOHNSON\n PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURG\n\n THE MACMILLAN COMPANY NEW YORK . BOSTON . CHICAGO . DALLAS\n ATLANTA - SAN FRANCISCO\n\n MACMILLAN & CO., LIMITED LONDON . BOMBAY . CALCUTTA MELBOURNE\n\n THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD. TORONTO\n\n 1918\n\n _All rights reserved_\n\n COPYRIGHT, 1918,\n\n BY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY\n\n Set up and electrotyped. Published October, 1918.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThe science of eugenics consists of a foundation of biology and a\nsuperstructure of sociology. Galton, its founder, emphasized both parts\nin due proportion. Until recently, however, most sociologists have been\neither indifferent or hostile to eugenics, and the science has been left\nfor the most part in the hands of biologists, who have naturally worked\nmost on the foundations and neglected the superstructure. Although we\nare not disposed to minimize the importance of the biological part, we\nthink it desirable that the means of applying the biological principles\nshould be more carefully studied. The reader of this book will,\nconsequently, find only a summary explanation of the mechanism of\ninheritance. Emphasis has rather been laid on the practical means by\nwhich society may encourage the reproduction of superior persons and\ndiscourage that of inferiors.\n\nWe assume that in general, a eugenically superior or desirable person\nhas, to a greater degree than the average, the germinal basis for the\nfollowing characteristics: to live past maturity, to reproduce\nadequately, to live happily and to make contributions to the\nproductivity, happiness, and progress of society. It is desirable to\ndiscriminate as much as possible between the possession of the germinal\nbasis and the observed achievement, since the latter consists of the\nformer plus or minus environmental influence. But where the amount of\nmodification is too obscure to be detected, it is advantageous to take\nthe demonstrated achievement as a tentative measure of the germinal\nbasis. The problem of eugenics is to make such legal, social and\neconomic adjustments that (1) a larger proportion of superior persons\nwill have children than at present, (2) that the average number of\noffspring of each superior person will be greater than at present, (3)\nthat the most inferior persons will have no children, and finally that\n(4) other inferior persons will have fewer children than now. The\nscience of eugenics is still young and much of its program must be\ntentative and subject to the test of actual experiment. It is more\nimportant that the student acquire the habit of looking at society from\na biological as well as a sociological point of view, than that he put\nhis faith in the efficacy of any particular mode of procedure.\n\nThe essential points of our eugenics program were laid down by Professor\nJohnson in an article entitled \"Human Evolution and its Control\" in the\n_Popular Science Monthly_ for January, 1910. Considerable parts of the\nmaterial in the present book have appeared in the _Journal of Heredity_.\nHelpful suggestions and criticism have been received from several\nfriends, in particular Sewall Wright and O. E. Baker of the United States\nDepartment of Agriculture.\n PAUL POPENOE.\n\n WASHINGTON, _June, 1918._\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\n PAGE\n\n PREFACE v\n\n INTRODUCTION BY EDWARD A. ROSS xi\n\n\n CHAPTER\n\n I. NATURE OR NURTURE? 1\n\n II. MODIFICATION OF THE GERM-PLASM 25\n\n III. DIFFERENCES AMONG MEN 75\n\n IV. THE INHERITANCE OF MENTAL CAPACITIES 84\n\n V. THE LAWS OF HEREDITY 99\n\n VI. NATURAL SELECTION 116\n\n VII. ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF THE EUGENICS MOVEMENT 147\n\n VIII. DESIRABILITY OF RESTRICTIVE EUGENICS 167\n\n IX. THE DYSGENIC CLASSES 176\n\n X. METHODS OF RESTRICTION 184\n\n XI. THE IMPROVEMENT OF SEXUAL SELECTION 211\n\n XII. INCREASING THE MARRIAGE RATE OF THE SUPERIOR 237\n\n XIII. INCREASE OF THE BIRTH-RATE OF THE SUPERIOR 255\n\n XIV. THE COLOR LINE 280\n\n XV. IMMIGRATION 298\n\n XVI. WAR 318\n\n XVII. GENEALOGY AND EUGENICS 329\n\n XVIII. THE EUGENIC ASPECT OF SOME SPECIFIC REFORMS 352\n TAXATION 352\n BACK TO THE FARM MOVEMENT 355\n DEMOCRACY 360\n SOCIALISM 362\n CHILD LABOR 368\n COMPULSORY EDUCATION 369\n VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE AND TRAINING 371\n MINIMUM WAGE 374\n MOTHER'S PENSIONS 375\n HOUSING 376\n FEMINISM 378\n\n OLD AGE PENSIONS 384\n SEX HYGIENE MOVEMENT 385\n TRADES UNIONISM 388\n PROHIBITION 389\n PEDAGOGICAL CELIBACY 390\n\n XIX. RELIGION AND EUGENICS 393\n\n XX. EUGENICS AND EUTHENICS 402\n\n APPENDIX A. OVARIAN TRANSPLANTATION 419\n\n \" B. DYNAMIC EVOLUTION 421\n\n \" C. THE \"MELTING POT\" 424\n\n \" D. THE ESSENCE OF MENDELISM 429\n\n \" E. USEFUL WORKS OF REFERENCE 436\n\n \" F. GLOSSARY 437\n\n\n\n\n LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS\n\n\n FIGURE PAGE\n\n 1. Four Baby Girls at Once 6\n\n 2. The Effect of Nurture in Changing Nature 10\n\n 3. Height in Corn and Men 12\n\n 4. Why Men Grow Short or Tall 14\n\n 5. Bound Foot of a Chinese Woman 42\n\n 6. Defective Little Toe of a Prehistoric Egyptian 42\n\n 7. Effect of Lead as a \"Racial Poison\" 63\n\n 8. Distribution of 10-Year-Old School Children 76\n\n 9. Variation in Ability 77\n\n 10. Origin of a Normal Probability Curve 78\n\n 11. The \"Chance\" or \"Probability\" Form of Distribution 79\n\n 12. Probability Curve with Increased Number of Steps 80\n\n 13. Normal Variability Curve Following Law of Chance 80\n\n 14. Cadets Arranged to Show Normal Curve of Variability 82\n\n 15. Variation in Heights of Recruits to the American Army 82\n\n 16. How Do You Clasp Your Hands? 100\n\n 17. The Effect of Orthodactyly 102\n\n 18. A Family with Orthodactyly 102\n\n 19. White Blaze in the Hair 104\n\n 20. A Family of Spotted Negroes 104\n\n 21. A Human Finger-Tip 106\n\n 22. The Limits of Hereditary Control 106\n\n 23. The Distribution of Intelligence 106\n\n 24. The Twins whose Finger-Prints are Shown in Fig. 25 108\n\n 25. Finger-Prints of Twins 110\n\n 26. A Home of the \"Hickory\" Family 168\n\n 27. A Chieftain of the Hickory Clan 170\n\n 28. Two Juke Homes of the Present Day 172\n\n 29. Mongolian Deficiency 174\n\n 30. Feeble-Minded Men are Capable of Much Rough Labor 192\n\n 31. Feeble-Minded at a Vineland Colony 192\n\n 32. How Beauty Aids a Girl's Chance of Marriage 215\n\n 33. Intelligent Girls are Most Likely to Marry 216\n\n 34. Years Between Graduation and Marriage 217\n\n 35. The Effect of Late Marriages 218\n\n 36. Wellesley Graduates and Non-Graduates 242\n\n 37. Birth Rate of Harvard and Yale Graduates 266\n\n 38. Families of Prominent Methodists 263\n\n 39. Examining Immigrants at Ellis Island, New York, 303\n\n 40. Line of Ascent that Carries the Family Name 331\n\n 41. The Small Value of a Famous, but Remote, Ancestor 338\n\n 42. History of 100 Babies 344\n\n 43. Adult Morality 345\n\n 44. Influence of Mother's Age 347\n\n 45. The \"Mean Man\" of the Old White American Stock 425\n\n 46. The Carriers of Heredity 431\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe Great War has caused a vast destruction of the sounder portion of\nthe belligerent peoples and it is certain that in the next generation\nthe progeny of their weaker members will constitute a much larger\nproportion of the whole than would have been the case if the War had not\noccurred. Owing to this immeasurable calamity that has befallen the\nwhite race, the question of eugenics has ceased to be merely academic.\nIt looms large whenever we consider the means of avoiding a stagnation\nor even decline of our civilization in consequence of the losses the War\nhas inflicted upon the more valuable stocks. Eugenics is by no means\ntender with established customs and institutions, and once it seemed\nlikely that its teachings would be left for our grandchildren to act on.\nBut the plowshare of war has turned up the tough sod of custom, and now\nevery sound new idea has a chance. Rooted prejudices have been leveled\nlike the forests of Picardy under gun fire. The fear of racial decline\nprovides the eugenist with a far stronger leverage than did the hope of\naccelerating racial progress. It may be, then, that owing to the War\neugenic policies will gain as much ground by the middle of this century\nas without it they would have gained by the end of the century.\n\nThis book could not have been written ten years ago because many of the\ndata it relies on were not then in existence. In view of inquiries now\ngoing on, we may reasonably hope that ten years hence it will be\npossible to make a much better book on the subject. But I am sure that\nthis book is as good a presentation as can be made of eugenics at its\npresent stage of development. The results of all the trustworthy\nobservations and experiments have been taken into account, and the\ntesting of human customs and institutions in the light of biological\nprinciples tallies well with the sociology of our times.\n\nI cannot understand how any conscientious person, dealing in a large way\nwith human life, should have the hardihood to ignore eugenics. This book\nshould command the attention not only of students of sociology, but, as\nwell, of philanthropists, social workers, settlement wardens, doctors,\nclergymen, educators, editors, publicists, Y. M. C. A. secretaries and\nindustrial engineers. It ought to lie at the elbow of law-makers,\nstatesmen, poor relief officials, immigration inspectors, judges of\njuvenile courts, probation officers, members of state boards of control\nand heads of charitable and correctional institutions. Finally, the\nthoughtful ought to find in it guidance in their problem of mating. It\nwill inspire the superior to rise above certain worldly ideals of life\nand to aim at a family success rather than an individual success.\n\n EDWARD ALSWORTH ROSS.\n\n The University of Wisconsin\n Madison, Wisconsin\n July 1918.\n\n\n\n\nAPPLIED EUGENICS\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nNATURE OR NURTURE?\n\n\nAt the First Race Betterment Conference held at Battle Creek, Mich.,\nmany methods were suggested by which it was believed that the people of\nAmerica might be made, on the average, healthier, happier, and more\nefficient. One afternoon the discussion turned to the children of the\nslums. Their condition was pictured in dark colors. A number of\neugenists remarked that they were in many cases handicapped by a poor\nheredity. Then Jacob Riis--a man for whom every American must feel a\nprofound admiration--strode upon the platform, filled with indignation.\n\n\"We have heard friends here talk about heredity,\" he exclaimed. \"The\nword has rung in my ears until I am sick of it. Heredity! Heredity!\nThere is just one heredity in all the world that is ours--we are\nchildren of God, and there is nothing in the whole big world that we\ncannot do in His service with it.\"\n\nIt is probably not beyond the truth to say that in this statement Jacob\nRiis voiced the opinion of a majority of the social workers of this\ncountry, and likewise a majority of the people who are faithfully and\nwith much self-sacrifice supporting charities, uplift movements, reform\nlegislation, and philanthropic attempts at social betterment in many\ndirections. They suppose that they are at the same time making the race\nbetter by making the conditions better in which people live.\n\nIt is widely supposed that, although nature may have distributed some\nhandicaps at birth, they can be removed if the body is properly warmed\nand fed and the mind properly exercised. It is further widely supposed\nthat this improvement in the condition of the individual will result in\nhis production of better infants, and that thus the race, gaining a\nlittle momentum in each generation, will gradually move on toward\nultimate perfection.\n\nThere is no lack of efforts to improve the race, by this method of\ndirect change of the environment. It involves two assumptions, which are\nsometimes made explicitly, sometimes merely taken for granted. These\nare:\n\n1. That changes in a man's surroundings, or, to use the more technical\nbiological term, in his nurture, will change the nature that he has\ninherited.\n\n2. That such changes will further be transmitted to his children.\n\nAny one who proposes methods of race betterment, as we do in the present\nbook, must meet these two popular beliefs. We shall therefore examine\nthe first of them in this chapter, and the second in Chapter II.\n\nGalton adopted and popularized Shakespere's antithesis of _nature_ and\n_nurture_ to describe a man's inheritance and his surroundings, the two\nterms including everything that can pertain to a human being. The words\nare not wholly suitable, particularly since nature has two distinct\nmeanings,--human nature and external nature. The first is the only one\nconsidered by Galton. Further, nurture is capable of subdivision into\nthose environmental influences which do not undergo much change,--e.g.,\nsoil and climate,--and those forces of civilization and education which\nmight better be described as culture. The evolutionist has really to\ndeal with the three factors of germ-plasm, physical surroundings and\nculture. But Galton's phrase is so widely current that we shall continue\nto use it, with the implications that have just been outlined.\n\nThe antithesis of nature and nurture is not a new one; it was met long\nago by biologists and settled by them to their own satisfaction. The\nwhole body of experimental and observational evidence in biology tends\nto show that the characters which the individual inherits from his\nancestors remain remarkably constant in all ordinary conditions to which\nthey may be subjected. Their constancy is roughly proportionate to the\nplace of the animal in the scale of evolution; lower forms are more\neasily changed by outside influence, but as one ascends to the higher\nforms, which are more differentiated, it is found more and more\ndifficult to effect any change in them. Their characters are more\ndefinitely fixed at birth.[1]\n\nIt is with the highest of all forms, Man, that we have now to deal. The\nstudent in biology is not likely to doubt that the differences in men\nare due much more to inherited nature than to any influences brought to\nbear after birth, even though these latter influences include such\npowerful ones as nutrition and education within ordinary limits.\n\nBut the biological evidence does not lend itself readily to summary\ntreatment, and we shall therefore examine the question by statistical\nmethods.[2] These have the further advantage of being more easily\nunderstood; for facts which can be measured and expressed in numbers are\nfacts whose import the reader can usually decide for himself: he is\nperfectly able to determine, without any special training, whether twice\ntwo does or does not make four. One further preliminary remark: the\nproblem of nature vs. nurture can not be solved in general terms; a\nmoment's thought will show that it can be understood only by examining\none trait at a time. The problem is to decide whether the differences\nbetween the people met in everyday life are due more to inheritance or\nto outside influences, and these differences must naturally be examined\nseparately; they can not be lumped together.\n\nTo ask whether nature in general contributes more to a man than nurture\nis futile; but it is not at all futile to ask whether the differences in\na given human trait are more affected by differences in nature than by\ndifferences in nurture. It is easy to see that a verdict may be\nsometimes given to one side, sometimes to the other. Albinism in\nanimals, for instance, is a trait which is known to be inherited, and\nwhich is very slightly affected by differences of climate, food supply,\netc. On the other hand, there are factors which, although having\ninherited bases, owe their expression almost wholly to outside\ninfluences. Professor Morgan, for example, has found a strain of fruit\nflies whose offspring in cold weather are usually born with\nsupernumerary legs. In hot weather they are practically normal. If this\nstrain were bred only in the tropics, the abnormality would probably not\nbe noticed; on the other hand, if it were bred only in cold regions, it\nwould be set down as one characterized by duplication of limbs. The\nheredity factor would be the same in each case, the difference in\nappearance being due merely to temperature.\n\nMere inspection does not always tell whether some feature of an\nindividual is more affected by changes in heredity or changes in\nsurroundings. On seeing a swarthy man, one may suppose that he comes of\na swarthy race, or that he is a fair-skinned man who has lived long in\nthe desert. In the one case the swarthiness would be inheritable, in the\nother not. Which explanation is correct, can only be told by examining a\nnumber of such individuals under critical conditions, or by an\nexamination of the ancestry. A man from a dark-skinned race would become\nlittle darker by living under the desert sun, while a white man would\ntake on a good deal of tan.\n\nThe limited effect of nurture in changing nature is in some fields a\nmatter of common observation. The man who works in the gymnasium knows\nthat exercise increases the strength of a given group of muscles for a\nwhile, but not indefinitely. There comes a time when the limit of a\nman's hereditary potentiality is reached, and no amount of exercise will\nadd another millimeter to the circumference of his arm. Similarly the\nhandball or tennis player some day reaches his highest point, as do\nrunners or race horses. A trainer could bring Arthur Duffy in a few\nyears to the point of running a hundred yards in 9-3/5 seconds, but no\namount of training after that could clip off another fifth of a second.\nA parallel case is found in the students who take a college examination.\nHalf a dozen of them may have devoted the same amount of time to it--may\nhave crammed to the limit--but they will still receive widely different\nmarks. These commonplace cases show that nurture has seemingly some\npower to mold the individual, by giving his inborn possibilities a\nchance to express themselves, but that nature says the first and last\nword. Francis Galton, the father of eugenics, hit on an ingenious and\nmore convincing illustration by studying the history of twins.[3]\n\nThere are, everyday observation shows, two kinds of twins--ordinary\ntwins and the so-called identical twins. Ordinary twins are merely\nbrothers, or sisters, or brother and sister, who happen to be born two\nat a time, because two ova have developed simultaneously. The fact that\nthey were born at the same time does not make them alike--they differ\nquite as widely from each other as ordinary brothers and sisters do.\nIdentical twins have their origin in a different phenomenon--they are\nbelieved to be halves of the same egg-cell, in which two growing-points\nappeared at a very early embryonic stage, each of these developing into\na separate individual. As would be expected, these identical twins are\nalways of the same sex, and extremely like each other, so that sometimes\ntheir own mother can not tell them apart. This likeness extends to all\nsorts of traits:--they have lost their milk teeth on the same day in one\ncase, they even fell ill on the same day with the same disease, even\nthough they were in different cities.\n\nNow Galton reasoned that if environment really changes the inborn\ncharacter, then these identical twins, who start life as halves of the\nsame whole, ought to become more unlike if they were brought up apart;\nand as they grew older and moved into different spheres of activity,\nthey ought to become measurably dissimilar. On the other hand, ordinary\ntwins, who start dissimilar, ought to become more alike when brought up\nin the same family, on the same diet, among the same friends, with the\nsame education. If the course of years shows that identical twins remain\nas like as ever and ordinary twins as unlike as ever, regardless of\nchanges in conditions, then environment will have failed to demonstrate\nthat it has any great power to modify one's inborn nature in these\ntraits.\n\nWith this view, Galton collected the history of eighty pairs of\nidentical twins, thirty-five cases being accompanied by very full\ndetails, which showed that the twins were really as nearly identical, in\nchildhood, as one could expect to find. On this point, Galton's\ninquiries were careful, and the replies satisfactory. They are not,\nhowever, as he remarks, much varied in character. \"When the twins are\nchildren, they are usually distinguished by ribbons tied around the\nwrist or neck; nevertheless the one is sometimes fed, physicked, and\nwhipped by mistake for the other, and the description of these little\ndomestic catastrophes was usually given by the mother, in a phraseology,\nthat is sometimes touching by reason of its seriousness. I have one case\nin which a doubt remains whether the children were not changed in their\nbath, and the presumed A is not really B, and _vice versa_. In another\ncase, an artist was engaged on the portraits of twins who were between\nthree and four years of age; he had to lay aside his work for three\nweeks, and, on resuming it, could not tell to which child the respective\nlikeness he had in hand belonged. The mistakes become less numerous on\nthe part of the mother during the boyhood and girlhood of the twins, but\nare almost as frequent as before on the part of strangers. I have many\ninstances of tutors being unable to distinguish their twin pupils. Two\ngirls used regularly to impose on their music teacher when one of them\nwanted a whole holiday; they had their lessons at separate hours, and\nthe one girl sacrificed herself to receive two lessons on the same day,\nwhile the other one enjoyed herself from morning to evening. Here is a\nbrief and comprehensive account: 'Exactly alike in all, their\nschoolmasters could never tell them apart; at dancing parties they\nconstantly changed partners without discovery; their close resemblance\nis scarcely diminished by age.\"\n\n[Illustration: FOUR BABY GIRLS AT ONCE\n\nFIG. 1.--These quadruplet daughters were born to Mr. and Mrs.\nF. M. Keys, Hollis, Okla., on July 4, 1915, and were seven months old\nwhen the photograph was taken. Up to that time they had never had any\nother nourishment than their mother's milk. Their weights at birth were\nas follows (reading from left to right): Roberta, 4 pounds; Mona, 4-1/2\npounds; Mary, 4-1/4 pounds; Leota, 3-3/4 pounds. When photographed,\nRoberta weighed 16 pounds and each of the others weighed 16-1/4. Their\naunt vouches for the fact that the care of the four is less trouble than\na single baby often makes. The mother has had no previous plural births,\nalthough she has borne four children prior to these. Her own mother had\nbut two children, a son and a daughter, and there is no record of twins\non the mother's side. The father of the quadruplets is one of twelve\nchildren, among whom is one pair of twins. It is known that twinning is\nlargely due to inheritance, and it would seem that the appearance of\nthese quadruplets is due to the hereditary influence of the father\nrather than the mother. If this is the case, then the four girls must\nall have come from one egg-cell, which split up at an early stage. Note\nthe uniform shape of the mouth, and the ears, set unusually low on the\nhead.]\n\n\"The following is a typical schoolboy anecdote:\n\n\"'Two twins were fond of playing tricks, and complaints were frequently\nmade; but the boys would never own which was the guilty one, and the\ncomplainants were never certain which of the two it was. One head master\nused to say he would never flog the innocent for the guilty, and the\nother used to flog them both.'\n\n\"No less than nine anecdotes have reached me of a twin seeing his or her\nreflection in the looking-glass, and addressing it in the belief that it\nwas the other twin in person.\n\n\"Children are usually quick in distinguishing between their parent and\nhis or her twin; but I have two cases to the contrary. Thus, the\ndaughter of a twin says:\n\n\"'Such was the marvelous similarity of their features, voice, manner,\netc., that I remember, as a child, being very much puzzled, and I think,\nhad my aunt lived much with us, I should have ended by thinking I had\ntwo mothers!'\n\n\"In the other case, a father who was a twin, remarks of himself and his\nbrother:\n\n\"'We were extremely alike, and are so at this moment, so much so that\nour children up to five and six years old did not know us apart.'\n\n\"Among my thirty-five detailed cases of close similarity, there are no\nless than seven in which both twins suffered from some special ailment\nor had some exceptional peculiarity. Both twins are apt to sicken at the\nsame time in no less than nine out of the thirty-five cases. Either\ntheir illnesses, to which I refer, were non-contagious, or, if\ncontagious, the twins caught them simultaneously; they did not catch\nthem the one from the other.\"\n\nSimilarity in association of ideas, in tastes and habits was equally\nclose. In short, their resemblances were not superficial, but extremely\nintimate, both in mind and body, while they were young; they were reared\nalmost exactly alike up to their early manhood and womanhood.\n\nThen they separated into different walks of life. Did this change of the\nenvironment alter their inborn character? For the detailed evidence,\none should consult Galton's own account; we give only his conclusions:\n\nIn many cases the resemblance of body and mind continued unaltered up to\nold age, notwithstanding very different conditions of life; in others a\nsevere disease was sufficient to account for some change noticed. Other\ndissimilarity that developed, Galton had reason to believe, was due to\nthe development of inborn characters that appeared late in life. He\ntherefore felt justified in broadly concluding \"that the only\ncircumstance, within the range of those by which persons of similar\nconditions of life are affected, that is capable of producing a marked\neffect on the character of adults, is illness or some accident which\ncauses physical infirmity. The twins who closely resembled each other in\nchildhood and early youth, and were reared under not very dissimilar\nconditions, either grow unlike through the development of natural [that\nis, inherited] characteristics which had lain dormant at first, or else\nthey continue their lives, keeping time like two watches, hardly to be\nthrown out of accord except by some physical jar.\"\n\nHere was a distinct failure of nurture to modify the inborn nature. We\nnext consider the ordinary twins who were unlike from the start. Galton\nhad twenty such cases, given with much detail. \"It is a fact,\" he\nobserves, \"that extreme dissimilarity, such as existed between Jacob and\nEsau, is a no less marked peculiarity of twins of the same sex than\nextreme similarity.\" The character of the evidence as a whole may be\nfairly conveyed by a few quotations:\n\n(1) One parent says: \"They have had _exactly the same nurture_ from\ntheir birth up to the present time; they are both perfectly healthy and\nstrong, yet they are otherwise as dissimilar as two boys could be,\nphysically, mentally, and in their emotional nature.\"\n\n(2) \"I can answer most decidedly that the twins have been perfectly\ndissimilar in character, habits, and likeness from the moment of their\nbirth to the present time, though they were nursed by the same woman,\nwent to school together, and were never separated until the age of\nthirteen.\"\n\n(3) \"They have never been separated, never the least differently treated\nin food, clothing, or education; both teethed at the same time, both had\nmeasles, whooping cough, and scarlatina at the same time, and neither\nhas had any other serious illness. Both are and have been exceedingly\nhealthy, and have good abilities; yet they differ as much from each\nother in mental cast as any one of my family differs from another.\"\n\n(4) \"Very dissimilar in mind and body; the one is quiet, retiring, and\nslow but sure; good-tempered, but disposed to be sulky when\nprovoked;--the other is quick, vivacious, forward, acquiring easily and\nforgetting soon; quick-tempered and choleric, but quickly forgiving and\nforgetting. They have been educated together and never separated.\"\n\n(5) \"They were never alike either in mind or body, and their\ndissimilarity increases daily. The external influences have been\nidentical; they have never been separated.\"\n\n(6) \"The two sisters are very different in ability and disposition. The\none is retiring, but firm and determined; she has no taste for music or\ndrawing. The other is of an active, excitable temperament; she displays\nan unusual amount of quickness and talent, and is passionately fond of\nmusic and drawing. From infancy, they have been rarely separated even at\nschool, and as children visiting their friends, they always went\ntogether.\"\n\nAnd so on. Not a single case was found in which originally dissimilar\ncharacters became assimilated, although submitted to exactly the same\ninfluences. Reviewing the evidence in his usual cautious way, Galton\ndeclared, \"There is no escape from the conclusion that nature prevails\nenormously over nurture, when the differences of nurture do not exceed\nwhat is commonly to be found among persons of the same rank in society\nand in the same country.\"\n\nThis kind of evidence was a good start for eugenics but as the science\ngrew, it outgrew such evidence. It no longer wanted to be told, no\nmatter how minute the details, that \"nature prevails enormously over\nnurture.\" It wanted to know exactly how much. It refused to be satisfied\nwith the statement that a certain quantity was large; it demanded that\nit be measured or weighed. So Galton, Karl Pearson and other\nmathematicians devised means of doing this, and then Professor Edward L.\nThorndike of Columbia University took up Galton's problem again, with\nmore refined methods.\n\nThe tool used by Professor Thorndike was the coefficient of correlation,\nwhich shows the amount of resemblance or association between any two\nthings that are capable of measurement, and is expressed in the form of\na decimal fraction somewhere between 0 and the unit 1. Zero shows that\nthere is no constant resemblance at all between the two things\nconcerned,--that they are wholly independent of each other, while 1\nshows that they are completely dependent on each other, a condition that\nrarely exists, of course.[4] For instance, the correlation between the\nright and left femur in man's legs is .98.\n\nProfessor Thorndike found in the New York City schools fifty pairs of\ntwins of about the same age and measured the closeness of their\nresemblance in eight physical characters, and also in six mental\ncharacters, the latter being measured by the proficiency with which the\nsubjects performed various tests. Then children of the same age and sex,\npicked at random from the same schools, were measured in the same way.\nIt was thus possible to tell how much more alike twins were than\nordinary children in the same environment.[5]\n\n[Illustration: THE EFFECT OF NURTURE IN CHANGING NATURE\n\nFIG. 2.--Corn of a single variety (Leaming Dent) grown in two\nplots: at the left spaced far apart in hills, at the right crowded. The\nformer grows to its full potential height, the latter is stunted. The\nsize differences in the two plots are due to differences in environment,\nthe heredity in both cases being the same. Plants are much more\nsusceptible to nutritional influences on size than are mammals, but to a\nless degree nutrition has a similar effect on man. Photograph from A. F.\nBlakeslee.]\n\n\"If now these resemblances are due to the fact that the two members of\nany twin pair are treated alike at home, have the same parental models,\nattend the same school and are subject in general to closely similar\nenvironmental conditions, then (1) twins should, up to the age of\nleaving home, grow more and more alike, and in our measurements the\ntwins 13 and 14 years old should be much more alike than those 9 and 10\nyears old. Again (2) if similarity in training is the cause of\nsimilarity in mental traits, ordinary fraternal pairs not over four or\nfive years apart in age should show a resemblance somewhat nearly as\ngreat as twin pairs, for the home and school condition of a pair of the\nformer will not be much less similar than those of a pair of the latter.\nAgain, (3) if training is the cause, twins should show greater\nresemblance in the case of traits much subject to training, such as\nability in addition or multiplication, than in traits less subject to\ntraining, such as quickness in marking off the A's on a sheet of printed\ncapitals, or in writing the opposites of words.\"\n\nThe data were elaborately analyzed from many points of view. They showed\n(1) that the twins 12-14 years old were not any more alike than the\ntwins 9-11 years old, although they ought to have been, if environment\nhas great power to mold the character during these so-called \"plastic\nyears of childhood.\" They showed (2) that the resemblance between twins\nwas two or three times as great as between ordinary children of the same\nage and sex, brought up under similar environment. There seems to be no\nreason, except heredity, why twins should be more alike. The data showed\n(3) that the twins were no more alike in traits subject to much training\nthan in traits subject to little or no training. Their achievement in\nthese traits was determined by their heredity; training did not\nmeasurably alter these hereditary potentialities.\n\n\"The facts,\" Professor Thorndike wrote, \"are easily, simply and\ncompletely explained by one simple hypothesis; namely, that the nature\nof the germ-cells--the conditions of conception--cause whatever\nsimilarities and differences exist in the original natures of men, that\nthese conditions influence mind and body equally, and that in life the\ndifferences in modification of mind and body produced by such\ndifferences as obtain between the environments of present-day New York\nCity public school children are slight.\"\n\n\"The inferences,\" he says, \"with respect to the enormous importance of\noriginal nature in determining the behavior and achievements of any man\nin comparison with his fellows of the same period of civilization and\nconditions of life are obvious. All theories of human life must accept\nas a first principle the fact that human beings at birth differ\nenormously in mental capacities and that these differences are largely\ndue to similar differences in their ancestry. All attempts to change\nhuman nature must accept as their most important condition the limits\nset by original nature to each individual.\"\n\nMeantime other investigators, principally followers of Karl Pearson in\nEngland, were working out correlation coefficients in other lines of\nresearch for hundreds of different traits. As we show in more detail in\nChapter IV, it was found, no matter what physical or mental trait was\nmeasured, that the coefficient of correlation between parent and child\nwas a little less than .5 and that the coefficient between brother and\nbrother, or sister and sister, or brother and sister, was a little more\nthan .5. On the average of many cases the mean \"nature\" value, the\ncoefficient of direct heredity, was placed at .51. This gave another\nmeans of measuring nurture, for it was also possible to measure the\nrelation between any trait in the child and some factor in the\nenvironment. A specific instance will make this clearer.\n\nGroups of school children usually show an appalling percentage of\nshort-sightedness. Now suppose it is suggested that this is because they\nare allowed to learn to read at too early an age. One can find out the\nage at which any given child did learn to read, and work out the\ncoefficient of correlation between this age and the child's amount of\nmyopia. If the relation between them is very close--say .7 or .8--it\nwill be evident that the earlier a child learns to read, the more\nshort-sighted he is as he grows older. This will not prove a relation of\ncause and effect, but it will at least create a great suspicion. If on\nthe contrary the correlation is very slight, it will be evident that\nearly reading has little to do with the prevalance of defective vision\namong school children. If investigators similarly work out all the other\ncorrelations that can be suggested, finding whether there is any\nregular relation between myopia and overcrowding, long hours of study,\ngeneral economic conditions at home, general physical or moral\nconditions of parents, the time the child spends out of doors, etc., and\nif no important relation is found between these various factors and\nmyopia, it will be evident that no factor of the environment which one\ncan think of as likely to cause the trouble really accounts for the poor\neyesight of school children.\n\n[Illustration: HEIGHT IN CORN AND MEN\n\nFIG. 3.--An unusually short and an unusually tall man,\nphotographed beside extreme varieties of corn which, like the men, owe\ntheir differences in height indisputably to heredity rather than to\nenvironment. No imaginable environmental differences could reverse the\npositions of these two men, or of these two varieties of corn, the\nheredity in each case being what it is. The large one might be stunted,\nbut the small one could not be made much larger. Photograph from A. F.\nBlakeslee.]\n\nThis has actually been done,[6] and none of the conditions enumerated\nhas been found to be closely related to myopia in school children.\nCorrelations between fifteen environmental conditions and the goodness\nof children's eyesight were measured, and only in one case was the\ncorrelation as high as .1. The mean of these correlations was about\n.04--an absolutely negligible quantity when compared with the common\nheredity coefficient of .51.\n\nDoes this prove that the myopia is rather due to heredity? It would, by\na process of exclusion, if every conceivable environmental factor had\nbeen measured and found wanting. That point in the investigation can\nnever be reached, but a tremendously strong suspicion is at least\njustified. Now if the degree of resemblance between the prevalence of\nmyopia in parents and that in children be directly measured, and if it\nbe found that when the parent has eye trouble the child also has it,\nthen it seems that a general knowledge of heredity should lead to the\nbelief that the difficulty lies there, and that an environmental cause\nfor the poor vision of the school child was being sought, when it was\nall the time due almost entirely to heredity. This final step has not\nyet been completed in an adequate way,[7] but the evidence, partly\nanalogical, gives every reason to believe in the soundness of the\nconclusion stated, that in most cases the schoolboy must wear glasses\nbecause of his heredity, not because of overstudy or any neglect on the\npart of his parents to care for his eyes properly during his childhood.\n\n[Illustration: WHY MEN GROW SHORT OR TALL\n\nFIG. 4.--Pedigree charts of the two men shown in the preceding\nillustration. Squares represent men and circles women; figures\nunderlined denote measurement in stocking feet. It is obvious from a\ncomparison of the ancestry of the two men that the short one comes from\na predominantly short family, while the tall one gains his height\nlikewise from heredity. The shortest individual in the right-hand chart\nwould have been accounted tall in the family represented on the left.\nAfter A. F. Blakeslee.]\n\nThe extent to which the intelligence of school children is dependent on\ndefective physique and unfavorable home environment is an important\npractical question, which David Heron of London attacked by the methods\nwe have outlined. He wanted to find out whether the healthy children\nwere the most intelligent. One is constantly hearing stories of how the\nintelligence of school children has been improved by some treatment\nwhich improved their general health, but these stories are rarely\npresented in such a way as to contribute evidence of scientific value.\nIt was desirable to know what exact measurement would show. The\nintelligence of all the children in fourteen schools was measured in its\ncorrelation with weight and height, conditions of clothing and teeth,\nstate of nutrition, cleanliness, good hearing, and the condition of the\ncervical glands, tonsils and adenoids. It could not be found that mental\ncapacity was closely related to any of the characters dealt with.[8] The\nparticular set of characters measured was taken because it happened to\nbe furnished by data collected for another purpose; the various items\nare suggestive rather than directly conclusive. Here again, the\ncorrelation in most cases was less than .1, as compared with the general\nheredity correlation of .5.\n\nThe investigation need not be limited to problems of bad breeding.\nEugenics, as its name shows, is primarily interested in \"good breeding;\"\nit is particularly worth while, therefore, to examine the relations\nbetween heredity and environment in the production of mental and moral\nsuperiority.\n\nIf success in life--the kind of success that is due to great mental and\nmoral superiority--is due to the opportunities a man has, then it ought\nto be pretty evenly distributed among all persons who have had favorable\nopportunities, provided a large enough number of persons be taken to\nallow the laws of probability full play. England offers a good field to\ninvestigate this point, because Oxford and Cambridge, her two great\nuniversities, turn out most of the eminent men of the country, or at\nleast have done so until recently. If nothing more is necessary to\nensure a youth's success than to give him a first-class education and\nthe chance to associate with superior people, then the prizes of life\nought to be pretty evenly distributed among the graduates of the two\nuniversities, during a period of a century or two.\n\nThis is not the case. When we look at the history of England, as Galton\ndid nearly half a century ago, we find success in life to an unexpected\ndegree a family affair. The distinguished father is likely to have a\ndistinguished son, while the son of two \"nobodies\" has a very small\nchance of becoming distinguished. To cite one concrete case, Galton\nfound[9] that the son of a distinguished judge had about one chance in\nfour of becoming himself distinguished, while the son of a man picked\nout at random from the population had about one chance in 4,000 of\nbecoming similarly distinguished.\n\nThe objection at once occurs that perhaps social opportunities might\nplay the predominant part; that the son of an obscure man never gets a\nchance, while the son of the prominent man is pushed forward regardless\nof his inherent abilities. This, as Galton argued at length, can not be\ntrue of men of really eminent attainments. The true genius, he thought,\nfrequently succeeds in rising despite great obstacles, while no amount\nof family pull will succeed in making a mediocrity into a genius,\nalthough it may land him in some high and very comfortable official\nposition. Galton found a good illustration in the papacy, where during\nmany centuries it was the custom for a pope to adopt one of his nephews\nas a son, and push him forward in every way. If opportunity were all\nthat is required, these adopted sons ought to have reached eminence as\noften as a real son would have done; but statistics show that they\nreached eminence only as often as would be expected for nephews of great\nmen, whose chance is notably less, of course, than that of sons of great\nmen, in whom the intensity of heredity is much greater.\n\nTransfer the inquiry to America, and it becomes even more conclusive,\nfor this is supposed to be the country of equal opportunities, where it\nis a popular tradition that every boy has a chance to become president.\nSuccess may be in some degree a family affair in caste-ridden England;\nis it possible that the past history of the United States should show\nthe same state of affairs?\n\nGalton found that about half of the great men of England had\ndistinguished close relatives. If the great men of America have fewer\ndistinguished close relatives, environment will be able to make out a\nplausible case: it will be evident that in this continent of boundless\nopportunities the boy with ambition and energy gets to the top, and that\nthis ambition and energy do not depend on the kind of family he comes\nfrom.\n\nFrederick Adams Woods has made precisely this investigation.[10] The\nfirst step was to find out how many eminent men there are in American\nhistory. Biographical dictionaries list about 3,500, and this number\nprovides a sufficiently unbiased standard from which to work. Now, Dr.\nWoods says, if we suppose the average person to have as many as twenty\nclose relatives--as near as an uncle or a grandson--then computation\nshows that only one person in 500 in the United States has a chance to\nbe a near relative of one of the 3,500 eminent men--provided it is\npurely a matter of chance. As a fact, the 3,500 eminent men listed by\nthe biographical dictionaries are related to each other not as one in\n500, but as one in five. If the more celebrated men alone be considered,\nit is found that the percentage increases so that about one in three of\nthem has a close relative who is also distinguished. This ratio\nincreases to more than one in two when the families of the forty-six\nAmericans in the Hall of Fame are made the basis of study. If all the\neminent relations of those in the Hall of Fame are counted, they average\nmore than one apiece. Therefore, they are from five hundred to a\nthousand times as much related to distinguished people as the ordinary\nmortal is.\n\nTo look at it from another point of view, something like 1% of the\npopulation of the country is as likely to produce a man of genius as is\nall the rest of the population put together,--the other 99%.\n\nThis might still be due in some degree to family influence, to the\nprestige of a famous name, or to educational advantages afforded the\nsons of successful men. Dr. Woods' study of the royal families of Europe\nis more decisive.[11]\n\nIn the latter group, the environment must be admitted--on the whole--to\nbe uniformly favorable. It has varied, naturally, in each case, but\nspeaking broadly it is certain that all the members of this group have\nhad the advantage of a good education, of unusual care and attention. If\nsuch things affect achievement, then the achievements of this class\nought to be pretty generally distributed among the whole class. If\nopportunity is the cause of a man's success, then most of the members of\nthis class ought to have succeeded, because to every one of royal blood,\nthe door of opportunity usually stands open. One would expect the heir\nto the throne to show a better record than his younger brothers,\nhowever, because his opportunity to distinguish himself is naturally\ngreater. This last point will be discussed first.\n\nDr. Woods divided all the individuals in his study into ten classes for\nintellectuality and ten for morality, those most deficient in the\nqualities being put in class 1, while the men and women of preeminent\nintellectual and moral worth were put in class 10. Now if preeminent\nintellect and morality were at all linked with the better chances that\nan inheritor of succession has, then heirs to the throne ought to be\nmore plentiful in the higher grades than in the lower. Actual count\nshows this not to be the case. A slightly larger percentage of\ninheritors is rather to be found in the lower grades. The younger sons\nhave made just as good a showing as the sons who succeeded to power; as\none would expect if intellect and morality are due largely to heredity,\nbut as one would not expect if intellect and morality are due largely to\noutward circumstances.\n\nAre \"conditions of turmoil, stress and adversity\" strong forces in the\nproduction of great men, as has often been claimed? There is no evidence\nfrom facts to support that view. In the case of a few great commanders,\nthe times seemed particularly favorable. Napoleon, for example, could\nhardly have been Napoleon had it not been for the French revolution. But\nin general there have been wars going on during the whole period of\nmodern European history; there have always been opportunities for a\nroyal hero to make his appearance; but often the country has called for\nmany years in vain. Circumstances were powerless to produce a great man\nand the nation had to wait until heredity produced him. Spain has for\nseveral centuries been calling for genius in leadership in some lines;\nbut in vain. England could not get an able man from the Stuart line,\ndespite her need, and had to wait for William of Orange, who was a\ndescendant of a man of genius, William the Silent. \"Italy had to wait\nfifty years in bondage for her deliverers, Cavour, Garibaldi and Victor\nEmmanuel.\"\n\n\"The upshot of it all,\" Dr. Woods decides, \"is that, as regards\nintellectual life, environment is a totally inadequate explanation. If\nit explains certain characters in certain instances, it always fails to\nexplain many more, while heredity not only explains all, or at least\n90%, of the intellectual side of character in practically every\ninstance, but does so best when questions of environment are left out of\ndiscussion.\"\n\nDespite the good environment almost uniformly present, the geniuses in\nroyalty are not scattered over the surface of the pedigree chart, but\nform isolated little groups of closely related individuals. One centers\nin Frederick the Great, another in Queen Isabella of Spain, a third in\nWilliam the Silent, and a fourth in Gustavus Adolphus. Furthermore, the\nroyal personages who are conspicuously low in intellect and morality are\nsimilarly grouped. Careful study of the circumstances shows nothing in\nthe environment that would produce this grouping of genius, while it is\nexactly what a knowledge of heredity leads one to expect.\n\nIn the next place, do the superior members of royalty have\nproportionately more superior individuals among their close relatives,\nas was found to be the case among the Americans in the Hall of Fame? A\ncount shows at once that they do. The first six grades all have about an\nequal number of eminent relatives, but grade 7 has more while grade 8\nhas more than grade 7, and the geniuses of grade 10 have the highest\nproportion of nearer relatives of their own character. Surely it cannot\nbe supposed that a relative of a king in grade 8 has on the average a\nmuch less favorable environment than a relative of a king in grade 10.\nIs it not fair, then, to assume that this relative's greater endowment\nin the latter case is due to heredity?\n\nConditions are the same, whether males or females be considered. The\nroyal families of Europe offer a test case because for them the\nenvironment is nearly uniformly favorable. A study of them shows great\nmental and moral differences between them, and critical evidence\nindicates that these differences are largely due to differences in\nheredity. Differences of opportunity do not appear to be largely\nresponsible for the achievements of the individuals.\n\nBut, it is sometimes objected, opportunity certainly is responsible for\nthe appearance of much talent that would otherwise never appear. Take\nthe great increase in the number of scientific men in Germany during the\nlast half century, for example. It can not be pretended that this is due\nto an increased birth-rate of such talent; it means that the growth of\nan appreciation of scientific work has produced an increased amount of\nscientific talent. J. McKeen Cattell has argued this point most\ncarefully in his study of the families of one thousand American men of\nscience (_Popular Science Monthly_, May, 1915). \"A Darwin born in China\nin 1809,\" he says, \"could not have become a Darwin, nor could a Lincoln\nborn here on the same day have become a Lincoln had there been no Civil\nWar. If the two infants had been exchanged there would have been no\nDarwin in America and no Lincoln in England.\" And so he continues,\nurging that in the production of scientific men, at least, education is\nmore important than eugenics.\n\nThis line of argument contains a great deal of obvious truth, but is\nsubject to a somewhat obvious objection, if it is pushed too far. It is\ncertainly true that the exact field in which a man's activities will\nfind play is largely determined by his surroundings and education. Young\nmen in the United States are now becoming lawyers or men of science, who\nwould have become ministers had they been born a century or two ago. But\nthis environmental influence seems to us a minor one, for the man who is\nhighly gifted in some one line is usually, as all the work of\ndifferential psychology shows, gifted more than the average in many\nother lines. Opportunity decides in just what field his life work shall\nlie; but he would be able to make a success in a number of fields.\nDarwin born in America would probably not have become the Darwin we\nknow, but it is not to be supposed that he would have died a \"mute,\ninglorious Milton\": it is not likely that he would have failed to make\nhis mark in some line of human activity. Dr. Cattell's argument, then,\nwhile admissible, can not properly be urged against the fact that\nability is mainly dependent on inheritance.\n\nWe need not stop with the conclusion that equality of training or\nopportunity is unable to level the inborn differences between men. We\ncan go even farther, and produce evidence to show that equality of\ntraining _increases the differences_ in results achieved.\n\nThis evidence is obtained by measuring the effects of equal amounts of\nexercise of a function upon individual differences in respect to\nefficiency in it. Suppose one should pick out, at random, eight\nchildren, and let them do problems in multiplication for 10 minutes.\nAfter a number of such trials, the three best might average 39 correct\nsolutions in the 10 minutes, and the three poorest might average 25\nexamples. Then let them continue the work, until each one of them has\ndone 700 examples. Here is equality in training; does it lead to uniform\nresults?\n\nDr. Starch made the actual test which we have outlined and found that\nthe three best pupils gained on the average 45 in the course of doing\n700 examples; while the three poorest gained only 26 in the same course\nof time.\n\nSimilar tests have been made of school children in a number of\ninstances, and have shown that equality of training fails to bring about\nequality of performance. All improve to some extent; but those who are\nnaturally better than their comrades usually become better still, when\nconditions for all are the same. E. L. Thorndike gives[12] the following\ntabular statement of a test he conducted:\n\nTHE EFFECT OF EQUAL AMOUNTS OF PRACTICE UPON INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES\nIN THE MENTAL MULTIPLICATION OF A THREE-PLACE BY A THREE-PLACE\nNUMBER\n\n\n Amount done Percentage of\n per unit of correct figures\n time in answers\n\n Hours of Practice\n |\n | First 5 Examples First 5 Examples\n | | |\n | | Last 5 or 10 | Last 5 or 10\n | | Examples | Examples\n | | | | |\n | | | Gain | | Gain\n\n Initial highest five individuals 5.1 85 147 61 70 78 18\n \" next five \" 5.1 56 107 51 68 78 10\n \" \" six \" 5.3 46 68 22 74 82 8\n \" \" six \" 5.4 38 46 8 58 70 12\n \" \" five \" 5.2 31 57 26 47 67 20\n \" \" one individual 5.2 19 32 13 100 82 -18\n\nSimilar results have been obtained by half a dozen other experimenters,\nusing the tests of mental multiplication, addition, marking A's on a\nprinted sheet of capitals, and the like. It would be a mistake to\nconclude too much from experiments of such restricted scope; but they\nall agree in showing that if every child were given an equal training,\nthe differences in these traits would nevertheless be very great.\n\nAnd although we do not wish to strain the application of these results\ntoo far, we are at least justified in saying that they strongly indicate\nthat inborn mediocrity can not be made into a high grade of talent by\ntraining. Not every boy has a chance to distinguish himself, even if he\nreceives a good education.\n\nWe are driven back to the same old conclusion, that it is primarily\ninborn nature which causes the achievements of men and women to be what\nthey are. Good environment, opportunity, training, will give good\nheredity a chance to express itself; but they can not produce greatness\nfrom bad heredity.\n\nThese conclusions are familiar to scientific sociologists, but they have\nnot yet had the influence on social service and practical attempts at\nreform which they deserve. Many popular writers continue to confuse\ncause and effect, as for example H. Addington Bruce, who contributed an\narticle to the _Century Magazine_, not long ago, on \"The Boy Who Goes\nWrong.\" After alleging that the boy who goes wrong does so because he is\nnot properly brought up, Mr. Bruce quotes with approval the following\npassage from Paul Dubois, \"the eminent Swiss physician and philosopher:\n\n\"If you have the happiness to be a well-living man, take care not to\nattribute the credit of it to yourself. Remember the favorable\nconditions in which you have lived, surrounded by the relatives who\nloved you and set you a good example; do not forget the close friends\nwho have taken you by the hand and led you away from the quagmires of\nevil; keep a grateful remembrance for all the teachers who have\ninfluenced you, the kind and intelligent school-master, the devoted\npastor; realize all these multiple influences which have made you what\nyou are. Then you will remember that such and such a culprit has not in\nhis sad life met with these favorable conditions; that he had a drunken\nfather or a foolish mother, and that he has lived without affection,\nexposed to all kinds of temptation. You will then take pity upon this\ndisinherited man, whose mind has been nourished upon malformed mental\nimages, begetting evil sentiments such as immoderate desire or social\nhatred.\"\n\nMr. Bruce indorses this kind of talk when he concludes, \"The blame for\nthe boy who goes wrong does not rest with the boy himself, or yet with\nhis remote ancestors. It rests squarely with the parents who, through\nignorance or neglect, have failed to mold him aright in the plastic days\nof childhood.\"\n\nWhere is the evidence of the existence of these plastic days of\nchildhood? If they exist, why do not ordinary brothers become as much\nalike as identical twins? How long are we to be asked to believe, on\nblind faith, that the child is putty, of which the educator can make\neither mediocrity or genius, depending on his skill? What does the\nenvironmentalist _know_ about these \"plastic days\"? If a boy has a\ndrunken father or foolish mother, does it not suggest that there is\nsomething wrong with his pedigree? With such an ancestry, we do not\nexpect him to turn out brilliantly, no matter in what home he is brought\nup. If a boy has the kind of parents who bring him up well; if he is,\nas Dr. Dubois says, surrounded by relatives who love him and set him a\ngood example, we at once have ground for a suspicion that he comes of a\npretty good family, a stock characterized by a high standard of\nintellectuality and morality, and it would surprise us if such a boy did\nnot turn out well. But he turns out well because what's bred in the bone\nwill show in him, if it gets any kind of a chance. It is his nature, not\nhis nurture, that is mainly responsible for his character.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nMODIFICATION OF THE GERM-PLASM\n\n\nEvery living creature was at some stage of its life nothing more than a\nsingle cell. It is generally known that human beings result from the\nunion of an egg-cell and a sperm-cell, but it is not so universally\nunderstood that these germ-cells are part of a continuous stream of\ngerm-plasm which has been in existence ever since the appearance of life\non the globe, and which is destined to continue in existence as long as\nlife remains on the globe.\n\nThe corollaries of this fact are of great importance. Some of them will\nbe considered in this chapter.\n\nEarly investigators tended naturally to look on the germ-cells as a\nproduct of the body. Being supposedly products of the body, it was\nnatural to think that they would in some measure reproduce the character\nof the body which created them; and Darwin elaborated an ingenious\nhypothesis to explain how the various characters could be represented in\nthe germ-cell. The idea held by him, in common with most other thinkers\nof his period, is still held more or less unconsciously by those who\nhave not given particular attention to the subject. Generation is\nconceived as a direct chain: the body produces the germ-cell which\nproduces another body which in turn produces another germ-cell, and so\non.\n\nBut a generation ago this idea fell under suspicion. August Weismann,\nprofessor of zooelogy in the University of Freiburg, Germany, made\nhimself the champion of the new idea, about 1885, and developed it so\neffectively that it is now a part of the creed of nearly every\nbiologist.\n\nWeismann caused a general abandonment of the idea that the germ-cell is\nproduced by the body in each generation, and popularized the conception\nof the germ-cell as a product of a stream of undifferentiated\ngerm-plasm, not only continuous but (potentially at least) immortal.\nThe body does not produce the germ-cells, he pointed out; instead, the\ngerm-cells produce the body.\n\nThe basis of this theory can best be understood by a brief consideration\nof the reproduction of very simple organisms.\n\n\"Death is the end of life,\" is the belief of many other persons than the\nLotus Eaters. It is commonly supposed that everything which lives must\neventually die. But study of a one-celled animal, an Infusorian, for\nexample, reveals that when it reaches a certain age it pinches in two,\nand each half becomes an Infusorian in all appearance identical with the\noriginal cell. Has the parent cell then died? It may rather be said to\nsurvive, in two parts. Each of these daughter cells will in turn go\nthrough the same process of reproduction by simple fission, and the\nprocess will be continued in their descendants. The Infusorian can be\ncalled potentially immortal, because of this method of reproduction.\n\nThe immortality, as Weismann pointed out, is not of the kind attributed\nby the Greeks to their gods, who could not die because no wound could\ndestroy them. On the contrary, the Infusorian is extremely fragile, and\nis dying by millions at every instant; but if circumstances are\nfavorable, it _can_ live on; it is not inevitably doomed to die sooner\nor later, as is Man. \"It dies from accident often, from old age never.\"\n\nNow the single-celled Infusorian is in many respects comparable with the\nsingle-celled germ of the higher animals. The analogy has often been\ncarried too far; yet it remains indisputable that the germ-cells of men\nreproduce in the same way--by simple fission--as the Infusorian and\nother one-celled animals and plants, and that they are organized on much\nthe same plan. Given favorable circumstances, the germ-cell should be\nexpected to be equally immortal. Does it ever find these favorable\ncircumstances?\n\nThe investigations of microscopists indicate that it does--that\nevolution has provided it with these favorable circumstances, in the\nbodies of the higher animals. Let us recall in outline the early history\nof the fertilized germ-cell, the _zygote_ formed by the union of ovum\nand spermatozooen. These two unite to form a single cell, which is\nessentially the same, physiologically, as other germ-cells. It divides\nin two similar cells; these each divide; the resulting cells again\ndivide, and so the process continues, until the whole body--a fully\ndeveloped man,--has been produced by division and redivision of the one\nzygote.\n\nBut the germ-cell is obviously different from most of the cells that\nmake up the finished product, the body. The latter are highly\ndifferentiated and specialized for different functions--blood cells,\nnerve cells, bone cells, muscle cells, and so on, each a single cell but\neach adapted to do a certain work, for which the original,\nundifferentiated germ-cell was wholly unfit. It is evident that\ndifferentiation began to take place at some point in the series of\ndivisions, that is to say, in the development of the embryo.\n\nTh. Boveri, studying the development of a threadworm, made the\ninteresting discovery that this differentiation began at the first\ndivision. Of the two daughter-cells produced from the zygote, one\ncontinued dividing at a very slow rate, and without showing any\nspecialization. Its \"line of descent\" produced only germ-cells. The\nproducts of division of the other daughter-cell began to differentiate,\nand soon formed all the necessary kinds of cells to make up the body of\nthe mature worm. In this body, the cells from the first daughter-cell\nmentioned were inclosed, still undifferentiated: they formed the\ngerm-cells of the next generation, and after maturity were ready to be\nejected from the body, and to form new threadworms.\n\nImagine this process taking place through generation after generation of\nthreadworms, and one will realize that the germ-plasm was passed on\ndirectly from one generation to the next; that in each generation it\ngave rise to body-plasm, but that it did not at any time lose its\nidentity or continuity, a part of the germ-plasm being always set aside,\nundifferentiated, to be handed on to the next generation.\n\nIn the light of this example, one can better understand the definition\nof germ-plasm as \"that part of the substance of the parents which does\nnot die with them, but perpetuates itself in their offspring.\" By\nbringing his imagination into play, the reader will realize that there\nis no limit to the backward continuity of this germ-plasm in the\nthreadworm. Granted that each species has arisen by evolution from some\nother, this germ-cell which is observed in the body of the threadworm,\nmust be regarded as part of what may well be called a stream of\ngerm-plasm, that reaches back to the beginning of life in the world. It\nwill be equally evident that these is no foreordained limit to the\nforward extension of the stream. It will continue in some branch, as\nlong as there are any threadworms or descendants of threadworms in the\nworld.\n\nThe reader may well express doubt as to whether what has been\ndemonstrated for the threadworm can be demonstrated for the higher\nanimals, including man. It must be admitted that in many of these\nanimals conditions are too unfavorable, and the process of embryology\ntoo complicated, or too difficult to observe, to permit as distinct a\ndemonstration of this continuity of the germ-plasm, wherever it is\nsought. But it has been demonstrated in a great many animals; no facts\nwhich impair the theory have been discovered; and biologists therefore\nfeel perfectly justified in generalizing and declaring the continuity of\ngerm-plasm to be a law of the world of living things.\n\nFocusing attention on its application to man, one sees that the race\nmust represent an immense network of lines of descent, running back\nthrough a vast number of different forms of gradually diminishing\nspecialization, until it comes to a point where all its threads merge in\none knot--the single cell with which it may be supposed that life on\nthis globe began. Each individual is not only figuratively, but in a\nvery literal sense, the carrier of the heritage of the whole race--of\nthe whole past, indeed. Each individual is temporarily the custodian of\npart of the \"stuff of life\"; from an evolutionary point of view, he may\nbe said to have been brought into existence, primarily to pass this\nsacred heritage on to the next generation. From Nature's standpoint, he\nis of little use in the world, his existence is scarcely justified,\nunless he faithfully discharges this trust, passing on to the future\nthe \"Lamp of Life\" whose fire he has been created to guard for a short\nwhile.\n\nImmortality, we may point out in passing, is thus no mere _hope_ to the\nparent: it is a _real possibility_. The death of the huge agglomeration\nof highly specialized body-cells is a matter of little consequence, if\nthe germ-plasm, with its power to reproduce not only these body-cells,\nbut the mental traits--indeed, we may in a sense say the very soul--that\ninhabited them, has been passed on. The individual continues to live, in\nhis offspring, just as the past lives in him. To the eugenist, life\neverlasting is something more than a figure of speech or a theological\nconcept--it is as much a reality as the beat of the heart, the growth of\nmuscles or the activity of the mind.\n\nThis doctrine of the continuity of germ-plasm throws a fresh light on\nthe nature of human relationships. It is evident that the son who\nresembles his father can not accurately be called a \"chip off the old\nblock.\" Rather, they are both chips off the same block; and aside from\nbringing about the fusion of two distinct strains of germ-plasm, father\nand mother are no more responsible for endowing the child with its\ncharacters except in the choice of mate, than is the child for \"stamping\nhis impress\" on his parents. From another point of view, it has been\nsaid that father and son ought to be thought of as half-brothers by two\ndifferent mothers, each being the product of the same strain of paternal\ngerm-plasm, but not of the same strain of maternal germ-plasm.\nBiologically, the father or mother should not be thought of as the\n_producer_ of a child, but as the trustee of a stream of germ-plasm\nwhich produces a child whenever the proper conditions arise. Or as Sir\nMichael Foster put it, \"The animal body is in reality a vehicle for ova\nor sperm; and after the life of the parent has become potentially\nrenewed in the offspring, the body remains as a cast-off envelope whose\nfuture is but to die.\" Finally to quote the metaphor of J. Arthur\nThomson, one may \"think for a moment of a baker who has a very precious\nkind of leaven; he uses much of this in baking a large loaf; but he so\narranges matters by a clever contrivance that part of the original\nleaven is always carried on unaltered, carefully preserved for the next\nbaking. Nature is the baker, the loaf is the body, the leaven is the\ngerm-plasm, and each baking is a generation.\"\n\nWhen the respective functions and relative importance, from a genetic\npoint of view, of germ-plasm and body-plasm are understood, it must be\nfairly evident that the natural point of attack for any attempt at race\nbetterment which aims to be fundamental rather than wholly superficial,\nmust be the germ-plasm rather than the body-plasm. The failure to hold\nthis point of view has been responsible for the disappointing results of\nmuch of the sociological theory of the last century, and for the fact\nthat some of the work now carried on under the name of race betterment\nis producing results that are of little or no significance to true race\nbetterment.\n\nOn the other hand, it must be fairly evident, from the pains which\nNature has taken to arrange for the transmission of the germ-plasm from\ngeneration to generation, that she would also protect it from injury\nwith meticulous care. It seems hardly reasonable to suppose that a\nmaterial of this sort should be exposed, in the higher animals at least,\nto all the vicissitudes of the environment, and to injury or change from\nthe chance of outward circumstances.\n\nIn spite of these presumptions which the biologist would, to say the\nleast, consider worthy of careful investigation, the world is full of\nwell-intentioned people who are anxious to improve the race, and who in\ntheir attempts to do so, wholly ignore the germ-plasm. They see only the\nbody-plasm. They are devoted to the dogma that if they can change the\nbody (and what is here said of the body applies equally to the mind) in\nthe direction they wish, this change will in some unascertainable way be\nreproduced in the next generation. They rarely stop to think that man is\nan animal, or that the science of biology might conceivably have\nsomething to say about the means by which his species can be improved;\nbut if they do, they commonly take refuge, deliberately or\nunconsciously, in the biology of half a century ago, which still\nbelieved that these changes of the body could be so impressed on the\ngerm-plasm as to be continued in the following generation.\n\nSuch an assumption is made to-day by few who have thoroughly studied the\nsubject. Even those who still believed in what is conventionally called\n\"the inheritance of acquired characteristics\" would be quick to\nrepudiate any such application of the doctrine as is commonly made by\nmost of the philanthropists and social workers who are proceeding\nwithout seeking the light of biology. But the idea that these\nmodifications are inherited is so widespread among all who have not\nstudied biology, and is so much a part of the tradition of society, that\nthe question must be here examined, before we can proceed confidently\nwith our program of eugenics.\n\nThe problem is first to be defined.\n\nIt is evident that all characters which make up a man or woman, or any\nother organism, must be either germinal or acquired. It is impossible to\nconceive of any other category. But it is frequently hard to say in\nwhich class a given character falls. Worse still, many persons do not\neven distinguish the two categories accurately--a confusion made easier\nby the quibble that _all_ characters must be acquired, since the\norganism starts from a single cell, which possesses practically none of\nthe traits of the adult.\n\nWhat we mean by an inborn character is one whose expression is due to\nsomething which is present in the germ-plasm; one which is inherent and\ndue to heredity. An acquired character is simply a modification, due to\nsome cause external to the germ-plasm acting on an inborn character. In\nlooking at an individual, one can not always say with certainty which\ncharacters are which; but with a little trouble, one can usually reach a\nreliable decision. It is possible to measure the variation in a given\ncharacter in a group of parents and their children, in a number of\ndifferent environments; if the degree of resemblance between parent and\noffspring is about the same in each case, regardless of the different\nsurroundings in which the children may have been brought up, the\ncharacter may properly be called germinal. This is the biometric method\nof investigation. In practice, one can often reach a decision by much\nsimpler means: if the character is one that appears at birth, e.g.,\nskin color, it is usually safe to assume that it is a germinal\ncharacter, unless there is some evident reason for deciding otherwise,\nas in the case of a child born with some disease from which the mother\nhad been suffering for the previous few months. In general, it is more\ndifficult to decide whether a mental trait is germinal, than whether a\nphysical one is; and great care should be used in classification.\n\nTo make the distinction, one ought to be familiar with an individual\nfrom birth, and to have some knowledge of the conditions to which he was\nexposed, in the period between conception and birth,--for of course a\nmodification which takes place during that time is as truly an acquired\ncharacter as one that takes place after parturition. Blindness, for\nexample, may be an inborn defect. The child from conception may have\nlacked the requisites for the development of sight. On the other hand,\nit may be an acquired character, due to an ill-advised display of\npatriotism on July 4, at some time during childhood; or even to\ninfection at the moment of birth. Similarly small size may be an inborn\ncharacter, due to a small-sized ancestry; but if the child comes of a\nnormal ancestry and is stunted merely because of lack of proper care and\nfood, the smallness is an acquired character. Deafness may be congenital\nand inborn, or it may be acquired as the result, say, of scarlet fever\nduring childhood.\n\nNow the inborn characters (excepting modifications _in utero_) are\nadmittedly heritable, for inborn characters must exist potentially in\nthe germ-plasm. The belief that acquired characters are also inherited,\ntherefore, involves belief that in some way the trait acquired by the\nparent is incorporated in the germ-plasm of the parent, to be handed on\nto the child and reappear in the course of the child's development. The\nimpress on the parental _body_ must in some way be transferred to the\nparental _germ-plasm_; and not as a general influence, but as a specific\none which can be reproduced by the germ-plasm.\n\nThis idea was held almost without question by the biologists of the\npast, from Aristotle on. Questionings indeed arose from time to time,\nbut they were vague and carried no weight, until a generation ago\nseveral able men elaborated them. For many years, it was the question of\nchief dispute in the study of heredity. The last word has not yet been\nsaid on it. It has theoretical bearings of immense importance; for our\nconception of the process of evolution will be shaped according to the\nbelief that acquired characters are or are not inherited. Herbert\nSpencer went so far as to say, \"Close contemplation of the facts\nimpresses me more strongly than ever with two alternatives--either that\nthere has been inheritance of acquired characters, or there has been no\nevolution.\" But its practical bearings are no less momentous. Again to\nquote Spencer: \"Considering the width and depth of the effects which the\nacceptance or non-acceptance of one or the other of these hypotheses\nmust have on our views of life, the question, Which of them is true?\ndemands beyond all other questions whatever the attention of scientific\nmen. A grave responsibility rests on biologists in respect of the\ngeneral question, since wrong answers lead, among other effects, to\nwrong belief about social affairs and to disastrous social actions.\"\n\nBiologists certainly have not shirked this \"grave responsibility\" during\nthe last 30 years, and they have, in our opinion, satisfactorily\nanswered the general question. The answer they give is not the answer\nHerbert Spencer gave.\n\nBut the popular mind frequently lags a generation behind, in its grasp\nof the work of science, and it must be said that in this case the\npopular mind is still largely under the influence of Herbert Spencer and\nhis school. _Whether they know it or not_, most people who have not made\na particular study of the question still tacitly assume that the\nacquirements of one generation form part of the inborn heritage of the\nnext, and the present social and educational systems are founded in\nlarge part on this false foundation. Most philanthropy starts out\nunquestioningly with the assumption that by modifying the individual for\nthe better, it will thereby improve the germinal quality of the race.\nEven a self-styled eugenist asks, \"Can prospective parents who have\nthoroughly and systematically disciplined themselves, physically,\nmentally and morally, transmit to their offspring the traits or\ntendencies which they have developed?\" and answers the question with the\nastounding statement, \"It seems reasonable to suppose that they have\nthis power, it being simply a phase of heredity, the tendency of like to\nbeget like.\"\n\nThe right understanding of this famous problem is therefore fraught with\nthe most important consequences to eugenics. The huge mass of\nexperimental evidence that has been accumulated during the last quarter\nof a century has, necessarily, been almost wholly based on work with\nplants and lower animals. Even though we can not attempt to present a\ngeneral review of this evidence, for which the reader must consult one\nof the standard works on biology or genetics, we shall point out some of\nthe considerations underlying the problem and its solution.\n\nIn the first place, it must be definitely understood that we are dealing\nonly with specific, as distinguished from general, transmission. As the\ngerm-cells derive their nourishment from the body, it is obvious that\nany cause profoundly affecting the latter might in that way exercise an\ninfluence on the germ-cells; that if the parent was starved, the\ngerm-cells might be ill-nourished and the resulting offspring might be\nweak and puny. There is experimental evidence that this is the case; but\nthat is not the inheritance of an acquired character. If, however, a\nwhite man tanned by long exposure to the tropical sun should have\nchildren who were brunettes, when the family stock was all blond; or if\nmen whose legs were deformed through falls in childhood should have\nchildren whose legs, at birth, appeared deformed in the same manner;\nthen there would be a distinct case of the transmission of an acquired\ncharacteristic. \"The precise question,\" as Professor Thomson words it,\n\"is this: Can a structural change in the body, induced by some change in\nuse or disuse, or by a change in surrounding influence, affect the\ngerm-cells in such a _specific_ or representative way that the offspring\nwill through its inheritance exhibit, even in a slight degree, the\nmodification which the parent acquired?\" He then lists a number of\ncurrent misunderstandings, which are so widespread that they deserve to\nbe considered here.\n\n(1) It is frequently argued (as Herbert Spencer himself suggested) that\nunless modifications are inherited, there could be no such thing as\nevolution. Such pessimism is unwarranted. There _is_ abundant\nexplanation of evolution, in the abundant supply of germinal variations\nwhich every individual presents.\n\n(2) It is common to advance an _interpretation_ of some observation, in\nsupport of the Lamarckian doctrine, as if it were a _fact_.\nInterpretations are not facts. What is wanted are the facts; each\nstudent has a right to interpret them as he sees fit, but not to\nrepresent his interpretation as a fact. It is easy to find structural\nfeatures in Nature which _may be interpreted_ as resulting from the\ninheritance of acquired characters; but this is not the same as to say\nand to prove that they _have resulted_ from such inheritance.\n\n(3) It is common to beg the question by pointing to the transmission of\nsome character that is not proved to be a modification. Herbert Spencer\ncited the prevalence of short-sightedness among the \"notoriously\nstudious\" Germans as a defect due to the inheritance of an acquired\ncharacter. But he offered no evidence that this is an acquirement rather\nthan a germinal character. As a fact, there is reason to believe that\nweakness of the eyes is one of the characteristics of that race, and\nexisted long before the Germans ever became studious--even at a time\nwhen most of them could neither read nor write.\n\n(4) The reappearance of a modification may be mistaken for the\ntransmission of a modification. Thus a blond European family moves to\nthe tropics, and the parents become tanned. The children who grow up\nunder the tropical sun are tanned from infancy; and after the\ngrandchildren or great-grandchildren appear, brown from childhood, some\none points to the case as an instance of permanent modification of\nskin-color. But of course the children at the time of birth are as white\nas their distant cousins in Europe, and if taken back to the North to be\nbrought up, would be no darker than their kinsmen who had never been in\nthe tropics. Such \"evidence\" has often been brought forward by careless\nobservers, but can deceive no one who inquires carefully into the facts.\n\n(5) In the case of diseases, re-infection is often mistaken for\ntransmission. The father had pneumonia; the son later developed it;\nergo, he must have inherited it. What evidence is there that the son in\nthis case did not get it from an entirely different source? Medical\nliterature is heavily burdened with such spurious evidence.\n\n(6) Changes in the germ-cells _along with_ changes in the body are not\nrelevant to this discussion. The mother's body, for example, is poisoned\nwith alcohol, which is present in large quantities in the blood and\ntherefore might affect the germ-cells directly. If the children\nsubsequently born are consistently defective it is not an inheritance of\na body character but the result of a direct modification of the\ngerm-plasm. The inheritance of an acquired modification of the body can\nonly be proved if some particular change made in the parent is inherited\nas such by the child.\n\n(7) There is often a failure to distinguish between the possible\ninheritance of a particular modification, and the possible inheritance\nof indirect results of that modification, or of changes correlated with\nit. This is a nice but crucial point on which most popular writers are\nconfused. Let us examine it through a hypothetical case. A woman, not\nherself strong, bears a child that is weak. The woman then goes in for\nathletics, in order better to fit herself for motherhood; she\nspecializes on tennis. After a few years she bears another child, which\nis much stronger and better developed than the first. \"Look,\" some one\nwill say, \"how the mother has transmitted her acquirement to her\noffspring.\" We grant that her improved general health will probably\nresult in a child that is better nourished than the first; but that is a\nvery different thing from heredity. If, however, the mother had played\ntennis until her right arm was over-developed, and her spine bent; if\nthese characteristics were nowhere present in the ancestry and not seen\nin the first child; but if the second child were born with a bent spine\nand a right arm of exaggerated musculature, we would be willing to\nconsider the case on the basis of the inheritance of an acquired\ncharacter. We are not likely to have such a case presented to us.\n\nTo put the matter more generally, it is not enough to show that _some_\nmodification in the parent results in _some_ modification in the child.\nFor the purposes of this argument there must be a similar modification.\n\n(8) Finally, data are frequently presented, which cover only two\ngenerations--parent and child. Indeed, almost all the data alleged to\nshow the inheritance of acquired characteristics are of this kind. They\nare of little or no value as evidence. Cases covering a number of\ngenerations, where a _cumulative_ change was visible, would be of\nweight, but on the rare occasions when they are forthcoming, they can be\nexplained in some other way more satisfactorily than by an appeal to the\ntheory of Lamarck.[13]\n\nIf the evidence currently offered to support a belief in the inheritance\nof acquired characters is tested by the application of these\n\"misunderstandings,\" it will at once be found that most of it\ndisappears; that it can be thrown out of court without further\nformality. The Lamarckian doctrine is now held mainly by persons who\nhave either lacked training in the evaluation of evidence, or have never\nexamined critically the assumptions on which they proceed. Medical men\nand breeders of plants or animals are to a large extent believers in\nLamarckism, but the evidence (if any) on which they rely is always\nsusceptible of explanation in a more reasonable way. It must not be\nforgotten that some of the ablest intellects in the world have been\nassidously engaged in getting at the truth in the case, during the last\nhalf-century; and it is certainly worthy of consideration that not in a\nsingle case has the transmission of an acquired body character ever\nbeen proved beyond dispute. Those who still hold a belief in it (and it\nis fair to say that some men of real ability are among that number) too\noften do so, it is to be feared, because it is necessary for the support\nof some theoretical doctrine which they have formulated. Certainly there\nare few men who can say that they have carefully examined the evidence\nin the case, and accept Lamarckism because the evidence forces them to\ndo so. It will be interesting to review the various classes of alleged\nevidence, though we can cite only a few cases from the great number\navailable (most of them, however, dealing with plants or lower animals).\n\nNearly all the evidence adduced can be put in one of these four classes:\n\n (1) Mutilations.\n (2) Diseases.\n (3) Results of use or disuse.\n (4) Physico-chemical effects of environment.\n\nThe case in regard to mutilations is particularly clear cut and leaves\nlittle room for doubt. The noses and ears of oriental women have been\npierced for generations without number, yet girls are still born with\nthese parts entire. Circumcision offers another test case. The evidence\nof laboratory experiments (amputation of tails) shows no inheritance. It\nmay be said without hesitation that mutilations are not heritable, no\nmatter how many generations undergo them.\n\n(2) The transmissibility of acquired diseases is a question involved in\nmore of a haze of ignorance and loose thinking. It is particularly\nfrequent to see cases of uterine infection offered as cases of the\ninheritance of acquired characters. To use the word \"heredity\" in such a\ncase is unjustified. Uterine infection has no bearing whatever on the\nquestion.\n\nTaking an historical view, it seems fairly evident that if diseases were\nreally inherited, the race would have been extinct long ago. Of course\nthere are constitutional defects or abnormalities that are in the\ngerm-plasm and are heritable: such is the peculiar inability of the\nblood to coagulate, which marks \"bleeders\" (sufferers from hemophilia, a\nhighly hereditary disease). And in many cases it is difficult to\ndistinguish between a real germinal condition of this sort, and an\nacquired disease.\n\nThe inheritance of an acquired disease is not only inconceivable, in the\nlight of what is known about the germ-plasm, but there is no evidence to\nsupport it. While there is most decidedly such a thing as the\ninheritance of a tendency to or lack of resistance to a disease, it is\nnot the result of incidence of the disease on the parent. It is possible\nto inherit a tendency to headaches or to chronic alcoholism; and it is\npossible to inherit a lack of resistance to common diseases such as\nmalaria, small-pox or measles; but actually to inherit a zymotic disease\nas an inherent genetic trait, is impossible,--is, in fact, a\ncontradiction of terms.\n\n(3) When we come to the effects of use and disuse, we reach a much\ndebated ground, and one complicated by the injection of a great deal of\nbiological theorizing, as well as the presence of the usual large amount\nof faulty observation and inference.\n\nIt will be admitted by every one that a part of the body which is much\nused tends to increase in size, or strength, and similarly that a part\nwhich is not used tends to atrophy. It is further found that such\nchanges are progressive in the race, in many cases. Man's brain has\nsteadily increased in size, as he used it more and more; on the other\nhand, his canine teeth have grown smaller. Can this be regarded as the\ninheritance of a long continued process of use and disuse? Such a view\nis often taken, but the Lamarckian doctrine seems to us just as mystical\nhere as anywhere else, and no more necessary. Progressive changes can be\nsatisfactorily accounted for by natural selection; retrogressive changes\nare susceptible of explanation along similar lines. When an organ is no\nlonger necessary, as the hind legs of a whale, for instance, natural\nselection no longer keeps it at the point of perfection. Variation,\nhowever, continues to occur in it. Since the organ is now useless,\nnatural selection will no longer restrain variation in such an organ,\nand degeneracy will naturally follow, for of all the variations that\noccur in the organ, those tending to loss are more numerous than those\ntending to addition. If the embryonic development of a whale's hind leg\nbe compared to some complicated mechanical process, such as the\nmanufacture of a typewriter, it will be easier to realize that a trivial\nvariation which affected one of the first stages of the process would\nalter all succeeding stages and ruin the final perfection of the\nmachine. It appears, then, that progressive degeneration of an organ can\nbe adequately explained by variation with the removal of natural\nselection, and that it is not necessary or desirable to appeal to any\nLamarckian factor of an unexplainable and undemonstrable nature.\n\nThe situation remains the same, when purely mental processes, such as\ninstincts, are considered. Habit often repeated becomes instinctive, it\nis said; and then the instinct thus formed by the individual is passed\non to his descendants and becomes in the end a racial instinct. Most\npsychologists have now abandoned this view, which receives no support\nfrom investigation. Such prevalence as it still retains seems to be\nlargely due to a confusion of thought brought about by the use of the\nword \"instinctive\" in two different senses,--first literally and then\nfiguratively.\n\nA persistent attempt has been made in America during recent years, by\nC. L. Redfield, a Chicago engineer, to rehabilitate the theory of the\ninheritance of the effects of use and disuse. He has presented it in a\nway that, to one ignorant of biology, appears very exact and plausible;\nbut his evidence is defective and his interpretation of his evidence\nfallacious. Because of the widespread publicity, Mr. Redfield's work has\nreceived, we discuss it further in Appendix B.\n\nSince the importance of hormones (internal secretions) in the body\nbecame known, it has often been suggested that their action may furnish\nthe clue to some sort of an inheritance of modifications. The hormone\nmight conceivably modify the germ-plasm but if so, it would more likely\nbe in some wholly different way.\n\nIn general, we may confidently say that there is neither theoretical\nnecessity nor adequate experimental proof for belief that the results of\nuse and disuse are inherited.\n\n(4) When we come to consider whether the effects of the environment are\ninherited, we attack a stronghold of sociologists and historians.\nHerbert Spencer thought one of the strongest pieces of evidence in this\ncategory was to be found in the assimilation of foreigners in the United\nStates. \"The descendants of the immigrant Irish,\" he pointed out, \"lose\ntheir Celtic aspect and become Americanised.... To say that 'spontaneous\nvariation,' increased by natural selection, can have produced this\neffect, is going too far.\" Unfortunately for Mr. Spencer, he was basing\nhis conclusions on guesswork. It is only within the last few months that\nthe first trustworthy evidence on the point has appeared, in the careful\nmeasurements of Hrdlicka who has demonstrated that Spencer was quite\nwrong in his statement. As a fact, the original traits persist with\nalmost incredible fidelity. (Appendix C.)\n\nIn 1911, Franz Boas of Columbia University published measurements of the\nhead form of children of immigrants[14] which purported to show that\nAmerican conditions caused in some mysterious manner a change in the\nshape of the head. This conclusion in itself would have been striking\nenough, but was made more startling when he announced that the change\nworked both ways: \"The East European Hebrew, who has a very round head,\nbecomes more long-headed; the south Italian, who in Italy has an\nexceedingly long head, becomes more short-headed\"; and moreover this\npotent influence was alleged to be a subtle one \"which does not affect\nthe young child born abroad and growing up in American environment, but\nwhich makes itself felt among the children born in America, even a short\ntime after the arrival of the parents in this country.\" Boas' work was\nnaturally pleasing to sociologists who believe in the reality of the\n\"melting-pot,\" and has obtained widespread acceptance in popular\nliterature. It has obtained little acceptance among his\nfellow-anthropologists, some of whom allege that it is unsound because\nof the faulty methods by which the measurements were made and the\nincorrect standards used for comparison.\n\nThe many instances quoted by historians, where races have changed after\nimmigration, are to be explained in most cases by natural selection\nunder new conditions, or by interbreeding with the natives, and not as\nthe direct result of climate. Ellsworth Huntington, the most recent and\ncareful student of the effect of climate on man,[15] finds that climate\nhas a great deal of influence on man's energy, but as far as inherited\ntraits in general are concerned, he is constantly led to remark how\nlittle heredity is capable of being changed.\n\nMost members of the white race have little toes that are partly\natrophied, and considerably deformed. In many cases one of the joints\nhas undergone ankylosis--that is, the bones have coalesced. It is\nconfidently alleged that this is due to the inheritance of the effects\nof wearing tight shoes through many centuries. When it is found that the\nprehistoric Egyptians, who knew not tight shoes, suffered from the same\ndefect in a similar degree, one's confidence in this kind of evidence is\nmuch diminished.\n\nThe retrogression of the little toe in man is probably to be explained\nlike the degeneration of the hind leg of the whale, as a result of the\nexcess of deteriorating variations which, when not eliminated by natural\nselection, lead to atrophy. Since man began to limit the use of his feet\nto walking on the ground, the little toe has had much less value to him.\n\nThe feet of Chinese women offer another illustration along this line.\nAlthough they have been tightly bound for many generations, no deformity\nis apparent in the feet of girl babies.\n\nBreeders are generally of the opinion that good care and feed bestowed\non their stock produce results in succeeding generations. This is in a\nway true, but it is due merely to the fact that the offspring get better\nnourishment and therefore a better start in life. The changes in breeds,\nthe increase in milk yield, and similar facts, often explained as due to\ninheritance of acquired characters, are better explained as the results\nof selection, sometimes conscious, sometimes quite unconscious.\n\n[Illustration: BOUND FOOT OF A CHINESE WOMAN\n\nFIG. 5.--For centuries the feet of upper class women, and many\nlower class women, in China have been distorted in this manner; but\ntheir daughters have perfect feet when born.]\n\n[Illustration: DEFECTIVE LITTLE TOE OF A PREHISTORIC EGYPTIAN\n\nFIG. 6.--The above illustration shows the foot of a prehistoric\nEgyptian who is estimated to have lived about 8000 B. C. The last joint\nof the little toe had entirely disappeared, and careful dissection\nleaves no doubt that it was a germinal abnormality, such as is\noccasionally seen to-day, and not the result of disease. It is,\ntherefore, evident that the degeneration of man's little toe must be\nascribed to some more natural cause than the wearing of shoes for many\ngenerations. Photograph from Dr. Gorgy Sobhy, School of Medicine,\nCairo.]\n\nThe question of inherited immunity to diseases, as the result of\nvaccination or actual illness from them, has appeared in the controversy\nin a number of forms, and is a point of much importance. It is not yet\nclear, partly because the doctors disagree as to what immunity is. But\nthere is no adequate evidence that an immunity to anything can be\ncreated and transmitted through the germ-plasm to succeeding\ngenerations.\n\nIn short, no matter what evidence we examine, we must conclude that\ninheritance of acquired bodily characters is not a subject that need be\nreckoned with, in applied eugenics.\n\nOn the other hand, there is a possible indirect influence of\nmodifications, which may have real importance in man. If the individual\nis modified in a certain way, in a number of generations, even though\nsuch a modification is not transmitted to his descendants, yet its\ncontinued existence may make possible, the survival of some germinal\nvariation bearing in the same direction, which without the protecting\ninfluence of the pre-existing modification, would have been swamped or\ndestroyed.\n\nFinally, it should be borne in mind that even if physical and mental\ncharacters acquired during a man's lifetime are not transmitted, yet\nthere is a sort of transmission of acquired characters which has been of\nimmense importance to the evolution of the race. This is the so-called\n\"inheritance\" of the environment; the passing on from one generation to\nthe next of the achievements of the race, its accumulated social\nexperience; its civilization, in short. It is doubtful whether any\nuseful end is gained by speaking of this continuance of the environment\nas \"heredity;\" it certainly tends to confuse many people who are not\nused to thinking in biological terms. Tradition is the preferable term.\n\nThere is much to be said in favor of E. B. Poulton's\ndefinition,--\"Civilization in general is the sum of those contrivances\nwhich enable human beings to advance independently of heredity.\"\nWhatever wisdom, material gain, or language is acquired by one\ngeneration may be passed on to the next. As far as the environment is\nconcerned, one generation stands on the shoulders of its predecessor.\nIt might simplify the task of eugenics if the same could be said of\nbiological heredity. But it can not. Each generation must \"start from\nscratch.\"\n\nIn August Weismann's words, the development of a function in offspring\nbegins at the point where it _began_ in his parents, not at the point\nwhere it _ended_ in them. Biological improvement of the race (and such\nimprovement greatly fosters all other kinds) must be made through a\nselective birth-rate. There is no short-cut by way of euthenics, merely.\n\nWe must now consider whether there is any direct way of impairing good\nheredity. It is currently believed that there are certain substances,\npopularly known as \"racial-poisons,\" which are capable of affecting the\ngerm-plasm adversely and permanently in spite of its isolation and\nprotection. For example, the literature of alcoholism, and much of the\nliterature of eugenics, abounds with statements to the effect that\nalcohol _originates_ degeneracy in the human race.\n\nThe proof or disproof of this proposition must depend in the last\nanalysis on direct observation and carefully controlled experiments. As\nthe latter cannot be made feasibly on man, a number of students have\ntaken up the problem by using small animals which are easily handled in\nlaboratories. Many of these experiments are so imperfect in method that,\nwhen carefully examined, they are found to possess little or no value as\nevidence on the point here discussed.\n\nHodge, Mairet and Combemale, for example, have published data which\nconvinced them that the germ-plasm of dogs was injured by the\nadministration of alcohol. The test was the quality of offspring\ndirectly produced by the intoxicated animals under experiment. But the\nnumber of dogs used was too small to be conclusive, and there was no\n\"control\": hence these experiments carry little weight.\n\nOvize, Fere and Stockard have shown that the effect of alcohol on hen's\neggs is to produce malformed embryos. This, however, is a case of\ninfluencing the development of the individual, rather than the\ngerm-plasm. Evidence is abundant that individual development can be\nharmed by alcohol, but the experiments with eggs are not to the point\nof our present purpose.\n\nCarlo Todde and others have carried out similar experiments on cocks.\nThe conclusions have in general been in favor of injury to the\ngerm-plasm, but the experiments were inadequate in extent.\n\nLaitinen experimented on rabbits and guinea pigs, but he used small\ndoses and secured only negative results.\n\nSeveral series of experiments with rats indicate that if the dosage is\nlarge enough, the offspring can be affected.\n\nNice, using very small numbers of white mice, subjected them not only to\nalcohol, but to caffein, nicotin, and tobacco smoke. The fecundity of\nall these sets of mice was higher than that of the untreated ones used\nas control; all of them gained in weight; of 707 young, none was\ndeformed, none stillborn, and there was only one abortion. The young of\nthe alcoholized mice surpassed all others in growth. The dosage Nice\nemployed was too small, however, to give his experiment great weight.\n\nAt the University of Wisconsin, Leon J. Cole has been treating male\nrabbits with alcohol and reports that \"what appear to be decisive\nresults have already been obtained. In the case of alcoholic poisoning\nof the male the most marked result has been a lessening of his\nefficiency as a sire, the alcohol apparently having had some effect on\nthe vitality of his spermatozoa.\" His experiment is properly planned and\ncarried out, but so far as results have been made public, they do not\nappear to afford conclusive evidence that alcohol originates degeneracy\nin offspring.\n\nThe long-continued and carefully conducted experiment of Charles R.\nStockard at the Cornell Medical College is most widely quoted in this\nconnection. He works with guinea-pigs. The animals are intoxicated\ndaily, six days in the week, by inhaling the fumes of alcohol to the\npoint where they show evident signs of its influence; their condition\nmay thus be compared to that of the toper who never gets \"dead drunk\"\nbut is never entirely sober. Treatment of this sort for a period as long\nas three years produces no apparent bad effect on the individuals; they\ncontinue to grow and become fat and vigorous, taking plenty of food and\nbehaving in a normal manner in every particular. Some of them have been\nkilled from time to time, and all the tissues, including the\nreproductive glands, have been found perfectly normal. \"The treated\nanimals are, therefore, little changed or injured so far as their\nbehavior and structure goes. Nevertheless, the effects of the treatment\nare most decidedly indicated by the type of offspring to which they give\nrise, whether they are mated together or with normal individuals.\"\n\nBefore the treatment is begun, every individual is mated at least once,\nto demonstrate its possibility of giving rise to sound offspring. The\ncrucial test of the influence of alcohol on the germ-cells is, of\ncourse, the mating of a previously alcoholized male with a normal,\nuntreated female, in a normal environment.\n\nWhen the experiment was last reported,[16] it had covered five years and\nfour generations. The records of 682 offspring produced by 571 matings\nwere tabulated, 164 matings of alcoholized animals, in which either the\nfather, mother, or both were alcoholic, gave 64, or almost 40%, negative\nresults or early abortions, while only 25% of the control matings failed\nto give full-term litters. Of the 100 full-term litters from alcoholic\nparents 18% contained stillborn young and only 50% of all the matings\nresulted in living litters, while 47% of the individuals in the litters\nof living young died soon after birth. In contrast to this record 73% of\nthe 90 control matings gave living litters and 84% of the young in these\nlitters survived as normal, healthy animals.\n\n\"The mating records of the descendants of the alcoholized guinea pigs,\nalthough they themselves were not treated with alcohol, compare in some\nrespects even more unfavorably with the control records than do the\nabove data from the directly alcoholized animals.\" The records of the\nmatings in the second filial generation \"are still worse, higher\nmortality and more pronounced deformities, while the few individuals\nwhich have survived are generally weak and in many instances appear to\nbe quite sterile even though paired with vigorous, prolific, normal\nmates.\"\n\nWe do not minimize the value of this experiment, when we say that too\nmuch weight has been popularly placed on its results. Compare it with\nthe experiment with fowls at the University of Maine, which Raymond\nPearl reports.[17] He treated 19 fowls with alcohol, little effect on\nthe general health being shown, and none on egg production. From their\neggs 234 chicks were produced; the average percentage of fertility of\nthe eggs was diminished but the average percentage of hatchability of\nfertile eggs was increased. The infant mortality of these chicks was\nsmaller than normal, the chicks were heavier when hatched and grew more\nrapidly than normal afterwards. No deformities were found. \"Out of 12\ndifferent characters for which we have exact quantitative data, the\noffspring of treated parents taken as a group are superior to the\noffspring of untreated parents in 8 characters,\" in two characters they\nare inferior and in the remaining two there is no discernible\ndifference. At this stage Dr. Pearl's experiment is admittedly too\nsmall, but he is continuing it. As far as reported, it confirms the work\nof Professor Nice, above mentioned, and shows that what is true for\nguinea pigs may not be true for other animals, and that the amount of\ndosage probably also makes a difference. Dr. Pearl explains his results\nby the hypothesis that the alcohol eliminated the weaker germs in the\nparents, and allowed only the stronger germs to be used for\nreproduction.\n\nDespite the unsatisfactory nature of much of the alleged evidence, we\nmust conclude that alcohol, when given in large enough doses, may\nsometimes affect the germ-plasm of some lower animals in such a way as\nto deteriorate the quality of their offspring. This effect is probably\nan \"induction,\" which does not produce a permanent change in the bases\nof heredity, but will wear away in a generation or two of good\nsurroundings. It must be remembered that although the second-generation\ntreated males of Dr. Stockard's experiment produced defective offspring\nwhen mated with females from similarly treated stock, they produced\nnormal offspring when mated with normal females. The significance of\nthis fact has been too little emphasized in writings on \"racial\npoisons.\" If a normal mate will counteract the influence of a \"poisoned\"\none, it is obvious that the probabilities of danger to any race from\nthis source are much decreased, while if only a small part of the race\nis affected, and mates at random, the racial damage might be so small\nthat it could hardly be detected.\n\nThere are several possible explanations of the fact that injury is found\nin some experiments but not in others. It may be, as Dr. Pearl thinks,\nthat only weak germs are killed by moderate treatment, and the strong\nones are uninjured. And it is probable (this applies more particularly\nto man) that the body can take care of a certain amount of alcohol\nwithout receiving any injury therefrom; it is only when the dosage\npasses the \"danger point\" that the possibility of injury appears. As to\nthe location of this limit, which varies with the species, little is\nknown. Much more work is needed before the problem will be fully cleared\nup.\n\nAlcohol has been in use in parts of the world for many centuries; it was\ncommon in the Orient before the beginning of historical knowledge. Now\nif its use by man impairs the germ-plasm, then it seems obvious that the\nchild of one who uses alcohol to a degree sufficient to impair his\ngerm-plasm will tend to be born inferior to his parent. If that child\nhimself is alcoholic, his own offspring will suffer still more, since\nthey must carry the burden of two generations of impairment. Continuing\nthis line of reasoning over a number of generations, in a race where\nalcohol is freely used by most of the population, one seems unable to\nescape from the conclusion that the effects of this racial poison, if it\nbe such, must necessarily be cumulative. The damage done to the race\nmust increase in each generation. If the deterioration of the race could\nbe measured, it might even be found to grow in a series of figures\nrepresenting arithmetical progression.\n\nIt seems impossible, with such a state of affairs, that a race in which\nalcohol was widely used for a long period of time, could avoid\nextinction. At any rate, the races which have used alcohol longest ought\nto show great degeneracy--unless there be some regenerative process at\nwork constantly counteracting this cumulative effect of the racial\npoison in impairing the germ-plasm.\n\nSuch a proposition at once demands an appeal to history. What is found\nin examination of the races that have used alcohol the longest? Have\nthey undergone a progressive physical degeneracy, as should be expected?\n\nBy no means. In this particular respect they seem to have become\nstronger rather than weaker, as time went on; that is, they have been\nless and less injured by alcohol in each century, as far as can be told.\nExamination of the history of nations which are now comparatively sober,\nalthough having access to unlimited quantities of alcohol, shows that at\nan earlier period in their history, they were notoriously drunken; and\nthe sobriety of a race seems to be proportioned to the length of time in\nwhich it has had experience of alcohol. The Mediterranean peoples, who\nhave had abundance of it from the earliest period recorded, are now\nrelatively temperate. One rarely sees a drunkard among them, although\nmany individuals in them would never think of drinking water or any\nother non-alcoholic beverage. In the northern nations, where the\nexperience of alcohol has been less prolonged, there is still a good\ndeal of drunkenness, although not so much as formerly. But among nations\nto whom strong alcohol has only recently been made available--the\nAmerican Indian, for instance, or the Eskimo--drunkenness is frequent\nwherever the protecting arm of government does not interfere.\n\nWhat bearing does this have on the theory of racial poisons?\n\nSurely a consideration of the principle of natural selection will make\nit clear that alcohol is acting as an instrument of racial purification\nthrough the elimination of weak stocks. It is a drastic sort of\npurification, which one can hardly view with complacency; but the\neffect, nevertheless, seems clear cut.\n\nTo demonstrate the action of natural selection, we must first\ndemonstrate the existence of variations on which it can act. This is\nnot difficult in the character under consideration--namely, the greater\nor less capacity of individuals to be attracted by alcohol, to an\ninjurious degree.\n\nAs G. Archdall Reid has pointed out,[18] men drink for at least three\ndifferent reasons: (1) to satisfy thirst. This leads to the use of a\nlight wine or a malt liquor. (2) To gratify the palate. This again\nusually results in the use of drinks of low alcohol content, in which\nthe flavor is the main consideration. (3) Finally, men drink \"to induce\nthose peculiar feelings, those peculiar frames of mind\" caused by\nalcohol.\n\nAlthough the three motives may and often do coexist in the same\nindividual, or may animate him at different periods of life, the fact\nremains that they are quite distinct. Thirst and taste do not lead to\nexcessive drinking; and there is good evidence that the degree of\nconcentration and the dosage are important factors in the amount of harm\nalcohol may do to the individual. The concern of evolutionists,\ntherefore, is with the man who is so constituted that the mental effects\nof alcohol acting directly on the brain are pleasing, and we must show\nthat there is a congenital variability in this mental quality, among\nindividuals.\n\nSurely an appeal to personal experience will leave little room for doubt\non that point. The alcohol question is so hedged about with moral and\nethical issues that those who never get drunk, or who perhaps never even\n\"take a drink,\" are likely to ascribe that line of conduct to superior\nintelligence and great self-control. As a fact, a dispassionate analysis\nof the case will show that why many such do not use alcoholic beverages\nto excess is because intoxication has no charm for them. He is so\nconstituted that the action of alcohol on the brain is distasteful\nrather than pleasing to him. In other cases it is variation in\ncontrolling satisfaction of immediate pleasures for later greater good.\n\nSome of the real inebriates have a strong will and a real desire to be\nsober, but have a different mental make-up, vividly described by William\nJames:[19] \"The craving for drink in real dipsomaniacs, or for opium and\nchloral in those subjugated, is of a strength of which normal persons\ncan have no conception. 'Were a keg of rum in one corner of the room,\nand were a cannon constantly discharging balls between me and it, I\ncould not refrain from passing before that cannon in order to get that\nrum. If a bottle of brandy stood on one hand, and the pit of hell yawned\non the other, and I were convinced I should be pushed in as surely as I\ntook one glass, I could not refrain.' Such statements abound in\ndipsomaniacs' mouths.\" Between this extreme, and the other of the man\nwho is sickened by a single glass of beer, there are all intermediates.\n\nNow, given an abundant and accessible supply of alcohol to a race, what\nhappens? Those who are not tempted or have adequate control, do not\ndrink to excess; those who are so constituted as to crave the effects of\nalcohol (once they have experienced them), and who lack the ability to\ndeny themselves the immediate pleasure for the sake of a future gain,\nseek to renew these pleasures of intoxication at every opportunity; and\nthe well attested result is that they are likely to drink themselves to\na premature death.\n\nAlthough it is a fact that the birth-rate in drunkard's families may be\nand often is larger than that of the general population,[20] it is none\nthe less a fact that many of the worst drunkards leave no or few\noffspring. They die of their own excesses at an early age; or their\nconduct makes them unattractive as mates; or they give so little care to\ntheir children that the latter die from neglect, exposure or accident.\nAs these drunkards would tend to hand down their own inborn peculiarity,\nor weakness for alcohol, to their children, it must be obvious that\ntheir death results in a smaller proportion of such persons in the next\ngeneration. In other words, natural selection is at work again here,\nwith alcohol as its agent. By killing off the worst drunkards in each\ngeneration, nature provides that the following generation shall contain\nfewer people who lack the power to resist the attraction of the effect\nof alcohol, or who have a tendency to use it to such an extent as to\ninjure their minds and bodies. And it must be obvious that the speed and\nefficacy of this ruthless temperance reform movement are proportionate\nto the abundance and accessibility of the supply of alcohol. Where the\nsupply is ample and available, there is certain to be a relatively high\ndeath-rate among those who find it too attractive, and the average of\nthe race therefore is certain to become stronger in this respect with\neach generation. Such a conclusion can be abundantly justified by an\nappeal to the history of the Teutonic nations, the nations around the\nMediterranean, the Jews, or any race which has been submitted to the\ntest.\n\nThere seems hardly room for dispute on the reality of this phase of\nnatural selection. But there is another way in which the process of\nstrengthening the race against the attraction and effect of alcohol may\nbe going on at the same time. If the drug does actually injure the\ngerm-plasm, and set up a deterioriation, it is obvious that natural\nselection is given another point at which to work. The more deteriorated\nwould be eliminated in each generation in competition with the less\ndeteriorated or normal; and the process of racial purification would\nthen go on the more rapidly. The fact that races long submitted to the\naction of alcohol have become relatively resistant to it, therefore,\ndoes not in itself answer the question of whether alcohol injures the\nhuman germ-plasm.\n\nThe possible racial effect of alcoholization is, in short, a much more\ncomplicated problem than it appears at first sight to be. It involves\nthe action of natural selection in several important ways, and this\naction might easily mask the direct action of alcohol on the germ-plasm,\nif there be any measurable direct result.\n\nNo longer content with a long perspective historical view, we will\nscrutinize the direct investigations of the problem which have been made\nduring recent years. These investigations have in many cases been\nwidely advertised to the public, and their conclusions have been so much\nrepeated that they are often taken at their face value, without critical\nexamination.\n\nIt must be borne in mind that the solution of the problem depends on\nfinding evidence of degeneracy or impairment in the offspring of persons\nwho have used alcohol, and that this relation might be explainable in\none or more of three ways:\n\n(1) It may be that alcoholism is merely a symptom of a degenerate stock.\nIn this case the children will be defective, not because their parents\ndrank, but because their parents were defective--the parents' drinking\nbeing merely one of the symptoms of their defect.\n\n(2) It may be that alcohol directly poisons the germ-plasm, in such a\nway that parents of sound stock, who drink alcoholic beverages, will\nhave defective offspring.\n\n(3) It may be that the degeneracy observed in the children of drunkards\n(for of course no one will deny that children of drunkards are\nfrequently defective) is due solely to social and economic causes, or\nother causes in the environment: that the drunken parents, for instance,\ndo not take adequate care of their children, and that this lack of care\nleads to the defects of the children.\n\nThe latter influence is doubtless one that is nearly always at work, but\nit is wholly outside the scope of the present inquiry, and we shall\ntherefore ignore it, save as it may appear incidentally. Nor does it\nrequire emphasis here; for the disastrous social and economic effects of\nalcoholism are patent to every observer. We find it most convenient to\nconcentrate our attention first on the second of the questions above\nenumerated: to ask whether there is any good evidence that the use of\nalcoholic beverages by men and women really does originate degeneracy in\ntheir offspring.\n\nTo get such evidence, one must seek an instance that will be crucial,\none that will leave no room for other interpretations. One must,\ntherefore, exclude consideration of cases where a mother drank before\nchild birth. It is well-known that alcohol can pass through the\nplacenta, and that if a prospective mother drinks, the percentage of\nalcohol in the circulation of the unborn child will very soon be nearly\nequal to that in her own circulation. It is well established that such a\ncondition is extremely injurious to the child; but it has nothing\ndirectly to do with heredity. Therefore we can not accept evidence of\nthe supposed effect of alcohol on the fertilized egg-cell, at any stage\nin its development, because that is an effect on the individual, not on\nposterity. And the only means by which we can wholly avoid this fallacy\nis to give up altogether an attempt to prove our case by citing\ninstances in which the mother was alcoholic. If this is not done, there\nwill always be liability of mistaking an effect of prenatal nutrition\nfor a direct injury to the germ-plasm.\n\nBut if we can find cases where the mother was of perfectly sound stock,\nand non-alcoholic; where the father was of sound stock, but alcoholic;\nand where the offspring were impaired in ways that can be plausibly\nattributed to an earlier injury to the germ-plasm by the father's\nalcohol; then we have evidence that must weigh heavily with the\nfair-minded.\n\nAn interesting case is the well-known one recorded by Schweighofer,\nwhich is summarized as follows: \"A normal woman married a normal man and\nhad three sound children. The husband died and the woman married a\ndrunkard and gave birth to three other children; one of these became a\ndrunkard; one had infantilism, while the third was a social degenerate\nand a drunkard. The first two of these children contracted tuberculosis,\nwhich had never before been in the family. The woman married a third\ntime and by this sober husband again produced sound children.\"\n\nAlthough such evidence is at first sight pertinent, it lacks much of\nbeing convincing. Much must be known about the ancestry of the drunken\nhusband, and of the woman herself, before it can be certain that the\ndefective children owe their defect to alcoholism rather than to\nheredity.\n\nWe can not undertake to review all the literature of this subject, for\nit fills volumes, but we shall refer to a few of the studies which are\ncommonly cited, by the believers in the racial-poison character of\nalcohol, as being the most weighty.\n\nTaav Laitinen of Helsingfors secured information from the parents of\n2,125 babies, who agreed to weigh their infants once a month for the\nfirst eight months after birth, and who also furnished information about\ntheir own drinking habits. His conclusion is that the average weight of\nthe abstainer's child is greater at birth, that these children develop\nmore rapidly during the first eight months than do the children of the\nmoderate drinker, and that the latter exceed in the same way the\nchildren of the heavier drinker. But a careful analysis of his work by\nKarl Pearson, whose great ability in handling statistics has thrown\nlight on many dark places in the alcohol problem, shows[21] that\nProfessor Laitinen's statistical methods were so faulty that no weight\ncan be attached to his conclusions. Furthermore, he appears to have\nmixed various social classes and races together without distinction; and\nhe has made no distinction between parents, one of whom drank, and\nparents, both of whom drank. Yet, this distinction, as we have pointed\nout, is a critical one for such inquiries. Professor Laitinen's paper,\naccording to one believer in racial poisons, \"surpasses in magnitude and\nprecision all the many studies of this subject which have proved the\nrelation between drink and degeneracy.\" As a fact, it proves nothing of\nthe sort as to race degeneracy.\n\nAgain, T. A. MacNicholl reported on 55,000 American school children,\nfrom 20,147 of whom he secured information about the parents' attitude\nto alcoholic drinks. He found an extraordinarily large proportion (58%)\nof deficient and backward children in the group. But the mere bulk of\nhis work, probably, has given it far more prestige than it deserves; for\nhis methods are careless, his classifications vague, his information\ninadequate; he seems to have dealt with a degenerate section of the\npopulation, which does not offer suitable material for testing the\nquestion at issue; and he states that many of the children drank and\nsmoked,--hence, any defects found in them may be due to their own\nintemperance, rather than that of their parents. In short, Dr.\nMacNicholl's data offer no help in an attempt to decide whether\nalcoholism is an inheritable effect.\n\nAnother supposed piece of evidence which has deceived a great many\nstudents is the investigation of Bezzola into the distribution of the\nbirth-rate of imbeciles in Switzerland. He announced that in\nwine-growing districts the number of idiots conceived at the time of the\nvintage and carnival is very large, while at other periods it is almost\n_nil_. The conclusion was that excesses of drunkenness occurring in\nconnection with the vintage and carnival caused this production of\nimbeciles. But aside from the unjustified assumptions involved in his\nreasoning, Professor Pearson has recently gone over the data and shown\nthe faulty statistical method; that, in fact, the number of imbeciles\nconceived at vintage-time, in excess of the average monthly number, was\nonly three in spite of the large numbers! Bezzola's testimony, which has\nlong been cited as proof of the disastrous results of the use of alcohol\nat the time of conception, must be discarded.\n\nDemme's plausible investigation is also widely quoted to support the\nbelief that alcohol poisons the germ-plasm. He studied the offspring of\n10 drunken and 10 sober pairs of parents, and found that of the 61\nchildren of the latter, 50 were normal, while of the 57 progeny of the\ndrunkards, only nine were normal. This is a good specimen of much of the\nevidence cited to prove that alcohol impairs the germ-plasm; it has been\nwidely circulated by propagandists in America during recent years. Of\ncourse, its value depends wholly on whether the 20 pairs of parents were\nof sound, comparable stock. Karl Pearson has pointed out that this is\nnot the case. Demme selected his children of drunkards by selecting\nchildren who came to his hospital on account of imperfect development of\nspeech, mental defect, imbecility or idiocy. When he found families in\nwhich such defective children occurred, he then inquired as to their\nancestry. Many of these children, he found, were reduced to a condition\napproaching epilepsy, or actually epileptic, because they themselves\nwere alcoholic. Obviously such material can not legitimately be used to\nprove that the use of alcohol by parents injures the heredity of their\nchildren. The figures do not at all give the proof we are seeking, that\nalcohol can so affect sound germ-plasm as to lead to the production of\ndefective children.\n\nDr. Bertholet made a microscopic examination of the reproductive glands\nof 75 chronic male alcoholics, and in 37 cases he found them more or\nless atrophied, and devoid of spermatozoa. Observing the same glands in\nnon-alcoholics who had died of various chronic diseases, such as\ntuberculosis, he found no such condition. His conclusion is that the\nreproductive glands are more sensitive to the effects of alcohol than\nany other organ. So far as is known to us, his results have never been\ndiscredited; they have, on the contrary, been confirmed by other\ninvestigators. They are of great significance to eugenics, in showing\nhow the action of natural selection to purge the race of drunkards is\nsometimes facilitated in a way we had not counted, through reduced\nfertility due to alcohol, as well as through death due to alcohol. But\nit should not be thought that his results are typical, and that all\nchronic alcoholists become sterile: every reader will know of cases in\nhis own experience, where drunkards have large families; and the\nexperimental work with smaller animals also shows that long-continued\ninebriety is compatible with great fecundity. It is probable that\nextreme inebriety reduces fertility, but a lesser amount increases it in\nthe cases of many men by reducing the prudence which leads to limited\nfamilies.\n\nIn 1910 appeared the investigation of Miss Ethel M. Elderton and Karl\nPearson on school children in Edinburgh and Manchester.[22] Their aim\nwas to take a population under the same environmental conditions, and\nwith no discoverable initial differentiation, and inquire whether the\ntemperate and intemperate sections had children differing widely in\nphysique and mentality. Handling their material with the most refined\nstatistical methods, and in an elaborate way, they reached the\nconclusion that parental alcoholism does not markedly affect the\nphysique or mentality of the offspring as children. Whether results\nmight differ in later life, their material did not show. Their\nconclusions were as follows:\n\n\"(1) There is a higher death-rate among the offspring of alcoholic than\namong the offspring of sober parents. This appears to be more marked in\nthe case of the mother than in the case of the father, and since it is\nsensibly higher in the case of the mother who has drinking bouts\n[periodical sprees] than of the mother who habitually drinks, it would\nappear to be due very considerably to accidents and gross carelessness\nand possibly in a minor degree to toxic effect on the offspring.\n\n\"Owing to the greater fertility of alcoholic parents, the net family of\nthe sober is hardly larger than the net family of the alcoholic. [It\nshould be remembered that the study did not include childless couples.]\n\n\"(2) The mean weight and height of the children of alcoholic parents are\nslightly greater than those of sober parents, but as the age of the\nformer children is slightly greater, the correlations when corrected for\nage are slightly positive, i.e., there is slightly greater height and\nweight in the children of the sober.\"\n\n\"(3) The wages of the alcoholic as contrasted with the sober parent show\na slight difference compatible with the employers' dislike for an\nalcoholic employee, but wholly inconsistent with a marked mental or\nphysical inferiority in the alcoholic parent.\n\n\"(4) The general health of the children of alcoholic parents appears on\nthe whole slightly better than that of sober parents. There are fewer\ndelicate children, and in a most marked way cases of tuberculosis and\nepilepsy are less frequent than among the children of sober parents. The\nsource of this relation may be sought in two directions; the physically\nstrongest in the community have probably the greatest capacity and taste\nfor alcohol. Further the higher death rate of the children of alcoholic\nparents probably leaves the fittest to survive. Epilepsy and\ntuberculosis both depending upon inherited constitutional conditions,\nthey will be more common in the parents of affected offspring, and\nprobably if combined with alcohol, are incompatible with any length of\nlife or size of family. If these views be correct, we can only say that\nparental alcoholism has no marked effect on filial health.\n\n\"(5) Parental alcoholism is not the source of mental defect in\noffspring.\n\n\"(6) The relationship, if any, between parental alcoholism and filial\nintelligence is so slight that even its sign can not be determined from\nthe present material.\n\n\"(7) The normal visioned and normal refractioned offspring appear to be\nin rather a preponderance in the families of the drinking parents, the\nparents who have 'bouts' give intermediate results, but there is no\nsubstantial relationship between goodness of sight and parental\nalcoholism. Some explanation was sought on the basis of alcoholic homes\ndriving the children out into the streets. This was found to be markedly\nthe case, the children of alcoholic parents spending much more of their\nspare time in the streets. An examination, however, of the vision and\nrefraction of children with regard to the time they spent in-and\nout-of-doors, showed no clear and definite result, the children who\nspent the whole or most of their spare time in the streets having the\nmost myopia and also most normal sight. It was not possible to assert\nthat the outdoor life was better for the sight, or that the better sight\nof the offspring of alcoholic parentage was due to the greater time\nspent outdoors.\n\n\"(8) The frequency of diseases of the eye and eyelids, which might well\nbe attributed to parental neglect, was found to have little, if any,\nrelation to parental alcoholism.\n\n\"To sum up, then no _marked_ relation has been found between the\nintelligence, physique or disease of the offspring and the parental\nalcoholism in any of the categories mentioned. On the whole the balance\nturns as often in favor of the alcoholic as of the non-alcoholic\nparentage. It is needless to say that we do not attribute this to the\nalcohol but to certain physical and possibly mental characters which\nappear to be associated with the tendency to alcohol.\"\n\nOf the many criticisms made of this work, most are irrelevant to our\npresent purpose, or have been satisfactorily met by the authors. It must\nbe said, however, that as the children examined were all school\nchildren, the really degenerate offspring of alcoholics, if any such\nexisted, would not have been found, because they would not have been\nadmitted to the school. Further, it is not definitely known whether the\nparents' alcoholism dated from before or after the birth of the child\nexamined. Then, the report did not exactly compare the offspring of\ndrinkers and non-drinkers, but classified the parents as those who\ndrank, and those who were sober; the latter were not, for the most part,\nteetotalers, but merely persons whose use of alcohol was so moderate\nthat it exercised no visible bad influence on the health of the\nindividual or the welfare of the home. Something can be said on both\nsides of all these objections; but giving them as much weight as one\nthinks necessary, the fact remains that the Elderton-Pearson\ninvestigation failed to demonstrate any racial poisoning due to alcohol,\nin the kind of cases where one would certainly have expected it to be\ndemonstrated, if it existed.\n\nMuch more observation and measurement must be made before a\ngeneralization can be safely drawn, as to whether alcohol is or is not a\nracial poison, in the sense in which that expression is used by\neugenists. It has been shown that the evidence which is commonly\nbelieved to prove beyond doubt that alcohol does injure the germ-plasm,\nis mostly worthless. But it must not be thought that the authors intend\nto deny that alcohol is a racial poison, where the dosage is very heavy\nand continuous. If we have no good evidence that it is, we equally lack\nevidence on the other side. We wish only to suggest caution against\nmaking rash generalizations on the subject which lack supporting\nevidence and therefore are a weak basis for propaganda.\n\nSo far as immediate action is concerned, eugenics must proceed on the\nbasis that there is no proof that alcohol as ordinarily consumed will\ninjure the human germ-plasm. To say this is not in any way to minify\nthe evil results which alcohol often has on the individual, or the\ndisastrous consequences to his offspring, euthenically. But nothing is\nto be gained by making an assumption of \"racial poisoning,\" and acting\non that assumption, without evidence that it is true; and the temperance\nmovement would command more respect from genetics if it ceased to allege\nproof that alcohol has a directly injurious effect on the race, by\npoisoning the human germ-plasm, when no adequate proof exists.\n\nHow, then, can one account for the immense bulk of cases, some of which\ncome within everyone's range of vision, where alcoholism in the parent\nis associated with defect in the offspring? By a process of exclusion,\nwe are driven to the explanation already indicated: that alcoholism may\nbe a symptom, rather than a cause, of degeneracy. Some drunkards are\ndrunkards, because they come of a stock that is, in a way, mentally\ndefective; physical defects are frequently correlated in such stocks;\nnaturally the children inherit part or all of the parental defects\nincluding, very likely, alcoholism; but the parent's alcoholism, we\nrepeat, must not be considered the _cause_ of the child's defect. The\nchild would have been defective in the same way, regardless of the\nparent's beverage.\n\nIt follows, then, as a practical consequence for eugenics, that in the\nlight of present knowledge any campaign against alcoholic liquors would\nbe better based on the very adequate ground of physiology and economics,\nthan on genetics. From the narrowest point of view of genetics, the way\nto solve the liquor problem would be, not to eliminate drink, but to\neliminate the drinker: to prevent the reproduction of the degenerate\nstocks and the tainted strains that contribute most of the chronic\nalcoholics. We do not mean to advocate this as the only proper basis for\nthe temperance campaign, because the physiological and economic aspects\nare of sufficient importance to keep up the campaign at twice the\npresent intensity.[23] But it is desirable to have the eugenic aspect of\nthe matter clearly understood, and to point out that in checking the\nproduction of defectives in the United States, eugenics will do its\nshare, and a big share, toward the solution of the drink problem, which\nis at the same time being attacked along other and equally praiseworthy\nlines by other people.\n\nA number of other substances are sometimes credited with being racial\npoisons.\n\nThe poison of _Spirochaete pallida_, the microoerganism which causes\nsyphilis, has been widely credited with a directly noxious effect on the\ngerm-plasm, and the statement has been made that this effect can be\ntransmitted for several generations. On the other hand, healthy children\nare reported as being born to cured syphilitics. Further evidence is\nneeded, taking care to eliminate cases of infection from the parents. If\nthe alleged deterioration really occurs, it will still remain to be\ndetermined if the effect is permanent or an induction, that is, a change\nin the germ-cells which does not permanently alter the nature of the\ninherited traits, and which would disappear in a few generations under\nfavorable conditions.\n\nThe case against lead is similar. Sir Thomas Oliver, in his _Diseases of\nOccupation_, sums up the evidence as follows:\n\n\"Rennert has attempted to express in statistical terms the varying\ndegrees of gravity in the prognosis of cases in which at the moment of\nconception both parents are the subjects of lead poisoning, also when\none alone is affected. The malign influence of lead is reflected upon\nthe fetus and upon the continuation of the pregnancy 94 times out of 100\nwhen both parents have been working in lead, 92 times when the mother\nalone is affected, and 63 times when it is the father alone who has\nworked in lead. Taking seven healthy women who were married to lead\nworkers, and in whom there was a total of 32 pregnancies, Lewin (Berlin)\ntells us that the results were as follows: 11 miscarriages, one\nstillbirth, 8 children died within the first year after their birth,\nfour in the second year, five in the third year and one subsequent to\nthis, leaving only two children out of 32 pregnancies as likely to live\nto manhood. In cases where women have had a series of miscarriages so\nlong as their husbands worked in lead, a change of industrial\noccupation on the part of the husband restores to the wives normal\nchild-bearing powers.\" The data of Constantin Paul, published as long\nago as 1860, indicated that lead exercised an injurious effect through\nthe male as well as the female parent. This sort of evidence is\ncertainly weak, in that it fails to take into account the possible\neffects of environment; and one would do well to keep an open mind on\nthe subject. In a recent series of careful experiments at the University\nof Wisconsin, Leon J. Cole has treated male rabbits with lead. He\nreports: \"The 'leaded' males have produced as many or more offspring\nthan normal fathers, but their young have averaged smaller in size and\nare of lowered vitality, so that larger numbers of them die off at an\nearly age than is the case with those from untreated fathers.\"\n\n[Illustration: EFFECT OF LEAD AS A \"RACIAL POISON\"\n\nFIG. 7.--That lead poisoning can affect the germ plasm of\nrabbits is indicated by experiments conducted by Leon J. Cole at the\nUniversity of Wisconsin. With reference to the above illustration,\nProfessor Cole writes: \"Each of the photographs shows two young from the\nsame litter, in all cases the mother being a normal (nonpoisoned)\nalbino. In each of the litters the white young is from an albino father\nwhich received the lead treatment, while the pigmented offspring is from\na normal, homozygous, pigmented male. While these are, it is true,\nselected individuals, they represent what tend to be average, rather\nthan extreme, conditions. The albino male was considerably larger than\nthe pigmented male; nevertheless his young average distinctly smaller in\nsize. Note also the brighter expression of the pigmented young.\"]\n\nThere is, then, a suspicion that lead is a racial poison, but no\nevidence as yet as to whether the effect is permanent or in the nature\nof an induction.\n\nThis concludes the short list of substances for which there has been any\nplausible case made out, as racial poisons. Gonorrhea, malaria, arsenic,\ntobacco, and numerous other substances have been mentioned from time to\ntime, and even ardently contended by propagandists to be racial poisons,\nbut in the case of none of them, so far as we know, is there any\nevidence to support the claim. And as has been shown, in the case of the\nthree chief so-called racial poisons, alcohol, syphilis and lead, the\nevidence is not great. We are thus in a position to state that, from the\neugenists' point of view, the _origination_ of degeneracy, by some\ndirect action of the germ-plasm, is a contingency that hardly needs to\nbe reckoned with. Even in case the evidence were much stronger than it\nis, the damage done may only be a physiological or chemical induction,\nthe effects of which will wear off in a few generations; rather than a\nradical change in the hereditary constituents of the germ-plasm. The\ngerm-plasm is so carefully isolated and guarded that it is almost\nimpossible to injure it, except by treatment so severe as to kill it\naltogether; and the degeneracy with which eugenists are called on to\ndeal is a degeneracy which is running along from generation to\ngeneration and which, when once stopped by the cessation of\nreproduction, is in little danger of being originated anew through some\nracial poison.\n\nThrough these facts, the problem of race betterment is not only\nimmensely simplified, but it is clearly shown to be more a matter for\ntreatment by the biologist, acting through eugenics, than for the\noptimistic improver of the environment.\n\nThere is another way in which it is widely believed that some such\nresult as a direct influence of the germ-plasm can be produced: that is\nthrough the imaginary process known as maternal impression, prenatal\ninfluence, etc. Belief in maternal impressions is no novelty. In the\nbook of Genesis[24] Jacob is described as making use of it to get the\nbetter of his tricky father-in-law. Some animal breeders still profess\nfaith in it as a part of their methods of breeding: if they want a black\ncalf, for instance, they will keep a white cow in a black stall, and\nexpress perfect confidence that her offspring will resemble midnight\ndarkness. It is easy to see that this method, if it \"works,\" would be a\npotent instrument for eugenics. And it is being recommended for that\nreason. Says a recent writer, who professes on the cover of her book to\ngive a \"complete and intelligent summary of all the principles of\neugenics\":\n\n\"Too much emphasis can not be placed upon the necessity of young people\nmaking the proper choice of mates in marriage; yet if the production of\nsuperior children were dependent upon that one factor, the outlook would\nbe most discouraging to prospective fathers and mothers, for weak traits\nof character are to be found in all. But when young people learn that by\na conscious endeavor to train themselves, they are thereby training\ntheir unborn children, they can feel that there is some hope and joy in\nparentage; that it is something to which they can look forward with\ndelight and even rapture; then they will be inspired to work hard to\nattain the best and highest that there is in them, leading the lives\nthat will not only be a blessing to themselves, but to their succeeding\ngeneration.\"\n\nThe author of this quotation has no difficulty in finding supporters.\nMany physicians and surgeons, who are supposed to be trained in\nscientific methods of thought, will indorse what she says. The author of\none of the most recent and in many respects admirable books on the care\nof babies, is almost contemptuous in her disdain for those who think\notherwise:\n\n\"Science wrangles over the rival importance of heredity and environment,\nbut we women know what effects prenatal influence works on children.\"\n\"The woman who frets brings forth a nervous child. The woman who rebels\ngenerally bears a morbid child.\" \"Self-control, cheerfulness and love\nfor the little life breathing in unison with your own will practically\ninsure you a child of normal physique and nerves.\"\n\nSuch statements, backed up by a great array of writers and speakers whom\nthe layman supposes to be scientific, and who think themselves\nscientific, can not fail to influence strongly an immense number of\nfathers and mothers. If they are truly scientific statements, their\ngeneral acceptance must be a great good.\n\nBut think of the misplaced effort if these widespread statements are\nfalse!\n\nIs there, or is there not, a short cut to race betterment? Everyone\ninterested in the welfare of the race must feel the necessity of getting\nat the truth in the case; and the truth can be found only by rigorously\nscientific thought.\n\nLet us turn to the observed facts. This sample is taken from the health\ndepartment of a popular magazine, quite recently issued:\n\n\"Since birth my body has been covered with scales strikingly resembling\nthe surface of a fish. My parents and I have expended considerable money\non remedies and specialists without deriving any permanent benefit. I\nbathe my entire body with hot water daily, using the best quality of\nsoap. The scales fall off continually. My brother, who is younger than\nmyself, is afflicted with the same trouble, but in a lesser degree. My\nsister, the third member of the family, has been troubled only on the\nknees and abdomen. My mother has always been quite nervous and\nsusceptible to any unusual mental impression. She believes that she\nmarked me by craving fish, and preferring to clean them herself. During\nthe prenatal life of my brother, she worried much lest she might mark\nhim in the same way. In the case of my sister she tried to control her\nmind.\"[25]\n\nAnother is taken from a little publication which is devoted to\neugenics.[26] As a \"horrible example\" the editor gives the case of Jesse\nPomeroy, a murderer whom older readers will remember. His father, it\nappears, worked in a meat market. Before the birth of Jesse, his mother\nwent daily to the shop to carry a luncheon to her husband, and her eyes\nnaturally fell upon the bloody carcases hung about the walls.\nInevitably, the sight of such things would produce bloody thoughts in\nthe mind of the unborn child!\n\nThese are extreme cases; we quote from a medieval medical writer another\ncase that carries the principle to its logical conclusion: A woman saw a\nNegro,--at that time a rarity in Europe. She immediately had a sickening\nsuspicion that her child would be born with a black skin. To obviate the\ndanger, she had a happy inspiration--she hastened home and washed her\nbody all over with warm water. When the child appeared, his skin was\nfound to be normally white--except between the fingers and toes, where\nit was black. His mother had failed to wash herself thoroughly in those\nplaces!\n\nOf course, few of the cases now credited are as gross as this, but the\nprinciple involved remains the same.\n\nWe will take a hypothetical case of a common sort for the sake of\nclearness: the mother receives a wound on the arm; when her child is\nborn it is found to have a scar of some sort at about the same place on\nthe corresponding arm. Few mothers would fail to see the result of a\nmaternal impression here. But how could this mark have been transmitted?\nThis is not a question of the transmission of acquired characters\nthrough the germ-plasm, or anything of that sort, for the child was\nalready formed when the mother was injured. One is obliged, therefore,\nto believe that the injury was in some way transmitted through the\nplacenta, the only connection between the mother and the unborn child;\nand that it was then reproduced in some way in the child.\n\nHere is a situation which, examined in the cold light of reason, puts a\nheavy enough strain on the credulity. Such an influence can reach the\nembryo only through the blood of the mother. Is it conceivable to any\nrational human being, that a scar, or what not, on the mother's body can\nbe dissolved in her blood, pass through the placenta into the child's\ncirculation, and then gather itself together into a definite scar on the\ninfant's arm?\n\nThere is just as much reason to expect the child to grow to resemble the\ncow on whose milk it is fed after birth, as to expect it to grow to\nresemble its mother, because of prenatal influence, as the term is\ncustomarily used, for once development has begun, the child draws\nnothing more than nourishment from its mother.\n\nOf course we are accustomed to the pious rejoinder that man must not\nexpect to understand all the mysteries of life; and to hear vague talk\nabout the wonder of wireless telegraphy. But wireless telegraphy is\nsomething very definite and tangible--there is little mystery about it.\nWaves of a given frequency are sent off, and caught by an instrument\nattuned to the same frequency. How any rational person can support a\nbelief in maternal impressions by such an analogy, if he knows anything\nabout anatomy and physiology, passes comprehension.\n\nNow we are far from declaring that a reason can be found for everything\nthat happens. Science does not refuse belief in an observed fact merely\nbecause it is unexplainable. But let us examine this case of maternal\nimpressions a little further. What can be learned of the time element?\n\nImmediately arises the significant fact that most of the marks,\ndeformities and other effects which are credited to prenatal influence\nmust on this hypothesis take place at a comparatively late period in the\nantenatal life of the child. The mother is frightened by a dog; the\nchild is born with a dog-face. If it be asked when her fright occurred,\nit is usually found that it was not earlier than the third month, more\nlikely somewhere near the sixth.\n\nBut it ought to be well known that the development of all the main parts\nof the body has been completed at the end of the second month. At that\ntime, the mother rarely does more than suspect the coming of the child,\nand events which she believes to \"mark\" the child, usually occur after\nthe fourth or fifth month, when the child is substantially formed, and\nit is impossible that many of the effects supposed to occur could\nactually occur. Indeed, it is now believed that most errors of\ndevelopment, such as lead to the production of great physical defects,\nare due to some cause within the embryo itself, and that most of them\ntake place in the first three or four weeks, when the mother is by no\nmeans likely to influence the course of embryological development by her\nmental attitude toward it, for the very good reason that she knows\nnothing about it.\n\nUnless she is immured or isolated from the world, nearly every expectant\nmother sees many sights of the kind that, according to popular\ntradition, cause \"marks.\" Why is it that results are so few? Why is it\nthat women doctors and nurses, who are constantly exposed to unpleasant\nsights, have children that do not differ from those of other mothers?\n\nDarwin, who knew how to think scientifically, saw that this is the\nlogical line of proof or disproof. When Sir Joseph Hooker, the botanist\nand geologist who was his closest friend, wrote of a supposed case of\nmaternal impression, one of his kinswomen having insisted that a mole\nwhich appeared on her child was the effect of fright upon herself for\nhaving, before the birth of the child, blotted with sepia a copy of\nTurner's _Liber Studiorum_ that had been lent her with special\ninjunctions to be careful, Darwin[27] replied: \"I should be very much\nobliged, if at any future or leisure time you could tell me on what you\nground your doubtful belief in imagination of a mother affecting her\noffspring. I have attended to the several statements scattered about,\nbut do not believe in more than accidental coincidences. W. Hunter told\nmy father, then in a lying-in hospital, that in many thousand cases he\nhad asked the mother, before her confinement, whether anything had\naffected her imagination, and recorded the answers; and absolutely not\none case came right, though, when the child was anything remarkable,\nthey afterwards made the cap to fit.\"\n\nAny doctor who has handled many maternity cases can call to mind\ninstances where every condition was present to perfection, for the\nproduction of maternal impression, on the time-honored lines. None\noccurred. Most mothers can, if they give the matter careful\nconsideration, duplicate this experience from their own. Why is it that\nresults are so rare?\n\nThat Darwin gave the true explanation of a great many of the alleged\ncases is perfectly clear to us. When the child is born with any peculiar\ncharacteristic, the mother hunts for some experience in the preceding\nmonths that might explain it. If she succeeds in finding any experience\nof her own at all resembling in its effects the effect which the infant\nshows, she considers she has proved causation, has established a good\ncase of prenatal influence.\n\nIt is not causation; it is coincidence.\n\nIf the prospective mother plays or sings a great deal, with the idea of\ngiving her child a musical endowment, and the child actually turns out\nto have musical talent, the mother at once recalls her yearning that\nsuch might be the case; her assiduous practice which she hoped would be\nof benefit to her child. She immediately decides that it did benefit\nhim, and she becomes a convinced witness to the belief in prenatal\nculture. Has she not herself demonstrated it?\n\nShe has not. But if she would examine the child's heredity, she would\nprobably find a taste for music running in the germ-plasm. Her study and\npractice had not the slightest effect on this hereditary disposition; it\nis equally certain that the child would have been born with a taste for\nmusic if its mother had devoted eight hours a day for nine months to\ncultivating thoughts of hatred for the musical profession and repugnance\nfor everything that possesses rhythm or harmony.\n\nIt necessarily follows, then, that attempts to influence the inherent\nnature of the child, physically or mentally, through \"prenatal culture,\"\nare doomed to disappointment. The child develops along the lines of the\npotentialities which existed in the two germ-cells that united to become\nits origin. The course of its development can not be changed in any\nspecific way by any corresponding act or attitude of its mother, good\nhygiene alone need be her concern.\n\nIt must necessarily follow that attempts to improve the race on a large\nscale, by the general adoption of prenatal culture as an instrument of\neugenics, are useless.\n\nIndeed, the logical implication of the teaching is the reverse of\neugenic. It would give a woman reason to think she might marry a man\nwhose heredity was most objectionable, and yet, by prenatal culture,\nsave her children from paying the inevitable penalty of this weak\nheritage. The world has long shuddered over the future of the girl who\nmarries a man to reform him; but think what it means to the future of\nthe race if a superior girl, armed with correspondence school lessons in\nprenatal culture, marries a man to reform his children!\n\nThose who practice this doctrine are doomed to disillusion. The time\nthey spend on prenatal culture is not cultivating the child; it is\nmerely perpetuating a fallacy. Not only is their time thus spent\nwasted, but worse, for they might have employed it in ways that really\nwould have benefited the child--in open-air exercise, for instance.\n\nTo recapitulate, the facts are:\n\n(1) That there is, before birth, no connection between mother and child,\nby which impressions on the mother's mind or body could be transmitted\nto the child's mind or body.\n\n(2) That in most cases the marks or defects whose origin is attributed\nto maternal impression, must necessarily have been complete long before\nthe incident occurred which the mother, after the child's birth,\nascribes as the cause.\n\n(3) That these phenomena usually do not occur when they are, and by\nhypothesis ought to be, expected. The explanations are found after the\nevent, and that is regarded as causation which is really coincidence.\n\nPre-natal care as a euthenic measure is of course not only legitimate\nbut urgent. The embryo derives its entire nourishment from the mother;\nand its development depends wholly on its supply of nourishment.\nAnything which affects the supply of nourishment will affect the embryo\nin a general, not a particular way. If the mother's mental and physical\ncondition be good, the supply of nourishment to the embryo is likely to\nbe good, and development will be normal. If, on the other hand, the\nmother is constantly harassed by fear or hatred, her physical health\nwill suffer, she will be unable properly to nourish her developing\noffspring, and it may be its poor physical condition when born,\nindicates this.\n\nFurther, if the mother experiences a great mental or physical shock, it\nmay so upset her health that her child is not properly nourished, its\ndevelopment is arrested, mentally as well as physically, and it is born\ndefective. H. H. Goddard, for example, tells[28] of a high-grade\nimbecile in the Training School at Vineland, N. J. \"Nancy belongs to a\nthoroughly normal, respectable family. There is nothing to account for\nthe condition unless one accepts the mother's theory. While it sounds\nsomewhat like the discarded theory of maternal impression, yet it is not\nimpossible that the fright and shock which the mother received may have\ninterfered with the nutrition of the unborn child and resulted in the\nmental defect. The story in brief is as follows. Shortly before this\nchild was born, the mother was compelled to take care of a sister-in-law\nwho was in a similar condition and very ill with convulsions. Our\nchild's mother was many times frightened severely as her sister-in-law\nwas quite out of her mind.\"\n\nIt is easily understandable that any event which makes such an\nimpression on the mother as to affect her health, might so disturb the\nnormal functioning of her body that her child would be badly nourished,\nor even poisoned. Such facts undoubtedly form the basis on which the\nairy fabric of prenatal culture was reared by those who lived before the\ndays of scientific biology.\n\nThus, it is easy enough to see the real explanation of such cases as\nthose mentioned near the beginning of this discussion. The mothers who\nfret and rebel over their maternity, she found, are likely to bear\nneurotic children. It is obvious (1) that mothers who fret and rebel are\nquite likely themselves to be neurotic in constitution, and the child\nnaturally gets its heredity from them: (2) that constant fretting and\nrebellion would so affect the mother's health that her child would not\nbe properly nourished.\n\nWhen, however, she goes on to draw the inference that \"self-control,\ncheerfulness and love ... will practically insure you a child normal in\nphysique and nerves,\" we are obliged to stop. We know that what she says\nis not true. If the child's heredity is bad, neither self-control,\ncheerfulness, love, nor anything else known to science, can make that\nheredity good.\n\nAt first thought, one may wish it were otherwise. There is something\ninspiring in the idea of a mother overcoming the effect of heredity by\nthe sheer force of her own will-power. But perhaps in the long run it is\nas well; for there are advantages on the other side. It should be a\nsatisfaction to mothers to know that their children will not be marked\nor injured by untoward events in the antenatal days; that if the\nchild's heredity can not be changed for the better, neither can it be\nchanged for the worse.\n\nThe prenatal culturists and maternal-impressionists are trying to place\non her a responsibility which she need not bear. Obviously, it is the\nmother who is most nearly concerned with the bogy of maternal\nimpressions, and it should make for her peace of mind to know that it is\nnothing more than a bogy. It is important for the expectant mother to\nkeep herself in as nearly perfect condition as possible, both physically\nand mentally. Her bodily mechanism will then run smoothly, and the child\nwill get from her blood the nourishment needed for its development.\nBeyond that there is nothing the mother can do to influence the\ndevelopment of her child.\n\nThere is another and somewhat similar fallacy which deserves a passing\nword, although it is of more concern to the livestock breeder than to\nthe eugenist. It is called telegony and is, briefly, this: that\nconception by a female results in a definite modification of her\ngerm-plasm from the influence of the male, and that this modification\nwill be shown in the offspring she may subsequently bear to a second\nmale. The only case where it is often invoked in the human race is in\nmiscegenation. A white woman has been married to a Negro, for instance,\nand has borne one or more mulatto offspring. Subsequently, she mates\nwith a white man; but her children by him, instead of being pure white,\nit is alleged, will be also mulattoes. The idea of telegony, the\npersistent influence of the first mating, may be invoked to explain this\ndiscrepancy.\n\nIt is a pure myth. There is no good evidence[29] to support it, and\nthere is abundant evidence to contradict it. Telegony is still believed\nby many animal breeders, but it has no place in science. In such a case\nas the one quoted, the explanation is undoubtedly that the supposed\nfather is not the real one; and this explanation will dispose of all\nother cases of telegony which can not be explained, as in most instances\nthey can be, by the mixed ancestry of the offspring and the innate\ntendency of all living things to vary.\n\nNow to sum up this long chapter. We started with a consideration of the\ngerm-plasm, the physical basis of life; pointing out that it is\ncontinuous from generation to generation, and potentially immortal; that\nit is carefully isolated and guarded in the body, so that it is not\nlikely to be injured by any ordinary means.\n\nOne of the logical results of this continuity of the germ-plasm is that\nmodifications of the body of the parent, or acquired characters, can\nhardly be transferred to the germ-plasm and become a part of the\ninheritance. Further the experimental evidence upholds this position,\nand the inheritance of acquired body characters may be disregarded by\neugenics, which is therefore obliged to concern itself solely with the\nmaterial already in existence in the germ-plasm, except as that material\nmay be changed by variation which can neither be predicted nor\ncontrolled.\n\nThe evidence that the germ-plasm can be permanently modified does not\nwarrant the belief; and such results, if they exist at all, are not\nlarge enough or uniform enough to concern the eugenist.\n\nPre-natal culture and telegony were found to be mere delusions. There is\nno justification for hoping to influence the race for good through the\naction of any kind of external influences; and there is not much danger\nof influencing it for ill through these external influences. The\nsituation must be faced squarely then: if the race is to be improved, it\nmust be by the use of the material already in existence; by endeavor to\nchange the birth-and death-rates so as to alter the relative proportions\nof the amounts of good and bad germ-plasm in the race. This is the only\nroad by which the goal of eugenics can be reached.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nDIFFERENCES AMONG MEN\n\n\nWhile Mr. Jefferson, when he wrote into the Declaration of Independence\nhis belief in the self-evidence of the truth that all men are created\nequal, may have been thinking of legal rights merely, he was expressing\nan opinion common among philosophers of his time. J. J. Rousseau it was\nwho made the idea popular, and it met with widespread acceptance for\nmany years. It is not surprising, therefore, that the phrase has long\nbeen a favorite with the demagogue and the utopian. Even now the\ndoctrine is by no means dead. The American educational system is based\nlargely on this dogma, and much of the political system seems to be\ngrounded on it. It can be seen in the tenets of labor unions, in the\npractice of many philanthropies--traces may be found almost anywhere one\nturns, in fact.\n\nCommon enough as applied to mental qualities, the theory of human\nequality is even more widely held of \"moral\" qualities. Men are\nconsidered to be equally responsible for their conduct, and failure to\nconform to the accepted code in this respect brings punishment. It is\nsometimes conceded that men have had differing opportunities to learn\nthe principles of morality; but given equal opportunities, it is almost\nuniversally held that failure to follow the principles indicates not\ninability but unwillingness. In short, public opinion rarely admits that\nmen may differ in their inherent capacity to act morally.\n\nIn view of its almost universal and unquestioned, although half\nunconscious, acceptance as part of the structure of society, it becomes\nof the utmost importance that this doctrine of human equality should be\nexamined by scientific methods.\n\nFortunately this can be done with ease. Methods of mental and physical\nmeasurement that have been evolved during the last few decades offer\nresults that admit of no refutation, and they can be applied in hundreds\nof different places.\n\n[Illustration: DISTRIBUTION OF 10-YEAR-OLD SCHOOL CHILDREN\n\nFIG. 8.--The graph shows that 10-year-old children in\nConnecticut (1903) are to be found in every grade, from the first to the\neighth. The greatest number is in the fourth grade, and the number who\nare advanced is just about the same as the number who are retarded.]\n\nIt will not be worth while to spend any time demonstrating that all\nindividuals differ, at birth and during their subsequent life,\nphysically. The fact is patent to all. It carries with it as a necessary\ncorollary mental differences, since the brain is part of the body;\nnevertheless, we shall demonstrate these mental differences\nindependently.\n\nWe present in Fig. 8 a graph from E. L. Thorndike, showing the number of\n10-year-old children in Connecticut (1903) in each school grade. If the\nchildren are all intellectually equal, all the 10-year-olds ought to be\nin the same grade, or near it. Numerous explanations of their wide\ndistribution suggest themselves; as a working hypothesis one might adopt\nthe suggestion that it is because the children actually differ in innate\nability to the extent here indicated. This hypothesis can be tested by\na variety of mental measurements. S. A. Courtis' investigation of the\narithmetical abilities of the children in the schools of New York City\nwill be a good beginning. He measured the achievements of pupils in\nresponding to eight tests, which were believed to give a fair idea of\nthe pupil's capacity for solving simple arithmetical problems. The\nresults were, on the average, similar to the result he got in a certain\neighth-grade class, whose record is shown in Fig. 9. It is evident that\nsome of the children were good in arithmetic, some were poor in it; the\nbulk of them were neither good nor bad but half way between, or, in\nstatistical language, mediocre.\n\n[Illustration: VARIATION IN ABILITY\n\nFIG. 9.--Diagram to show the standing of children in a single\nclass in a New York City school, in respect to their ability in\narithmetic. There are wide divergences in the scores they made.]\n\nThe literature of experimental psychology and anthropology is crammed\nwith such examples as the above. No matter what trait of the individual\nbe chosen, results are analogous. If one takes the simplest traits, to\neliminate the most chances for confusion, one finds the same conditions\nevery time. Whether it be speed in marking off all the A's in a printed\nsheet of capitals, or in putting together the pieces of a puzzle, or in\ngiving a reaction to some certain stimulus, or in making associations\nbetween ideas, or drawing figures, or memory for various things, or\ngiving the opposites of words, or discrimination of lifted weights, or\nsuccess in any one of hundreds of other mental tests, the conclusion is\nthe same. There are wide differences in the abilities of individuals, no\ntwo being alike, either mentally or physically, at birth or any time\nthereafter.\n\n[Illustration: ORIGIN OF A NORMAL PROBABILITY CURVE\n\nFIG. 10.--When deviations in all directions are equally\nprobable, as in the case of shots fired at a target by an expert\nmarksman, the \"frequencies\" will arrange themselves in the manner shown\nby the bullets in compartments above. A line drawn along the tops of\nthese columns would be a \"normal probability curve.\" Diagram by C. H.\nPopenoe.]\n\nWhenever a large enough number of individuals is tested, these\ndifferences arrange themselves in the same general form. It is the form\nassumed by the distribution of any differences that are governed\nabsolutely by chance.\n\nSuppose an expert marksman shoots a thousand times at the center of a\ncertain picket in a picket fence, and that there is no wind or any\nother source of constant error that would distort his aim. In the long\nrun, the greatest number of his shots would be in the picket aimed at,\nand of his misses there would be just as many on one side as on the\nother, just as many above as below the center. Now if all the shots, as\nthey struck the fence, could drop into a box below, which had a\ncompartment for each picket, it would be found at the end of his\npractice that the compartments were filled up unequally, most bullets\nbeing in that representing the middle picket and least in the outside\nones. The intermediate compartments would have intermediate numbers of\nbullets. The whole scheme is shown in Fig. 11. If a line be drawn to\nconnect the tops of all the columns of bullets, it will make a rough\ncurve or graph, which represents a typical chance distribution. It will\nbe evident to anyone that the distribution was really governed by\n\"chance,\" i.e., a multiplicity of causes too complex to permit detailed\nanalysis. The imaginary sharp-shooter was an expert, and he was trying\nto hit the same spot with each shot. The deviation from the center is\nbound to be the same on all sides.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 11.--The \"Chance\" or \"Probability\" Form of\nDistribution.]\n\nNow suppose a series of measurements of a thousand children be taken in,\nlet us say, the ability to do 18 problems in subtraction in 10 minutes.\nA few of them finish only one problem in that time; a few more do two,\nmore still are able to complete three, and so on up. The great bulk of\nthe children get through from 8 to 12 problems in the allotted time; a\nfew finish the whole task. Now if we make a column for all those who did\none problem, another column beside it for all those who did two, and so\non up for those who did three, four and on to eighteen, a line drawn\nover the tops of the columns make a curve like the above from\nThorndike.\n\nComparing this curve with the one formed by the marksman's spent\nbullets, one can not help being struck by the similarity. If the first\nrepresented a distribution governed purely by chance, it is evident that\nthe children's ability seems to be distributed in accordance with a\nsimilar law.\n\nWith the limited number of categories used in this example, it would not\nbe possible to get a smooth curve, but only a kind of step pyramid. With\nan increase in the number of categories, the steps become smaller. With\na hundred problems to work out, instead of 18, the curve would be\nsomething like this:\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 12.--Probability curve with increased\nnumber of steps.]\n\nAnd with an infinite number, the steps would disappear altogether,\nleaving a perfectly smooth, flowing line, unmarred by a single step or\nbreak. It would be an absolutely _continuous_ distribution.\n\nIf then, the results of all the tests that have been made on all mental\ntraits be studied, it will be found that human mental ability as shown\nin at least 95% of all the traits that have been measured, is\ndistributed throughout the race in various degrees, in accordance with\nthe law of chance, and that if one could measure all the members of the\nspecies and plot a curve for these measurements, in any trait, he would\nget this smooth, continuous curve. In other words, human beings are not\nsharply divided into classes, but the differences between them shade off\ninto each other, although between the best and the worst, in any\nrespect, there is a great gulf.\n\nIf this statement applies to simple traits, such as memory for numbers,\nit must also apply to combinations of simple traits in complex mental\nprocesses. For practical purposes, we are therefore justified in saying\nthat in respect of any mental quality,--ability, industry, efficiency,\npersistence, attentiveness, neatness, honesty, anything you like,--in\nany large group of people, such as the white inhabitants of the United\nStates, some individuals will be found who show the character in\nquestion in a very low degree, some who show it in a very high degree;\nand there will be found every possible degree in between.\n\n[Illustration: NORMAL VARIABILITY CURVE FOLLOWING LAW OF CHANCE\n\nFIG. 13.--The above photograph (from A. F. Blakeslee), shows\nbeans rolling down an inclined plane and accumulating in compartments at\nthe base which are closed in front by glass. The exposure was long\nenough to cause the moving beans to appear as caterpillar-like objects\nhopping along the board. Assuming that the irregularity of shape of the\nbeans is such that each may make jumps toward the right or toward the\nleft, in rolling down the board, the laws of chance lead to the\nexpectation that in very few cases will these jumps all be in the same\ndirection, as is demonstrated by the few beans collected in the\ncompartments at the extreme right and left. Rather the beans will tend\nto jump in both right and left directions, the most probable condition\nbeing that in which the beans make an equal number of jumps to the right\nand left, as is shown by the large number accumulated in the central\ncompartment. If the board be tilted to one side, the curve of beans\nwould be altered by this one-sided influence. In like fashion a series\nof factors--either of environment or of heredity--if acting equally in\nboth favorable and unfavorable directions, will cause a group of men to\nform a similar variability curve, when classified according to their\nrelative height.]\n\nThe consequences of this for race progress are significant. Is it\ndesired to eliminate feeble-mindedness? Then it must be borne in mind\nthat there is no sharp distinction between feeble-mindedness and the\nnormal mind. One can not divide sheep from goats, saying \"A is\nfeeble-minded. B is normal. C is feeble-minded. D is normal,\" and so on.\nIf one took a scale of a hundred numbers, letting 1 stand for an idiot\nand 100 for a genius, one would find individuals corresponding to every\nsingle number on the scale. The only course possible would be a somewhat\narbitrary one; say to consider every individual corresponding to a grade\nunder seven as feeble-minded. It would have to be recognized that those\ngraded eight were not much better than those graded seven, but the\ndrawing of the line at seven would be justified on the ground that it\nhad to be drawn somewhere, and seven seemed to be the most satisfactory\npoint.\n\nIn practice of course, students of retardation test children by\nstandardized scales. Testing a hundred 10-year-old children, the\nexaminer might find a number who were able to do only those tests which\nare passed by a normal six-year-old child. He might properly decide to\nput all who thus showed four years of retardation, in the class of\nfeeble-minded; and he might justifiably decide that those who tested\nseven years (i.e., three years mental retardation) or less would, for\nthe present, be given the benefit of the doubt, and classed among the\npossibly normal. Such a procedure, in dealing with intelligence, is\nnecessary and justifiable, but its adoption must not blind students, as\nit often does, to the fact that the distinction made is an arbitrary\none, and that there is no more a hard and fast line of demarcation\nbetween imbeciles and normals than there is between \"rich men\" and \"poor\nmen.\"\n\n[Illustration: CADETS ARRANGED TO SHOW NORMAL CURVE OF VARIABILITY\n\nFIG. 14.--The above company of students at Connecticut\nAgricultural College was grouped according to height and photographed by\nA. F. Blakeslee. The height of each rank, and the number of men of that\nheight, is shown by the figures underneath the photograph. The company\nconstitutes what is technically known as a \"population\" grouped in\n\"arrays of variates\"; the middle rank gives the median height of the\npopulation; the tallest array (5 ft., 8 in.) is the mode. If a line be\ndrawn connecting the upper ends of the rows, the resulting geometric\nfigure will be a \"scheme of distribution of variates\" or more briefly a\n\"variability curve,\" such as was shown in several preceding figures. The\narrangement of homogeneous objects of any kind in such form as this is\nthe first step in the study of variation by modern statistical methods,\nand on such study much of the progress of genetics depends.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 15.--Height is one of the stock examples of\na continuous character--one of which all grades can be found. As will be\nseen from the above diagram, every height from considerably under five\nfeet to considerably over six feet can be found in the army, but extreme\ndeviations are relatively rare in proportion to the amount of deviation.\nThe vertical columns represent the total number of individuals of a\ngiven height in inches. From Davenport.]\n\nIf a group of soldiers be measured as the children were measured for\narithmetical ability, their height will be distributed in this same\ncurve of probability. Fig. 14 shows the cadets of Connecticut\nAgricultural College; it is obvious that a line drawn along the tops\nof the files would again make the step-pyramid shown in Figures 10, 11\nand 13. If a larger number were taken, the steps would disappear and\ngive place to a smooth curve; the fact is well shown in a graph for the\nheights of recruits to the American Army (Fig. 15).\n\nThe investigation in this direction need not be pursued any farther. For\nthe purpose of eugenics, it is sufficient to recognize that great\ndifferences exist between men, and women, not only in respect of\nphysical traits, but equally in respect of mental ability.\n\nThis conclusion might easily have been reached from a study of the facts\nin Chapter I, but it seemed worth while to take time to present the fact\nin a more concrete form as the result of actual measurements. The\nevidence allows no doubt about the existence of considerable mental and\nphysical differences between men.\n\nThe question naturally arises, \"What is the cause of these differences?\"\n\nThe study of twins showed that the differences could not be due to\ndifferences in training or home surroundings. If the reader will think\nback over the facts set forth in the first chapter, he will see clearly\nthat the fundamental differences in men can not be due to anything that\nhappens after they are born; and the facts presented in the second\nchapter showed that these differences can not be due in an important\ndegree to any influences acting on the child prior to birth.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nTHE INHERITANCE OF MENTAL CAPACITIES\n\n\nWe have come to the climax of the eugenist's preliminary argument; if\nthe main differences between human beings are not due to anything in the\nenvironment or training, either of this or previous generations, there\ncan be but one explanation for them.\n\nThey must be due to the ancestry of the individual--that is, they must\nbe matters of heredity in the ordinary sense, coupled with the\nfortuitous variations which accompany heredity throughout the organic\nworld.\n\nWe need not limit ourselves, however, to the argument by exclusion, for\nit is not difficult to present direct evidence that the differences\nbetween men are actually inherited by children from parents. The\nproblem, formally stated, is to measure the amount by which the likeness\nof individuals of like ancestry surpasses the likeness of individuals of\ndifferent ancestry. After subtraction of the necessary amount for the\ngreater likeness in training, that the individuals of like ancestry will\nhave, whatever amount is left will necessarily, represent the actual\ninheritance of the child from its ancestors--parents, grandparents, and\nso on.\n\nObviously, the subtraction for environmental effects is the point at\nwhich a mistake is most probable. We may safely start, therefore, with a\nproblem in which no subtraction whatever need be made for this cause.\nEye color is a stock example, and a good one, for it is not conceivable\nthat home environment or training would cause a change in the color of\nbrothers' eyes.\n\nThe correlation[30] between brothers, or sisters, or brothers and\nsisters--briefly, the fraternal resemblance--for eye-color was found by\nKarl Pearson, using the method described in Chapter I, to be .52. We are\nin no danger of contradiction if we state with positiveness that this\nfigure represents the influence of ancestry, or direct inheritance, in\nrespect to this particular trait.\n\nSuppose the resemblance between brothers be measured for stature--it\nis .51; for cephalic index, that is, the ratio of width of skull to length\nof skull--it is .49; for hair color--it is .59. In all of these points,\nit will be admitted that no home training, or any other influence except\nheredity, can conceivably play an important part. We could go on with a\nlong list of such measurements, which biometrists have made; and if they\nwere all summed up it would be found that the fraternal correlation in\nthese traits as to the heritability of which there can be no dispute, is\nabout .52. Here is a good measure, albeit a technical one, of the\ninfluence of heredity from the near ancestry. It is possible, too, to\nmeasure the direct correlation between a trait in parent and the same\ntrait in offspring; the average of many cases where only heredity can be\nthought to have had any effect in producing the result, is .49. By the\ntwo methods of measurement, therefore, quite comparable results are\nobtained.\n\nSo much work has been done in this subject that we have no hesitation in\naffirming .5 to represent approximately the average intensity of\nheredity for physical characters in man. If any well-marked physical\ncharacter be measured, in which training and environment can not be\nassumed to have had any part, it will be found, in a large enough number\nof subjects, that the resemblance, measured on a scale from 0 to 1, is\njust about one-half of unity. Of course, perfect identity with the\nparents is not to be expected, because the child must inherit from both\nparents, who in turn each inherited from two parents, and so on.\n\nSo far, it may be said, we have had plain sailing because we have\ncarefully chosen traits in which we were not obliged to make any\nsubtraction whatever for the influence of training. But it is evident\nthat not all traits fall in that class.\n\nThis is the point at which the inheritance of mental traits has been\nmost often questioned. Probably no one will care to dispute the\ninheritance of such physical traits as eye-color. But in considering the\nmind, a certain school of popular pseudo-psychological writers question\nthe reality of mental inheritance, and allege that the proofs which the\ngeneticist offers are worthless because they do not make account of the\nsimilarity in environment or training. Of course, it is admitted that\nsome sort of a mental groundwork must be inherited, but extremists\nallege that this is little more than a clean slate on which the\nenvironment, particularly during the early years of childhood, writes\nits autograph.\n\nWe must grant that the analysis of the inheritance of mental traits is\nproceeding slowly. This is not the fault of the geneticist, but rather\nof the psychologist, who has not yet been able to furnish the geneticist\nwith the description of definite traits of such a character as to make\npossible the exhaustive analysis of their individual inheritance. That\ndepartment of psychology is only now being formed.\n\nWe might even admit that no inherited \"unit character\" in the mind has\nyet been isolated; but it would be a great mistake to assume from this\nadmission that proof of the inheritance of mental qualities, in general,\nis lacking.\n\nThe psychologists and educators who think so appear either to be swayed\nby metaphysical views of the mind, or else to believe that resemblance\nbetween parent and offspring is the only evidence of inheritance that\ncan be offered. The father dislikes cheese, the son dislikes cheese.\n\"Aha, you think that that is the inheritance of a dislike for cheese,\"\ncries the critic, \"but we will teach you better.\" An interesting example\nof this sort of teaching is furnished by Boris Sidis, whose feelings are\noutraged because geneticists have represented that some forms of\ninsanity are hereditary. He declaims for several pages[31] in this\nfashion:\n\n\"The so-called scientific method of the eugenists is radically faulty,\nin spite of the rich display of colored plates, stained tables,\nglittering biological speculations, brilliant mathematical formulae and\ncomplicated statistical calculations. The eugenists pile Ossa on Pelion\nof facts by the simple method of enumeration which Bacon and the\nthinkers coming after him have long ago condemned as puerile and futile.\nFrom the savage's belief in sympathetic, imitative magic with its\nconsequent superstitions, omens, and taboos down to the articles of\nfaith and dogmas of the eugenists we find the same faulty, primitive\nthought, guided by the puerile, imbecile method of simple enumeration,\nand controlled by the wisdom of the logical _post hoc, ergo propter\nhoc_.\"\n\nNow if resemblance between parent and offspring were, as Dr. Sidis\nsupposes, the only evidence of inheritance of mental traits which the\neugenist can produce, his case would indeed be weak. And it is perfectly\ntrue that \"evidence\" of this kind has sometimes been advanced as\nsufficient by geneticists who should have known better. But this is not\nthe real evidence which genetics offers. The evidence is of numerous\nkinds, and several lines might be destroyed without impairing the\nvalidity of the remainder. It is impossible to review the whole body of\nevidence here, but some of the various kinds may be indicated, and\nsamples given, even though this involves the necessity of repeating some\nthings we have said in earlier chapters. The reader will then be able to\nform his own opinion as to whether the geneticists' proofs or the mere\nassurances of those who have not studied the subject are the more\nweighty.\n\n1. _The analogy from breeding experiments._ Tame rats, for instance, are\nvery docile; their offspring can be handled without a bit of trouble.\nThe wild rat, on the other hand, is not at all docile.\n\nW. E. Castle, of Harvard University, writes:[32] \"We have repeatedly\nmated tame female rats with wild males, the mothers being removed to\nisolated cages before the birth of the young. These young which had\nnever seen or been near their father were very wild in disposition in\nevery case. The observations of Yerkes on such rats raised by us\nindicates that their wildness was not quite as extreme as that of the\npure wild rat but closely approached it.\"\n\nWho can suggest any plausible explanation of their conduct, save that\nthey inherited a certain temperament from their sire? Yet the\ninheritance of temperament is one of the things which certain\npsychologists most \"view with alarm.\" If it is proved in other animals,\ncan it be considered wholly impossible in man?\n\n2. _The segregation of mental traits._ When an insane, or epileptic, or\nfeeble-minded person mates with a normal individual, in whose family no\ntaint is found, the offspring (generally speaking) will be mentally\nsound, even though one parent is not. On the other hand, if two people\nfrom tainted stocks marry, although neither one may be personally\ndefective, part of their offspring will be affected.\n\nThis production of sound children from an unsound parent, in the first\ncase, and unsound children from two apparently sound parents in the\nsecond case, is exactly the opposite of what one would expect if the\nchild gets his unsoundness merely by imitation or \"contagion.\" The\ndifference can not reasonably be explained by any difference in\nenvironment or external stimuli. Heredity offers a satisfactory\nexplanation, for some forms of feeble-mindedness and epilepsy, and some\nof the diseases known as insanity, behave as recessives and segregate in\njust the way mentioned. There are abundant analogies in the inheritance\nof other traits in man, lower animals and plants, that behave in exactly\nthe same manner.\n\nIf mental defects are inherited, then it is worth while investigating\nwhether mental excellencies may not also be.\n\n3. _The persistence of like qualities regardless of difference in\nenvironment._ Any parent with open eyes must see this in his own\nchildren--must see that they retained the inherited traits even when\nthey left home and lived under entirely different surroundings. But the\nhistories of twins furnish the most graphic evidence. Galton, who\ncollected detailed histories of thirty-five pairs of twins who were\nclosely alike at birth, and examined their history in after years,\nwrites:[33] \"In some cases the resemblance of body and mind had\ncontinued unaltered up to old age, notwithstanding very different\nconditions of life;\" in other cases where some dissimilarity developed,\nit could be traced to the influence of an illness. Making due allowance\nfor the influence of illness, yet \"instances do exist of an apparently\nthorough similarity of nature, in which such differences of external\ncircumstances as may be consistent with the ordinary conditions of the\nsame social rank and country do not create dissimilarity. Positive\nevidence, such as this, can not be outweighed by any amount of negative\nevidence.\"\n\nFrederick Adams Woods has brought forward[34] a piece of more exact\nevidence under this head. It is known from many quantitative studies\nthat in physical heredity, the influence of the paternal grandparents\nand the influence of the maternal grandparents is equal; on the average\none pair will contribute no more to the grandchildren than the other. If\nmental qualities are due rather to early surroundings than to actual\ninheritance, this equality of grandparental influence is incredible in\nthe royal families where Dr. Woods got his material; for the grandchild\nhas been brought up at the court of the paternal grandfather, where he\nought to have gotten all his \"acquirements,\" and has perhaps never even\nseen his maternal grandparents, who therefore could not be expected to\nimpress their mental peculiarities on him by \"contagion.\" When Dr. Woods\nactually measured the extent of resemblance to the two sets of\ngrandparents, for mental and moral qualities, he found it to be the same\nin each case; as is inevitable if they are inherited, but as is\nincomprehensible if heredity is not largely responsible for one's mental\nmake-up.\n\n4. _Persistence of unlike qualities regardless of sameness in the_\n_environment._ This is the converse of the preceding proposition, but\neven more convincing. In the last paragraph but one, we mentioned\nGalton's study (cited at some length in our Chapter I) of \"identical\"\ntwins, who are so much alike at birth for the very good reason that they\nhave identical heredity. This heredity was found to be not modified,\neither in the body or the mind, by ordinary differences of training and\nenvironment. Some of Galton's histories[35] of ordinary, non-identical\ntwins were also given in Chapter I; two more follow:\n\nOne parent says: \"They have been treated exactly alike; both were\nbrought up by hand; they have been under the same nurse and governess\nfrom their birth, and they are very fond of each other. Their increasing\ndissimilarity must be ascribed to a natural difference of mind and\ncharacter, as there has been nothing in their treatment to account for\nit.\"\n\nAnother writes: \"This case is, I should think, somewhat remarkable for\ndissimilarity in physique as well as for strong contrast in character.\nThey have been unlike in mind and body throughout their lives. Both were\nreared in a country house and both were at the same schools until the\nage of 16.\"\n\nIn the face of such examples, can anyone maintain that differences in\nmental make-up are wholly due to different influences during childhood,\nand not at all to differences in germinal make-up? It is not necessary\nto depend, under this head, on mere descriptions, for accurate\nmeasurements are available to demonstrate the point. If the environment\ncreates the mental nature, then ordinary brothers, not more than four or\nfive years apart in age, ought to be about as closely similar to each\nother as identical twins are to each other; for the family influences in\neach case are practically the same. Professor Thorndike, by careful\nmental tests, showed[36] that this is not true. The ordinary brothers\ncome from different egg-cells, and, as is known from studies on lower\nanimals, they do not get exactly the same inheritance from their\nparents; they show, therefore, considerable differences in their psychic\nnatures. Real identical twins, being two halves of the same egg-cell,\nhave the same heredity, and their natures are therefore much more\nnearly identical.\n\nAgain, if the mind is molded during the \"plastic years of childhood,\"\nchildren ought to become more alike, the longer they are together. Twins\nwho were unlike at birth ought to resemble each other more closely at 14\nthan they did at 9, since they have been for five additional years\nsubjected to this supposedly potent but very mystical \"molding force.\"\nHere again Professor Thorndike's exact measurements explode the fallacy.\nThey are actually, measurably, less alike at the older age; their inborn\nnatures are developing along predestined lines, with little regard to\nthe identity of their surroundings. Heredity accounts easily for these\nfacts, but they cannot be squared with the idea that mental differences\nare the products solely of early training.\n\n5. _Differential rates of increase in qualities subject to much\ntraining._ If the mind is formed by training, then brothers ought to be\nmore alike in qualities which have been subject to little or no\ntraining. Professor Thorndike's measurements on this point show the\nreverse to be true. The likeness of various traits is determined by\nheredity, and brothers may be more unlike in traits which have been\nsubjected to a large and equal amount of training. Twins were found to\nbe less alike in their ability at addition and multiplication, in which\nthe schools had been training them for some years, than they were in\nability to mark off the A's on a printed sheet, or to write the\nopposites to a list of words--feats which they had probably never before\ntried to do.\n\nThis same proposition may be put on a broader basis.[37] \"In so far as\nthe differences in achievement found amongst a group of men are due to\nthe differences in the quantity and quality of training which they had\nhad in the function in question, the provision of equal amounts of the\nsame sort of training for all individuals in the group should act to\nreduce the differences.\" \"If the addition of equal amounts of practice\ndoes not reduce the differences found amongst men, those differences can\nnot well be explained to any large extent by supposing them to have been\ndue to corresponding differences in amount of previous practice. If,\nthat is, inequalities in achievement are not reduced by equalizing\npractice, they can not well have been caused by inequalities in previous\npractice. If differences in opportunity cause the differences men\ndisplay, making opportunity more nearly equal for all, by adding equal\namounts to it in each case should make the differences less.\n\n\"The facts found are rather startling. Equalizing practice seems to\nincrease differences. The superior man seems to have got his present\nsuperiority by his own nature rather than by superior advantages of the\npast, since, during a period of equal advantage for all, he increases\nhis lead.\" This point has been tested by such simple devices as mental\nmultiplication, addition, marking A's on a printed sheet of capitals and\nthe like; all the contestants made some gain in efficiency, but those\nwho were superior at the start were proportionately farther ahead than\never at the end. This is what the geneticist would expect, but fits very\nill with some popular pseudo-science which denies that any child is\nmentally limited by nature.\n\n6. _Direct measurement of the amount of resemblance of mental traits in\nbrothers and sisters._ It is manifestly impossible to assume that early\ntraining, or parental behavior, or anything of the sort, can have\ninfluenced very markedly the child's eye color, or the length of his\nforearm, or the ratio of the breadth of his head to its length. A\nmeasure of the amount of resemblance between two brothers in such traits\nmay very confidently be said to represent the influence of heredity; one\ncan feel no doubt that the child inherits his eye-color and other\nphysical traits of that kind from his parents. It will be recalled that\nthe resemblance, measured on a scale from 0 to 1, has been found to be\nabout 0.5.\n\nKarl Pearson measured the resemblance between brothers and sisters in\nmental traits--for example, temper, conscientiousness, introspection,\nvivacity--and found it on the average to have the same intensity--that\nis, about 0.5. Starch gets similar results in studying school grades.\n\nProfessor Pearson writes:[38]\n\n\"It has been suggested that this resemblance in the psychological\ncharacters is compounded of two factors, inheritance on the one hand and\ntraining and environment on the other. If so, one must admit that\ninheritance and environment make up the resemblance in the physical\ncharacters. Now these two sorts of resemblance being of the same\nintensity, either the environmental influence is the same in both cases\nor it is not. If it is the same, we are forced to the conclusion that it\nis insensible, for it can not influence eye-color. If it is not the\nsame, then it would be a most marvelous thing that with varying degrees\nof inheritance, some mysterious force always modifies the extent of home\ninfluence, until the resemblance of brothers and sisters is brought\nsensibly up to the same intensity! Occam's razor[39] will enable us at\nonce to cut off such a theory. We are forced, I think, literally forced,\nto the general conclusion that the physical and psychical characters in\nman are inherited within broad lines in the same manner, and with\napproximate intensity. The average parental influence is in itself\nlargely a result of the heritage of the stock and not an extraneous and\nadditional factor causing the resemblance between children from the same\nhome.\"\n\nA paragraph from Edgar Schuster[40] may appropriately be added. \"After\nconsidering the published evidence a word must be said of facts which\nmost people may collect for themselves. They are difficult to record,\nbut are perhaps more convincing than any quantity of statistics. If one\nknows well several members of a family, one is bound to see in them\nlikenesses with regard to mental traits, both large and small, which\nmay sometimes be accounted for by example on the one hand or unconscious\nimitation on the other, but are often quite inexplicable on any other\ntheory than heredity. It is difficult to understand how the inheritance\nof mental capacity can be denied by those whose eyes are open and whose\nminds are open too.\"\n\nStrictly speaking, it is of course true that man inherits nothing more\nthan the capacity of making mental acquirements. But this general\ncapacity is made up of many separate capacities, all of these capacities\nare variable, and the variations are inherited. Such seems to us to be\nthe unmistakable verdict of the evidence.\n\nOur conclusions as to the inheritance of all sorts of mental capacity\nare not based on the mere presence of the same trait in parent and\nchild. As the psychological analysis of individual traits proceeds, it\nwill be possible to proceed further with the study of the inheritance of\nthese traits. Some work has been done on spelling, which is particularly\ninteresting because most people, without reflection, would take it for\ngranted that a child's spelling ability depends almost wholly on his\ntraining. Professor Thorndike's exposition[41] of the investigation is\nas follows:\n\n\"E. L. Earle ('03) measured the spelling abilities of some 800 children\nin the St. Xavier school in New York by careful tests. As the children\nin this school commonly enter at a very early age, and as the staff and\nmethods of teaching remain very constant, we have in the case of the 180\npairs of brothers and sisters included in the 600 children closely\nsimilar school training. Mr. Earle measured the ability of any\nindividual by his deviation from the average for his grade and sex, and\nfound the coefficient of correlation between children of the same family\nto be .50. That is, any individual is on the average 50% as much above\nor below the average for his age and sex as his brother or sister.\n\n\"Similarities of home training might account for this, but any one\nexperienced in teaching will hesitate to attribute much efficacy to\nsuch similarities. Bad spellers remain bad spellers though their\nteachers change. Moreover, Dr. J. M. Rice in his exhaustive study of\nspelling ability ('97) found little or no relationship between good\nspelling and any one of the popular methods, and little or none between\npoor spelling and foreign parentage. Cornman's more careful study of\nspelling ('07) supports the view that ability to spell is little\ninfluenced by such differences in school or home training as commonly\nexist.\"\n\nThis is a very clear-cut case of a definite intellectual ability,\ndifferences in which might be supposed to be due almost wholly to the\nchild's training, but which seem, on investigation, to be largely due to\nheredity.\n\nThe problem may be examined in still greater detail. Does a man merely\ninherit manual skill, let us say, or does he inherit the precise kind of\nmanual skill needed to make a surgeon but not the kind that would be\nuseful to a watchmaker? Is a man born merely with a generalized\n\"artistic\" ability, or is it one adapted solely for, let us say, music;\nor further, is it adapted solely for violin playing, not for the piano?\n\nGalton, in his pioneer studies, sought for data on this question. In\nregard to English judges, he wrote: \"Do the judges often have sons who\nsucceed in the same career, where success would have been impossible if\nthey had not been gifted with the special qualities of their fathers?\nOut of the 286 judges, more than _one in every nine_ of them have been\neither father, son or brother to another judge, and the other high legal\nrelationships have been even more numerous. There can not, then, remain\na doubt but that the peculiar type of ability that is necessary to a\njudge is often transmitted by descent.\"\n\nUnfortunately, we can not feel quite as free from doubt on the point as\nGalton did. The judicial mind, if that be the main qualification for a\njudge, might be inherited, or it might be the result of training. Such a\ncase, standing alone, is inconclusive.\n\nGalton similarly showed that the sons of statesmen tended to be\nstatesmen, and that the same was true in families of great commanders,\nliterary men, poets and divines. In his list of eminent painters, all\nthe relatives mentioned are painters save four, two of whom were gifted\nin sculpture, one in music and one in embroidery. As to musicians,\nMendelssohn and Meyerbeer are the only ones in his list whose eminent\nkinsmen achieved their success in other careers than music.\n\nHavelock Ellis, who likewise studied British men of genius, throws\nadditional light on the subject. \"Painters and sculptors,\" he found,\n\"constitute a group which appears to be of very distinct interest from\nthe point of view of occupational heredity. In social origin, it may be\nnoted, the group differs strikingly in constitution from the general\nbody of men of genius in which the upper class is almost or quite\npredominant. Of 63 painters and sculptors of definitely known origin,\nonly two can be placed in the aristocratic division. Of the remainder 7\nare the sons of artists, 22 the sons of craftsmen, leaving only 32 for\nall other occupations, which are mainly of lower middle class character,\nand in many cases trades that are very closely allied to crafts. Even,\nhowever, when we omit the trades as well as the cases in which the\nfathers were artists, we find a very notable predominance of craftsmen\nin the parentage of painters, to such an extent indeed that while\ncraftsmen only constitute 9.2% among the fathers of our eminent persons\ngenerally, they constitute nearly 35% among the fathers of the painters\nand sculptors. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that there is a\nreal connection between the father's aptitude for craftsmanship and the\nson's aptitude for art.\n\n\"To suppose that environment adequately accounts for this relationship\nis an inadmissible theory. The association between the craft of builder,\ncarpenter, tanner, jeweller, watchmaker, woodcarver, ropemaker, etc.,\nand the painter's art is small at best, and in most cases is\nnon-existent.\"\n\nArreat, investigating the heredity of 200 eminent European painters,\nreached results similar to those of Ellis, according to the latter's\ncitation.\n\nArithmetical ability seems similarly to be subdivided, according to Miss\nCobb.[42] She made measurements of the efficiency with which children\nand their parents could do problems in addition, subtraction,\nmultiplication and division, and could copy a column of figures. \"The\nmeasurements made,\" she writes, \"show that if, for instance, a child is\nmuch quicker than the average in subtraction, but not in addition,\nmultiplication or division, it is to be expected that one at least of\nhis parents shows a like trait; or if he falls below the average in\nsubtraction and multiplication, and exceeds it in addition and division,\nagain the same will hold true of at least one of his parents.\" These\nvarious kinds of arithmetic appear to be due to different functions of\nthe brain, and are therefore probably inherited independently, if they\nare inherited at all.\n\nTo assume that the resemblance between parent and offspring in\narithmetical ability is due to association, training and imitation is\nnot plausible. If this were the case, a class of children ought to come\nto resemble their teacher, but they do not. Moreover, the child\nsometimes resembles more closely the parent with whom he has been less\nassociated in daily life.\n\nFrom such data as these, we conclude that mental inheritance is\nconsiderably specialized. This conclusion is in accord with Burris'\nfinding (cited by Thorndike) that the ability to do well in some one\nhigh school study is nearly or quite as much due to ancestry as is the\nability to do well in the course as a whole.\n\nTo sum up, we have reason to believe not only that one's mental\ncharacter is due largely to heredity, but that the details of it may be\nequally due to heredity, in the sense that for any particular trait or\ncomplex in the child there is likely to be found a similar trait or\ncomplex in the ancestry. Such a conclusion should not be pushed to the\npoint of assuming inheritance of all sorts of dispositions that might be\ndue to early training; on the other hand, a survey of the whole field\nwould probably justify us in concluding that any given trait is _more\nlikely than not_ to be inherited. The effect of training in the\nformation of the child's mental character is certainly much less than is\npopularly supposed; and even for the traits that are most due to\ntraining, it must never be forgotten that there are inherited mental\nbases.\n\nIf the reader has accepted the facts presented in this chapter, and our\ninferences from the facts, he will admit that mental differences between\nmen are at bottom due to heredity, just as physical differences are;\nthat they are apparently inherited in the same manner and in\napproximately the same degree.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTHE LAWS OF HEREDITY\n\n\nWe have now established the bases for a practicable eugenics program.\nMen differ; these differences are inherited; therefore the make-up of\nthe race can be changed by any method which will alter the relative\nproportions of the contributions which different classes of men make to\nthe following generation.\n\nFor applied eugenics, it is sufficient to know that mental and physical\ndifferences are inherited; the exact manner of inheritance it would be\nimportant to know, but even without a knowledge of the details of the\nmechanism of heredity, a program of eugenics is yet wholly feasible.\n\nIt is no part of the plan of this book to enter into the details of the\nmechanism of heredity, a complicated subject for which the reader can\nrefer to one of the treatises mentioned in the bibliography at the close\nof this volume. It may be worth while, however, to outline in a very\nsummary way the present status of the question.\n\nAs to the details of inheritance, research has progressed in the last\nfew years far beyond the crude conceptions of a decade ago, when a\nprimitive form of Mendelism was made to explain everything that\noccurred.[43] One can hardly repress a smile at the simplicity of those\nearly ideas,--though it must be said that some students of eugenics have\nnot yet outgrown them. In those days it was thought that every visible\ncharacter in man (or in any other organism) was represented by some\n\"determiner\" in the germ-plasm; that by suitable matings a breeder could\nrid a stream of germ-plasm of almost any determiner he wished; and that\nthe corresponding unit character would thereupon disappear from the\nvisible make-up of the individual. Was a family reported as showing a\ntaint, for instance, hereditary insanity? Then it was asserted that by\nthe proper series of matings, it was possible to squeeze out of the\ngerm-plasm the particular concrete _something_ of which insanity was the\nvisible expression, and have left a family stock that was perfectly\nsound and sane.\n\nThe minute, meticulous researches of experimental breeders[44] have left\nsuch a view of heredity far behind. Certainly the last word has not been\nsaid; yet the present hypotheses _work_, whenever the conditions are\nsuch as to give a fair chance. The results of these studies have led to\nwhat is called the factorial hypothesis of heredity,[45] according to\nwhich all the visible characters of the adult are produced by (purely\nhypothetical) factors in the germ-plasm; it is the factors that are\ninherited, and they, under proper conditions for development, produce\nthe characters. The great difference between this and the earlier view\nis that instead of allotting one factor to each character, students now\nbelieve that each individual character of the organism is produced by\nthe action of an indefinitely large number of factors,[46] and they\nhave been further forced to adopt the belief that each individual\nfactor affects an indefinitely large number of characters, owing to the\nphysiological interrelations and correlations of every part of the body.\n\n[Illustration: HOW DO YOU CLASP YOUR HANDS?\n\nFIG. 16.--If the hands be clasped naturally with fingers\nalternating, as shown in the above illustration, most people will put\nthe same thumb--either that of the right or that of the left\nhand--uppermost every time. Frank E. Lutz showed (_American Naturalist_,\nxliii) that the position assumed depends largely on heredity. When both\nparents put the right thumb uppermost, about three-fourths of the\nchildren were found to do the same. When both parents put the left thumb\nuppermost, about three-fifths of the children did the same. No definite\nratios could be found from the various kinds of matings. Apparently the\nmanner of clasping hands has no connection with one's right-handedness\nor left-handedness. It can hardly be due to imitation for the trait is\nsuch a slight one that most people have not noticed it before their\nattention is called to it by the geneticist. Furthermore, babies are\nfound almost always to clasp the hands in the same way every time. The\ntrait is a good illustration of the almost incredible minuteness with\nwhich heredity enters into a man's make-up. Photograph by John Howard\nPaine.]\n\nThe sweet pea offers a good illustration of the widespread effects which\nmay result from the change of a single factor. In addition to the\nordinary climbing vine, there is a dwarf variety, and the difference\nbetween the two seems to be proved, by exhaustive experimental breeding,\nto be due to only one inherited factor. Yet the action of this one\nfactor not only changes the height of the plant, but also results in\nchanges in color of foliage, length of internodes, size and arrangement\nof flowers, time of opening of flowers, fertility and viability.\n\nAgain, a mutant stock in the fruit fly (Drosophila) has as its most\nmarked characteristic very short wings. \"But the factor for rudimentary\nwings also produces other effects as well. The females are almost\ncompletely sterile, while the males are fertile. The viability of the\nstocks is poor. When flies with rudimentary wings are put into\ncompetition with wild flies relatively few of the rudimentary flies come\nthrough, especially if the culture is crowded. The hind legs are also\nshortened. All of these effects are the results of a single\nfactor-difference.\" To be strictly accurate, then, one should not say\nthat a certain variation affects length of wing, but that its _chief_\neffect is to shorten the wing.\n\n\"One may venture to guess,\" T. H. Morgan says,[47] \"that some of the\nspecific and varietal differences that are characteristic of wild types\nand which at the same time appear to have no survival value, are only\nby-products of factors whose most important effect is on another part\nof the organism where their influence is of vital importance.\"\n\n\"I am inclined to think,\" Professor Morgan continues, \"that an\noverstatement to the effect that each factor may affect the entire body,\nis less likely to do harm than to state that each factor affects only a\nparticular character. The reckless use of the phrase 'unit character'\nhas done much to mislead the uninitiated as to the effects that a single\nchange in the germ-plasm may produce on the organism. Fortunately the\nexpression 'unit character' is being less used by those students of\ngenetics who are more careful in regard to the implications of their\nterminology.\"\n\n[Illustration: THE EFFECT OF ORTHODACTYLY\n\nFIG. 17.--At the left is a hand with the third, fourth and\nfifth fingers affected. The middle joints of these fingers are stiff and\ncannot be bent. At the right the same hand is shown, closed. A normal\nhand in the middle serves to illustrate by contrast the nature of the\nabnormality, which appears in every generation of several large\nfamilies. It is also called symphalangism, and is evidently related to\nthe better-known abnormality of brachydactyly. Photograph from Frederick\nN. Duncan.]\n\n[Illustration: A FAMILY WITH ORTHODACTYLY\n\nFIG. 18.--Squares denote males and circles females, as is usual\nin the charts compiled by eugenists; black circles or squares denote\naffected individuals. A1 had all fingers affected in the way shown in\nFig. 17; B2 had all but one finger affected; C2 had all but one finger\naffected; D2 had all fingers affected; D3 has all but forefingers\naffected. The family here shown is a branch, found by F. N. Duncan, of a\nvery large family first described by Harvey Cushing, in which this\nabnormality has run for at least seven generations. It is an excellent\nexample of an inherited defect due to a single Mendelian factor.]\n\nOne of the best attested single characters in human heredity is\nbrachydactyly, \"short-fingerness,\" which results in a reduction in the\nlength of the fingers by the dropping out of one joint. If one lumps\ntogether all the cases where any effect of this sort is found, it is\nevident that normals never transmit it to their posterity, that affected\npersons always do, and that in a mating between a normal and an affected\nperson, all the offspring will show the abnormality. It is a good\nexample of a unit character.\n\nBut its effect is by no means confined to the fingers. It tends to\naffect the entire skeleton, and in a family where one child is markedly\nbrachydactylous, that child is generally shorter than the others. The\nfactor for brachydactyly evidently produces its primary effect on the\nbones of the hand, but it also produces a secondary effect on all the\nbones of the body.\n\nMoreover, it will be found, if a number of brachydactylous persons are\nexamined, that no two of them are affected to exactly the same degree.\nIn some cases only one finger will be abnormal; in other cases there\nwill be a slight effect in all the fingers; in other cases all the\nfingers will be highly affected. Why is there such variation in the\nresults produced by a unit character? Because, presumably, in each\nindividual there is a different set of modifying factors or else a\nvariation in the factor. It has been found that an abnormality quite\nlike brachydactyly is produced by abnormality in the pituitary gland. It\nis then fair to suppose that the factor which produces brachydactyly\ndoes so by affecting the pituitary gland in some way. But there must be\nmany other factors which also affect the pituitary and in some cases\nprobably favor its development, rather than hindering it. Then if the\nfactor for brachydactyly is depressing the pituitary, but if some other\nfactors are at the same time stimulating that gland, the effect shown in\nthe subject's fingers will be much less marked than if a group of\nmodifying factors were present which acted in the same direction as the\nbrachydactyly factor,--to perturb the action of the pituitary gland.\n\nThis illustration is largely hypothetical; but there is no room for\ndoubt that every factor produces more than a single effect. A white\nblaze in the hair, for example, is a well-proved unit factor in man; the\nfactor not only produces a white streak in the hair, but affects the\npigmentation of the skin as well, usually resulting in one or more white\nspots on some part of the body. It is really a factor for \"piebaldism.\"\n\nFor the sake of clear thinking, then, the idea of a unit character due\nto some unit determiner or factor in the germ-plasm must be given up,\nand it must be recognized that every visible character of an individual\nis the result of numerous factors, or differences in the germ-plasm.\nOrdinarily one of these produces a more notable contribution to the\nend-product than do the others; but there are cases where this statement\ndoes not appear to hold good. This leads to the conception of _multiple\nfactors_.\n\nIn crossing a wheat with brown chaff and one with white chaff, H.\nNilsson-Ehle (1909) expected in the second hybrid generation to secure a\nratio of 3 brown to 1 white. As a fact, he got 1410 brown and 94 white,\na ratio of 15:1. He interpreted this as meaning that the brown color in\nthis particular variety was due not to one factor, but to two, which\nwere equivalent to each other, and either one of which would produce the\nsame result alone as would the two acting together. In further crossing\nred wheat with white, he secured ratios which led him to believe that\nthe red was produced by three independent factors, any one of which\nwould produce red either alone or with the other two. A. and G. Howard\nlater corroborated this work,[48] but showed that the three factors were\nnot identical: they are qualitatively slightly different, although so\nclosely similar that the three reds look alike at first sight. E. M.\nEast has obtained evidence from maize and G. H. Shull from\nshepherd's-purse, which bears out the multiple factor hypothesis.\n\n[Illustration: WHITE BLAZE IN THE HAIR\n\nFIG. 19.--The white lock of hair here shown is hereditary and\nhas been traced back definitely through six generations; family\ntradition derives it from a son of Harry \"Hot-Spur\" Percy, born in 1403,\nand fallaciously assigns its origin to \"prenatal influence\" or \"maternal\nimpression.\" This young woman inherited the blaze from her father, who\nhad it from his mother, who had it from her father, who migrated from\nEngland to America nearly a century ago. The trait appears to be a\nsimple dominant, following Mendel's Law; that is, when a person with one\nof these locks who is a child of one normal and one affected parent\nmarries a normal individual, half of the children show the lock and half\ndo not. Photograph from Newton Miller.]\n\n[Illustration: A FAMILY OF SPOTTED NEGROES\n\nFIG. 20.--The piebald factor sometimes shows itself as nothing\nmore than a blaze in the hair (see preceding figure); but it may take a\nmuch more extreme form, as illustrated by the above photograph from Q.\nI. Simpson and W. E. Castle. Mrs. S. A., a spotted mutant, founded a\nfamily which now comprises, in several generations, 17 spotted and 16\nnormal offspring. The white spotting factor behaves as a Mendelian\ndominant, and the expectation would be equal numbers of normal and\naffected children. Similar white factors are known in other animals. It\nis worth noting that all the well attested Mendelian characters in man\nare abnormalities, no normal character having yet been proved to be\ninherited in this manner.]\n\nApart from multiple factors as properly defined (that is, factors which\nproduce the same result, either alone or together), extensive analysis\nusually reveals that apparently simple characters are in reality\ncomplex. The purple aleurone color of maize seeds is attributed by R. A.\nEmerson to five distinct factors, while E. Baur found four factors\nresponsible for the red color of snapdragon blossoms. There are, as G.\nN. Collins says,[49] \"still many gross characters that stand as\nsimple Mendelian units, but few, if any, of these occur in plants or\nanimals that have been subjected to extensive investigation. There is\nnow such a large number of characters which at first behaved as units,\nbut which have since been broken up by crossing with suitable selected\nmaterial, that it seems not unreasonable to believe that the remaining\ncases await only the discovery of the right strains with which to\nhybridize them to bring about corresponding results.\"\n\nIn spite of the fact that there is a real segregation between factors as\nhas been shown, it must not be supposed that factors and their\ndeterminers are absolutely invariable. This has been too frequently\nassumed without adequate evidence by many geneticists. It is probable\nthat just as the multiplicity and interrelation and minuteness of many\nfactors have been the principal discoveries of genetics in recent years\nthat the next few years will see a great deal of evidence following the\nimportant lead of Castle and Jennings, as to variation in factors.\n\nKnowing that all the characters of an individual are due to the\ninteraction of numerous factors, one must be particularly slow in\nassuming that such complex characters as man's mental traits are units,\nin any proper genetic sense of the word. It will, for instance, require\nvery strong evidence to establish feeble-mindedness as a unit character.\nNo one who examines the collected pedigrees of families marked by\nfeeble-mindedness, can deny that it does appear at first sight to behave\nas a unit character, inherited in the typical Mendelian fashion. The\npsychologist H. H. Goddard, who started out with a strong bias against\nbelieving that such a complex trait could even _behave_ as a unit\ncharacter, thought himself forced by the tabulation of his cases to\nadopt the conclusion that it does behave as a unit character. And other\neugenists have not hesitated to affirm, mainly on the strength of Dr.\nGoddard's researches, that this unit character is due to a single\ndeterminer in the germ-plasm, which either is or is not present,--no\nhalfway business about it.\n\nHow were these cases of feeble-mindedness defined? The definition is\npurely arbitrary. Ordinarily, any adult who tests much below 12 years by\nthe Binet-Simon scale is held to be feeble-minded; and the results of\nthis test vary a little with the skill of the person applying it and\nwith the edition of the scale used. Furthermore, most of the\nfeeble-minded cases in institutions, where the Mendelian studies have\nusually been made, come from families which are themselves of a low\ngrade of mentality. If the whole lot of those examined were measured, it\nwould be difficult to draw the line between the normals and the\naffected; there is not nearly so much difference between the two\nclasses, as one would suppose who only looks at a Mendelian chart.\n\n[Illustration: A HUMAN FINGER-TIP\n\nFIG. 21.--The palms of the hands and soles of the feet are\ncovered with little ridges or corrugations, which are supposed to be\nuseful in preventing the grasp from slipping; whence the name of\nfriction-skin has been given to these surfaces. The ridges are developed\ninto various patterns; the one above is a loop on the left forefinger.\nThe ridges are studded with the openings of the sweat glands, the\nelevated position of which is supposed to prevent them from being\nclogged up; further, the moisture which they secrete perhaps adds to the\nfriction of the skin. Friction-skin patterns are inherited in some\ndegree. Photograph by John Howard Payne.]\n\n[Illustration: THE LIMITS OF HEREDITARY CONTROL\n\nFIG. 22.--Print of a finger-tip showing a loop-pattern,\nenlarged about eight times. This is a common type of pattern, and at\nfirst glance the reader may think it could be mistaken for one of his\nown. There are, however, at least sixty-five \"ridge characteristics\" on\nthe above print, which an expert would recognize and would use for the\npurpose of identification. If it were found that the first two or three\nof them noted corresponded to similar characteristics on another print,\nthe expert would have no doubt that the two prints were made by the same\nfinger. In police bureaus, finger-prints are filed for reference with a\nclassification based on the type of pattern, number of ridges between\ntwo given points, etc.; and a simple formula results which makes it easy\nto find all prints which bear a general resemblance to each other. The\nexact identity or lack of it is then determined by a comparison of such\n_minutiae_ as the sixty-five above enumerated. While the general outline\nof a pattern is inherited, these small characters do not seem to be, but\nare apparently rather due to the stretching of the skin as it grows.\nIllustration from J. H. Taylor.]\n\n[Illustration: DISTRIBUTION OF I Q'S OF 905 UNSELECTED CHILDREN, 5-14\nYEARS OF AGE\n\nTHE DISTRIBUTION OF INTELLIGENCE\n\nFIG. 23.--Diagram showing the mentality of 905 unselected\nchildren, 5 to 14 years of age, who may probably be taken as\nrepresentative of the whole population. The median or tallest column,\nabout one-third of the whole number, represents those who were normal\nor, as a statistician would say, mediocre. Their mental ages and\nchronological ages were practically identical. To the left of these the\ndiminishing columns show the number whose mental ages fell short of\ntheir chronological ages. They are the mentally retarded, ranging all\nthe way down to the lowest one-third of one per cent who represent a\nvery low grade of feeble-mindedness. On the other side the mentally\nsuperior show a similar distribution. A curve drawn over the tops of the\ncolumns makes a good normal curve. \"Since the frequency of the various\ngrades of intelligence decreases _gradually_ and at no point abruptly on\neach side of the median, it is evident that there is no definite\ndividing line between normality and feeble-mindedness, or between\nnormality and genius. Psychologically, the mentally defective child does\nnot belong to a distinct type, nor does the genius.... The common\nopinion that extreme deviations below the median are vastly more\nfrequent than extreme deviations above the median seems to have no\nfoundation in fact. Among unselected school children, at least, for\nevery child of any given degree of deficiency there is roughly another\nchild as far above the average as the former is below.\" Lewis M. Terman,\n_The Measurement of Intelligence_, pp. 66-67.]\n\nIt would be well to extend our view by measuring a whole population with\none of the standard tests. If the intelligence of a thousand children\npicked at random from the population be measured, it will prove (as\noutlined in Chapter III) that some of them are feeble-minded, some are\nprecocious or highly intelligent; and that there is every possible\ndegree of intelligence between the two extremes. If a great number of\nchildren, all 10 years old, were tested for intelligence, it would\nreveal a few absolute idiots whose intelligence was no more than that of\nthe ordinary infant, a few more who were as bright as the ordinary\nkindergarten child, and so up to the great bulk of normal 10-year-olds,\nand farther to a few prize eugenic specimens who had as much\nintelligence as the average college freshman. In other words, this trait\nof general intelligence would be found distributed through the\npopulation in accordance with that same curve of chance, which was\ndiscussed and illustrated when we were talking about the differences\nbetween individuals.\n\nNow what has become of the unit character, feeble-mindedness? How can\none speak of a unit character, when the \"unit\" has an infinite number of\nvalues? Is a _continuous quantity_ a _unit_?\n\nIf intelligence is due to the inheritance of a vast, but indeterminate,\nnumber of factors of various kinds, each of which is independent,\nknowledge of heredity would lead one to expect that some children would\nget more of these factors than others and that, broadly speaking, no two\nwould get the same number. All degrees of intelligence between the idiot\nand the genius would thus exist; and yet we can not doubt that a few of\nthese factors are more important than the others, and the presence of\neven one or two of them may markedly affect the level of intelligence.\n\nIt may make the matter clearer if we return for a moment to the\nphysical. Height, bodily stature, offers a very good analogy for the\ncase we have just been discussing, because it is obvious that it must\ndepend on a large number of different factors, a man's size being due to\nthe sum total of the sizes of a great number of bones, ligaments,\ntissues, etc. It is obvious that one can be long in the trunk and short\nin the legs, or vice versa, and so on through a great number of\npossible combinations. Here is a perfectly measurable character (no one\nhas ever claimed that it is a genetic \"unit character\" _in man_ although\nit behaves as such in some plants) as to the complex basis of which all\nwill agree. And it is known, from common observation as well as from\npedigree studies, that it is not inherited as a unit: children are never\nborn in two discontinuous classes, \"tall\" and \"short,\" as they are with\ncolor blindness or normal color vision, for example. Is it not a fair\nassumption that the difference between the apparent unit character of\nfeeble-mindedness, and the obvious non-unit character of height, is a\nmatter of difference in the number of factors involved, difference in\nthe degree to which they hang together in transmission, variation in the\nfactors, and certainly difference in the method of measurement? Add that\nthe line between normal and feeble-minded individuals is wholly\narbitrary, and it seems that there is little reason to talk about\nfeeble-mindedness as a unit character. It may be true that there is some\nsort of an inhibiting factor inherited as a unit, but it seems more\nlikely that feeble-mindedness may be due to numerous different causes;\nthat its presence in one child is due to one factor or group of factors,\nand in another child to a different one.[50]\n\nIt does not fall wholly into the class of blending inheritance, for it\ndoes segregate to a considerable extent, yet some of the factors may\nshow blending. Much more psychological analysis must be done before the\nquestion of the inheritance of feeble-mindedness can be considered\nsolved. But at present one can say with confidence of this, as of other\nmental traits, that like tends to produce like; that low grades of\nmentality usually come from an ancestry of low mentality, and that\nbright children are usually produced in a stock that is marked by\nintelligence.\n\nMost mental traits are even more complex in appearance than\nfeeble-mindedness. None has yet been proved to be due to a single\ngerminal difference, and it is possible that none will ever be so\ndemonstrated.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 24.--The twins whose finger-prints are\nshown in Fig. 25.]\n\nIntensive genetic research in lower animals and plants has shown that a\nvisible character may be due to\n\n1. Independent multiple factors in the germ-plasm, as in the case of\nwheat mentioned a few pages back.\n\n2. Multiple allelomorphs, that is, a series of different grades of a\nsingle factor.\n\n3. One distinct Mendelian factor (or several such factors), with\nmodifying factors which may cause either (a) intensification, (b)\ninhibition, or (c) dilution.\n\n4. Variation of a factor.\n\n5. Or several or all of the above explanations may apply to one case.\n\nMoreover, the characters of which the origin has been most completely\nworked out are mostly color characters, whose physiological development\nseems to be relatively simple. It is probable that the development of a\nmental character is much more complicated, and therefore there is more\nlikelihood of additional factors being involved.\n\nTo say, then, that any mental trait is a unit character, or that it is\ndue to a single germinal difference, is to go beyond both the evidence\nand the probabilities.\n\nAnd if mental traits are, in their germinal foundations, not simple but\nhighly complex, it follows that any advice given as to how human matings\nshould be arranged to produce any precise result in the progeny, should\nbe viewed with distrust. Such advice can be given only in the case of a\nfew pathological characters such as color-blindness, night-blindness, or\nHuntington's Chorea. It is well that the man or woman interested in one\nof these abnormalities can get definite information on the subject; and\nHuntington's Chorea, in particular, is a dysgenic trait which can and\nshould be stamped out. But it can not be pretended that any of man's\ntraits, as to whose inheritance prediction can be made with confidence,\nis of great importance to national eugenics.\n\nIn short, a knowledge of heredity shows that attempts to predict the\nmode of inheritance of the important human traits (particularly mental\ntraits) are still uncertain in their results. The characters involved\nare too complex to offer any simple sequences. If two parents have brown\neyes, it can not be said that all their children will have brown eyes;\nstill less can it be said that all the children of two musically gifted\nparents are certain to be endowed with musical talent in any given\ndegree.\n\nPrediction is possible only when uniform sequences are found. How are\nsuch sequences to be found in heredity, if they do not appear when a\nparent and his offspring are examined? Obviously it is necessary to\nexamine _a large number_ of parents and their offspring,--to treat the\nproblem by statistical methods.\n\nBut, it may be objected, a uniformity gained by such methods is\nspurious. It is merely shutting the eyes to the mass of contradictions\nwhich are concealed by an apparent statistical uniformity.\n\nThis objection would be valid, if the statistical results were used for\nprediction _in individual cases_. The statistician, however, expressly\nwarns that his conclusions must not be used for such prediction. They\nare intended to predict only general trends, only average results; and\nfor this purpose they are wholly legitimate. Moreover, evolution itself\nis a problem of statistics, and therefore the statistical method of\nstudying heredity may offer results of great value to eugenics, even\nthough it can not furnish in individual cases the prediction which would\nbe desirable.\n\nFrom this standpoint, we return to attack the problem of the relation\nbetween parent and offspring. We noted that there is no uniform sequence\nin a single family, and illustrated this by the case of brown eyes. But\nif a thousand parents and their offspring be selected and some trait,\nsuch as eye-color, or stature, or general intelligence, be measured, a\nuniformity at once appears in the fact of regression. Its discoverer,\nSir Francis Galton, gives this account of it:\n\n[Illustration: FINGER-PRINTS OF TWINS\n\nFIG. 25.--Above are the finger-prints, supplied by J. H. Taylor\nof the Navy Department, of the two young sailors shown in Fig. 24. The\nreader might examine them once or twice without seeing any differences.\nSystematic comparison reveals that the thumbs of the left hands and the\nmiddle fingers of the right hands particularly are distinguishable.\nFinger-prints as a means of identification were popularized by Sir\nFrancis Galton, the founder of eugenics, and their superiority to all\nother methods is now generally admitted. In addition to this practical\nusefulness, they also furnish material for study of the geneticist and\nzooelogist. The extent to which heredity is responsible for the patterns\nis indicated by the resemblance in pattern in spite of the great\nvariability in this tract.]\n\n\"If the word 'peculiarity' be used to signify the difference between the\namount of any faculty possessed by a man, and the average of that\npossessed by the population at large, then the law of regression may\nbe described as follows: each peculiarity in a man is shared by his\nkinsmen, but on the _average_ in a less degree. It is reduced to a\ndefinite fraction of its amount, quite independently of what its amount\nmight be. The fraction differs in different orders of kinship, becoming\nsmaller as they are more remote. When the kinship is so distant that its\neffects are not worth taking into account, the peculiarity of the man,\nhowever remarkable it may have been, is reduced to zero in his kinsmen.\nThis apparent paradox is fundamentally due to the greater frequency of\nmediocre deviations than of extreme ones, occurring between limits\nseparated by equal widths.\"\n\nAs to the application of this law, let Galton himself speak: \"The Law of\nRegression tells heavily against the full hereditary transmission of any\ngift. Only a few out of many children would be likely to differ from\nmediocrity so widely as their Mid-Parent [i. e., the average of their\ntwo parents], allowing for sexual differences, and still fewer would\ndiffer as widely as the more exceptional of the two parents. The more\nbountifully the parent is gifted by nature, the more rare will be his\ngood fortune if he begets a son who is as richly endowed as himself, and\nstill more so if he has a son who is endowed yet more largely. But the\nlaw is evenhanded; it levies an equal succession-tax on the transmission\nof badness as of goodness. If it discourages the extravagant hopes of a\ngifted parent that his children on the average will inherit all his\npowers, it not less discountenances extravagant fears that they will\ninherit all his weakness and disease.\n\n\"It must be clearly understood that there is nothing in these statements\nto invalidate the general doctrine that the children of a gifted pair\nare much more likely to be gifted than the children of a mediocre pair.\"\nTo this it should be added that progeny of very great ability will arise\nmore frequently in proportion to the quality of their parents.\n\nIt must be reiterated that this is a statistical, not a biological, law;\nand that even Galton probably goes a little too far in applying it to\nindividuals. It will hold good for a whole population, but not\nnecessarily for only one family. Further, we can afford to reemphasize\nthe fact that it in no way prevents the improvement of a race by\nselection and assortative mating.\n\nStature is the character which Dr. Galton used to get an exact\nmeasurement of the amount of regression. More recent studies have\nchanged the value he found, without invalidating his method. When large\nnumbers are taken it is now abundantly proved that if parents exceed the\naverage stature of their race by a certain amount their offspring will,\nin general, exceed the racial average by only one-half as much as their\nparents did. This is due, as Galton said, to the \"drag\" of the more\nremote ancestry, which when considered as a whole must represent very\nnearly mediocrity, statistically speaking.\n\nThe general amount of regression in heredity, then, is one-half. If it\nbe expressed as a decimal, .5, the reader will at once note its identity\nwith the coefficient of correlation which we have so often cited in this\nbook as a measure of heredity. In fact, the coefficient of correlation\nis nothing more than a measure of the regression, and it is probably\nsimpler to think of it as correlation than it is to speak of a Law of\nRegression, as Sir Francis did.\n\nThis correlation or regression can, of course, be measured for other\nancestors as well as for the immediate parents. From studies of\neye-color in man and coat-color in horses, Karl Pearson worked out the\nnecessary correlations, which are usually referred to as the law of\nAncestral Inheritance. Dr. Galton had pointed out, years before, that\nthe contributions of the several generations of individuals probably\nformed a geometrical series, and Professor Pearson calculated this\nseries, for the two cases mentioned, as:\n\n Parents Grandparents G-Grandparents G-G-Grandparents\n\n .6244 .1988 .0630 .0202 ... etc.\n\nIn other words, the two parents, together, will on the average of a\ngreat many cases be found to have contributed a little more than\nthree-fifths of the hereditary peculiarities of any given individual;\nthe four grandparents will be found responsible for a little less than\none-fifth, and the eight great-grandparents for about six hundredths,\nand so on, the contribution of each generation becoming smaller with\nascent, but each one having, in the average of many cases, a certain\ndefinite though small influence, until infinity.\n\nIt can not be too strongly emphasized that this is a statistical law,\nnot a biological law. It must not be applied to predict the character of\nthe offspring of any one particular mating, for it might be highly\nmisleading. It would be wholly unjustified, for example, to suppose that\na certain man got three-tenths of his nature from his father, because\nthe Law of Ancestral Heredity required it: in point of fact, he might\nget one-tenth or nine-tenths, none or all of a given trait. But, when\ndealing with a large population, the errors on one side balance the\nerrors on the other, and the law is found, in the cases to which it has\nbeen applied, to express the facts.[51]\n\nWhile, therefore, this Galton-Pearson law gives no advice in regard to\nindividual marriages, it is yet of great value to applied eugenics. In\nthe first place, it crystallizes the vague realization that remote\nancestry is of much less importance than immediate ancestry, to an\nindividual, while showing that every generation has a part in making a\nman what he is. In the second place, it is found, by mathematical\nreasoning which need not here be repeated, that the type of a population\nmay be quickly changed by the mating of like with like; and that this\nnewly established type may be maintained when not capable of further\nprogress. Regression is not inevitable, for it may be overcome by\nselection.\n\nTo put the matter in a more concrete form, there is reason to think that\nif for a few generations superior people would marry only people on the\naverage superior in like degree (superior in ancestry as well as\nindividuality), a point would be reached where all the offspring would\ntend to be superior, mediocrities of the former type being eliminated;\nand this superiority could be maintained as long as care was taken to\navoid mating with inferior. In other words, the Galton-Pearson Law gives\nstatistical support for a belief that eugenic marriages will create an\nimproved breed of men. And this, it seems to us, is the most important\nimplication of that law for eugenics, although it is an implication that\nis generally ignored.\n\nWe do not propose to discuss further the laws of heredity; but it is\nlikely that the reader who has made no other study of the subject may by\nthis time find himself somewhat bewildered. \"Can we talk only in\ngeneralities?\" he may well ask; \"Does eugenics know no laws of heredity\nthat will guide me in the choice of a wife? I thought that was the\npurpose of eugenics!\"\n\nWe reply: (1) The laws of heredity are vastly complicated in man by the\ncomplex nature of most of his characters. The definite way in which some\nabnormalities are inherited is known; but it has not been thought\nnecessary to include an account of such facts in this work. They are set\nforth in other books, especially Davenport's _Heredity in Relation to\nEugenics_. The knowledge of how such a trait as color-blindness is\ninherited may be of importance to one man out of a thousand in choosing\na wife; but we are taking a broader view of eugenics than this. As far\nas the great mass of human characters go, they are, in our opinion, due\nto so many separately inheritable factors that it is not safe to\ndogmatize about exactly how they will behave in heredity. Such\nknowledge, desirable as it may be, is not necessary for race progress.\n\n(2) But it is possible, with present knowledge, to say that human\ntraits, mental as well as physical, are inherited, in a high degree.\nEven before the final details as to the inheritance of all traits are\nworked out--a task that is never likely to be accomplished--there is\nample material on which to base action for eugenics. The basal\ndifferences in the mental traits of man (and the physical as well, of\ncourse) are known to be due to heredity, and little modified by\ntraining. It is therefore possible to raise the level of the human\nrace--the task of eugenics--by getting that half of the race which is,\non the whole, superior in the traits that make for human progress and\nhappiness, to contribute a larger proportion to the next generation than\ndoes the half which is on the whole inferior in that respect. Eugenics\nneed know nothing more, and the smoke of controversy over the exact way\nin which some trait or other is inherited must not be allowed for an\ninstant to obscure the known fact that the level can be raised.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nNATURAL SELECTION\n\n\nMan has risen from the ape chiefly through the action of natural\nselection. Any scheme of conscious race betterment, then, should\ncarefully examine nature's method, to learn to what extent it is still\nacting, and to what extent it may better be supplanted or assisted by\nmethods of man's own invention.\n\nNatural selection operates in two ways: (1) through a selective\ndeath-rate and (2) through a selective birth-rate. The first of these\nforms has often been considered the whole of natural selection, but\nwrongly. The second steadily gains in importance as an organism rises in\nthe scale of evolution; until in man it is likely soon to dwarf the\nlethal factor into insignificance. For it is evident that the appalling\nslaughter of all but a few of the individuals born, which one usually\nassociates with the idea of natural selection, will take place only when\nthe number of individuals born is very large. As the reproductive rate\ndecreases, so does the death-rate, for a larger proportion of those born\nare able to find food and to escape enemies.\n\nWhen considering man, one realizes at once that relatively few babies or\nadults starve to death. The selective death-rate therefore must include\nonly those who are unable to escape their enemies; and while these\nenemies of the species, particularly certain microoerganisms, still take\na heavy toll from the race, the progress of science is likely to make it\nmuch smaller in the future.\n\nThe different aspects of natural selection may be classified as follows:\n\n { Lethal { Sustentative\n { { Non-sustentative\n Natural selection {\n { Reproductive { Sexual\n { { Fecundal\n\nThe lethal factor is the one which Darwin himself most emphasized.\nObviously a race will be steadily improved, if the worst stock in it is\ncut off before it has a chance to reproduce, and if the best stock\nsurvives to perpetuate its kind. \"This preservation of favourable\nindividual differences and variations, and the destruction of those\nwhich are injurious, I have called natural selection, or the survival of\nthe fittest,\" Darwin wrote; and he went on to show that the principal\nchecks on increase were overcrowding, the difficulty of obtaining food,\ndestruction by enemies, and the lethal effects of climate. These causes\nmay be conveniently divided as in the above diagram, into sustentative\nand non-sustentative. The sustentative factor has acquired particular\nprominence in the human species, since Malthus wrote his essay on\npopulation--that essay which both Darwin and Wallace confess was the\nstarting point of their discovery of natural selection.\n\nThere is a \"constant tendency in all animated life to increase beyond\nthe nourishment prepared for it,\" Malthus declared. \"It is\nincontrovertibly true that there is no bound to the prolific plants and\nanimals, but what is made by their crowding and interfering with each\nothers' means of subsistence.\" His deduction is well known: that as man\ntends to increase in geometrical ratio, and can not hope to increase his\nfood-supply more rapidly than in arithmetical ratio, the human race must\neventually face starvation, unless the birth-rate be reduced.\n\nDarwin was much impressed by this argument and ever since his time it\nhas usually been the foundation for any discussion of natural selection.\nNevertheless it is partly false for all animals, as one of the authors\nshowed[52] some years ago, since a species which regularly eats up all\nthe food in sight is rare indeed; and it is of very little racial\nimportance in the present-day evolution of man. Scarcity of food may put\nsufficient pressure on him to cause emigration, but rarely death. The\nimportance of Malthus' argument to eugenics is too slight to warrant\nfurther discussion.\n\nWhen the non-sustentative forms of lethal selection are considered, it\nis seen very clearly that man is not exempt from the workings of this\nlaw. A non-sustentative form of natural selection takes place through\nthe destruction of the individual by some adverse feature of the\nenvironment, such as excessive cold, or bacteria; or by bodily\ndeficiency; and it is independent of mere food-supply. W. F. R. Weldon\nshowed by a long series of measurements, for example, that as the harbor\nof Plymouth, England, kept getting muddier, the crabs which lived in it\nkept getting narrower; those with the greatest frontal breadth filtered\nthe water entering their gills least effectively, and died.\n\nBut, it was objected, man is above all this. He has gained the control\nof his own environment. The bloody hand of natural selection may fall on\ncrabs: but surely you would not have us think that Man, the Lord of\nCreation, shares the same fate?\n\nBiologists could hardly think otherwise. Statisticians were able to\nsupply the needed proof. A selective death-rate in man can not only be\ndemonstrated but it can be actually measured.\n\n\"The measure of the selective death-rate.\" says[53] Karl Pearson, to\nwhom this achievement is due, \"is extraordinarily simple. It consists in\nthe fact that the inheritance of the length of life between parent and\noffspring is found statistically to be about one-third of the average\ninheritance of physical characters in man. This can only be due to the\nfact that the death of parent or of offspring in a certain number of\ncases is due to random and not to constitutional causes.\" He arrived at\nthe conclusion[54] that 60% of the deaths were selective, in the Quaker\nfamilies which he was then studying. The exact proportion must vary in\naccordance with the nature of the material and the environment, but as\nA. Ploetz found at least 60% of the deaths to be selective in the\nEuropean royal families and nobility, where the environment is\nuniformly good, there is no reason to think that Professor Pearson's\nconclusion is invalid.\n\nDr. Ploetz[55] investigated the relation between length of life in\nparents, and infant mortality, in about 1,000 families including 5,500\nchildren; half of these were from the nobility and half from the\npeasantry. The results were of the same order in each case, indicating\nthat environment is a much less important factor than many have been\nwont to suppose. After discussing Professor Pearson's work, he\ncontinued:\n\n It seems to me that a simpler result can be reached from our\n material in the following way. Since the greater child-mortality of\n each of our classes of children (divided according to the ages at\n death of their parents) indicates a higher mortality throughout the\n rest of their lives, the offspring of parents who die young will\n therefore be eliminated in a higher degree, that is, removed from\n the composition of the race, than will those whose parents died\n late. Now the elimination can be non-selective, falling on all\n sorts of constitutions with the same frequency and degree. In that\n case it will of course have no connection with selection inside the\n race. Or it may be of a selective nature, falling on its victims\n because they differ from those who are not selected, in a way that\n makes them less capable of resisting the pressure of the\n environment, and avoiding its dangers. Then we speak of a selective\n process, of the elimination of the weaker and the survival of the\n stronger. Since in our examination of the various causes of the\n difference in infant mortality, in the various age-classes of\n parents, we found no sufficient cause in the effects of the\n environment, which necessarily contains all the non-selective\n perils, but found the cause to be in the different constitutions\n inherited by the children, we can not escape the conclusion that\n the differences in infant mortality which we observe indicate a\n strong process of natural selection.\n\n Our tables also permit us to get an approximate idea of the extent\n of selection by death among children in the first five years of\n life. The minimum of infant mortality is reached among those\n children whose parents have attained 85 years of age. Since these\n represent the strongest constitutions, the mortality of their\n children would appear to represent an absolute minimum, made up\n almost wholly of chance, non-selective, unavoidable deaths. As the\n number of children from marriages, both parties to which reached\n 85 years of age, is so small as to render any safe conclusions\n impossible, our only recourse is to take the children of the\n 85-year-old fathers and the children of the 85-year-old mothers,\n add them together, and strike an average. But we must recognize\n that the minimum so obtained is nevertheless still too large,\n because among the consorts of the long-lived fathers and mothers,\n some died early with the result of increasing the infant mortality.\n The infant mortality with the 85-year-old fathers and mothers is\n found to be 11.2%-15.4%, average about 13%. The total\n child-mortality reaches 31-32%, of which the 13% make about 40%.\n Accordingly at least 60%, and considering the above mentioned\n sources of error we may say two-thirds, of the child mortality is\n selective in character. That accords reasonably well with the\n 55-74% which Pearson found for the extent of selective deaths in\n his study.\n\nIn general, then, one may believe that more than a half of the persons\nwho die nowadays, die because they were not fit by by nature (i. e.,\nheredity) to survive under the conditions into which they were born.\nThey are the victims of lethal natural selection, nearly always of the\nnon-sustentative type. As Karl Pearson says, \"Every man who has lived\nthrough a hard winter, every man who has examined a mortality table,\nevery man who has studied the history of nations has probably seen\nnatural selection at work.\"\n\nThere is still another graphic way of seeing natural selection at work,\nby an examination of the infant mortality alone. Imagine a thousand\nbabies coming into the world on a given day. It is known that under\naverage American conditions more than one-tenth of them will die during\nthe first year of life. Now if those who die at this time are the\ninherently weaker, then the death-rate among survivors ought to be\ncorrespondingly less during succeeding years, for many will have been\ncut down at once, who might otherwise have lingered for several years,\nalthough doomed to die before maturity. On the other hand, if only a few\ndie during the first year, one might expect a proportionately greater\nnumber to die in succeeding years. If it is actually found that a high\ndeath-rate in the first year of life is associated with a low\ndeath-rate in succeeding years, then there will be grounds for believing\nthat natural selection is really cutting off the weaker and allowing the\nstronger to survive.\n\nE. C. Snow[56] analyzed the infant mortality registration of parts of\nEngland and Prussia to determine whether any such conclusion was\njustified. His investigation met with many difficulties, and his results\nare not as clear-cut as could be desired, but he felt justified in\nconcluding from them that \"the general result can not be questioned.\nNatural selection, in the form of a selective death-rate, is strongly\noperative in man in the early years of life. We assert with great\nconfidence that a high mortality in infancy (the first two years of\nlife) is followed by a correspondingly low mortality in childhood, and\nvice-versa.... Our work has led us to the conclusion that infant\nmortality _does_ effect a 'weeding out' of the unfit.\"\n\n\"Unfitness\" in this connection must not be interpreted too narrowly. A\nchild may be \"unfit\" to survive in its environment, merely because its\nparents are ignorant and careless. Such unfitness makes more probable an\ninheritance of low intelligence.\n\nEvidence of natural selection was gathered by Karl Pearson from another\nsource and published in 1912. He dealt with material analogous to that\nof Dr. Snow and showed \"that when allowance was made for change of\nenvironment in the course of 50 years, a very high association existed\nbetween the deaths in the first year of life and the deaths in childhood\n(1 to 5 years). This association was such that if the infantile\ndeath-rate _increased_ by 10% the child death rate _decreased_ by 5.3%\nin males, while in females the _fall_ in the child death-rate was almost\n1% for every 1% _rise_ in the infantile death-rate.\"\n\nTo put the matter in the form of a truism, part of the children born in\nany district in a given year are doomed by heredity to a premature\ndeath; and if they die in one year they will not be alive to die in some\nsucceeding year.\n\nLately a new mathematical method, which is termed the Variate Difference\nCorrelation method, has been invented and gives more accurate results,\nin such an investigation as that of natural selection, than any hitherto\nused. With this instrument Professor Pearson and Miss Elderton have\nconfirmed the previous work. Applying it to the registered births in\nEngland and Wales between 1850 and 1912, and the deaths during the first\nfive years of life in the same period, they have again found[57] that\n\"for both sexes a heavy death-rate in one year of life means a markedly\nlower death-rate in the same group in the following year of life.\" This\nlessened death-rate extends in a lessened degree to the year following\nthat, but is not by the present method easy to trace further.\n\n\"It is difficult,\" as they conclude, \"to believe that this important\nfact can be due to any other source than natural selection, i. e., a\nheavy mortality leaves behind it a stronger population.\"\n\nTo avoid misunderstandings, it may be well to add to this review the\nclosing words of the Elderton-Pearson memoir. \"Nature is not concerned\nwith the moral or the immoral, which are standards of human conduct, and\nthe duty of the naturalist is to point out what goes on in Nature. There\ncan now be scarcely a doubt that even in highly organized human\ncommunities the death-rate is selective, and physical fitness is the\ncriterion for survival. To assert the existence of this selection and\nmeasure its intensity must be distinguished from an advocacy of high\ninfant mortality as a factor of racial efficiency. This reminder is the\nmore needful as there are not wanting those who assert that\ndemonstrating the existence of natural selection in man is identical\nwith decrying all efforts to reduce the infantile death-rate.\" A further\ndiscussion of this point will be found in a later chapter.\n\nThe conclusion that, of the infants who die, a large number do so\nthrough inherent weakness--because they are not \"fit\" to survive--is\nalso suggested by a study of the causes of death. From a third to a half\nof the deaths during the first year of life, and particularly during the\nfirst month, are due to what may be termed uterine causes, such as\ndebility, atrophy, inanition, or premature birth. Although in many\ncases such a death is the result of lack of prenatal care, in still more\nit must be ascribed to a defect in the parental stock.\n\nIn connection with infant mortality, it may be of interest to point out\nthat the intensity of natural selection is probably greater among boys\nthan among girls. There is a steady preponderance of boys over girls at\nbirth (about 105 to 100, in the United States), while among the\nstillborn the proportion is 158 to 100, if the Massachusetts figures for\n1891-1900 may be taken as general in application. Evidently a large\nnumber of weak males have been eliminated before birth. This elimination\ncontinues for a number of years to be greater among boys than among\ngirls, until in the period of adolescence the death-rates of the two\nsexes are equal. In adult life the death-rate among men is nearly always\nhigher than that among women, but this is due largely to the fact that\nmen pursue occupations where they are more exposed to death. In such\ncases, and particularly where deaths are due to accident, the mortality\nmay not only be non-selective, but is sometimes contra-selective, for\nthe strongest and most active men will often be those who expose\nthemselves most to some danger. Such a reversal of the action of natural\nselection is seen on a large scale in the case of war, where the\nstrongest go to the fray and are killed, while the weaklings stay at\nhome to perpetuate _their_ type of the race.\n\nA curious aspect of the kind of natural selection under\nconsideration,--that which operates by death without reference to the\nfood-supply,--is seen in the evolution of a wide pelvis in women. Before\nthe days of modern obstetrics, the woman born with an unusually narrow\npelvis was likely to die during parturition, and the inheritance of a\nnarrower type of pelvis was thus stopped. With the introduction and\nimprovement of instrumental and induced deliveries, many of these women\nare enabled to survive, with the necessary consequence that their\ndaughters will in many cases have a similarly narrow pelvis, and\nexperience similar difficulty in childbirth. The percentage of\ndeliveries in which instrumental aid is necessary is thus increasing\nfrom generation to generation, and is likely to continue to increase\nfor some time. In other words, natural selection, because of man's\ninterference, can no longer maintain the width of woman's pelvis, as it\nformerly did, and a certain amount of reversion in this respect is\nprobably taking place--a reversion which, if unchecked, would\nnecessarily lead after a long time to a reduction in the average size of\nskull of that part of the human race which frequently uses forceps at\nchildbirth. The time would be long because the forceps permit the\nsurvival of some large-headed infants who otherwise would die.\n\nBut it must not be supposed that lethal, non-sustentative selection\nworks only through forms of infant mortality. That aspect was first\ndiscussed because it is most obvious, but the relation of natural\nselection to microbic disease is equally widespread and far more\nstriking.\n\nAs to the inheritance of disease as such there is little room for\nmisunderstanding: no biologist now believes a disease is actually handed\ndown from parent to child in the germ-plasm. But what the doctors call a\ndiathesis, a predisposition to some given disease, is most certainly\nheritable--a fact which Karl Pearson and others have proved by\nstatistics that can not be given here.[58] And any individual who has\ninherited this diathesis, this lack of resistance to a given disease, is\nmarked as a possible victim of natural selection. The extent to which\nand the manner in which it operates may be more readily understood by\nthe study of a concrete case. Tuberculosis is, as everyone knows, a\ndisease caused directly by a bacillus; and a disease to which immunity\ncan not be acquired by any process of vaccination or inoculation yet\nknown. It is a disease which is not directly inherited as such. Yet\nevery city-dweller in the United States is almost constantly exposed to\ninfection by this bacillus, and autopsies show that most persons have\nactually been infected at some period of life, but have resisted\nfurther encroachment. Perhaps a fraction of them will eventually die of\nconsumption; the rest will die of some other disease, and will probably\nnever even know that they have carried the bacilli of tuberculosis in\ntheir lungs.\n\nOf a group of men picked at random from the population, why will some\neventually die of tuberculosis and the others resist infection? Is it a\nmatter of environment?--are open-air schools, sanitary tenements, proper\nhygiene, the kind of measures that will change this condition? Such is\nthe doctrine widely preached at the present day. It is alleged that the\nwhite plague may be stamped out, if the open cases of tuberculosis are\nisolated and the rest of the population is taught how to live properly.\nThe problem is almost universally declared to be a problem of infection.\n\nInfection certainly is the immediate problem, but the biologist sees a\ngreater one a little farther back. It is the problem of natural\nselection.\n\nTo prove this, it is necessary to prove (1) that some people are born\nwith less resistance to tuberculosis than others and (2) that it is\nthese people with weak natural resistance who die of phthisis, while\ntheir neighbors with stronger resistance survive. The proof of these\npropositions has been abundantly given by Karl Pearson, G. Archdall Reid\nand others. Their main points may be indicated. In the first place it\nmust be shown that the morbidity from tuberculosis is largely due to\nheredity--a point on which most medical men are still uninformed.\nMeasurement of the direct correlation between phthisis in parent and\nchild shows it to be about .5, i. e., what one expects if it is a matter\nof heredity. This is the coefficient for most physical and mental\ncharacters: it is the coefficient for such pathological traits as\ndeafness and insanity, which are obviously due in most cases to\ninheritance rather than infection.\n\nBut, one objects, this high correlation between parent and child does\nnot prove inheritance,--it obviously proves infection. The family\nrelations are so intimate that it is folly to overlook this factor in\nthe spread of the disease.\n\nVery well, Professor Pearson replied, if the relations between parent\nand child are so intimate that they lead to infection, they are\ncertainly not less intimate between husband and wife, and there ought to\nbe just as much infection in this relationship as in the former. The\ncorrelation was measured in thousands of cases and was found to lie\naround .25, being lowest in the poorer classes and highest in the\nwell-to-do classes.\n\nAt first glance this seems partly to confirm the objection--it looks as\nif there must be a considerable amount of tubercular infection between\nhusband and wife. But when it is found that the resemblance between\nhusband and wife in the matter of insanity is also .25, the objection\nbecomes less formidable. Certainly it will hardly be argued that one of\nthe partners infects the other with this disability.\n\nAs a fact, a correlation of .25 between husband and wife, for\ntuberculosis, is only partly due to infection. What it does mean is that\nlike tends to mate with like--called assortative mating. This\ncoefficient of resemblance between husband and wife in regard to\nphthisis is about the same as the correlation of resemblance between\nhusband and wife for eye color, stature, longevity, general health,\ntruthfulness, tone of voice, and many other characters. No one will\nsuppose that life partners \"infect\" each other in these respects.\nCertainly no one will claim that a man deliberately selects a wife on\nthe basis of resemblance to himself in these points; but he most\ncertainly does so to some extent unconsciously, as will be described at\ngreater length in Chapter XI. Assortative mating is a well-established\nfact, and there is every reason to believe that much of the resemblance\nbetween husband and wife as regards tuberculosis is due to this fact,\nand not to infection.[59]\n\nAgain, it is objected that the infection of children is not a family\nmatter, but due to tuberculous cows' milk: how then does it appear\nequally among the Japanese, where cows are not tuberculous and cow's\nmilk rarely used as an infant food: or among such people as the\nEsquimaux and Polynesians, who have never seen a cow?\n\nBut, it is argued, at any rate bad housing and unsanitary conditions of\nlife will make infection easier and lower the resistance of the\nindividual. Perhaps such conditions may make infection easier, but that\nis of little importance considering how easy it is for all city\ndwellers--for the population as a whole. The question remains, will not\nbad housing cause a greater liability to fatal phthisis? Will not\ndestitution and its attendant conditions increase the probability that a\ngiven individual will succumb to the white plague?\n\nMost physicians think this to be the case, but they have not taken the\npains to measure the respective roles, by the exact methods of modern\nscience. S. Adolphus Knopf of New York, an authority on tuberculosis,\nrecognizes the importance of the heredity factor, but says that after\nthis, the most important predisposing conditions are of the nature of\nunsanitary schools, unsanitary tenements, unsanitary factories and\nworkshops. This may be very true; these conditions may follow after\nheredity in importance--but how near do they follow? That is a matter\ncapable of fairly accurate measurement, and should be discussed with\nfigures, not generalities.\n\nTaking the case of destitution, which includes, necessarily, most of the\nother evils specified, Professor Pearson measured the correlation with\nliability to phthisis and found it to be .02. The correlation for direct\nheredity--that is, the resemblance between parent and offspring--it will\nbe remembered, is .50. As compared with this, the environmental factor\nof .02 is utterly insignificant. It seems evident that whether or not\none dies from tuberculosis, under present-day urban conditions, depends\nmainly on the kind of constitution one has inherited.\n\nThere is no escape, then, from the conclusion that in any individual,\ndeath from tuberculosis is largely a matter of natural selection. But\nby taking a longer view, one can actually see the change to which\nnatural selection is one of the contributors. The following table shows\nthe deaths from consumption in Massachusetts, per 10,000 population:\n\n 1851-60 39.9\n 1861-70 34.9\n 1871-80 32.7\n 1881-90 29.2\n 1891-1900 21.4\n 1901 17.5\n 1902 15.9\n\nF. L. Hoffman further points out[60] that in Massachusetts, Rhode Island,\nand Connecticut, 1872-1911, the decline in the death-rate from\ntuberculosis has been about 50%. \"The evidence is absolutely conclusive\nthat actually as well as relatively, the mortality from tuberculosis in\nwhat is the most intensely industrial area of America has progressively\ndiminished during the last 40 years.\"\n\nIt will be noted that the great increase in death from consumption in\nthis area began in the decade following 1840, when the large Irish\nimmigration began. The Irish are commonly believed to be particularly\nsusceptible to phthisis. Crowded together in industrial conditions, they\nrapidly underwent infection, and their weak racial resistance led to a\nhigh death-rate. The weak lines of heredity were rapidly cut off; in\nother words, the intensity of natural selection was great, for a while.\nThe result was to leave the population of these New England states much\nmore resistant, on the average, than it was before; and as the Irish\nimmigration soon slowed down, and no new stocks with great weakness\narrived, tuberculosis naturally tended to \"burn itself out.\" This seems\nto be a partial explanation of the decline in the death-rate from\nphthisis in New England during the last half century, although it is not\nsuggested that it represents the complete explanation: improved methods\nof treatment and sanitation doubtless played their part. But that they\nare the sole cause of the decline is made highly improbable by the low\ncorrelation between phthisis and environmental factors, which was\nmentioned above, and by all the other biometric study of tuberculosis,\nwhich has proved that the results ascribed to hygiene, including\nsanitorium treatment, are to some degree illusory.\n\nThat tuberculosis is particularly fatal to the Negro race is well known.\nEven to-day, after several centuries of natural selection in the United\nStates, the annual death-rate from consumption among Negroes in the\nregistration area is 431.9 per 100,000 population (census of 1900) as\ncompared with 170.5 for the whites; in the cities alone it is 471.0.\nThat overcrowding and climate can not be the sole factors is indicated\nby the fact that the Negro race has been decimated, wherever it has met\ntuberculosis. \"In the years 1803 and 1810 the British government\nimported three or four thousand Negroes from Mozambique into Ceylon to\nform into regiments, and of these in December, 1820, there were left\njust 440, including the male descendants. All the rest had perished\nmainly from tuberculosis, and in a country where the disease is not\nnearly so prevalent as in England.\"[61] Archdall Reid has pointed\nout[62] that the American, Polynesian and Australian aborigines, to whom\ntuberculosis was unknown before the advent of Europeans, and who had\ntherefore never been selected against it, could not survive its advent:\nthey were killed by much smaller infections than would have injured a\nEuropean, whose stock has been purged by centuries of natural selection.\n\nThese racial histories are the most important evidence available to the\nstudent of natural selection in man. The conclusion to be drawn from\nthem seems plain. Natural selection, which has in the past never had an\nopportunity to act upon the Negro race through tuberculosis, is now\nengaged in hastening, at a relatively rapid rate, the evolution of this\nrace toward immunity from death by tuberculosis. The evolution of the\nwhite race on this line is, as the figures show, going on\nsimultaneously, but having begun centuries earlier, it is not now so\nrapid. The weakest white stocks were cut off hundreds of years ago, in\nGreat Britain or Europe; those of the black race are only now going.\nDespite all the efforts of medicine and sanitation, it is likely that\nthe Negro death-rate from phthisis will continue high for some years,\nuntil what is left of the race will possess a degree of resistance, or\nimmunity, not much inferior to that of the whites among whom they live.\nThe blacks in North America now must be already more resistant than\ntheir ancestors; the mulattoes descended of normal healthy unions should\nbe more resistant than the pure Negroes, although no statistics are\navailable on the point; but were a new immigration to take place from\nAfrica to-day, and the immigrants to be put into villages with their\nAmericanized brethren, the high death-rate would result.\n\nWhile the Negroes were thus undergoing the radical surgery of natural\nselection, what was happening to the aborigines of America? The answer\nof history is unmistakable; they were meeting the same fate, in an even\nmore violent form. Not tuberculosis alone, but small-pox, measles,\nalcohol and a dozen other importations of the conquerors, found in the\naborigines of the New World a stock which had never been selected\nagainst these diseases.\n\nIt is the custom of sentimentalists sometimes to talk as if the North\nAmerican Indian had been killed off by the white man. So he was,--but\nnot directly: he was killed off by natural selection, acting through the\nwhite man's diseases and narcotics. In 1841 Catlin wrote, \"Thirty\nmillions of white men are now scuffling for the goods and luxuries of\nlife over the bones of twelve millions of red men, six millions of whom\nhave fallen victims to small-pox.\" Small-pox is an old story to the\nwhite race, and the death of the least resistant strains in each\ngeneration has left a population that is fairly resistant. It was new to\nthe natives of America, and history shows the result. Alcohol, too,\ncounted its victims by the thousand, for the same reason. The process of\nnatural selection among the North American Indians has not yet stopped;\nif there are a century from now any Indians left, they will of\nnecessity belong to stocks which are relatively resistant to alcohol and\ntuberculosis and the other widespread and fatal diseases which were\nunknown upon this continent before Columbus.\n\nThe decrease of natives following the Spanish conquest of tropical\nAmerica has long been one of the most striking events of history.\nPopular historians sometimes speak as if most of the native population\nhad been killed off by the cruelty of the conquistadores. Surely such\ntalk could not proceed from those who are familiar with the action of\nnatural selection. It is obvious that when the Spaniard brought the\nnatives together, making them work in mines and assemble in churches, he\nbrought them under conditions especially favorable for infection by the\nnew diseases which he had brought. The aborigines of the New World, up\nto the time the Spaniards came, had undergone no evolution whatever\nagainst these diseases; consequently the evolution began at so rapid a\nrate that in a few centuries only those who lived in out-of-the-way\nplaces remain unscathed.\n\nThe same story is repeated, in a survey of the history of the Pacific\nIslands. Even such a disease as whooping-cough carried off adults by the\nhundred. Robert Louis Stevenson has left a graphic picture[63] of\nnatural selection at work:\n\n\"The tribe of Hapaa,\" he writes, \"is said to have numbered some four\nhundred when the small-pox came and reduced them by one-fourth. Six\nmonths later a woman developed tubercular consumption; the disease\nspread like fire about the valley, and in less than a year two\nsurvivors, a man and a woman, fled from the newly-created solitude....\nEarly in the year of my visit, for example, or late the year before, the\nfirst case of phthisis appeared in a household of 17 persons, and by the\nend of August, when the tale was told me, one soul survived, a boy who\nhad been absent at his schooling.\"\n\nIn Tasmania is another good illustration of the evolution of a race\nproceeding so rapidly as to be fatal to the race. When the first\nEnglish settled on the island, in 1803, the native population consisted\nof several thousand. Tuberculosis and many other new diseases, and, most\nof all, alcohol, began to operate on the aborigines, who were attracted\nto the settlements of the whites. In a quarter of a century there were\nonly a few hundred left. Many, of course, had met violent deaths, but an\nenlightened perusal of any history of the period,[64] will leave no\ndoubt that natural selection by disease was responsible for most of the\nmortality. By 1847 the number of native Tasmanians was reduced to 44,\nwho were already unmistakably doomed by alcohol and bacteria. When the\nlast full-blood Tasmanian died in 1876, a new chapter was written in the\nstory of the modern evolution of the human race.\n\nNo such stories are told about the white settlements on this continent,\neven before the days of quarantine and scientific medicine. There is no\nother adequate explanation of the difference, than that the two races\nhave evolved to a different degree in their resistance to these\ndiseases. It is easily seen, then, that man's evolution is going on, at\nvarying rates of speed, in probably all parts of the human race at the\npresent time.\n\nWe do not mean, of course, to suggest that all the natives who have died\nin the New World since the landing of Columbus, have died because the\nevolution of their race had not proceeded so far in certain directions\nas had that of their conquerors. But the proportion of them who were\neliminated for that reason is certainly very large. In the more remote\nparts of South America the process is still going on. Recent press\ndispatches have carried the account of the University of Pennsylvania's\nAmazon Expedition, under the direction of William C. Farrabee. In a\nletter dated March 16, 1916, the leader told of the discovery of the\nremains of the tribe of Pikipitanges, a once populous tribe of which a\nchief, six women and two boys alone are left. The tribe had been almost\nwiped out, Dr. Farabee reported, by an epidemic of _influenza_!\n\nIf the aborigines of the New World succumb to the diseases of the\nEuropean, it is not less true that the European succumbs to diseases\nagainst which his race has not been selected. The deadliness of yellow\nfever to Americans in the tropics, and the relative immunity of Negroes,\nis familiar; so too is the frequently fatal result of the African\ntropical fevers on the white man, while the natives suffer from them\nmuch less, having been made more resistant by centuries of natural\nselection.\n\nThis long discussion may now be summarized. We dealt with lethal\nselection, that form of natural selection which operates by prematurely\nkilling off the less fit and leaving the more fit to survive and\nreproduce their kind. It is of course understood that the word \"fit\" in\nthis connection does not necessarily mean morally or mentally superior,\nbut merely fit for the particular environment. In a community of\nrascals, the greatest rascal might be the fittest to survive. In the\nslums of a modern city the Jewish type, stringently selected through\ncenturies of ghetto life, is particularly fit to survive, although it\nmay not be the physical ideal of an anthropologist.\n\nTwo forms of lethal selection were distinguished, one depending on\nstarvation and the other on causes not connected with the food supply.\nDirect starvation is not a factor of importance in the survival of most\nraces during most of the time at the present day so far as the civilized\nportion of the world is concerned. But disease and the other lethal\nfactors not connected with the food-supply, through which natural\nselection acts, are still of great importance. From a half to two-thirds\nof all deaths are of a selective character, even under favorable\nconditions.\n\nIt is also to be noted, however, that with the progress of medicine, and\nthe diminution of unfit material, this kind of natural selection will\ntend to become less and less widespread. For a long time, natural\nselection in man has probably done little to cause marked change in his\nphysical or mental characteristics. Man's interference has prevented. In\nrecent centuries natural selection has probably done no more on the\nwhole than keep the race where it was: it is to be feared that it has\nnot even done that. It is doubtful if there is any race to-day which\nattains the physical and mental average of the Athenians of 2,500 years\nago.\n\nLethal natural selection, then, has been and still is a factor of great\nimportance in the evolution of the race, but at present it is doing\nlittle or nothing that promises to further the ideal of eugenics--race\nbetterment.\n\nBut lethal natural selection is only half the story. It is obvious that\nif the constitution of a race can be altered by excess of deaths in a\ncertain class, it can equally be altered by excess of births in a\ncertain class. This is reproductive selection, which may appear in\neither one of two forms. If the individual leaves few or no progeny\nbecause of his failure to mate at the proper time, it is called sexual\nselection; if, however, he mates, yet leaves few or no progeny (as\ncompared with other individuals), it is called fecundal selection.\n\nEven in man, the importance of the role of reproductive selection is\ninsufficiently understood; in the lower animals scientists have tended\nstill more to undervalue it. As a fact, no species ordinarily multiplies\nin such numbers as to exhaust all the food available, despite the\nteaching of Malthus and Darwin to the contrary. The rate of reproduction\nis the crux of natural selection; each species normally has such a\nreproduction rate as will suffice to withstand the premature deaths and\nsterility of some individuals, and yet not so large as to press unduly\nupon the food supply. The problem of natural selection is a problem of\nthe adjustment between reproductive rate and death-rate, and the\nstruggle for subsistence is only one of several factors.\n\nWhile the reproductive rate must be looked upon as a characteristic\nwhich has its adaptations like other characteristics, it has one\npeculiarity--its increase is always opposed by lethal selection. The\nchances of life are reduced by reproducing, inasmuch as more danger is\nentailed by the extra activities of courtship, and later, in bearing and\ncaring for the young, since these duties reduce the normal wariness of\nindividual life. The reproductive rate, therefore, always remains at the\nlowest point which will suffice for the reproductive needs of the\nspecies. For this reason alone the non-sustentative form of selection\nmight be expected to be the predominant kind.\n\nJ. T. Gulick and Karl Pearson have pointed out that there is a normal\nconflict between natural selection and fecundal selection. Fecundal\nselection is said by them to be constantly tending to increase the\nreproductive rate, because fecundity is partly a matter of heredity, and\nthe fecund parents leave more offspring with the same characteristic.\nLethal selection, on the contrary, constantly asserts its power to\nreduce the reproductive rate, because the reproductive demands on the\nparents reduce their chances of life by interference with their natural\nability of self-protection. This is quite true, but the analysis is\nincomplete, for an increased number of progeny not only decreases the\nlife chances of the parents, but also of the young, by reducing the\namount of care they receive.\n\nIn short, lethal selection and reproductive selection accomplish the\nsame end--a change in the constitution of the species--by different\nmeans; but they are so closely linked together and balanced that any\nchange in the operation of one is likely to cause a change in the\noperation of the other. This will be clearer when the effect of\nreproductive selection is studied in man.\n\nRecalling the truism that most human characters have a hereditary basis,\nit is evident that the constitution of society will remain stable from\ngeneration to generation, only if each section of society is reproducing\nat the same rate as every other (and assuming, for the moment, that the\ndeath-rate remains constant). Then if the birth-rate of one part of the\npopulation is altered, if it is decreased, for example, the next\ngeneration will contain proportionately fewer representatives of this\nclass, the succeeding generation fewer still, and so on\nindefinitely--unless a selective death-rate is operating at the same\ntime. It is well known not only that the death-rate varies widely in\ndifferent parts of the population, as was pointed out in the earlier\npart of this chapter, but that the birth-rate is rarely the same in any\ntwo sections of the population. Evidently, therefore, the make-up of\nsociety must necessarily be changing from generation to generation. It\nwill be the object of the rest of this chapter to investigate the ways\nin which it is changing, while in the latter half of the book we shall\npoint out some of the ways in which it might be changed to better\nadvantage than it is at present.\n\nSexual selection, or differential success in marrying, will be discussed\nat some length in Chapter XI; here it may be pointed out that the number\nwho fail to marry is very much greater than one often realizes. It has\nalready been noted that a large part of the population dies before it\nreaches the age of marriage. Of 1,000 babies born in the United States,\nonly 750 will reach the average age of marriage; in some countries half\nof the thousand will have fallen by that time. These dead certainly will\nleave no descendants; but even of the survivors, part will fail to\nmarry. The returns of the thirteenth U. S. census showed that of the\nmales 45-64 years of age, 10% were single, while 11% of the females,\n35-44 years old, were single. Few marriages will take place after those\nages. Add the number who died unmarried previous to those ages, but\nafter the age of 20, and it is safe to say that at least one-third of\nthe persons born in the United States die (early or late) without having\nmarried.\n\nThe consideration of those who died before the age of marriage properly\ncomes under the head of lethal selection, but if attention is confined\nto those who, though reaching the age of marriage, fail to marry, sexual\nselection still has importance. For instance, it is generally known (and\nsome statistical proof will be given in Chapter XI) that beauty is\ndirectly associated with the chance of marriage. The pretty girls in\ngeneral marry earlier as well in larger percentage; many of the ugly\nones will never find mates. Herbert Spencer argued ingeniously that\nbeauty is associated with general mental and moral superiority, and the\nmore exact studies of recent years have tended to confirm his\ngeneralization. A recent, but not conclusive, investigation[65] showed\nbeauty to be correlated with intelligence to the extent of .34. If this\nis confirmed, it offers a good illustration of the action of sexual\nselection in furthering the progressive evolution of the race. Miss\nGilmore, studying a group of normal school graduates, found a direct\ncorrelation between intelligence (as judged by class marks) and early\nmarriage after graduation. Anyone who would take the trouble could\neasily investigate numerous cases of this sort, which would show the\neffect of sexual selection in perpetuating desirable qualities.\n\nBut sexual selection no longer has the importance that it once had, for\nnowadays the mere fact of marriage is not a measure of fecundity, to the\nextent that it once was. In the old days of unlimited fecundity, the\nearly marriage of a beautiful, or intelligent, woman meant a probable\nperpetuation of her endowments; but at present, when artificial\nrestraint of fertility is so widespread, the result does not follow as a\nmatter of course: and it is evident that the race is little or not at\nall helped by the early marriage of an attractive woman, if she has too\nfew or no children.\n\nFecundal selection, then, is becoming the important phase of\nreproductive selection, in the evolution of civilized races. The\ndifferential birth-rate is, as we have often insisted, the all-important\nfactor of eugenics, and it merits careful consideration from all sides.\n\nSuch consideration is made difficult by the inadequate vital statistics\nof the United States (which ranks with Turkey and China in this\nrespect); but there is no doubt that the birth-rate as a whole is low,\nas compared with that of other countries; although as a whole it is not\ndangerously low and there is, of course, no necessary evil in a low\nbirth-rate, of itself, if the quality be satisfactory. The U. S. Census\ntabulation for 1915 gives the following comparison of the number of\nbabies born alive each year, per 1,000 population, in various countries:\n\n Russia in Europe (1909) 44.0\n Japan (1911) 34.1\n Italy (1913) 31.7\n Austria (1912) 31.3\n Spain (1913) 30.4\n Austria (1913) 28.3\n German Empire (1912) 28.3\n Holland (1913) 28.1\n Denmark (1913) 25.6\n Norway (1913) 25.3\n United States (registration area only, 1915) 24.9\n England and Wales (1913) 24.1\n Sweden (1912) 23.8\n Switzerland (1913) 23.1\n Belgium (1912) 22.6\n France (1912) 19.0\n\nThe United States birth-rate may, on its face, appear high enough; but\nits face does not show that this height is due largely to the fecundity\nof immigrant women. Statistics to prove this are given in Chapter XIII,\nbut may be supplemented here by some figures from Pittsburgh.\n\nWard 7, in that city, contains the homes of many well-to-do, and\ncontains more representatives of the old American stock than any other\nward in the city, having 56.4% of residents who are native born of\nnative parents while the majority of the residents in nearly all the\nother wards in the city are either themselves foreign-born, or the\noffspring of foreign-born parents.\n\nWard 7 has the lowest birth-rate and the lowest rate of net increase of\nany ward in the city.\n\nWith this may be contrasted the sixth ward, which runs along the south\nbank of the Allegheny river. It is one of the great factory districts of\nthe city, but also contains a large number of homes. Nearly 3,000 of its\n14,817 males of voting age are illiterate. Its death-rate is the highest\nin the city. Almost nine-tenths of its residents are either foreigners\nor the children of foreigners. Its birth-rate is three times that of the\nseventh ward.\n\nTaking into account all the wards of the city, it is found that the\nbirth-rate _rises_ as one considers the wards which are marked by a\nlarge foreign population, illiteracy, poverty and a high death-rate. On\nthe other hand, the birth-rate _falls_ as one passes to the wards that\nhave most native-born residents, most education, most prosperity--and,\nto some extent, education and prosperity denote efficiency and eugenic\nvalue. For 27 wards there is a high negative correlation (-.673),\nbetween birth-rate and percentage of native-born of native parents in\nthe population. The correlation between illiteracy and net increase[66]\nis +.731.\n\nThe net increase of Pittsburgh's population, therefore, is greatest\nwhere the percentage of foreign-born and of illiterates is greatest.\n\nThe significance of such figures in natural selection must be evident.\nPittsburgh, like probably all large cities in civilized countries,\nbreeds from the bottom. The lower a class is in the scale of\nintelligence, the greater is its reproductive contribution. Recalling\nthat intelligence is inherited, that like begets like in this respect,\none can hardly feel encouraged over the quality of the population of\nPittsburgh, a few generations hence.\n\nOf course these illiterate foreign laborers are, from a eugenic point of\nview, not wholly bad. The picture should not be painted any blacker than\nthe original. Some of these ignorant stocks, in another generation and\nwith decent surroundings, will furnish excellent citizens.\n\nBut taken as a whole, it can hardly be supposed that the fecund stocks\nof Pittsburgh, with their illiteracy, squalor and tuberculosis, their\nhigh death-rates, their economic straits, are as good eugenic material\nas the families that are dying out in the more substantial residence\nsection which their fathers created in the eastern part of the city.\n\nAnd it can hardly be supposed that the city, and the nation, of the\nfuture, would not benefit by a change in the distribution of births,\nwhereby more would come from the seventh ward and its like, and fewer\nfrom the sixth and its like.\n\nEvidently, there is no difficulty about seeing this form of natural\nselection at work, and at work in such a way as greatly to change the\ncharacter of one section of the species. For comparison, some figures\nare presented from European sources. In the French war budget of 1911 it\nappears that from 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 50, in\ndifferent districts of Paris, the number of yearly births was as\nfollows:\n\n Very poor 108\n Poor 99\n Well-to-do 72\n Very prosperous 65\n Rich 53\n Very rich 35\n\nDisregarding the last class altogether, it is yet evident that while the\nmother in a wealthy home bears two children, the mother in the slums\nbears four. It is evident then that in Paris at the present time\nreproductive selection is changing the mental and moral composition of\nthe population at a rapid rate, which can not be very materially reduced\neven if it is found that the death-rate in the poorer districts is\nconsiderably greater than it is on the more fashionable boulevards.\n\nJ. Bertillon has brought together[67] in a similar way data from a\nnumber of cities, showing the following birth-rates:\n\n _Berlin_ _Vienna_ _London_\n Very poor quarters 157 200 147\n Poor quarters 129 164 140\n Comfortable quarters 114 155 107\n Very comfortable 96 153 107\n Rich 63 107 87\n Very rich 47 81 63\n --- --- ---\n Average 102 153 109\n\nObviously, in all these cases reproductive selection will soon bring\nabout such a change in the character of the population, that a much\nlarger part of it than at present will have the hereditary\ncharacteristics of the poorer classes and a much smaller part of it than\nat present the hereditary characteristics of the well-to-do classes.\n\nDavid Heron and others have recently studied[68] the relation which the\nbirth-rate in different boroughs of London bears to their social and\neconomic conditions. Using the correlation method, they found \"that in\nLondon the birth-rate per 1,000 married women, aged 15 to 54, is\nhighest where the conditions show the greatest poverty--namely, in\nquarters where pawnbrokers abound, where unskilled labor is the\nprincipal source of income, where consumption is most common and most\ndeadly, where pauperism is most rife, and, finally, where the greatest\nproportion of the children born die in infancy. The correlation\ncoefficients show that the association of these evil conditions with the\nrelative number of children born is a very close one; and if the\nquestion is put in another way, and the calculations are based on\nmeasures of prosperity instead of on measures of poverty, a high degree\nof correlation is found between prosperity and a low birth-rate.\n\n\"It must not be supposed that a high rate of infant mortality, which\nalmost invariably accompanies a high birth-rate, either in London or\nelsewhere, goes far toward counteracting the effects of the differential\nbirth-rate. Where infant mortality is highest the average number of\nchildren above the age of two for each married woman is highest also,\nand although the chances of death at all ages are greater among the\ninhabitants of the poorer quarters, their rate of natural increase\nremains considerably higher than that of the inhabitants of the richer.\n\n\"From the detailed study of the figures made by Newsholme and Stevenson,\nconclusions essentially the same as those of Heron can be drawn....\nTheir first step was to divide the London boroughs into six groups\naccording to the average number of domestic servants for 100 families in\neach. This is probably as good a measure of prosperity as any other.\nThey then determined the total birth-rate of the population in each\ngroup, and arrived at the following figures:\n\n _Group_\n\n I. 10 domestic servants for 100 families 34.97\n II. 10-20 38.32\n III. 20-30 25.99\n IV. 30-40 25.83\n V. 40-60 25.11\n VI. Over 60 18.24\n\n\"In order to find out how far the differences shown by these figures are\ndue to differences in the percentage of women who marry in each group\nand the age at which they marry, they corrected the figures in such a\nway as to make them represent what the birth-rates would be in each\ngroup, if the proportion of wives of each age to the whole population\ncomprising the group was the same as it is in the whole of England and\nWales. The corrected birth-rates thus obtained were as follows:\n\n _Group_\n\n I 31.56\n II 25.82\n III 25.63\n IV 25.50\n V 25.56\n VI 20.45\n\n\"It will readily be seen that the effect of the correction has been to\nreduce the difference between the two extreme groups by about one-third,\nshowing that to this extent it is due to the way in which they differ as\nto the average age and number of the women who marry. Further, Groups\nII, III, IV and V have all been brought to about the same level, with a\ncorrected birth-rate about halfway between the highest and the lowest.\nThis shows that there is no gradual decrease in fertility associated\nwith a gradually increasing grade of prosperity, but that three sharply\ndivided classes may be distinguished: a very poor class with a high\ndegree of fertility, to which about a quarter of the population of\nLondon belong, a rich class with a low degree of fertility, and a class\nintermediate in both respects.\"\n\n\"Eugenics is less directly concerned with this side of the question that\nwith the relative rate of increase of the different classes. This may be\nfound for the six groups in the usual way by deducting the death-rate\nfrom the birth-rate. The following figures for the rate of natural\nincrease are then obtained:\n\n _Group_\n\n I 16.56\n II 13.89\n III 11.43\n IV 13.81\n V 10.29\n VI 5.79\n\n\"The figures show in a manner which hardly admits of any doubt that in\nLondon at any rate the inhabitants of the poorest quarters--over a\nmillion in number--are reproducing themselves at a much greater rate\nthan the more well-to-do.\"\n\nA research on similar lines by S. R. Steinmetz[69] in Holland shows that\nthe average number of children in the lowest class families is 5.44.\nPeople in industry or small trade, skilled mechanics and professors of\ntheology have five children to the family; in other classes the number\nis as follows:\n\n Artists 4.30\n Well-to-do Commercial Classes 4.27\n High Officials 4.00\n University Professors (excluding theological) 3.50\n 23 Scholars and Artists of the first rank 2.60\n\nIt is not hard to see that the next generation in Holland is likely to\nhave proportionately fewer gifted individuals than has the present one.\n\nFortunately, it is very probable that the differential birth-rate is not\nof such ominous import in rural districts as it is in cities, although\nsome of the tribes of degenerates which live in the country show\nbirth-rates of four to six children per wife.[70] But in the more highly\ncivilized nations now, something like a half of the population lives in\nurban districts, and the startling extent to which these urban\npopulations breed from the bottom involves a disastrous change in the\nbalance of population within a few generations, unless it is in some way\nchecked.\n\nJust how great the change may be, statistically, has been emphasized by\nKarl Pearson, who points out that \"50% of the married population provide\n75% of the next generation,\" owing to the number of deaths before\nmaturity, the number of celibates and the number of childless\nmarriages. \"The same rule may be expressed in another way: 50% of the\nnext generation is produced by 25% of the married population.\" At this\nrate in a few generations the less efficient and socially valuable, with\ntheir large families, will overwhelm the more efficient and socially\nvaluable, and their small families.\n\nFecundal selection is at work to-day on a large scale, changing the\ncharacter of the population, and from a eugenic point of view changing\nit for the worse. Fortunately, it is not impossible to arrest this\nchange.\n\nBut, it may be objected, is not this change merely \"the survival of the\nfittest?\" In a sense, yes; and it is necessary that the more intelligent\nclasses should make themselves \"fitter\" to survive, by a change of\nattitude toward reproduction. But the dying-out of the intellectually\nsuperior part of the population is a pathological condition, not a part\nof normal evolution; for barring artificial interference with the\nbirth-rate, fertility has been found to go hand in hand with general\nsuperiority. This demonstration is due to F. A. Woods' study[71] of 608\nmembers of the royal families of Europe, among whom, for reasons of\nstate, large families are desired, and among whom there has probably\nbeen little restraint on the birth-rate. Averaging the ratings of his\nindividuals from grade 1, the mentally and physically very inferior, to\ngrade 10, the mentally and physically very superior, he found that the\nnumber of children produced and brought to maturity increased in a\nfairly direct ratio. His figures are as follows:\n\n BOTH SEXES (AVERAGED)\n\n Grades for virtues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10\n Average number of\n adult\n children. 1.66 2.86 2.99 2.41 3.44 3.49 3.05 3.03 3.93 3.83\n\nInvestigations of Karl Pearson and Alexander Graham Bell[72] show that\nfecundity and longevity are associated. It follows that the mentally\nand morally superior, who are the most fecund, are also the\nlongest-lived; and as this longevity is largely due to inheritance it\nfollows that, under natural conditions, the standard of the stratum of\nsociety under consideration would gradually rise, in respect to\nlongevity, in each generation.\n\nSuch is probably one of the methods by which the human race has\ngradually increased its level of desirable characters in each\ngeneration. The desirable characters were associated with each other,\nand also with fecundity. The desirable characters are still associated\nwith each other, but their association with fecundity is now negative.\nIt is in this change that eugenics finds justification for its existence\nas a propaganda. Its object is to restore the positive correlation\nbetween desirable characters and fecundity, on which the progressive\nevolution of the race depends.\n\nThe bearing of natural selection on the present-day evolution of the\nhuman race, particularly in the United States of America, must be\nreviewed in a few closing paragraphs.\n\nSelection by death may result either from inadequate food supply, or\nfrom some other lethal factor. The former type, although something of a\nbugaboo ever since the time of Malthus, has in reality relatively little\neffect on the human race at present. Non-sustentative lethal selection\nin man is operating chiefly through zymotic diseases and the bad hygiene\nof the mentally inferior.\n\nReproductive selection is increasingly effective and its action is such\nas to cause grave alarm both through the failure of some to marry\nproperly (sexual selection) and the failure of some to bear enough\nchildren, while others bear too many (fecundal selection). It is obvious\nthat the racial result of this process will depend on what kind of\npeople bear and rear the most children; and it has been shown that in\ngeneral the larger families are in the section of the population that\nmakes fewer contributions to human prosperity and happiness, while those\nendowed with great gifts, who ought to be transmitting them to their\nchildren, are in many cases not even reproducing their own number.\n\nNatural selection raised man from apehood to his present estate. It is\nstill operating on him on a large scale, in several ways, but in none of\nthese ways is it now doing much actually to improve the race, and in\nsome ways, owing to man's own interference, it is rapidly hastening race\ndegeneracy.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nORIGIN AND GROWTH OF THE EUGENICS MOVEMENT\n\n\n\"Eugenics,\" wrote Francis Galton, who founded the science and coined the\nname, \"is the study of agencies under social control that may improve or\nimpair the racial qualities of future generations, either physically or\nmentally.\" The definition is universally accepted, but by its use of the\nword \"study\" it defines a pure science, and the present book is\nconcerned rather with the application of such a science. Accepting\nGalton's definition, we shall for our purposes slightly extend it by\nsaying that applied eugenics embraces all such measures, in use or\nprospect either individually or collectively, as may improve or impair\nthe racial qualities of future generations of man, either physically or\nmentally, whether or not this was the avowed purpose.\n\nIt is one of the newest of sciences. It was practically forced into\nexistence by logical necessity. It is certainly here to stay, and it\ndemands the right to speak, in many cases to cast the deciding vote, on\nsome of the most important questions that confront society.\n\nThe science of eugenics is the natural result of the spread and\nacceptance of organic evolution, following the publication of Darwin's\nwork on _The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection_, in 1859.\nIt took a generation for his ideas to win the day; but then they\nrevolutionized the intellectual life of the civilized world. Man came to\nrealize that the course of nature is regular; that the observed\nsequences of events can be described in formulas which are called\nnatural laws; he learned that he could achieve great results in plant\nand animal breeding by working in harmony with these laws. Then the\nquestion logically arose, \"Is not man himself subject to these same\nlaws? Can he not use his knowledge of them to improve his own species,\nas he has been more or less consciously improving the plants and animals\nthat were of most value to him, for many centuries?\"\n\nThe evolutionist answered both these questions affirmatively. However\ngreat may be the superiority of his mind, man is first of all an animal,\nsubject to the natural laws that govern other animals. He can learn to\ncomply with these laws; he can, therefore, take an active share in\nfurthering the process of evolution toward a higher life.\n\nThat, briefly, is the scope of the science of eugenics, as its founder,\nSir Francis Galton, conceived it. \"Now that this new animal, man, finds\nhimself somehow in existence, endowed with a little power and\nintelligence,\" Galton wrote 30 years ago, \"he ought, I submit, to awake\nto a fuller knowledge of his relatively great position, and begin to\nassume a deliberate part in furthering the great work of evolution. He\nmay infer the course it is bound to pursue, from his observation of that\nwhich it has already followed, and he might devote his modicum of power,\nintelligence and kindly feeling to render its future progress less slow\nand painful. Man has already furthered evolution very considerably, half\nconsciously, and for his own personal advantages, but he has not yet\nrisen to the conviction that it is his religious duty to do so,\ndeliberately and systematically.\"\n\nBut, it may well be asked, how does this sudden need for eugenics arise,\nwhen the world has gone along without it for hundreds of millions of\nyears in the past, and the human race has made the great ascent from an\nape-like condition in spite of the fact that such a science as eugenics\nwas never dreamed of?\n\nFor answer recall that natural selection, which is mainly responsible\nfor bringing man to his present situation, has worked chiefly through a\ndifferential death-rate. The less fit die: the more fit survive. In the\nearlier stages of society, man interfered little with natural selection.\nBut during the last century the increase of the philanthropic spirit and\nthe progress of medicine have done a great deal to interfere with the\nselective process. In some ways, selection in the human race has almost\nceased; in many ways it is actually reversed, that is, it results in the\nsurvival of the inferior rather than the superior. In the olden days the\ncriminal was summarily executed, the weakly child died soon after birth\nthrough lack of proper care and medical attention, the insane were dealt\nwith so violently that if they were not killed by the treatment they\nwere at least left hopelessly \"incurable\" and had little chance of\nbecoming parents. Harsh measures, all of these, but they kept the\ngerm-plasm of the race reasonably purified.\n\nTo-day, how is it? The inefficients, the wastrels, the physical, mental,\nand moral cripples are carefully preserved at public expense. The\ncriminal is turned out on parole after a few years, to become the father\nof a family. The insane is discharged as \"cured,\" again to take up the\nduties of citizenship. The feeble-minded child is painfully \"educated,\"\noften at the expense of his normal brother or sister. In short, the\nundesirables of the race, with whom the bloody hand of natural selection\nwould have made short work early in life, are now nursed along to old\nage.\n\nOf course, one would not have it otherwise with respect to the\nprolongation of life. To expose deformed children as the Spartans did\nwould outrage our moral sentiments; to chloroform the incurable is a\nproposition that almost every one condemns.\n\nBut this philanthropic spirit, this zealous regard for the interests of\nthe unfortunate, which is rightly considered one of the highest\nmanifestations of Christian civilization, has in many cases benefited\nthe few at the expense of the many. The present generation, in making\nits own life comfortable, is leaving a staggering bill to be paid by\nposterity.\n\nIt is at this point that eugenics comes in and demands that a\ndistinction be made between the interests of the individual and the\ninterests of the race. It does not yield to any one in its solicitude\nfor the individual unfortunate; but it says, \"His happiness in life does\nnot need to include leaving a family of children, inheritors of his\ndefects, who if they were able to think might curse him for begetting\nthem and curse society for allowing them to be born.\" And looking at the\nother side of the problem, eugenics says to the young man and young\nwoman, \"You should enjoy the greatest happiness that love can bring to\na life. But something more is expected of you than a selfish,\nshort-sighted indifference to all except yourselves in the world. When\nyou understand the relation of the individual to the race, you will find\nyour greatest happiness only in a marriage which will result in a family\nof worthy children. You are temporarily a custodian of the inheritance\nof the whole past; it is far more disgraceful for you to squander or\nruin this heritage, or to regard it as intended solely for your\nindividual, selfish gratification, than it would be for you to dissipate\na fortune in money which you had received, or to betray any trust which\nhad been confided to you by one of your fellow men.\"\n\nSuch is the teaching of eugenics. It is not wholly new. The early Greeks\ngave much thought to it, and with the insight which characterized them,\nthey rightly put the emphasis on the constructive side; they sought to\nbreed better men and women, not merely to accomplish a work of hygiene,\nto lessen taxes, and reduce suffering, by reducing the number of\nunfortunates among them. As early as the first half of the sixth century\nB. C. the Greek poet Theognis of Megara wrote: \"We look for rams and\nasses and stallions of good stock, and one believes that good will come\nfrom good; yet a good man minds not to wed an evil daughter of an evil\nsire, if he but give her much wealth.... Wealth confounds our stock.\nMarvel not that the stock of our folk is tarnished, for the good is\nmingling with the base.\" A century later eugenics was discussed in some\ndetail by Plato, who suggested that the state intervene to mate the best\nwith the best, and the worst with the worst; the former should be\nencouraged to have large families, and their children should be reared\nby the government, while the children of the unfit were to be, as he\nsays, \"put away in some mysterious, unknown places, as they should be.\"\nAristotle developed the idea on political lines, being more interested\nin the economic than the biological aspects of marriage; but he held\nfirmly to the doctrine that the state should feel free to intervene in\nthe interests of reproductive selection.\n\nFor nearly two thousand years after this, conscious eugenic ideals were\nlargely ignored. Constant war reversed natural selection, as it is doing\nto-day, by killing off the physically fit and leaving the relatively\nunfit to reproduce the race; while monasticism and the enforced celibacy\nof the priesthood performed a similar office for many of the mentally\nsuperior, attracting them to a career in which they could leave no\nposterity. At the beginning of the last century a germ of modern\neugenics is visible in Malthus' famous essay on population, in which he\ndirected attention to the importance of the birth-rate for human\nwelfare, since this essay led Darwin and Wallace to enunciate the theory\nof natural selection, and to point out clearly the effects of artificial\nselection. It is really on Darwin's work that the modern science of\neugenics is based, and it owes its beginning to Darwin's cousin, Francis\nGalton.\n\nGalton was born in 1822, studied mathematics and medicine, traveled\nwidely, attained fame as an explorer in South Africa, and after\ninheriting sufficient income to make him independent, settled down in\nLondon and gave his time to pioneering experiments in many branches of\nscience. He contributed largely to founding the science of meteorology,\nopened new paths in experimental psychology, introduced the system of\nfinger prints to anthropology, and took up the study of heredity,\npublishing in 1865 a series of articles under the title of \"Hereditary\nTalent and Genius,\" which contained his first utterances on eugenics.\n\nThe present generation can hardly understand what a new field Galton\nbroke. Even Darwin had supposed that men do not differ very much in\nintellectual endowment, and that their differences in achievement are\nprincipally the result of differences in zeal and industry. Galton's\narticles, whose thesis was that better men could be bred by conscious\nselection, attracted much attention from the scientific world and were\nexpanded in 1869 in his book _Hereditary Genius_.\n\nThis was an elaborate and painstaking study of the biographies of 977\nmen who would rank, according to Galton's estimate, as about 1 to 4,000\nof the general population, in respect to achievement. The number of\nfamilies found to contain more than one eminent man was 300, divided as\nfollows: Judges, 85; Statesmen, 39; Commanders, 27; Literary, 33;\nScientific, 43; Poets, 20; Artists, 28; Divines, 25. The close groupings\nof the interrelated eminence led to the conclusion that heredity plays a\nvery important part in achievement. The greater success of real sons of\ngreat men as compared with adopted sons of great men likewise indicated,\nhe thought, that success is due to actual biological heredity rather\nthan to the good opportunities afforded the scion of the illustrious\nfamily. Galton's conclusion was that by selecting from strains that\nproduced eminence, a superior human stock could be bred.\n\nIn 1874 he published a similar study of the heredity of 180 eminent\nEnglish scientists, reemphasizing the claims of nature over nurture, to\nuse his familiar antithesis. In 1883 he published \"Inquiries into the\nHuman Faculty and Its Development,\" a collection of evolutionary and\nanthropometric essays where the word Eugenics was first used in a new\nexposition of the author's views. \"Natural Inheritance\" appeared in\n1889, being the essence of various memoirs published since \"Hereditary\nGenius,\" dealing with the general biological principles underlying the\nstudy of heredity and continuing the study of resemblances between\nindividuals in respect to stature, eye color, artistic faculty and\nmorbid conditions.\n\nGalton's interest in eugenics was not lessened by the abundant criticism\nhe received, and in 1901 he defended \"The Possible Improvement of the\nHuman Breed under Existing Conditions of Law and Sentiment\" before the\nAnthropological Society. Three years later he read a paper entitled\n\"Eugenics; Its Definition, Scope and Aims,\" to the Sociological Society.\nHis program, in brief, was as follows:\n\n1. Disseminate knowledge of hereditary laws as far as surely known and\npromote their further study.\n\n2. Inquire into birth rates of various strata of society (classified\naccording to civic usefulness) in ancient and modern nations.\n\n3. Collect reliable data showing how large and thriving families have\nmost frequently originated.\n\n4. Study the influences affecting marriage.\n\n5. Persistently set forth the national importance of Eugenics.\n\nThe following year, Galton again read a paper before the Society,\nsuggesting the award of certificates of quality to the eugenically fit.\nHe also maintained that marriage customs which are largely controlled by\npublic opinion could be modified for racial welfare through a molding of\npublic sentiment.\n\nIn 1904 he founded a Research Fellowship at the University of London to\ndetermine, if possible, what the standard of fitness is, and in 1905 a\nScholarship was added. Edgar Schuster and Miss E. M. Elderton held these\nposts until 1907, when Professor Karl Pearson took charge of the\nresearch work and, at the resignation of Mr. Schuster, David Heron was\nappointed Fellow. On Galton's death, January 17, 1911, it became known\nthat through the terms of his will a professorship was founded and\nProfessor Pearson was invited to hold it. His corps of workers\nconstitutes the Galton Eugenics Laboratory staff.\n\nTo spread throughout the British Empire such knowledge of eugenics as\nmight be gathered by specialists, the Eugenics Education Society was\nformed in 1908 with Galton as honorary president. Its field comprises:\n(1) Biology in so far as it concerns hereditary selection; (2)\nAnthropology as related to race and marriage; (3) Politics, where it\nbears on parenthood in relation to civic worth; (4) Ethics, in so far as\nit promotes ideals that lead to the improvement of social quality; (5)\nReligion, in so far as it strengthens and sanctifies eugenic duty.\n\nIn America the movement got an early start but developed slowly. The\nfirst definite step was the formation of an Institute of Heredity in\nBoston, shortly after 1880, by Loring Moody, who was assisted by the\npoet Longfellow, Samuel E. Sewall, Mrs. Horace Mann, and other\nwell-known people. He proposed to work very much along the lines that\nthe Eugenics Record Office later adopted, but he was ahead of his time,\nand his attempt seems to have come to nothing.\n\nIn 1883 Alexander Graham Bell, who may be considered the first\nscientific worker in eugenics in the United States, published a paper on\nthe danger of the formation of a deaf variety of the human race in this\ncountry, in which he gave the result of researches he had made at\nMartha's Vineyard and other localities during preceding years, on the\npedigrees of congenitally deaf persons--deaf mutes, as they were then\ncalled. He showed clearly that congenital deafness is largely due to\nheredity, that it is much increased by consanguineous marriages, and\nthat it is of great importance to prevent the marriage of persons, in\nboth of whose families congenital deafness is present. About five years\nlater he founded the Volta Bureau in Washington, D. C., for the study of\ndeafness, and this has fostered a great deal of research work on this\nparticular phase of heredity.\n\nIn 1903 the American Breeders' Association was founded at St. Louis by\nplant and animals breeders who desired to keep in touch with the new\nsubject of genetics, the science of breeding, which was rapidly coming\nto have great practical importance. From the outset, the members\nrealized that the changes which they could produce in races of animals\nand plants might also be produced in man, and the science of eugenics\nwas thus recognized on a sound biological basis. Soon a definite\neugenics section was formed, and as the importance of this section\nincreased, and it was realized that the name of Breeders' Association\nwas too narrowly construed by the public, the association changed its\nname (1913) to the American Genetic Association, and the name of its\norgan from the _American Breeders' Magazine_ to the _Journal of\nHeredity_.\n\nUnder the auspices of this association, the Eugenics Record Office was\nestablished at Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, by Dr. C. B. Davenport.\nIt has been mainly supported by Mrs. E. H. Harriman, but has since been\ntaken over by the Carnegie Institution of Washington. It is gathering\npedigrees in many parts of the United States, analyzing them and\npublishing the results in a series of bulletins.\n\nIn the last few years, the public has come to take a keen interest in\nthe possibilities of eugenics. This has led some sex hygienists, child\nwelfare workers, and persons similarly engaged, to attempt to capitalize\nthe interest in eugenics by appropriating the name for their own use. We\nstrongly object to any such misuse of the word, which should designate\nthe application of genetics to the human race. Sex hygiene, child\nwelfare, and other sanitary and sociological movements should stand on\ntheir own feet and leave to eugenics the scope which its Greek\nderivation indicates for it,--the science of good breeding.[73]\n\nIn all parts of Europe, the ideas of eugenics have gradually spread. In\n1912 the first International Eugenics Congress was held at London, under\nauspices of the Eugenics Education Society; more than 700 delegates were\nin attendance.\n\nGermany, Sweden, Switzerland and Austria are united in an International\nEugenics Society and the war led to the formation of a number of\nseparate societies in Germany. Hungary has formed an organization of its\nown, France has its society in Paris, and the Italian Anthropological\nSociety has given much attention to the subject. The Anthropological\nSociety of Denmark has similarly recognized eugenics by the formation of\na separate section. The Institut Solvay of Belgium, a foundation with\nsociological aims, created a eugenics section several years ago; and in\nHolland a strong committee has been formed. Last of all, Sweden has put\na large separate organization in the field.\n\nIn the United States the subject has interested many women's clubs,\ncollege organizations and Young Men's Christian Associations, while the\nperiodical press has given it a large amount of attention. Public\nenthusiasm, often ill-guided, has in a few cases outrun the facts, and\nhas secured legislation in some states, which by no means meets the\napproval of most scientific eugenists.\n\nWhen we speak of scientific eugenists, it may appear that we use the\nword in an invidious way. We use it deliberately, and by using it we\nmean to intimate that we do not think enthusiasm is an adequate\nsubstitute for knowledge, in anyone who assumes to pass judgment upon a\nmeasure as being eugenic or dysgenic--as likely to improve the race or\ncause its deterioration. Eugenics is a biological science which, in its\napplication, must be interpreted with the help of the best scientific\nmethod. Very few social workers, whose field eugenics touches, are\ncompetent to understand its bearings without some study, and an\nappreciation of eugenics is the more difficult for them, because an\nunderstanding of it will show them that some of their work is based on\nfalse premises. The average legislator is equally unlikely to understand\nthe full import of eugenics, unless he has made a definite effort to do\nso. All the more honor, then, to the rapidly increasing number of social\nworkers and legislators who have grasped the full meaning of eugenics\nand are now striving to put it in effect. The agriculturist, through his\nexperience with plants and animals, is probably better qualified than\nanyone else to realize the practicability of eugenics, and it is\naccordingly not a matter of mere chance that the science of eugenics in\nAmerica was built up by a breeders' association, and has found and still\nfinds hundreds of effective advocates in the graduates of the\nagricultural colleges.\n\nThe program of eugenics naturally divides itself in two parts:\n\n(1) Reducing the racial contribution of the least desirable part of the\npopulation.\n\n(2) Increasing the racial contribution of the superior part of the\npopulation.\n\nThe first part of this program is the most pressing and the most easily\ndealt with; it is no cause for surprise, then, that to many people it\nhas seemed to be the predominant aim of eugenics. Certainly the problem\nis great enough to stagger anyone who looks it full in the face;\nalthough for a variety of reasons, satisfactory statistical evidence of\nracial degeneracy is hard to get.\n\nConsidering only the \"institutional population\" of the United States,\none gets the following figures:\n\nBLIND: total, 64,763 according to census of 1900. Of these,\n35,645 were totally blind and 29,118 partly blind. The affection is\nstated to have been congenital in 4,730 cases. Nineteen per cent of the\nblind were found to have blind relatives; 4.5% of them were returned as\nthe offspring of cousin marriages.\n\nDEAF: total, 86,515, according to the census of 1900. More than\n50,000 of them were deaf from childhood (under 20), 12,609 being deaf\nfrom birth. At least 4.5% of the deaf were stated to be offspring of\ncousin marriages, and 32.1% to have deaf relatives. The significance of\nthis can not be determined unless it is known how many normal persons\nhave deaf relatives (or blind relatives, in considering the preceding\nparagraph), but it points to the existence of families that are\ncharacterized by deafness (or blindness).\n\nINSANE: the census of 1910 enumerated only the insane who were\nin institutions; they numbered 187,791. The number outside of\ninstitutions is doubtless considerable but can not be computed. The\ninstitutional population is not a permanent, but mainly a transient one,\nthe number of persons discharged from institutions in 1910 being 29,304.\nAs the number and size of institutions does not increase very rapidly,\nit would appear probable that 25,000 insane persons pass through and out\nof institutions, and back into the general population, each year. From\nthis one can get some idea of the amount of neurotic weakness in the\npopulation of the United States,--much of it congenital and heritable in\ncharacter.\n\nFEEBLE-MINDED: the census (1910) lists only those in\ninstitutions, who totaled about 40,000. The census experts believe that\n200,000 would be a conservative estimate of the total number of\nfeeble-minded in the country, and many psychologists think that 300,000\nwould be more nearly accurate. The number of feeble-minded who are\nreceiving institutional care is almost certainly not more than 10% or\n15% of the total, and many of these (about 15,000) are in almshouses,\nnot special institutions.\n\nPAUPERS: There were 84,198 paupers enumerated in almshouses on\nJanuary 1, 1910, and 88,313 admitted during the year, which indicates\nthat the almshouse paupers are a rapidly shifting group. This\npopulation, probably of several hundred thousand persons, who drift\ninto and out of almshouses, can hardly be characterized accurately, but\nin large part it must be considered at least inefficient and probably of\nmentally low grade.\n\nCRIMINALS: The inmates of prisons, penitentiaries,\nreformatories, and similar places of detention numbered 111,609 in 1910;\nthis does not include 25,000 juvenile delinquents. The jail population\nis nearly all transient; one must be very cautious in inferring that\nconviction for an offense against the law indicates lack of eugenic\nvalue; but it is worth noting that the number of offenders who are\nfeeble-minded is probably not less than one-fourth or one-third. If the\nnumber of inebriates could be added, it would greatly increase the\ntotal; and inebriacy or chronic alcoholism is generally recognized now\nas indicating in a majority of cases either feeble-mindedness or some\nother defect of the nervous system. The number of criminals who are in\nsome way neurotically tainted is placed by some psychologists at 50% or\nmore of the total prison population.\n\nAdd to these a number of epileptics, tramps, prostitutes, beggars, and\nothers whom the census enumerator finds it difficult to catch, and the\ntotal number of possible undesirable parents becomes very large. It is\nin fact much larger than appears in these figures, because of the fact\nthat many people carry defects that are latent and only appear in the\noffspring of a marriage representing two tainted strains. Thus the\nfeeble-minded child usually if not always has feeble-mindedness in both\nhis father's and mother's ancestry, and for every one of the patent\nfeeble-minded above enumerated, there may be several dozen latent ones,\nwho are themselves probably normal in every way and yet carry the\ndangerously tainted germ-plasm.\n\nThe estimate has frequently been made that the United States would be\nmuch better off eugenically if it were deprived of the future racial\ncontributions of at least 10% of its citizens. While literally true this\nestimate is too high for the group which could be considered for\nattempts to directly control in a practical eugenics program.\n\nNatural selection, in the early days of man's history, would have killed\noff many of these people early in life. They would have been unable to\ncompete with their physically and mentally more vigorous fellows and\nwould have died miserably by starvation or violence. Natural selection's\nuse of the death-rate was a brutal one, but at least it prevented such\ntraits as these people show from increasing in each generation.\nEugenists hope to arrive at the same result, not by the death-rate but\nby the birth-rate. If germinally anti-social persons are kept humanely\nsegregated during their lifetime, instead of being turned out after a\nfew years of institutional life and allowed to marry, they will leave no\ndescendants, and the number of congenital defectives in the community\nwill be notably diminished. If the same policy is followed through\nsucceeding generations, the number of defectives, of those incapable of\ntaking a useful part in society, will become smaller and smaller. One\nwho does not believe that these people hand on their traits to their\ndescendants may profitably consider the famous history of the so-called\nJuke family, a strain originating among the \"finger lakes\" of New York,\nwhose history was published by R. L. Dugdale as far back as 1877 and\nlately restudied by A. H. Estabrook.\n\n\"From one lazy vagabond nicknamed 'Juke,' born in 1720, whose two sons\nmarried five degenerate sisters, six generations numbering about 1,200\npersons of every grade of idleness, viciousness, lewdness, pauperism,\ndisease, idiocy, insanity and criminality were traced. Of the total\nseven generations, 300 died in infancy; 310 were professional paupers,\nkept in almshouses a total of 2,300 years; 440 were physically wrecked\nby their own 'diseased wickedness'; more than half the women fell into\nprostitution; 130 were convicted criminals; 60 were thieves; 7 were\nmurderers; only 20 learned a trade, 10 of these in state prison, and all\nat a state cost of over $1,250,000.\"[74]\n\nHow heredity works both ways, is shown by the history of the Kallikak\nfamily, published by H. H. Goddard a few years ago.\n\n\"At the beginning of the Revolutionary War a young man, known in the\nhistory as Martin Kallikak, had a son by a nameless, feeble-minded girl,\nfrom whom there have descended in the direct line four hundred and\neighty individuals. One hundred and forty-three of these are known to\nhave been feeble-minded, and only forty-six are known to have been\nnormal. The rest are unknown or doubtful. Thirty-six have been\nillegitimate; thirty-three, sexually immoral, mostly prostitutes;\ntwenty-four, alcoholic; three, epileptic; eighty-two died in infancy;\nthree were criminal, and eight kept houses of ill-fame. After the war,\nMartin Kallikak married a woman of good stock. From this union have come\nin direct line four hundred and ninety-six, among whom only two were\nalcoholic, and one known to be sexually immoral. The legitimate children\nof Martin have been doctors, lawyers, judges, educators, traders,\nlandholders, in short, respectable citizens, men and women prominent in\nevery phase of social life. These two families have lived on the same\nsoil, in the same atmosphere, and in short, under the same general\nenvironment, yet the bar sinister has marked every generation of one and\nhas been unknown in the other.\"\n\nIf it were possible to improve or eradicate these defective strains by\ngiving them better surroundings, the nation might easily get rid of this\nburden. But we have given reasons in Chapter I for believing that the\nproblem can not be solved in that way, and more evidence to the same\neffect will be present in other chapters of the book.\n\nAn understanding of the nature of the problem will show that present\nmethods of dispensing justice, giving charity, dealing with defectives\nand working for social betterment need careful examination and numerous\nmodifications, if they are not to be ineffectual or merely palliative,\nor worse still, if they are not to give temporary relief at the cost of\ngreatly aggravating the social disease in the end.\n\nIn the past America has given and at present still gives much thought to\nthe individual and little, if any, to posterity. Eugenics does not want\nto diminish this regard for the individual, but it does insistently\ndeclare that the interests of the many are greater than those of the\nfew, and it holds that a statesmanlike policy requires thought for the\nfuture as well as the present. It would be hard to find a eugenist\nto-day who would propose, with Plato, that the infants with bad heredity\nshould be put to death, but their right to grow up to the fullest\nenjoyment of life does not necessarily include the right to pass on\ntheir defective heredity to a long line of descendants, naturally\nincreasing in number in each generation. Indeed a regard for the\ntotality of human happiness makes it necessary that they should not so\ncontinue.\n\nWhile it is the hope of eugenics that fewer defective and anti-social\nindividuals shall be born in the future, it has been emphasized so much\nthat the program of eugenics is likely to be seen in false perspective.\nIn reality it is the less important side of the picture. More good\ncitizens are wanted, as well as fewer bad ones. Every race requires\nleaders. These leaders appear from time to time, and enough is known\nabout eugenics now to show that their appearance is frequently\npredictable, not accidental. It is possible to have them appear more\nfrequently; and in addition, to raise the level of the whole race,\nmaking the entire nation happier and more useful. These are the great\ntasks of eugenics. America needs more families like that old Puritan\nstrain which is one of the familiar examples of eugenics:\n\n\"At their head stands Jonathan Edwards, and behind him an array of his\ndescendants numbering in 1900, 1,394, of whom 295 were college\ngraduates; 13 presidents of our greatest colleges; 65 professors in\ncolleges, besides many principals of other important educational\ninstitutions; 60 physicians, many of whom were eminent; 100 and more\nclergymen, missionaries, or theological professors; 75 were officers in\nthe army and navy; 60 prominent authors and writers, by whom 135 books\nof merit were written and published and 18 important periodicals edited;\n33 American states and several foreign countries, and 92 American cities\nand many foreign cities have profited by the beneficent influences of\ntheir eminent activity; 100 and more were lawyers, of whom one was our\nmost eminent professor of law; 30 were judges; 80 held public office, of\nwhom one was vice president of the United States; three were United\nStates senators; several were governors, members of Congress, framers of\nstate constitutions, mayors of cities and ministers of foreign courts;\none was president of the Pacific Mail Steamship Company; 15 railroads,\nmany banks, insurance companies, and large industrial enterprises have\nbeen indebted to their management. Almost if not every department of\nsocial progress and of the public weal has felt the impulse of this\nhealthy and long-lived family. It is not known that any one of them was\never convicted of crime.\"\n\nEvery one will agree that the nation needs more families like that. How\ncan it get them? Galton blazed the way in 1865, when he pointed to\nselective breeding as the effective means. The animal breeder knows what\nmarvels he can accomplish by this means; but it is not practicable to\nbreed human beings in that direct way. Is there any indirect method of\nreaching the same ends?\n\nThere are, in our opinion, a good many such means, and it is the\nprincipal purpose of this book to point them out. The problem of\nconstructive or positive eugenics, naturally divides itself into two\nparts:\n\n1. To secure a sufficient number of marriages of the superior.\n\n2. To secure an adequate birth-rate from these marriages.\n\nThe problem of securing these two results is a complex one, which must\nbe attacked by a variety of methods. It is necessary that superior\npeople first be made to desire marriage and children; and secondly, that\nit be economically and otherwise possible for them to carry out this\ndesire.\n\nIt may be of interest to know how the Germans are attacking the problem,\neven though some of their measures may be considered ineffective or\ninadvisable.\n\nAt its annual meeting in 1914 the German Society for Race Hygiene\nadopted a resolution on the subject of applied eugenics. \"The future of\nthe German people is at stake,\" it declares. \"The German empire can not\nin the long run maintain its true nationality and the independence of\nits development, if it does not begin without delay and with the\ngreatest energy to mold its internal and external politics as well as\nthe whole life of the people in accordance with eugenic principles. Most\nimportant of all are measures for a higher reproduction of healthy and\nable families. The rapidly declining birth-rate of the healthy and able\nfamilies necessarily leads to the social, economical and political\nretrogression of the German people,\" it points out, and then goes on to\nenumerate the causes of this decline, which it thinks is partly due to\nthe action of racial poisons but principally to the increasing willful\nrestriction of the number of children.\n\nThe society recognizes that the reasons for this limitation of the size\nof families are largely economic. It enumerates the question of expense,\nconsiderations of economic inheritance--that is, a father does not like\nto divide up his estate too much; the labor of women, which is\nincompatible with the raising of a large family; and the difficulties\ncaused by the crowded housing in the large cities.\n\nIn order to secure a posterity sufficient in number and ability, the\nresolution continues, The German Society for Race Hygiene demands:\n\n1. A back-to-the farm movement.\n\n2. Better housing facilities in the cities.\n\n3. Economic assistance of large families through payment of a\nsubstantial relief to married mothers who survive their husbands, and\nconsideration of the number of children in the payment of public and\nprivate employees.\n\n4. Abolition of certain impediments to marriage, such as the army\nregulation forbidding officers to marry before they reach a certain\ngrade.\n\n5. Increase of tax on alcohol, tobacco and luxuries, the proceeds to be\nused to subsidize worthy families.\n\n6. Medical regulations of a hygienic nature.\n\n7. Setting out large prizes for excellent works of art (novels, dramas,\nplastic arts) which glorify the ideal of motherhood, the family and\nsimple life.\n\n8. Awakening a national mind ready to undergo sacrifices on behalf of\nfuture generations.\n\nIn spite of some defects such a program brings out clearly the principle\nof eugenics,--the substitution of a selective birth-rate for the\nselective death-rate by which natural selection has brought the race to\nits present level. Nature lets a multitude of individuals be born and\nkills off the poorer ones; eugenics proposes to have fewer poor ones and\nmore good ones born in each generation.\n\nAny means which tends to bring about one of those ends, is a part of\nApplied Eugenics.\n\nBy this time the reader will have seen that eugenics has some definite\nideals not only as to how the race can be kept from deteriorating\nfurther, under the interference with natural selection which\ncivilization entails, but as to how its physical, mental and moral level\ncan actually be raised. He can easily draw his own conclusions as to\nwhat eugenics does _not_ propose. No eugenist worthy of the name has\never proposed to breed genius as the stockman breeds trotting horses,\ndespite jibes of the comic press to the contrary. But if young people,\nbefore picking out their life partners, are thoroughly imbued with the\nidea that such qualities as energy, longevity, a sound constitution,\npublic and private worth, are primarily due to heredity, and if they are\ntaught to realize the fact that one marries not an individual but a\nfamily, the eugenist believes that better matings will be made,\nsometimes realized, sometimes insensibly.\n\nFurthermore, if children from such matings are made an asset rather than\na liability; if society ceases to penalize, in a hundred insidious ways,\nthe parents of large and superior families, but honors and aids them\ninstead, one may justifiably hope that the birth-rate in the most useful\nand happy part of the population will steadily increase.\n\nPerhaps that is as far as it is necessary that the aim of eugenics\nshould be defined; yet one can hardly ignore the philosophical aspect\nof the problem. Galton's suggestion that man should assist the course of\nhis own evolution meets with the general approval of biologists; but\nwhen one asks what the ultimate goal of human evolution should be, one\nfaces a difficult question. Under these circumstances, can it be said\nthat eugenics really has a goal, or is it merely stumbling along in the\ndark, possibly far from the real road, of whose existence it is aware\nbut of whose location it has no knowledge?\n\nThere are several routes on which one can proceed with the confidence\nthat, if no one of them is the main road, at least it is likely to lead\ninto the latter at some time. Fortunately, eugenics is, paradoxical as\nit may seem, able to advance on all these paths at once; for it proposes\nno definite goal, it sets up no one standard to which it would make the\nhuman race conform. Taking man as it finds him, it proposes to multiply\nall the types that have been found by past experience or present reason\nto be of most value to society. Not only would it multiply them in\nnumbers, but also in efficiency, in capacity to serve the race.\n\nBy so doing, it undoubtedly fulfills the requirements of that popular\nphilosophy which holds the aim of society to be the greatest happiness\nfor the greatest number, or more definitely the increase of the totality\nof human happiness. To cause not to exist those who would be doomed from\nbirth to give only unhappiness to themselves and those about them; to\nincrease the number of those in whom useful physical and mental traits\nare well developed; to bring about an increase in the number of\nenergetic altruists and a decrease in the number of the anti-social or\ndefective; surely such an undertaking will come nearer to increasing the\nhappiness of the greatest number, than will any temporary social\npalliative, any ointment for incurable social wounds. To those who\naccept that philosophy, made prominent by Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart\nMill, Herbert Spencer, and a host of other great thinkers, eugenics\nrightly understood must seem a prime necessity of society.\n\nBut can any philosophy dispense with eugenics? Take those to whom the\npopular philosophy of happiness seems a dangerous goal and to whom the\nonly object of evolution that one is at present justified in\nrecognizing is that of the perpetuation of the species and of the\nprogressive conquest of nature, the acquiring of an ascendancy over all\nthe earth. This is now as much a matter of self-preservation as it is of\nprogress: although man no longer fights for life with the cave bear and\nsaber-toothed tiger, the microbes which war with him are far more\ndangerous enemies than the big mammals of the past. The continuation of\nevolution, if it means conquest, is not a work for dilettantes and Lotos\nEaters; it is a task that demands unremitting hard work.\n\nTo this newer philosophy of creative work eugenics is none the less\nessential. For eugenics wants in the world more physically sound men and\nwomen _with greater ability in any valuable way_. Whatever the actual\ngoal of evolution may be, it can hardly be assumed by any except the\nprofessional pessimist, that a race made up of such men and women is\ngoing to be handicapped by their presence.\n\nThe correlation of abilities is as well attested as any fact in\npsychology. Those who decry eugenics on the ground that it is impossible\nto establish any \"standard of perfection,\" since society needs many\ndiverse kinds of people, are overlooking this fact. Any plan which\nincreases the production of children in able families of _various_ types\nwill thereby produce more ability of all kinds, since if a family is\nparticularly gifted in one way, it is likely to be gifted above the\naverage in several other desirable ways.\n\nEugenics sets up no specific superman, as a type to which the rest of\nthe race must be made to conform. It is not looking forward to the\ncessation of its work in a eugenic millenium. It is a perpetual process,\nwhich seeks only to raise the level of the race by the production of\nfewer people with physical and mental defects, and more people with\nphysical and mental excellencies. Such a race should be able to\nperpetuate itself, to subdue nature, to improve its environment\nprogressively; its members should be happy and productive. To establish\nsuch a goal seems justified by the knowledge of evolution which is now\navailable; and to make progress toward it is possible.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nDESIRABILITY OF RESTRICTIVE EUGENICS\n\n\nIn a rural part of Pennsylvania lives the L. family. Three generations\nstudied \"all show the same drifting, irresponsible tendency. No one can\nsay they are positively bad or serious disturbers of the communities\nwhere they may have a temporary home. Certain members are epileptic and\ndefective to the point of imbecility. The father of this family drank\nand provided little for their support. The mother, though hard working,\nwas never able to care for them properly. So they and their 12 children\nwere frequent recipients of public relief, a habit which they have\nconsistently kept up. Ten of the children grew to maturity, and all but\none married and had in their turn large families. With two exceptions\nthese have lived in the territory studied. Nobody knows how they have\nsubsisted, even with the generous help they have received. They drift in\nand out of the various settlements, taking care to keep their residence\nin the county which has provided most liberally for their support. In\nsome villages it is said that they have been in and out half a dozen\ntimes in the last few years. First one family comes slipping back, then\none by one the others trail in as long as there are cheap shelters to be\nhad. Then rents fall due, neighbors become suspicious of invaded\nhenroosts and potato patches, and one after another the families take\ntheir departure, only to reappear after a year or two.\n\n\"The seven children of the eldest son were scattered years ago through\nthe death of their father. They were taken by strangers, and though kept\nin school, none of them proved capable of advancement. Three at least\ncould not learn to read or handle the smallest quantities. The rest do\nthis with difficulty. All but two are now married and founding the\nfourth generation of this line. The family of the fourth son are now\ncounty charges. Of the 14 children of school age in this and the\nremaining families, all are greatly retarded. One is an epileptic and at\n16 can not read or write. One at 15 is in the third reader and should be\nset down as defective. The remainder are from one to four years\nretarded.\n\n\"There is nothing striking in the annals of this family. It comes as\nnear the lowest margin of human existence as possible and illustrates\nhow marked defect may sometimes exist without serious results in the\ninfringement of law and custom. Its serious menace, however, lies in the\ncertain marriage into stocks which are no better, and the production of\nlarge families which continue to exist on the same level of\nsemi-dependency. In place of the two dependents of a generation ago we\nnow find in the third generation 32 descendants who bid fair to continue\ntheir existence on the same plane--certainly an enormous multiplication\nof the initial burden of expense.\"[75]\n\nFrom cases of this sort, which represent the least striking kind of bad\nbreeding, the student may pass through many types up to the great tribes\nof Jukes, Nams, Kallikaks, Zeros, Dacks, Ishmaels, Sixties, Hickories,\nHill Folk, Piney Folk, and the rest, with which the readers of the\nliterature of restrictive eugenics are familiar. It is abundantly\ndemonstrated that much, if not most, of their trouble is the outcome of\nbad heredity. Indeed, when a branch of one of these clans is\ntransported, or emigrates, to a wholly new environment, it soon creates\nfor itself, in many cases, an environment similar to that from which it\ncame. Whether it goes to the city, or to the agricultural districts of\nthe west, it may soon manage to reestablish the debasing atmosphere to\nwhich it has always been accustomed.[76] Those who see in improvement\nof the environment the cure for all such plague spots as these tribes\ninhabit, overlook the fact that man largely creates his own environment.\nThe story of the tenement-dwellers who were supplied with bath tubs but\nrefused to use them for any other purpose than to store coal,\nexemplifies a wide range of facts.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 26.--To this shanty an elderly man of the\n\"Hickory\" family, a great clan of defectives in rural Ohio, brought his\ngirl-bride, together with his two grown sons by a former marriage. The\nshanty was conveniently located at a distance of 100 feet from the city\ndump where the family, all of which is feeble-minded, secured its food.\nSuch a family is incapable of protecting either itself or its neighbors,\nand should be cared for by the state. Photograph from Mina A. Sessions.]\n\n[Illustration: A CHIEFTAIN OF THE HICKORY CLAN\n\nFIG. 27.--This is \"Young Hank,\" otherwise known as \"Sore-Eyed\nHank.\" He is the eldest son and heir of that Hank Hickory who, with his\nwife and seven children, applied for admission to their County Infirmary\nwhen it was first opened. For generation after generation, his family\nhas been the chief patron of all the charities of its county. \"Young\nHank\" married his cousin and duplicated his father's record by begetting\nseven children, three of whom (all feeble-minded) are now living. The\nnumber of his grandchildren and great-grandchildren is increasing every\nyear, but the total can not be learned from him, for he is mentally\nincapable of counting even the number of his own children. He is about\n70 years of age, and has never done any work except to make baskets. He\nhas lived a wandering life, largely dependent on charity. For the last\n25 years he has been partly blind, due to trachoma. He gets a blind\npension of $5 a month, which is adequate to keep him supplied with\nchewing tobacco, his regular mastication being 10 cents a day. Such\nspecimens can be found in many rural communities; if they were\nsegregated in youth both they and the community would be much better\noff. Photograph from Mina A. Sessions.]\n\nAlthough conditions may be worst in the older and more densely populated\nstates, it is probable that there is no state in the union which has not\nmany families, or group of families, of this dependent type, which in\nfavorable cases may attract little notice, but therefore do all the more\nharm eugenically; in other cases may be notorious as centers of\ncriminality. Half a dozen well-defined areas of this kind have been\nfound in Pennsylvania, which is probably not exceptional in this\nrespect. \"These differ, of course, in extent and character and the\ngravity of the problems they present. In some there is great sexual\nlaxity, which leads to various forms of dependency and sometimes to\nextreme mental defect. In others alcoholism prevails and the people show\na propensity for deeds of violence. All informants, however, practically\nagreed to the following characterization:\n\n\"1. Because of the thefts and depredations and the frequent applications\nfor charitable relief from such sections they constitute a parasitic\ngrowth which saps the resources of the self-respecting, self-sustaining\ncontingent of the population.\n\n\"2. They furnish an undue proportion of court cases, and are thus a\nserious expense to county and state.\n\n\"3. They are a source of physical decay and moral contamination, and\nthus menace the integrity of the entire social fabric.\"[77]\n\nSociety has long since admitted that it is desirable to restrict the\nreproduction of certain classes of gross defectives, and criminals, by\nthe method of segregation. The ground for this is sometimes biological,\nperhaps more often legal, as in the case of the insane and criminal,\nwhere it is held that the individual is legally incapacitated from\nentering into a contract, such as that of marriage. It would be better\nto have the biological basis of restriction on marriage and reproduction\nrecognized in every case; but even with the present point of view the\ndesired end may be reached.\n\nFrom an ethical standpoint, so few people would now contend that two\nfeeble-minded or epileptic persons have any \"right\" to marry and\nperpetuate their kind, that it is hardly worth while to argue the point.\nWe believe that the same logic would permit two individuals to marry,\nbut deny them the privilege of having children. The reasons for this may\nbe considered under three heads.\n\n1. Biological. Are there cases in which persons may properly marry but\nmay properly be prevented by society from having any offspring, on the\nground that such offspring would be undesirable components of the race?\n\nThe right of marriage is commonly, and may well be properly, regarded as\nan inalienable right of the individual, in so far as it does not\nconflict with the interests of the race. The companionship of two\npersons between whom true love exists, is beyond all question the\nhighest happiness possible, and one which society should desire and\nstrive to give its every member. On that point there will be no\ndifference of opinion, but when it is asked whether there can be a\nseparation between the comradeship aspect and the reproduction aspect,\nin marriage, whether any interest of the race can justifiably divorce\nthese two phases, often considered inseparable, protests are at once\naroused. In these protests, there is some justice. We would be the last\nones to deny that a marriage has failed to achieve its goal, has failed\nto realize for its participants the greatest possible happiness, unless\nit has resulted in sound offspring.\n\nThat word \"sound\" is the key to the distinction which must be made. The\ninterests of the race demand sound offspring from every couple in a\nposition to furnish them--not only in the interests of that\ncouple,--interests the importance of which it is not easy to\nunderestimate--but in the interests of the future of the race, whose\nwelfare far transcends in importance the welfare of any one individual,\nor any pair of individuals. As surely as the race needs a constant\nsupply of children of sound character, so surely is it harmed by a\nsupply of children of inherently unsound character, physically or\nmentally, who may contribute others like themselves to the next\ngeneration. A recollection of the facts of heredity, and of the fact\nthat the offspring of any individual tend to increase in geometric\nratio, will supply adequate grounds for holding this conviction:--that\nfrom a biological point of view, every child of congenitally inferior\ncharacter is a racial misfortune. The Spartans and other peoples of\nantiquity fully realized this fact, and acted on it by exposing deformed\ninfants. Christianity properly revolted as such an action; but in\nrepudiating the action, it lost sight of the principle back of the\naction. The principle should have been regarded, and civilized races are\nnow coming back to a realization of that fact--are, indeed, realizing\nits weight far more fully than any other people has ever done, because\nof the growing realization of the importance of heredity. No one is\nlikely seriously to argue again that deformed infants (whether their\ndeformity be physical or mental) should be exposed to perish; but the\nargument that in the interests of the future of the race _they would\nbetter not be born_, is one that admits of no refutation.\n\nFrom a biological point of view, then, it is to the interest of the race\nthat the number of children who will be either defective themselves, or\ntransmit anti-social defects to their offspring, should be as small as\npossible.\n\n2. The humanitarian aspect of the case is no less strong and is likely,\nin the present state of public education, to move a larger number of\nindividuals. A visit to the children's ward of any hospital, an\nacquaintance with the sensitive mother of a feeble-minded or deformed\nchild, will go far to convince anyone that the sum total of human\nhappiness, and the happiness of the parents, would be greater had these\nchildren never been born. As for the children themselves, they will in\nmany cases grow up to regret that they were ever brought into the world.\nWe do not overlook the occasional genius who may be crippled physically\nor even mentally; we are here dealing with only the extreme defectives,\nsuch as the feeble-minded, insane, and epileptic. Among such persons,\nhuman happiness would be promoted both now and in the future if the\nnumber of offspring were naught.\n\n3. There is another argument which may legitimately be brought forward,\nand which may appeal to some who are relatively insensitive to the\nbiological or even the humanitarian aspects of the case. This is the\nfinancial argument.\n\nExcept students of eugenics, few persons realize how staggering is the\nbill annually paid for the care of defectives. The amount which the\nstate of New York expends yearly on the maintenance of its insane wards,\nis greater than it spends for any other purpose except education; and in\na very few years, if its insane population continues to increase at the\npresent rate, it will spend more on them than it does on the education\nof its normal children. The cost of institutional care for the socially\ninadequate is far from being all that these people cost the state; but\nthose figures at least are not based on guesswork. The annual cost[78]\nof maintaining a feeble-minded ward of the state, in various\ncommonwealths, is:\n\n Illinois $136.50\n Indiana 147.49\n Minnesota 148.05\n Ohio 155.47\n Wisconsin 159.77\n Kansas 170.16\n Michigan 179.42\n Kentucky 184.77\n California 208.97\n Maine 222.99\n\nAt such prices, each state maintains hundreds, sometimes thousands, of\nfeeble-minded, and the number is growing each year. In the near future\nthe expenditures must grow much more rapidly, for public sentiment is\nbeginning to demand that the defectives and delinquents of the\ncommunity be properly cared for. The financial burden is becoming a\nheavy one; it will become a crushing one unless steps are taken to make\nthe feeble-minded productive (as described in the next chapter) and an\nintangible \"sinking fund\" at the same time created to reduce the burden\ngradually by preventing the production of those who make it up. The\nburden can never be wholly obliterated, but it can be largely reduced by\na restriction of the reproduction of those who are themselves socially\ninadequate.\n\n[Illustration: TWO JUKE HOMES OF THE PRESENT DAY\n\nFIG. 28.--The Jukes have mostly been country-dwellers, a fact\nwhich has tended to increase the amount of consanguineous marriage among\nthem. Removal into a new environment usually does not mean any\nsubstantial change for them, because they succeed immediately in\nre-creating the same squalid sort of an environment from which they\ncame. In the house below, one part was occupied by the family and the\nother part by pigs. Photographs from A. H. Estabrook.]\n\nAlike then on biological, humanitarian and financial grounds, the nation\nwould be the better for a diminution in the production of physically,\nmentally or morally defective children. And the way to secure this\ndiminution is to prevent reproduction by parents whose offspring would\nalmost certainly be undesirable in character.\n\nGranted that such prevention is a proper function of society, the\nquestion again arises whether it is an ethically correct procedure to\nallow these potentially undesirable parents to marry at all. Should they\nbe doomed to perpetual celibacy, or should they be permitted to mate, on\ncondition that the union be childless.\n\nThe eugenic interests of society, of course, are equally safeguarded by\neither alternative. All the other interests of society appear to us to\nbe better safeguarded by marriage than by celibacy. Adding the interests\nof the individual, which will doubtless be for marriage, it seems to us\nthat there is good reason for holding such a childless marriage\nethically correct, in the relatively small number of cases where it\nmight seem desirable.\n\nThough such unions may be ethically justifiable, yet they would often be\nimpracticable; the limits will be discussed in the next chapter.\n\nIt is constantly alleged that the state can not interfere with an\nindividual matter of this sort: \"It is an intolerable invasion of\npersonal liberty; it is reducing humanity to the level of the barn-yard;\nit is impossible to put artificial restraints on the relations between\nthe sexes, founded as they are on such strong and primal feelings.\"\n\nThe doctrine of personal liberty, in this extreme form, was enunciated\nand is maintained by people who are ignorant of biology and\nevolution;[79] people who are ignorant of the world as it is, and deal\nonly with the world as they think it ought to be. Nature reveals no such\nextreme \"law of personal liberty,\" and the race that tries to carry such\na supposed law to its logical conclusion will soon find, in the supreme\ntest of competition with other races, that the interests of the\nindividual are much less important to nature than the interests of the\nrace. Perpetuation of the race is the first end to be sought. So far as\naccording a wide measure of personal liberty to its members will compass\nthat end, the personal liberty doctrine is a good one; but if it is held\nas a metaphysical dogma, to deny that the race may take any action\nnecessary in its own interest, at the expense of the individual, this\ndogma becomes suicidal.\n\nAs for \"reducing humanity to the level of the barn-yard,\" this is merely\na catch-phrase intended to arouse prejudice and to obscure the facts.\nThe reader may judge for himself whether the eugenic program will\ndegrade mankind to the level of the brutes, or whether it will ennoble\nit, beautify it, and increase its happiness.\n\nThe delusion which so many people hold, that it is impossible to put\nartificial restraint on the relations between the sexes, is amazing.\nRestraint is already a _fait accompli_. Every civilized nation already\nputs restrictions on numerous classes of people, as has been\nnoted--minors, criminals, and the insane, for example. Even though this\nrestriction is usually based on legal, rather than biological grounds,\nit is nevertheless a restriction, and sets a precedent for further\nrestrictions, if any precedent were needed.\n\n[Illustration: \"MONGOLIAN\" DEFICIENCY\n\nFIG. 29.--A common type of feeble-mindedness is accompanied by\na face called Mongoloid, because of a certain resemblance to that of\nsome of the Mongolian races as will be noted above. The mother at the\nleft and the father were normal. This type seems not to be inherited,\nbut due to some other influence,--Goddard suggests uterine exhaustion\nfrom too many frequent pregnancies.]\n\nIt is, we conclude, both desirable and possible to enforce certain\nrestrictions on marriage and parenthood. What these restrictions may be,\nand to whom they should be applied, is next to be considered.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nTHE DYSGENIC CLASSES\n\n\nBefore examining the methods by which society can put into effect some\nmeasure of negative or restrictive eugenics, it may be well to decide\nwhat classes of the population can properly fall within the scope of\nsuch treatment. Strictly speaking, the problem is of course one of\nindividuals rather than classes, but for the sake of convenience it will\nbe treated as one of classes, it being understood that no individual\nshould be put under restriction with eugenic intent merely because he\nmay be supposed to belong to a given class; but that each case must be\ninvestigated on its own merits,--and investigated with much more care\nthan has hitherto usually been thought necessary by many of those who\nhave advocated restrictive eugenic measures.\n\nThe first class demanding attention is that of those feeble-minded whose\ncondition is due to heredity. There is reason to believe that at least\ntwo-thirds of the feeble-minded in the United States owe their condition\ndirectly to heredity,[80] and will transmit it to a large per cent of\ntheir descendants, if they have any. Feeble-minded persons from sound\nstock, whose arrested development is due to scarlet fever or some\nsimilar disease of childhood, or to accident, are of course not of\ndirect concern to eugenists.\n\nThe number of patent feeble-minded in the United States is probably not\nless than 300,000, while the number of latent individuals--those\ncarrying the taint in their germ-plasm and capable of transmitting it to\ntheir descendants, although the individuals themselves may show good\nmental development--is necessarily much greater. The defect is highly\nhereditary in nature: when two innately feeble-minded persons marry,\nall their offspring, almost without exception, are feeble-minded. The\nfeeble-minded are never of much value to society--they never present\nsuch instances as are found among the insane, of persons with some\nmental lack of balance, who are yet geniuses. If restrictive eugenics\ndealt with no other class than the hereditarily feeble-minded, and dealt\nwith that class effectively, it would richly justify its existence.\n\nBut there are other classes on which it can act with safety as well as\nprofit, and one of these is made up by the germinally insane. According\nto the census of 1910, there are 187,791 insane in institutions in the\nUnited States; there are also a certain number outside of institutions,\nas to whom information can not easily be obtained. The number in the\nhospitals represented a ratio of 204.3 per 100,000 of the general\npopulation. In 1880, when the enumeration of insane was particularly\ncomplete, a total of 91,959 was reported--a ratio of 188.3 per 100,000\nof the total population at that time. This apparent increase of insanity\nhas been subjected to much analysis, and it is admitted that part of it\ncan be explained away. People are living longer now than formerly, and\nas insanity is primarily a disease of old age, the number of insane is\nthus increased. Better means of diagnosis are undoubtedly responsible\nfor some of the apparent increase. But when every conceivable allowance\nis made, there yet remains ground for belief that the proportion of\ninsane persons in the population is increasing each year. This is partly\ndue to immigration, as is indicated by the immense and constantly\nincreasing insane population of the state of New York, where most\nimmigrants land. In some cases, people who actually show some form of\ninsanity may slip past the examiners; in the bulk of cases, probably, an\nindividual is adapted to leading a normal life in his native\nenvironment, but transfer to the more strenuous environment of an\nAmerican city proves to be too much for his nervous organization. The\ngeneral flow of population from the country to large cities has a\nsimilar effect in increasing the number of insane.\n\nBut when all is said, the fact remains that there are several hundred\nthousand insane persons in the United States, many of whom are not\nprevented from reproducing their kind, and that by this failure to\nrestrain them society is putting a heavy burden of expense, unhappiness\nand a fearful dysgenic drag on coming generations.\n\nThe word \"insanity,\" as is frequently objected, means little or nothing\nfrom a biological point of view--it is a sort of catch-all to describe\nmany different kinds of nervous disturbance. No one can properly be made\nthe subject of restrictive measures for eugenic reasons, merely because\nhe is said to be \"insane.\" It would be wholly immoral so to treat, for\nexample, a man or woman who was suffering from the form of insanity\nwhich sometimes follows typhoid fever. But there are certain forms of\nmental disease, generally lumped under the term \"insanity,\" which\nindicate a hereditarily disordered nervous organization, and individuals\nsuffering from one of these diseases should certainly not be given any\nchance to perpetuate their insanity to posterity. Two types of insanity\nare now recognized as especially transmissible:--dementia precox, a sort\nof precocious old age, in which the patient (generally young) sinks into\na lethargy from which he rarely recovers; and manic-depressive insanity,\nan over-excitable condition, in which there are occasional very erratic\nmotor discharges, alternating with periods of depression. Constitutional\npsychopathic inferiority, which means a lack of emotional adaptability,\nusually shows in the family history. The common type of insanity which\nis characterized by mild hallucinations is of less concern from a\neugenic point of view.\n\nIn general, the insane are more adequately restricted than any other\ndysgenic class in the community; not because the community recognizes\nthe disadvantage of letting them reproduce their kind, but because there\nis a general fear of them, which leads to their strict segregation; and\nbecause an insane person is not considered legally competent to enter\ninto a marriage contract. In general, the present isolation of the sexes\nat institutions for the insane is satisfactory; the principal problem\nwhich insanity presents lies in the fact that an individual is\nfrequently committed to a hospital or asylum, kept there a few years\nuntil apparently cured, and then discharged; whereupon he returns to his\nfamily to beget offspring that are fairly likely to become insane at\nsome period in their lives. Every case of insanity should be accompanied\nby an investigation of the patient's ancestry, and if there is\nunmistakable evidence of serious neuropathic taint, such steps as are\nnecessary should be taken to prevent that individual from becoming a\nparent at any time.\n\nThe hereditary nature of most types of epilepsy is generally held to be\nestablished,[81] and restrictive measures should be used to prevent the\nincrease of the number of epileptics in the country. It has been\ncalculated that the number of epileptics in the state of New Jersey,\nwhere the most careful investigation of the problem has been made, will\ndouble every 30 years under present conditions.\n\nIn dealing with both insanity and epilepsy, the eugenist faces the\ndifficulty that occasionally people of the very kind whose production he\nmost wishes to see encouraged--real geniuses--may carry the taint. The\nexaggerated claims of the Italian anthropologist C. Lombroso and his\nschool, in regard to the close relation between genius and insanity,\nhave been largely disproved; yet there remains little doubt that the two\nsometimes do go together; and such supposed epileptics as Mohammed,\nJulius Caesar, and Napoleon will at once be called to mind. To apply\nsweeping restrictive measures would prevent the production of a certain\namount of talent of a very high order. The situation can only be met by\ndealing with every case on its individual merits, and recognizing that\nit is to the interests of society to allow some very superior\nindividuals to reproduce, even though part of their posterity may be\nmentally or physically somewhat unsound.\n\nA field survey in two typical counties of Indiana (1916) showed that\nthere were 1.8 recognizable epileptics per thousand population. If\nthese figures should approximately hold good for the entire United\nStates, the number of epileptics can hardly be put at less than 150,000.\nSome of them are not anti-social, but many of them are.\n\nFeeble-mindedness and insanity were also included in the census\nmentioned, and the total number of the three kinds of defectives was\nfound to be 19 per thousand in one county and 11.4 per thousand in the\nother. This would suggest a total for the entire United States of\nsomething like one million.\n\nIn addition to these well-recognized classes of hopelessly defective,\nthere is a class of defectives embracing very diverse characteristics,\nwhich demands careful consideration. In it are those who are germinally\nphysical weaklings or deformed, those born with a hereditary diathesis\nor predisposition toward some serious disease (e.g., Huntington's\nChorea), and those with some gross defect of the organs of special\nsense. The germinally blind and deaf will particularly occur to mind in\nthe latter connection. Cases falling in this category demand careful\nscrutiny by biological and psychological experts, before any action can\nbe taken in the interest of eugenics; in many cases the affected\nindividual himself will be glad to cooeperate with society by remaining\ncelibate or by the practice of birth control, to the end of leaving no\noffspring to bear what he has borne.\n\nFinally, we come to the great class of delinquents who have hitherto\nbeen made the particular object of solicitude, on the part of those who\nhave looked with favor upon sterilization legislation. The chronic\ninebriate, the confirmed criminal, the prostitute, the pauper, all\ndeserve careful study by the eugenist. In many cases they will be found\nto be feeble-minded, and proper restriction of the feeble-minded will\nmeet their cases. Thus there is reason to believe that from a third to\ntwo-thirds of the prostitutes in American cities are feeble-minded.[82]\nThey should be committed to institutions for the feeble-minded and kept\nthere. It is certain that many of the pauper class, which fills up\nalmshouses, are similarly deficient. Indeed, the census of 1910\ndiscovered that of the 84,198 paupers in institutions on the first of\nJanuary in that year, 13,238 were feeble-minded, 3,518 insane, 2,202\nepileptic, 918 deaf-mute, 3,375 blind, 13,753 crippled, maimed or\ndeformed. A total of 63.7% of the whole had some serious physical or\nmental defect. Obviously, most of these would be taken care of under\nsome other heading, in the program of restrictive eugenics. While\npaupers should be prohibited from reproduction as long as they are in\nstate custody, careful discrimination is necessary in the treatment of\nthose whose condition is due more to environment than heredity.\n\nIn a consideration of the chronic inebriate, the problem of\nenvironmental influences is again met in an acute form, aggravated by\nthe venom of controversy engendered by bigotry and self-interest. That\nmany chronic inebriates owe their condition almost wholly to heredity,\nand are likely to leave offspring of the same character, is\nindisputable. As to the possibility of \"reforming\" such an individual,\nthere may be room for a difference of opinion; as to the possibility of\nreforming his germ-plasm, there can be none. Society owes them the best\npossible care, and part of its care should certainly be to see that they\ndo not reproduce their kind. As to the borderland cases--and in the\nmatter of inebriety borderland is perhaps bigger than mainland--it is\ndoubtful whether much direct action can be taken in the present state of\nscientific knowledge and of public sentiment. Education of public\nopinion to avoid marriage with drunkards will probably be the most\neffective means of procedure.\n\nFinally, there is the criminal class, over which the respective\nchampions of heredity and environment have so often waged partisan\nwarfare. There is probably no field in which restrictive eugenics would\nthink of interfering, where it encounters so much danger as here--danger\nof wronging both the individual and society. Laws such as have been\npassed in several states, providing for the sterilization of criminals\n_as such,_ must be deplored by the eugenist as much as they are by the\npseudo-sociologist who \"does not believe in heredity\"; but this is not\nsaying that there are not many cases in which eugenic action is\ndesirable; for inheritance of a lack of emotional control makes a man\nin one sense a \"born criminal.\"[83] He is not, in most respects, the\ncreature which he was made out to be by Lombroso and his followers; but\nhe exists, nevertheless, and no ameliorative treatment given him will be\nof such value to society as preventing his reproduction.\n\nThe feeble-minded who make up a large proportion of the petty criminals\nthat fill the jails, must, of course, be excluded from this discussion\nexcept to note that their conviction assists in discovering their\ndefect. They should be treated as feeble-minded, not as criminals.[84]\nThose who may have been made criminals by society, by their environment,\nmust also be excepted. In an investigation, the benefit of the doubt\nshould be given to the individual. But when every possible concession is\nmade to the influence of environment, the psychiatric study of the\nindividual and the investigation of his family history still show that\nthere are criminals who congenitally lack the inhibitions and instincts\nwhich make it possible for others to be useful members of society.[85]\nWhen a criminal of this natural type is found, the duty of society is\nunquestionably to protect itself by cutting off that line of descent.\n\nThis, we believe, covers all the classes which are at this time proper\nsubjects for direct restrictive action with eugenic intent; and we\nrepeat that the problem is not to deal with classes as a whole, but to\ndeal with individuals of the kind described, for the sake of\nconvenience, in the above categories. Artificial class names mean\nnothing to evolution. It would be a crime to cut off the posterity of a\ndesirable member of society merely because he happened to have been\npopularly stigmatized by some class name that carried opprobrium with\nit. Similarly it would be immoral to encourage or permit the\nreproduction of a manifestly defective member of society of the kinds\nindicated, even though that individual might in some way have secured\nthe protection of a class name that was generally considered desirable.\nBearing this in mind, we believe no one can object to a proposal to\nprevent the reproduction of those feeble-minded, insane, epileptic,\ngrossly defective or hopelessly delinquent people, whose condition can\nbe proved to be due to heredity and is therefore probably transmissible\nto their offspring. We can imagine only one objection that might be\nopposed to all the advantages of such a program--namely, that no proper\nmeans can be found for putting it into effect. This objection is\noccasionally urged, but we believe it to be wholly without weight. We\nnow propose to examine the various possible methods of restrictive\neugenics, and to inquire which of them society can most profitably\nadopt.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nMETHODS OF RESTRICTION\n\n\nThe means of restriction can be divided into coercive and non-coercive.\nWe shall discuss the former first, interpreting the word \"coercive\" very\nbroadly.\n\nFrom an historical point of view, the first method which presents itself\nis execution. This has been used since the beginning of the race, very\nprobably, although rarely with a distinct understanding of its eugenic\neffect; and its value in keeping up the standard of the race should not\nbe underestimated. It is a method the use of which prevents the\nrectification of mistakes. There are arguments against it on other\ngrounds, which need not be discussed here, since it suffices to say that\nto put to death defectives or delinquents is wholly out of accord with\nthe spirit of the times, and is not seriously considered by the eugenics\nmovement.\n\nThe next possible method castration. This has practically nothing to\nrecommend it, except that it is effective--an argument that can also be\nmade for the \"lethal chamber.\" The objections against it are\noverwhelming. It has hardly been advocated, even by extremists, save for\nthose whose sexual instincts are extremely disordered; but such advocacy\nis based on ignorance of the results. As a fact, castration frequently\ndoes not diminish the sexual impulses. Its use should be limited to\ncases where desirable for therapeutic reasons as well.\n\nIt is possible, however, to render either a man or woman sterile by a\nmuch less serious operation than castration. This operation, which has\ngained wide attention in recent years under the name of \"sterilization,\"\nusually takes the form of vasectomy in man and salpingectomy in woman;\nit is desirable that the reader should have a clear understanding of its\nnature.\n\nVasectomy is a trivial operation performed in a few minutes, almost\npainlessly with the use of cocain as a local anaesthetic; it is sometimes\nperformed with no anaesthetic whatever. The patient's sexual life is not\naffected in any way, save in the one respect that he is sterile.\n\nSalpingectomy is more serious, because the operation can not be\nperformed so near the surface of the body. The sexual life of the\nsubject is in no way changed, save that she is rendered barren; but the\noperation is attended by illness and expense.\n\nThe general advantage claimed for sterilization, as a method of\npreventing the reproduction of persons whose offspring would probably be\na detriment to race progress, is the accomplishment of the end in view\nwithout much expense to the state, and without interfering with the\n\"liberty and pursuit of happiness\" of the individual. The general\nobjection to it is that by removing all fear of consequences from an\nindividual, it is likely to lead to the spread of sexual immorality and\nvenereal disease. This objection is entitled to some consideration; but\nthere exists a still more fundamental objection against sterilization as\na program--namely, that it is sometimes not fair to the individual. Its\neugenic effects may be all that are desired; but in some cases its\neuthenic effects must frequently be deplorable. Most of the persons whom\nit is proposed to sterilize are utterly unfit to hold their own in the\nworld, in competition with normal people. For society to sterilize the\nfeeble-minded, the insane, the alcoholic, the born criminals, the\nepileptic, and then turn them out to shift for themselves, saying, \"We\nhave no further concern with you, now that we know you will leave no\nchildren behind you,\" is unwise. People of this sort should be humanely\nisolated, so that they will be brought into competition only with their\nown kind; and they should be kept so segregated, not only until they\nhave passed the reproductive age, but until death brings them relief\nfrom their misfortunes. Such a course is, in most cases, the only one\nworthy of a Christian nation; and it is obvious that if such a course is\nfollowed, the sexes can be effectively separated without difficulty, and\nany sterilization operation will be unnecessary.\n\nGenerally speaking, the only objection urged against segregation is\nthat of expense. In reply, it may be said that the expense will decrease\nsteadily, when segregation is viewed as a long-time investment, because\nthe number of future wards of the state of any particular type will be\ndecreasing every year. Moreover, a large part of the expense can be met\nby properly organizing the labor of the inmates. This is particularly\ntrue of the feeble-minded, who will make up the largest part of the\nburden because of their numbers and the fact that most of them are not\nnow under state care. As for the insane, epileptic, incorrigibly\ncriminal, and the other defectives and delinquents embraced in the\nprogram, the state is already taking care of a large proportion of them,\nand the additional expense of making this care life-long, and extending\nit to those not yet under state control, but equally deserving of it,\ncould probably be met by better organization of the labor of the persons\ninvolved, most of whom are able to do some sort of work that will at\nleast cover the cost of their maintenance.\n\nThat the problem is less serious than has often been supposed, may be\nillustrated by the following statement from H. Hastings Hart of the\nRussell Sage Foundation:\n\n\"Of the 10,000 (estimated) mentally defective women of child-bearing age\nin the state of New York, only about 1,750 are cared for in institutions\ndesignated for the care of the feeble-minded, and about 4,000 are\nconfined in insane asylums, reformatories and prisons, while at least\n4,000 (probably many more) are at large in the community.\n\n\"With reference to the 4,000 feeble-minded who are confined in hospitals\nfor insane, prisons and reformatories and almshouses, the state would\nactually be the financial gainer by providing for them in custodial\ninstitutions. At the Rome Custodial Asylum 1,230 inmates are humanely\ncared for at $2.39 per week. The same class of inmates is being cared\nfor in the boys' reformatories at $4.66; in the hospitals for insane at\n$3.90; in the girls' reformatory at $5.47, and in the almshouse at about\n$1.25. If all of these persons were transferred to an institution\nconducted on the scale of the Rome Custodial Asylum, they would not only\nrelieve these other institutions of inmates who do not belong there and\nwho are a great cause of care and anxiety, but they would make room for\nnew patients of the proper class, obviating the necessity for\nenlargement. The money thus saved would build ample institutions for the\ncare of these people at a much less per capita cost than that of the\nprisons, reformatories and asylums where they are now kept, and the\nannual per capita cost of maintenance would be reduced from 20 to 50 per\ncent., except in almshouses, where the cost would be increased about $1\nper week, but the almshouse inmates compose only a small fraction of the\nwhole number.\n\n\"I desire to emphasize the fact that one-half of the feeble-minded of\nthis state are already under public care, but that two-thirds of them\nare cared for in the wrong kind of institutions. This difficulty can be\nremedied without increasing the public burden, in the manner already\nsuggested. That leaves 15,000 feeble-minded for whom no provision has\nyet been made. It must be remembered that these 15,000 persons are being\ncared for in some way. We do not allow them to starve to death, but they\nare fed, clothed and housed, usually by the self-denying labor of their\nrelatives. Thousands of poor mothers are giving up their lives largely\nto the care of a feeble-minded child, but these mothers are unable to so\nprotect them from becoming a menace to the community, and, in the long\nrun, it would be far more economical for the community to segregate them\nin institutions than to allow them to remain in their homes, only to\nbecome ultimately paupers, criminals, prostitutes or parents of children\nlike themselves.\"\n\nSome sort of provision is now made for some of the feeble-minded in\nevery state excepting eleven, viz.: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia,\nLouisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee and Utah and\nWest Virginia. Delaware sends a few cases to Pennsylvania institutions;\nother states sometimes care for especially difficult cases in hospitals\nfor the insane. The District of Columbia should be added to the list, as\nhaving no institution for the care of its 800 or more feeble-minded.\nAlaska is likewise without such an institution.\n\nOf the several hundred thousand feeble-minded persons in the United\nStates, probably not more than a tenth are getting the institutional\ncare which is needed in most cases for their own happiness, and in\nnearly every case for the protection of society. It is evident that a\ngreat deal of new machinery must be created, or old institutions\nextended, to meet this pressing problem--[86] a problem to which,\nfortunately, the public is showing signs of awakening. In our opinion,\nthe most promising attempt to solve the problem has been made by the\nTraining School of Vineland, New Jersey, through its \"Colony Plan.\"\nSuperintendent E. R. Johnstone of the Training School describes the\npossibilities of action along this line, as follows:[87]\n\n There are idiots, imbeciles, morons and backward children. The\n morons and the backward children are found in the public schools in\n large numbers. Goddard's studies showed twelve per cent. of an\n entire school district below the high school to be two or three\n years behind their grades, and three per cent. four or more years\n behind.\n\n It is difficult for the expert to draw the line between these two\n classes, and parents and teachers are loth to admit that the morons\n are defective. This problem can best be solved by the establishment\n of special classes in the public schools for all who lag more than\n one year behind. If for no other reason, the normal children should\n be relieved of the drag of these backward pupils. The special\n classes will become the clearing houses. The training should be\n largely manual and industrial and as practical as possible. As the\n number of classes in any school district increases, the\n classification will sift out those who are merely backward and a\n little coaching and special attention will return them to the\n grades. The others--the morons--will remain and as long as they are\n not dangerous to society (sexually or otherwise) they may live at\n home and attend the special classes. As they grow older they will\n be transferred to proper custodial institutions. In the city\n districts, where there are many classes, this will occur between\n twelve and sixteen years of age. In the country districts it will\n occur earlier.\n\nThese institutions will be the training schools and will form the center\nfor the training and care of the other two groups, i. e., the imbeciles\nand idiots. Branching out from the training schools should be colonies\n(unless the parent institution is on a very large tract of ground, which\nis most advisable). These colonies, or groups of comparatively small\nbuildings, should be of two classes. For the imbeciles, simple buildings\ncosting from two to four hundred dollars per inmate. The units might\nwell be one hundred. A unit providing four dormitories, bath house,\ndining-halls, employees' buildings, pump house, water tank, sewage\ndisposal, laundry, stables and farm buildings can be built within the\nabove figures providing the buildings are of simple construction and one\nstory. This has been done at Vineland by having the larger imbecile and\nmoron boys make the cement blocks of which the buildings are\nconstructed.\n\nFor the idiots the construction can be much the same. Larger porches\nfacing the south and more toilet fixtures will be necessary, and so add\na little to the cost.\n\nThe colony should be located on rough uncleared land--preferable\nforestry land. Here these unskilled fellows find happy and useful\noccupation, waste humanity taking waste land and thus not only\ncontributing toward their own support, but also making over land that\nwould otherwise be useless.\n\nOne reason for building inexpensive buildings is that having cleared a\nlarge tract--say 1,000 acres--the workers can be moved to another waste\ntract and by brushing, clearing of rocks, draining and what not,\nincrease its value sufficiently to keep on moving indefinitely.\n\nMany of these boy-men make excellent farmers, dairymen, swineherds and\npoultry raisers under proper direction, and in the winter they can work\nin the tailor, paint, carpenter, mattress and mat shops.\n\nNor need this be confined to the males alone. The girl-women raise\npoultry, small fruits and vegetables very successfully. They pickle and\ncan the products of the land, and in winter do knitting, netting and\nsewing of all kinds.\n\nNo manufacturer of to-day has let the product of his plant go to waste\nas society has wasted the energies of this by-product of humanity. And\nthe feeble-minded are happy when they have occupation suited to their\nneeds. If one will but see them when they are set at occupations within\ntheir comprehension and ability, he will quickly understand the joy they\nget out of congenial work.\n\nColonies such as Mr. Johnstone describes will take care of the\nable-bodied feeble-minded; other institutions will provide for the very\nyoung and the aged; finally, there will always be many of these\ndefectives who can best be \"segregated\" in their own homes; whose\nrelatives have means and inclination to care for them, and sufficient\nfeeling of responsibility to see that the interests of society are\nprotected. If there is any doubt on this last point, the state should\nitself assume charge, or should sterilize the defective individuals; but\nit is not likely that sterilization will need to be used to any large\nextent in the solution of this problem. In general it may be said that\nfeeble-mindedness is the greatest single dysgenic problem facing the\ncountry, that it can be effectively solved by segregation, and that it\npresents no great difficulty save the initial one of arousing the public\nto its importance.\n\nSimilarly the hereditarily insane and epileptic can best be cared for\nthrough life-long segregation--a course which society is likely to adopt\nreadily, because of a general dread of having insane and epileptic\npersons at liberty in the community. There are undoubtedly cases where\nthe relatives of the affected individual can and should assume\nresponsibility for his care. No insane or epileptic person whose\ncondition is probably of a hereditary character should be allowed to\nleave an institution unless it is absolutely certain that he or she will\nnot become a parent: if sterilization is the only means to assure this,\nthen it should be used. In many cases it has been found that the\nindividual and his relatives welcome such a step.\n\nThe habitual criminals, the chronic alcoholics, and the other defectives\nwhom we have mentioned as being undesirable parents, will in most cases\nneed to be given institutional care throughout life, in their own\ninterest as well as that of society. This is already being done with\nmany of them, and the extension of the treatment involves no new\nprinciple nor special difficulty.\n\nIt should be borne in mind that, from a eugenic point of view, the\nessential element in segregation is not so much isolation from society,\nbut separation of the two sexes. Properly operated, segregation\nincreases the happiness of the individuals segregated, as well as\nworking to the advantage of the body politic. In most cases the only\nobjection to it is the expense, and this, as we have shown, need not be\nan insuperable difficulty. For these reasons, we believe that\nsegregation is the best way in which to restrict the reproduction of\nthose whose offspring could hardly fail to be undesirable, and that\nsterilization should be looked upon only as an adjunct, to be used in\nspecial cases where it may seem advantageous to allow an individual full\nliberty, or partial liberty, and yet where he or she can not be trusted\nto avoid reproduction.\n\nHaving reached this point in the discussion of restrictive eugenics, it\nmay be profitable to consider the so-called \"eugenic laws\" which have\nbeen before the public in many states during recent years. They are one\nof the first manifestations of an awakening public conscience on the\nsubject of eugenics; they show that the public, or part of it, feels the\nnecessity of action; they equally show that the principles which should\nguide restrictive eugenics are not properly understood by most of those\nwho have interested themselves in the legislative side of the program.\n\nTwelve states now have laws on their statute books (but usually not in\nforce) providing for the sterilization of certain classes of\nindividuals. Similar laws have been passed in a number of other states,\nbut were vetoed by the governors; while in many others bills have been\nintroduced but not passed. We shall review only the bills which are\nactually on the statute books in 1916, and shall not attempt to detail\nall the provisions of them, but shall consider only the means by which\nthey propose to attain a eugenic end.\n\nThe state of Indiana allows the sterilization of all inmates of state\ninstitutions, deemed by a commission of three surgeons to be\nunimprovable physically or mentally, and unfit for procreation. The\nobject is purely eugenic. After a few hundred operations had been\nperformed in Jeffersonville reformatory, the law aroused the hostility\nof Governor Thomas R. Marshall, who succeeded in preventing its\nenforcement; since 1913 we believe it has not been in effect. It is\ndefectively drawn in some ways, particularly because it includes those\nwho will be kept in custody for life, and who are therefore not proper\nobjects of sterilization.\n\nThe Washington law applies to habitual criminals and sex offenders; it\nis a punitive measure which may be ordered by the court passing sentence\non the offender, but has never been put in force. Sterilization is not a\nsuitable method of punishment, and its value as a eugenic instrument is\njeopardized by the interjection of the punitive motive.\n\nCalifornia applied her law to all inmates (not voluntary) of state\nhospitals for the insane and the state home for the feeble-minded, and\nall recidivists in the state prisons. The motive is partly eugenic,\npartly therapeutic, partly punitive. It is reported[88] that 635\noperations have been performed under this law, which is administered by\nthe state commission for the insane, the resident physician of any state\nprison, and the medical superintendent of any state institution for\n\"fools and idiots.\" For several years California had the distinction of\nbeing the only state where sterilization was actually being performed in\naccordance with the law. The California measure applies to those serving\nlife sentences--an unnecessary application. Although falling short of an\nideal measure in some other particulars, it seems on the whole to be\nsatisfactorily administered.\n\nConnecticut's law provides that all inmates of state prisons and of the\nstate hospitals at Middletown and Norwich may be sterilized if such\naction is recommended by a board of three surgeons, on eugenic or\ntherapeutic grounds. It has been applied to a few insane persons (21, up\nto September, 1916).\n\nNevada has a purely punitive sterilization law applying to habitual\ncriminals and sex offenders. The courts, which are authorized to apply\nit, have never done so.\n\n[Illustration: FEEBLE-MINDED MEN ARE CAPABLE OF MUCH ROUGH LABOR\n\nFIG. 30.--Most of the cost of segregating the mentally\ndefective can be met by properly organizing their labor, so as to make\nthem as nearly self-supporting as possible. It has been found that they\nperform excellently such work as clearing forest land, or reforesting\ncleared land, and great gangs of them might profitably be put at such\nwork, in most states. Photograph from the Training School, Vineland, N.\nJ.]\n\n[Illustration: FEEBLE-MINDED AT A VINELAND COLONY\n\nFIG. 31.--They have the bodies of adults but the minds of\nchildren. It is not to the interest of the state that they should be\nallowed to mingle with the normal population; and it is quite as little\nto their own interest, for they are not capable of competing\nsuccessfully with people who are normal mentally.]\n\nIowa's comprehensive statute applies to inmates of public institutions\nfor criminals, rapists, idiots, feeble-minded, imbeciles, lunatics,\ndrug fiends, epileptics, syphilitics, moral and sexual perverts and\ndiseased and degenerate persons. It is compulsory in case of persons\ntwice convicted of felony or of a sexual offense other than \"white\nslavery,\" in which offense one conviction makes sterilization mandatory.\nThe state parole board, with the managing officer and physician of each\ninstitution, constitute the executive authorities. The act has many\nobjectionable features, one of the most striking of which is the\ninclusion of syphilitics under the head of persons whom it is proposed\nto sterilize. As syphilis is a curable disease, there is scarcely more\nreason for sterilizing those afflicted with it than there is for\nsterilizing persons with measles. It is true that the sterilization of a\nlarge number of syphilitics might have a eugenic effect, if the cured\nsyphilitics had a permanently impaired germ-plasm--a proposition which\nis very doubtful. But the framers of the law apparently were not\ninfluenced by that aspect of the case, and in any event such a method of\nprocedure is too round-about to be commendable. Criminals as such, and\nsyphilitics, should certainly be removed from the workings of this law,\nand dealt with in some other way. However, no operations are reported as\nhaving been performed under the act.\n\nNew Jersey's law, which has never been operative, represents a much more\nadvanced statute; it applies to inmates of state reformatories,\ncharitable and penal institutions (rapists and confirmed criminals) and\nprovides for a board of expert examiners, as well as for legal\nprocedure.\n\nNew York's law, applying to inmates of state hospitals for the insane,\nstate prisons, reformatories and charitable institutions, is also fairly\nwell drawn, providing for a board of examiners, and surrounding the\noperation with legal safeguards. No operations have been performed under\nit.\n\nNorth Dakota includes inmates of state prisons, reform school, school\nfor feeble-minded and asylum for the insane in its law, which is\nadministered by a special board. Although an emergency clause was tacked\non, when it was passed in 1913, putting it into effect at once, no\noperations have been performed under it.\n\nMichigan's law applies to all inmates of state institutions maintained\nwholly or in part at public expense. It lacks many of the provisions of\nan ideal law, but is being applied to some of the feeble-minded.\n\nThe Kansas law, which provides suitable court procedure, embraces\ninmates of all state institutions intrusted with the care or custody of\nhabitual criminals, idiots, epileptics, imbeciles or insane, an\n\"habitual criminal\" being defined as \"a person who has been convicted of\nsome felony involving moral turpitude.\" It has been a dead letter ever\nsince it was placed on the statute books.\n\nWisconsin[89] provides for a special board to consider the cases of \"all\ninmates of state and county institutions for criminal, insane,\nfeeble-minded and epileptic persons,\" prior to their release. The law\nhas some good features, and has been applied to a hundred or more\nfeeble-minded persons.\n\nIn 1911 the American Breeders' Association appointed a \"Committee to\nStudy and Report on the Best Practical Means of Cutting Off the\nDefective Germ-Plasm in the American Population,\" and this committee has\nbeen at work ever since, under auspices of the Eugenics Record Office,\nmaking a particular study of legal sterilization. It points out[90] that\na sterilization law, to be of the greatest possible value, must:\n\n(1) Consider sterilization as a eugenic measure, not as a punitive or\neven therapeutic one.\n\n(2) Provide due process of law, before any operation is carried out.\n\n(3) Provide adequate and competent executive agents.\n\n(4) Designate only proper classes of persons as subject to the law.\n\n(5) Provide for the nomination of individuals for sterilization, by\nsuitable procedure.\n\n(6) Make an adequate investigation of each case, the family history\nbeing the most important part, and one which is often neglected at\npresent.\n\n(7) Have express and adequate criteria for determining upon\nsterilization.\n\n(8) Designate the type of operation authorized.\n\n(9) Make each distinct step mandatory and fix definitely the\nresponsibility for it.\n\n(10) Make adequate appropriation for carrying out the measure.\n\nTested by such standards, there is not a sterilization law in existence\nin the United States at the time this is written that is wholly\ncommendable; and those introduced in various states during the last few\nyears, but not passed, show few signs of improvement. It is evident that\nthe commendable zeal has not had adequate guidance, in the drafting of\nsterilization legislation. The committee above referred to has drawn up\na model law, and states which wish to adopt a program of legislative\nsterilization should pass a measure embodying at least the principles of\nthis model law. But, as we have pointed out, wholesale sterilization is\nan unsatisfactory substitute for segregation. There are cases where it\nis advisable, in states too poor or niggardly to care adequately for\ntheir defectives and delinquents, but eugenists should favor segregation\nas the main policy, with sterilization for the special cases as\npreviously indicated.\n\nThere is another way in which attempts have recently been made to\nrestrict the reproduction of anti-social persons: by putting\nrestrictions on marriage. This form of campaign, although usually\ncalling itself eugenic, has been due far less to eugenists than to sex\nhygienists who have chosen to sail under a borrowed flag. Every eugenist\nmust wish them success in their efforts to promote sex hygiene, but it\nis a matter of regret that they can not place their efforts in the\nproper light, for their masquerade as a eugenic propaganda has brought\nundeserved reproach on the eugenics movement.\n\nThe customary form of legal action in this case is to demand that both\napplicants for a marriage license, or in some cases only the male, sign\nan affidavit or present a certificate from some medical authority\nstating that an examination has been made and the applicant found to be\nfree from any venereal disease. In some cases other diseases or mental\ndefects are included. When the law prevents marriage on account of\ninsanity, feeble-mindedness, or other hereditary defect, it obviously\nhas a eugenic value; but in so far as it concerns itself with venereal\ndiseases, which are not hereditary, it is only of indirect interest to\neugenics. The great objection to such laws is that they are too easily\nevaded by the persons whom they are intended to reach--a fact that has\nbeen demonstrated conclusively wherever they have been put in force.\nFurthermore, the nature of the examination demanded is usually wholly\ninadequate to ascertain whether the applicant really is or is not\nafflicted with a venereal disease. Finally, it is to be borne in mind\nthat the denial of a marriage license will by no means prevent\nreproduction, among the anti-social classes of the community.\n\nFor these reasons, the so-called eugenic laws of several states, which\nprovide for a certificate of health before a marriage license is issued,\nare not adequate eugenic measures. They have some value in awakening\npublic sentiment to the value of a clean record in a prospective life\npartner. To the extent that they are enforced, the probability that\npersons afflicted with venereal disease are on the average eugenically\ninferior to the unaffected gives these laws some eugenic effect. We are\nnot called on to discuss them from a hygienic point of view; but we\nbelieve that it is a mistake for eugenists to let legislation of this\nsort be anything but a minor achievement, to be followed up by more\nefficient legislation.\n\nLaws which tend to surround marriage with a reasonable amount of\nformality and publicity are, in general, desirable eugenically. They\ntend to discourage hasty and secret marriages, and to make matrimony\nappear as a matter in which the public has a legitimate interest, and\nwhich is not to be undertaken lightly and without consideration. Laws\ncompelling the young to get the consent of their parents before marriage\nare to be placed in this category; and likewise the German law which\nrequires the presentation of birth-certificates before a marriage\nlicense is issued.\n\nA revival under proper form of the old custom of publishing the banns is\ndesirable. Undoubtedly many hasty and ill-considered marriages are\ncontracted at the present time, with dysgenic results, which could be\nprevented if the relatives and friends of the contracting parties knew\nwhat was going on, and could bring to light defects or objections\nunknown or not properly realized by the young people. Among other\nstates, Missouri has recently considered such a law, proposing that each\napplicant for a marriage license be required to present a certificate\nfrom a reputable physician, stating in concise terms the applicant's\nhealth and his fitness to marry. Notice of application for a marriage\nlicense shall be published in a daily paper three consecutive times, at\nthe expense of the county. If at the expiration of one day from the\npublication of the last notice, no charges have been filed with the\nrecorder alleging the applicants' unfitness to marry, license shall be\ngranted. If objection be made by three persons not related in blood to\neach other, on the ground of any item mentioned in the physician's\ncertificate, the case shall be taken before the circuit court; if the\ncourt sustains the objection of these three unrelated persons, a license\nto wed shall be denied; if the court overrules the objection, the\nlicense shall be granted and court costs charged to the objectors.\n\nAlthough interesting as showing the drift of public sentiment toward a\nrevival of the banns, this proposed law is poorly drawn. Three unrelated\nlaymen and the judge of a circuit court are not the proper persons to\ndecide on the biological fitness of a proposed marriage. We believe the\ninterests of eugenics would be sufficiently met at this time by a law\nwhich provided that adequate notice of application for marriage license\nshould be published, and no license granted (except under exceptional\ncircumstances) until the expiration of two weeks from the publication of\nthe notice. This would give families and friends time to act; but it is\nprobably not practicable to forbid the issuance of a license at the\nexpiration of the designated time, unless evidence is brought forward\nshowing that one of the applicants is not legally capable of\ncontracting marriage because of a previous mate still living and\nundivorced, or because of insanity, feeble-mindedness, under age, etc.\nSuch a law, we believe, could be put on the statute books of any state,\nand enforced, without arousing prejudices or running counter to public\nsentiment; and its eugenic value, if small, would certainly be real.\n\nThis exhausts the list of suggested coercive means of restricting the\nreproduction of the inferior. What we propose is, we believe, a very\nmodest program, and one which can be carried out, as soon as public\nopinion is educated on the subject, without any great sociological,\nlegal or financial hindrances. We suggest nothing more than that\nindividuals whose offspring would almost certainly be subversive of the\ngeneral welfare, be prevented from having any offspring. In most cases,\nsuch individuals are, or should be, given life-long institutional care\nfor their own benefit, and it is an easy matter, by segregation of the\nsexes, to prevent reproduction. In a few cases, it will probably be\nfound desirable to sterilize the individual by a surgical operation.\n\nSuch coercive restriction does, in some cases, sacrifice what may be\nconsidered personal rights. In such instances, personal rights must give\nway before the immensely greater interests of the race. But there is a\nmuch larger class of cases, where coercion can not be approved, and yet\nwhere an enlightened conscience, or the subtle force of public opinion,\nmay well bring about some measure of restraint on reproduction. This\nclass includes many individuals who are not in any direct way\ndetrimental to society; and who yet have some inherited taint or defect\nthat should be checked, and of which they, if enlightened, would\nprobably be the first to desire the elimination. The number of\nhigh-minded persons who deliberately refrain from marriage, or\nparenthood, in the interests of posterity, is greater than any one\nimagines, except a eugenist brought into intimate relations with people\nwho take an intelligent interest in the subject.\n\nX. comes, let us say, from a family in which there is a persistent taint\nof epilepsy, or insanity. X. is a normal, useful, conscientious member\nof society. To talk of segregating such an individual would be rash. But\nX. has given some thought to heredity and eugenics, and decides that he,\nor she, will refrain from marriage, in order to avoid transmitting the\nfamily taint to another generation. Here we have, in effect, a\nnon-coercive restriction of reproduction. What shall we say of the\naction of X. in remaining celibate,--is it wise or unwise? To be\nencouraged or condemned?\n\nIt is perhaps the most delicate problem which applied eugenics offers.\nIt is a peculiarly personal one, and the outsider who advises in such a\ncase is assuming a heavy responsibility, not only in regard to the\nfuture welfare of the race, but to the individual happiness of X. We can\nnot accept the sweeping generalization sometimes made that \"Strength\nshould marry weakness and weakness marry strength.\" No more can we hold\nfast to the ideal, which we believe to be utopian, that \"Strength should\nonly marry strength.\" There are cases where such glittering generalities\nare futile; where the race and the individual would both be gainers by a\nmarriage which produced children that had the family taint, but either\nlatent or not to a degree serious enough to counteract their value. The\nindividual must decide for himself with especial reference to the trait\nin question and his other compensating qualities; but he should at least\nhave the benefit of whatever light genetics can offer him, before he\nmakes his decision.\n\nFor the sake of a concrete example, let us suppose that a man, in whose\nancestry tuberculosis has appeared for several generations, is\ncontemplating marriage. The first thing to be remembered is that if he\nmarries a woman with a similar family history, their children will have\na double inheritance of the taint, and are almost certain to be affected\nunless living in an especially favorable region. It would _in most\ncases_ be best that no children result from such a marriage.\n\nOn the other hand, the man may marry a woman in whose family consumption\nis unknown. The chance of their children being tuberculous will not be\ngreat; nevertheless the taint, the diathesis, will be passed on just the\nsame, although concealed, possibly to appear at some future time. Such\na marriage is in some ways more dangerous to the race, in the long run,\nthan that of \"weakness with weakness.\" Yet society at present certainly\nhas no safe grounds for interference, if such a marriage is made. If the\ntwo persons come of superior stock, it seems _probable_ that the gain\nwill outweigh the loss. In any event, it is at least to be expected that\nboth man and woman would have a deliberate consciousness of what they\nare doing, and that no person with any honor would enter into a\nmarriage, concealing a defect in his or her ancestry. Love is usually\nblind enough to overlook such a thing, but if it chooses not to, it\nought not to be blindfolded.\n\nIn short, the mating of strength with strength is certainly the ideal\nwhich society should have and which every individual should have. But\nhuman heredity is so mixed that this ideal is not always practicable;\nand if any two persons wish to abandon it, society is hardly justified\nin interfering, unless the case be so gross as those which we were\ndiscussing in the first part of this chapter. Progress in this direction\nis to be expected mainly from the enlightened action of the individual.\nMuch more progress in the study of heredity must be made before advice\non marriage matings can be given in any except fairly obvious cases. The\nmost that can now be done is to urge that a full knowledge of the family\nhistory of an intended life partner be sought, to encourage the discreet\ninquiries and subtle guidance of parents, and to appeal to the eugenic\nconscience of a young man or woman. In case of doubt the advice of a\ncompetent biologist should be taken. There is a real danger that\nhigh-minded people may allow some minor physical defect to outweigh a\ngreater mental excellence.\n\nThere remains one other non-coercive method of influencing the\ndistribution of marriage, which deserves consideration in this\nconnection.\n\nWe have said that society can not well put many restrictions on marriage\nat the present time. We urge by every means at our command that marriage\nbe looked upon more seriously, that it be undertaken with more\ndeliberation and consideration. We consider it a crime for people to\nmarry, without knowing each other's family histories. But in spite of\nall this, ill-assorted, dysgenic marriages will still be made. When such\na marriage is later demonstrated to have been a mistake, not only from\nan individual, but also from a eugenic point of view, society should be\nready to dissolve the union. Divorce is far preferable to mere\nseparation, since the unoffending party should not be denied the\nprivilege of remarriage, as the race in most cases needs his or her\ncontribution to the next generation. In extreme cases, it would be\nproper for society to take adequate steps to insure that the dysgenic\nparty could neither remarry nor have offspring outside marriage. The\ntime-honored justifiable grounds for divorce,--adultery, sterility,\nimpotence, venereal infection, desertion, non-support, habitual\ncruelty,--appear to us to be no more worthy of legal recognition\nthan the more purely dysgenic grounds of chronic inebriety,\nfeeble-mindedness, epilepsy, insanity or any other serious inheritable\nphysical, mental or moral defect.\n\nThis view of the eugenic value of divorce should not be construed as a\nplea for the admission of mutual consent as a ground for divorce. It is\ndesirable, however, to realize that mismating is the real evil. Divorce\nin such cases is merely a cure for an improper condition. Social\ncondemnation should stigmatize the wrong of mismating, not the undoing\nof such a wrong.\n\nRestrictions on age at marriage are almost universal. The object is to\nprevent too early marriages. The objections which are commonly urged\nagainst early marriage (in so far as they bear upon eugenics) are the\nfollowing:\n\n1. That it results in inferior offspring. This objection is not well\nsupported except possibly in the most extreme cases. Physically, there\nis evidence that the younger parents on the whole bear the sounder\nchildren.\n\n2. That a postponement of marriage provides the opportunity for better\nsexual selection. This is a valid ground for discouraging the marriage\nof minors.\n\n3. The better educated classes are obliged to marry late, because a man\nusually can not marry until he has finished his education and\nestablished himself in business. A fair amount of restriction as to age\nat marriage will therefore not affect these classes, but may affect the\nuneducated classes. In so far as lack of education is correlated with\neugenic inferiority, some restriction of this sort is desirable, because\nit will keep inferiors from reproducing too rapidly, as compared with\nthe superior elements of the population.\n\nWhile the widespread rule that men should not marry under 21 and women\nunder 18 has some justification, then, an ideal law would permit\nexceptions where there was adequate income and good mating.\n\nLaws to prohibit or restrict consanguineous marriages fall within the\nscope of this chapter, in so far as they are not based on dogma alone,\nsince their aim is popularly supposed to be to prevent marriages that\nwill result in undesirable offspring. Examining the laws of all the\nUnited States, C. B. Davenport[91] found the following classes excluded\nfrom marriage:\n\n1. Sibs (i.e., full brothers and sisters) in all states, and half sibs\nin most states.\n\n2. Parent and child in all states, and parent and grandchild in all\nstates except Pennsylvania.\n\n3. Child and parent's sibs (i.e., niece and uncle, nephew and aunt).\nProhibited in all but four states.\n\n4. First cousins. Marriages of this type are prohibited in over a third\nof the states, and tacitly or specifically permitted in the others.\n\n5. Other blood relatives are occasionally prohibited from marrying.\nThus, second cousins in Oklahoma and a child and his or her parent's\nhalf sibs in Alabama, Minnesota, New Jersey, Texas, and other states.\n\nIn the closest of blood-relationships the well-nigh universal\nrestrictions should be retained. But when marriage between cousins--the\ncommonest form of consanguineous marriage--is examined, it is found to\nresult frequently well, sometimes ill. There is a widespread belief that\nsuch marriages are dangerous, and in support of this idea, one is\nreferred to the histories of various isolated communities where\nconsanguineous marriage is alleged to have led to \"an appalling amount\nof defect and degeneracy.\" Without questioning the facts, one may\nquestion the interpretation of the facts, and it seems to us that a\nwrong interpretation of these stories is partly responsible for the\nwidespread condemnation of cousin marriage at the present time.\n\nThe Bahama Islands furnish one of the stock examples. Clement A. Penrose\nwrites[92] of them:\n\n\"In some of the white colonies where black blood has been excluded, and\nwhere, owing to their isolated positions, frequent intermarriage has\ntaken place, as for instance at Spanish Wells, and Hopetown, much\ndegeneracy is present, manifested by many abnormalities of mind and\nbody.... I am strongly of the opinion that the deplorable state of\ndegeneracy which we observed at Hopetown has been in a great measure, if\nnot entirely, brought about by too close intermarrying of the\ninhabitants.\"\n\nTo demonstrate his point, he took the pains to compile a family tree of\nthe most degenerate strains at Hopetown. There are fifty-five marriages\nrepresented, and the chart is overlaid with twenty-three red lines, each\nof which is said to represent an intermarriage. This looks like a good\ndeal of consanguineous mating; but to test the matter a little farther\nthe fraternity at the bottom of the chart,--eight children, of whom five\nwere idiots,--was traced. In the second generation it ran to another\nisland, and when the data gave out, at the fourth generation, there was\nnot a single case of consanguineous marriage involved.\n\nAnother fraternity was then picked out consisting of two men, both\nidiots and congenitally blind, and a woman who had married and given\nbirth to ten normal children. In the fourth generation this pedigree,\nwhich was far from complete, went out of the islands; so far as the data\nshowed there was not a single case of consanguineous marriage. There was\none case where a name was repeated, but the author had failed to mark\nthis as a case of intermarriage, if it really was such. It is difficult\nto share the conviction of Dr. Penrose, that the two pedigrees\ninvestigated, offer an example of the nefarious workings of\nintermarriage.\n\nFinally a fraternity was traced to which the author had called\nparticular attention because three of its eleven members were born\nblind. The defect was described as \"optic atrophy associated with a\npigmentary retinitis and choryditis\" and \"this condition,\" Dr. Penrose\naverred, \"is one stated by the authorities to be due to the effects of\nconsanguineous marriage.\"\n\nFortunately, the pedigree was fairly full and several lines of it could\nbe carried through the sixth generation. There was, indeed, a\nconsiderable amount of consanguineous marriage involved. When the amount\nof inbreeding represented by these blind boys was measured, it proved to\nbe almost identical with the amount represented by the present Kaiser of\nGermany.[93]\n\nWe are unable to see in such a history as that of Hopetown, Bahama\nIslands, any evidence that consanguineous marriage necessarily results\nin degeneracy. Dr. Penrose himself points to a potent factor when he\nsays of his chart in another connection: \"It will be noticed that only a\nfew of the descendants of Widow Malone [the first settler at Hopetown]\nare indicated as having married. By this it is not meant that the others\ndid not marry; many of them did, but they moved away and settled\nelsewhere, and in no way affected the future history of the settlement\nof Hopetown.\"\n\nBy moving away, it appears to us, they did very decidedly affect the\nfuture history of Hopetown. Who are the emigrants? Might they not have\nbeen the more enterprising and intelligent, the physically and mentally\nsuperior of the population, who rebelled at the limited opportunities of\ntheir little village, and went to seek a fortune in some broader field?\nDid not the best go in general; the misfits, the defectives, stay behind\nto propagate? Emigration in such a case would have the same effect as\nwar; it would drain off the best stock and leave the weaklings to stay\nhome and propagate their kind. Under such conditions, defectives would\nbe bound to multiply, regardless of whether or not the marriages are\nconsanguineous.\n\n\"It will be seen at a glance,\" Dr. Penrose writes, \"that early in the\nhistory of the Malone family these indications of degeneracy were\nabsent; but they began in the fourth generation and rapidly increased\nafterward until they culminated by the presence of five idiots in one\nfamily. The original stock was apparently excellent, but the present\nstate of the descendants is deplorable.\"\n\nNow three generations of emigration from a little community, which even\nto-day has only 1,000 inhabitants, would naturally make quite a\ndifference in the average eugenic quality of the population. In almost\nany population, a few defectives are constantly being produced. Take out\nthe better individuals, and leave these defectives to multiply, and the\namount of degeneracy in the population will increase, regardless of\nwhether the defectives are marrying their cousins, or unrelated persons.\nThe family of five idiots, cited by Dr. Penrose, is an excellent\nillustration, for it is not the result of consanguineous marriage--at\nleast, not in a close enough degree to have appeared on the chart. It is\ndoubtless a mating of like with like; and biologically, consanguineous\nmarriage is nothing more.\n\nHonesty demands, therefore, that consanguineous marriage be not credited\nwith results for which the consanguineous element is in no wise\nresponsible. The prevailing habit of picking out a community or a strain\nwhere consanguineous marriage and defects are associated and loudly\ndeclaring the one to be the cause of the other, is evidence of the lack\nof scientific thought that is all too common.\n\nMost of the studies of these isolated communities where intermarriage\nhas taken place, illustrate the same point. C. B. Davenport, for example,\nquotes[94] an anonymous correspondent from the island of Bermuda, which\n\"shows the usual consequence of island life.\" He writes: \"In some of the\nparishes (Somerset and Paget chiefly) there has been much intermarriage,\nnot only with cousins but with double first cousins in several cases.\nIntermarriage has chiefly caused weakness of character leading to drink,\nnot lack of brains or a certain amount of physical strength, but a very\ninert and lazy disposition.\"\n\nIt is difficult to believe that anyone who has lived in the tropics\ncould have written this except as a practical joke. Those who have\nresided in the warmer parts of the world know, by observation if not by\nexperience, that a \"weakness of character leading to drink\" and \"an\ninert and lazy disposition\" are by no means the prerogatives of the\ninbred.\n\nIf one is going to credit consanguineous marriage with these evil\nresults, what can one say when evil results fail to follow?\n\nWhat about Smith's Island, off the coast of Maryland, where all the\ninhabitants are said to be interrelated, and where a physician who lived\nin the community for three years failed to find among the 700 persons a\nsingle case of idiocy, insanity, epilepsy or congenital deafness?\n\nWhat about the community of Batz, on the coast of France, where Voisin\nfound five marriages of first cousins and thirty-one of second cousins,\nwithout a single case of mental defect, congenital deafness, albinism,\nretinitis pigmentosa or malformation? The population was 3,000, all of\nwhom were said to be interrelated.\n\nWhat about Cape Cod, whose natives are known throughout New England for\ntheir ability? \"At a recent visit to the Congregational Sunday-School,\"\nsays a student, \"I noticed all officers, many teachers, organist,\nex-superintendent, and pastor's wife all Dyers. A lady at Truro united\nin herself four quarters Dyer, father, mother and both grandmothers\nDyers.\"\n\nAnd finally, what about the experience of livestock breeders? Not only\nhas strict brother and sister mating--the closest inbreeding\npossible--been carried on experimentally for twenty or twenty-five\ngenerations without bad results; but the history of practically every\nfine breed shows that inbreeding is largely responsible for its\nexcellence.\n\nThe Ptolemies, who ruled Egypt for several centuries, wanted to keep the\nthrone in the family, and hence practiced a system of intermating which\nhas long been the classical evidence that consanguineous marriage is\nnot necessarily followed by immediate evil effects. The following\nfragment of the genealogy of Cleopatra VII (mistress of Julius Caesar and\nMarc Antony) is condensed from Weigall's _Life and Times of Cleopatra_\n(1914) and\n\n Ptolemy I\n |\n |\n Ptolemy II\n |\n |\n Ptolemy III m. Berenice II, his half-cousin.\n |\n |\n Ptolemy IV m. Arsinoe III, his full sister.\n |\n |\n Ptolemy V.\n |\n |\n Ptolemy VII m. Cleopatra II, his full sister.\n |\n |\n Cleopatra III m. Ptolemy IX (brother of VII), her uncle.\n |\n |\n Ptolemy X. m. Cleopatra IV, his full sister.\n |\n -----|\n | Berenice II m. Ptolemy XI (brother of X), her uncle.\n | |\n | |\n | Ptolemy XII, d. without issue, succeeded by his uncle.\n | |\n | |\n ---Ptolemy XIII.\n |\n |\n Cleopatra VII.\n\nshows an amount of continued inbreeding that has never been surpassed in\nrecorded history, and yet did not produce any striking evil results. The\nruler's consort is named, only when the two were related. The\nconsanguineous marriages shown in this line of descent are by no means\nthe only ones of the kind that took place in the family, many like them\nbeing found in collateral lines.\n\nIt is certain that consanguineous marriage, being the mating of like\nwith like, intensifies the inheritance of the offspring, which gets a\n\"double dose\" of any trait which both parents have in common. If the\ntraits are good, it will be an advantage to the offspring to have a\ndouble dose of them; if the traits are bad, it will be a disadvantage.\nThe marriage of superior kin should produce children better than the\nparents; the marriage of inferior kin should produce children even worse\nthan their parents.\n\nIn passing judgment on a proposed marriage, therefore, the vital\nquestion is not, \"Are they related by blood?\" but \"Are they carriers of\ndesirable traits?\"\n\nThe nature of the traits can be told only by a study of the ancestry. Of\ncourse, characters may be latent or recessive, but this is also the case\nin the population at large, and the chance of unpleasant results is so\nsmall, when no instance can be found in the ancestry, that it can be\ndisregarded. If the same congenital defect or undesirable trait does not\nappear in the three previous generations of two cousins, including\ncollaterals, the individuals need not be discouraged from marrying if\nthey want to.\n\nLaws which forbid cousins to marry are, then, on an unsound biological\nbasis. As Dr. Davenport remarks, \"The marriage of Charles Darwin and\nEmma Wedgewood would have been illegal and void, and their children\npronounced illegitimate in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,\nNebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,\nUtah, Washington, Wyoming, and other states.\" The vitality and great\ncapacity of their seven children are well known. A law which would have\nprevented such a marriage is certainly not eugenic.\n\nWe conclude, then, that laws forbidding cousin marriages are not\ndesirable. Since it would be well to make an effort to increase the\nopportunities for further play of sexual selection, the lack of which is\nsometimes responsible for cousin marriages, consanguineous marriage is\nby no means to be indiscriminately indorsed. Still, if there are cases\nwhere it is eugenically injurious, there are also cases where its\nresults are eugenically highly beneficial, as in families with no\nserious defects and with outstanding ability.\n\nThe laws prohibiting marriage between persons having no blood\nrelationship but connected by marriage should all be repealed. The\nbest-known English instance, which was eugenically very\nobjectionable,--the prohibition of marriage between a man and his\ndeceased wife's sister,--has fortunately been extirpated, but laws still\nexist, in some communities, prohibiting marriage between a man and his\nstepchild or stepparent, between a woman and her deceased husband's\nbrother, and between the second husband or wife of a deceased aunt or\nuncle and the wife or husband of a deceased nephew or niece, etc.\n\nThe only other problem of restrictive eugenics which it seems necessary\nto consider is that offered by miscegenation. This will be considered in\nChapters XIV and XV.\n\nTo sum up: we believe that there are urgent reasons for and no\nobjections to preventing the reproduction of a number of persons in the\nUnited States, many of whom have already been recognized by society as\nbeing so anti-social or inferior as to need institutional care. Such\nrestriction can best be enforced by effective segregation of the sexes,\nalthough there are cases where individuals might well be released and\nallowed full freedom, either \"on parole,\" so to speak, or after having\nundergone a surgical operation which would prevent their reproduction.\n\nLaws providing for sterilization, such as a dozen states now possess,\nare not framed with a knowledge of the needs of the case; but a properly\ndrafted sterilization law to provide for cases not better treated by\nsegregation is desirable. Segregation should be considered the main\nmethod.\n\nIt is practicable to place only minor restrictions on marriage, with a\neugenic goal in view. A good banns law, however, could meet no\nobjections and would yield valuable results. Limited age restrictions\nare proper.\n\nMarriages of individuals whose families are marked by minor taints can\nnot justify social interference; but an enlightened conscience and a\neugenic point of view should lead every individual to make as good a\nchoice as possible.\n\nIf a eugenically bad mating has been made, society should minimize as\nfar as possible the injurious results, by means of provision for\nproperly restricted divorce.\n\nConsanguineous marriages in a degree no closer than that of first\ncousins, are neither to be condemned nor praised indiscriminately. Their\ndesirability depends on the ancestry of the two persons involved; each\ncase should therefore be treated on its own merits.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nTHE IMPROVEMENT OF SEXUAL SELECTION\n\n\n\"Love is blind\" and \"Marriage is a lottery,\" in the opinion of\nproverbial lore. But as usual the proverbs do not tell the whole truth.\nMating is not wholly a matter of chance; there is and always has been a\nconsiderable amount of selection involved. This selection must of course\nbe with respect to individual traits, a man or woman being for this\npurpose merely the sum of his or her traits. Reflection will show that\nwith respect to any given trait there are three ways of mating: random,\nassortative and preferential.\n\n1. Random mating is described by J. Arthur Harris[95] as follows:\n\n\"Suppose a most highly refined socialistic community should set about to\nequalize as nearly as possible not only men's labor and their\nrecompense, but the quality of their wives. It would never do to allow\nindividuals to select their own partners--superior cunning might result\nin some having mates above the average desirability, which would be\nsocially unfair!\n\n\"The method adopted would be to write the names of an equal number of\nmen and women officially condemned to matrimony on cards, and to place\nthose for men in one lottery wheel and those for women in another. The\ndrawing of a pair of cards, one from each wheel, would then replace the\n'present wasteful system' of 'competitive' courtship. If the cards were\nthoroughly shuffled and the drawings perfectly at random, we should\nexpect only chance resemblances between husband and wife for age,\nstature, eye and hair color, temper and so on; in the long run, a wife\nwould resemble her husband no more than the husband of some other\nwoman. In this case, the mathematician can give us a coefficient of\nresemblance, or of assortative mating, which we write as zero. The other\nextreme would be the state of affairs in which men of a certain type\n(that is to say men differing from the general average by a definite\namount) always chose wives of the same type; the resemblance would then\nbe perfect and the correlation, as we call it, would be expressed by a\ncoefficient of 1.\"\n\nIf all mating were at random, evolution would be a very slow process.\nBut actual measurement of various traits in conjugal pairs shows that\nmating is very rarely random. There is a conscious or unconscious\nselection for certain traits, and this selection involves other traits\nbecause of the general correlation of traits in an individual. Random\nmating, therefore, need not be taken into account by eugenists, who must\nrather give their attention to one of the two forms of non-random\nmating, namely, assortative and preferential.\n\n2. If men who were above the average height always selected as brides\nwomen who were equally above the average height and short men selected\nsimilarly, the coefficient of correlation between height in husbands and\nwives would be 1, and there would thus be perfect assortative mating. If\nonly one half of the men who differed from the average height always\nmarried women who similarly differed and the other half married at\nrandom, there would be assortative mating for height, but it would not\nbe perfect: the coefficient would only be half as great as in the first\ncase, or .5. If on the other hand (as is indeed the popular idea) a tall\nman tended to marry a woman who was shorter than the average, the\ncoefficient of correlation would be less than 0; it would have some\nnegative value.\n\nActual measurement shows that a man who exceeds the average height by a\ngiven amount will most frequently marry a woman who exceeds the average\nby a little more than one-fourth as much as her husband does. There is\nthus assortative mating for height, but it is far from perfect. The\nactual coefficient given by Karl Pearson is .28. In this case, then, the\nidea that \"unlikes attract\" is found to be the reverse of the truth.\n\nIf other traits are measured, assortative mating will again be found.\nWhether it be eye color, hair color, general health, intelligence,\nlongevity, insanity, or congenital deafness, exact measurements show\nthat a man and his wife, though not related by blood, actually resemble\neach other as much as do uncle and niece, or first cousins.\n\nIn some cases assortative mating is conscious, as when two congenitally\ndeaf persons are drawn together by their common affliction and mutual\npossession of the sign language. But in the greater number of cases it\nis wholly unconscious. Certainly no one would suppose that a man selects\nhis wife deliberately because her eye color matches his own; much less\nwould he select her on the basis of resemblance in longevity, which can\nnot be known until after both are dead.\n\nSigmund Freud and Ernest Jones explain such selection by the supposition\nthat a man's ideal of everything that is lovely in womankind is based on\nhis mother. During his childhood, her attributes stamp themselves on his\nmind as being the perfect attributes of the female sex; and when he\nlater falls in love it is natural that the woman who most attracts him\nshould be one who resembles his mother. But as he, because of heredity,\nresembles his mother, there is thus a resemblance between husband and\nwife. Cases where there is no resemblance would, on this hypothesis,\neither be not love matches, or else be cases where the choice was made\nby the woman, not the man. Proof of this hypothesis has not yet been\nfurnished, but it may very well account for some part of the assortative\nmating which is so nearly universal.\n\nThe eugenic significance of assortative mating is obvious. Marriage of\nrepresentatives of two long-lived strains ensures that the offspring\nwill inherit more longevity than does the ordinary man. Marriage of two\npersons from gifted families will endow the children with more than the\nordinary intellect. On the other hand, marriage of two members of\nfeeble-minded strains (a very common form of assortative mating) results\nin the production of a new lot of feeble-minded children, while marriage\ncontracted between families marked by criminality or alcoholism means\nthe perpetuation of such traits in an intensified form. For alcoholism,\nCharles Goring found the resemblance between husband and wife in the\nfollowing classes to be as follows:\n\n Very poor and destitute .44\n Prosperous poor .58\n Well-to-do .69\n\nThe resemblance of husband and wife, in respect of possession of a\npolice record, he found to be .20. Of course alcoholism and criminality\nare not wholly due to heredity; the resemblance between man and wife is\npartly a matter of social influences. But in any case the existence of\nassortative mating for such traits is significant.\n\n3. Preferential mating occurs when certain classes of women are\ndiscriminated against by the average man, or by men as a class; or _vice\nversa_. It is the form of sexual selection made prominent by Charles\nDarwin, who brought it forward because natural selection, operating\nsolely through a differential death-rate, seemed inadequate to account\nfor many phases of evolution. By sexual selection he meant that an\nindividual of one sex, in choosing a mate, is led to select out of\nseveral competitors the one who has some particular attribute in a high\ndegree. The selection may be conscious, and due to the exercise of\naesthetic taste, or it may be unconscious, due to the greater degree of\nexcitation produced by the higher degree of some attribute. However the\nselection takes place, the individual so selected will have an\nopportunity to transmit his character, in the higher degree in which he\npossesses it, to his descendants. In this way it was supposed by Darwin\nthat a large proportion of the ornamental characters of living creatures\nwere produced: the tail of the peacock, the mane of the lion, and even\nthe gorgeous coloring of many insects and butterflies. In the early\nyears of Darwinism, the theory of sexual selection was pushed to what\nnow seems an unjustifiable extent. Experiment has often failed to\ndemonstrate any sexual selection, in species where speculation supposed\nit to exist. And even if sexual selection, conscious or unconscious,\ncould be demonstrated in the lower animals, yet the small percentage of\nunmated individuals indicates that its importance in evolution could not\nbe very great.[96]\n\n[Illustration: HOW BEAUTY AIDS A GIRL'S CHANCE OF MARRIAGE\n\nFIG. 32.--Graph showing the marriage rate of graduates of a\nnormal school, correlated with their facial attractiveness as graded by\nestimates. The column of figures at the left-hand side shows the\npercentage of girls who married. Of the prettiest girls (those graded 80\nor over), 70% married. As the less attractive girls are added to the\nchart, the marriage rate declines. Of the girls who graded around 50 on\nlooks, only about one-half married. In general, the prettier the girl,\nthe greater the probability that she will not remain single.]\n\nIn man, however, there is--nowadays at least--a considerable percentage\nof unmated individuals. The Census of 1910 shows that in the United\nStates one-fourth of all the men between 25 and 44 years of age, and\none-sixth of all the women, were unmarried. Many of the men, and a\nsmaller number of the women, will still marry; yet at the end there\nwill remain a large number, particularly in the more highly educated\nclasses, who die celibate. If these unmated individuals differ in any\nimportant respect from the married part of the population, preferential\nmating will be evident.\n\n[Illustration: INTELLIGENT GIRLS ARE MOST LIKELY TO MARRY\n\nFIG. 33.--Graph showing the marriage-rate (on the same scale as\nin Fig. 32) of the graduates of a normal school, as correlated with\ntheir class standing. The girls who received the highest marks in their\nstudies married in the largest numbers. It is evident that, on the\nwhole, girls who make a poor showing in their studies in such schools as\nthis are more likely to be life-long celibates than are the bright\nstudents.]\n\nAt the extremes, there is no difficulty in seeing such mating. Certain\nmen and women are so defective, physically, mentally, or morally, as to\nbe unable to find mates. They may be idiots, or diseased, or lacking\nnormal sexuality, or wrongly educated.\n\nBut to get any adequate statistical proof of preferential mating on a\nbroad scale, has been found difficult. Two small but suggestive studies\nmade by Miss Carrie F. Gilmore of the University of Pittsburgh are\ninteresting, though far from conclusive. She examined the records of\nthe class of 1902, Southwestern State Normal School of Pennsylvania, to\nfind which of the girls had married. By means of photographs, and the\nopinions of disinterested judges, the facial appearance of all the girls\nin the class was graded on a scale of 100, and the curve in Fig. 32\nplotted, which shows at a glance just what matrimonial advantage a\nwoman's beauty gives her. In general, it may be said that the prettier\nthe girl, the better her chance of marriage.\n\n[Illustration: YEARS BETWEEN GRADUATION AND MARRIAGE\n\nFIG. 34.--Curve showing period that elapsed between the\ngraduation of women at Washington Seminary (at the average age of 19\nyears) and their marriage. It includes all the graduates of the classes\nof 1841 to 1900, status of 1913.]\n\nMiss Gilmore further worked out the marriage rate of these normal school\ngirls, on the basis of the marks they obtained in their class work, and\nfound the results plotted in Fig. 33. It is evident that the most\nintelligent girls, measured by their class standing, were preferred as\nwives.\n\n[Illustration: THE EFFECT OF LATE MARRIAGES\n\nFIG. 35.--Given a population divided in two equal parts, one of\nwhich produces a new generation every 25 years and the other every\n33-1/3 years, the diagram shows that the former group will outnumber the\nlatter two to one, at the end of a century. The result illustrated is\nactually taking place, in various groups of the population of the United\nStates. Largely for economic reasons, many superior people are\npostponing the time of marriage. The diagram shows graphically how they\nare losing ground, in comparison with other sections of the population\nwhich marry only a few years earlier, on the average. It is assumed in\nthe diagram that the two groups contain equal numbers of the two sexes;\nthat all persons in each group marry; and that each couple produces four\nchildren.]\n\nIt will be noted that these studies merely show that the brighter and\nprettier girls were preferred by men as a class. If the individual men\nwhom the girls married had been studied, it would probably have been\nfound that the mating was also partly assortative.\n\nIf the choice of a life partner is to be eugenic, random mating must be\nas nearly as possible eliminated, and assortative and preferential\nmating for desirable traits must take place.\n\nThe concern of the eugenist is, then, (1) to see that young people have\nthe best ideals, and (2) to see that their matings are actually guided\nby these ideals, instead of by caprice and passion alone.\n\n1. In discussing ideals, we shall ask (a) what are the present ideals\ngoverning sexual selection in the United States; (b) is it\npsychologically possible to change them; (c) is it desirable that they\nbe changed, and if so, in what ways?\n\n(a) There are several studies which throw light on the current ideals.\n_Physical Culture_ magazine lately invited its women readers to send in\nthe specifications of an ideal husband, and the results are worth\nconsidering because the readers of that publication are probably less\nswayed by purely conventional ideas than are most accessible groups of\nwomen whom one might question. The ideal husband was held by these women\nto be made up of the following qualities in the proportions given:\n\n Per cent.\n\n Health 20\n Financial success 19\n Paternity 18\n Appearance 11\n Disposition 8\n Education 8\n Character 6\n Housekeeping 7\n Dress 3\n ---\n 100\n\nWithout laying weight on the exact figures, and recognizing that each\nwoman may have defined the qualities differently, yet one must admit\naside from a low concern for mental ability that this is a fairly good\neugenic specification. Appearance, it is stated, meant not so much\nfacial beauty as intelligent expression and manly form. Financial\nsuccess is correlated with intelligence and efficiency, and probably is\nnot rated too high. The importance attached to paternity--which, it is\nexplained, means a clean sex life as well as interest in children--is\nworth noticing.\n\nFor comparison there is another census of the preferences of 115 young\nwomen at Brigham Young College, Logan, Utah. This is a \"Mormon\"\ninstitution and the students, mostly farmers' daughters, are probably\nexpressing ideals which have been very little affected by the\ndemoralizing influences of modern city life. The editor of the college\npaper relates that:\n\n Eighty-six per cent of the girls specifically stated that the young\n man must be morally pure; 14% did not specifically state.\n\n Ninety-nine per cent specifically stated that he must be mentally\n and physically strong.\n\n Ninety-three per cent stated that he must absolutely not smoke,\n chew, or drink; 7% did not state.\n\n Twenty per cent named an occupation they would like the young man\n to follow, and these fell into three different classes, that of\n farmer, doctor and business.\n\n Four and seven-tenths per cent of the 20% named farmer; 2.7% named\n doctor, and 1.7% named business man; 80% did not state any\n profession.\n\n Thirty-three and one-third per cent specifically stated that he\n must be ambitious; 66-2/3% did not state.\n\n Eight per cent stated specifically that he must have high ideals.\n\n Fifty-two per cent demanded that he be of the same religious\n conviction; 48% said nothing about religion.\n\n Seventy-two per cent said nothing regarding money matters; 28%\n stated what his financial condition must be, but none named a\n specific amount. One-half of the 28% stated that he must be rich,\n and three-fourths of these were under twenty years of age; the\n other half of the 28% said that he must have a moderate income and\n two-thirds of these were under twenty years of age.\n\n Forty-five per cent stated that the young man must be taller than\n they; 55% did not state.\n\n Twenty per cent stated that the young man must be older, and from\n two to eight years older; 80% did not state.\n\n Fifty per cent stated that he must have a good education;\n one-fourth of the 50% stated that he must have a college education;\n 95% of these were under twenty-one years of age; 50% did not state\n his intellectual attainments.\n\n Ninety-one per cent of all the ideals handed in were written by\n persons under twenty years of age; the other 8-1/2% were over\n twenty years of age.\n\n_Physical Culture_, on another occasion, invited its male readers to\nexpress their requirements of an ideal wife. The proportions of the\nvarious elements desired are given as follows:\n\n Per cent\n\n Health 23\n \"Looks\" 14\n Housekeeping 12\n Disposition 11\n Maternity 11\n Education 10\n Management 7\n Dress 7\n Character 5\n ---\n 100\n\nOne might feel some surprise at the low valuation placed on \"character,\"\nbut it is really covered by other points. On the whole, one can not be\ndissatisfied with these specifications aside from its slight concern\nabout mental ability.\n\nSuch wholesome ideals are probably rather widespread in the less\nsophisticated part of the population. In other strata, social and\nfinancial criteria of selection hold much importance. As a family\nascends in economic position, its standards of sexual selection are\nlikely to change. And in large sections of the population, there is a\nfluctuation in the standards from generation to generation. There is\nreason to suspect that the standards of sexual selection among educated\nyoung women in the United States to-day are higher than they were a\nquarter of a century, or even a decade, ago. They are demanding a higher\ndegree of physical fitness and morality in their suitors. Men, in turn,\nare beginning to demand that the girls they marry shall be fitted for\nthe duties of home-maker, wife and mother,--qualifications which were\nessential in the colonial period but little insisted on in the immediate\npast.\n\n(b) It is evident, then, that the standards of sexual selection do\nchange; there is therefore reason to suppose that they can change still\nfurther. This is an important point, for it is often alleged as an\nobjection to eugenics that human affections are capricious and can not\nbe influenced by rational considerations. Such an objection will be\nseen, on reflection, to be ill-founded.\n\nAs to the extent of change possible, the psychologist must have the\nfinal word. The ingenious Mr. Diffloth,[97] who reduced love to a series\nof algebraical formulae and geometrical curves, and proposed that every\nyoung man should find a girl whose curve was congruent to his own, and\nat once lead her to the altar, is not likely to gain many adherents. But\nthe psychologist declares without hesitation that it is possible to\ninfluence the course of love in its earlier, though rarely in its later,\nstages. Francis Galton pointed this out with his usual clearness,\nshowing that in the past the \"incidence\" of love, to borrow a technical\nterm, had been frequently and sometimes narrowly limited by custom--by\nthose unwritten laws which are sometimes as effective as the written\nones. Monogamy, endogamy, exogamy, Australian marriages, tabu,\nprohibited degrees and sacerdotal celibacy all furnished him with\nhistorical arguments to show that society could bring about almost any\nrestriction it chose; and a glance around at the present day will show\nthat the barriers set up by religion, race and social position are\nfrequently of almost prohibitive effect.\n\nThere is, therefore, from a psychological point of view, no reason why\nthe ideals of eugenics should not become a part of the mores or\nunwritten laws of the race, and why the selection of life partners\nshould not be unconsciously influenced to a very large extent by them.\nAs a necessary preliminary to such a condition, intelligent people must\ncultivate the attitude of conscious selection, and get away from the\ncrude, fatalistic viewpoint which is to-day so widespread, and which is\nexploited _ad nauseam_ on the stage and in fiction. It must be\nremembered that there are two well-marked stages preceding a betrothal:\nthe first is that of mere attraction, when reason is still operative,\nand the second is that of actual love, when reason is relegated to the\nbackground. During the later stage, it is notorious that good counsel is\nof little avail, but during the preliminary period direction of the\naffections is still possible, not only by active interference of friends\nor relatives, but much more easily and usefully by the tremendous\ninfluence of the mores.\n\nEugenic mores will exist only when many intelligent people become so\nconvinced of the ethical value of eugenics that that conviction sinks\ninto their subconscious minds. The general eugenics campaign can be\nexpected to bring that result about in due time. Care must be taken to\nprevent highly conscientious people from being too critical, and letting\na trivial defect outweigh a large number of good qualities. Moreover,\nchanges in the standards of sexual selection should not be too rapid, as\nthat results in the permanent celibacy of some excellent but\nhyper-critical individuals. The ideal is an advance of standards as\nrapidly as will yet keep all the superior persons married. This is\naccomplished if all superior individuals marry as well as possible, yet\nwith advancing years gradually reduce the standard so that celibacy may\nnot result.\n\nHaving decided that there is room for improvement in the standards of\nsexual selection, and that such improvement is psychologically feasible,\nwe come to point (c): in what particular ways is this improvement\nneeded? Any discussion of this large subject must necessarily be only\nsuggestive, not exhaustive.\n\nIf sexual selection is to be taken seriously, it is imperative that\nthere be some improvement in the general attitude of public sentiment\ntoward love itself. It is difficult for the student to acquire sound\nknowledge[98] of the normal manifestations of love: the psychology of\nsex has been studied too largely from the abnormal and pathological\nside; while the popular idea is based too much on fiction and drama\nwhich emphasize the high lights and make love solely an affair of\nemotion. We are not arguing for a rationalization of love, for the terms\nare almost contradictory; but we believe that more common sense could\nprofitably be used in considering the subject.\n\nIf a typical \"love affair\" be examined, it is found that propinquity and\na common basis for sympathy in some probably trivial matter lead to the\ndevelopment of the sex instinct; the parental instinct begins to make\nitself felt, particularly among women; the instincts of curiosity,\nacquisitiveness, and various others play their part, and there then\nappears a well-developed case of \"love.\" Such love may satisfy a purely\nbiological definition, but it is incomplete. Love that is worthy of the\nname must be a function of the will as well as of the emotions. There\nmust be a feeling on the part of each which finds strong satisfaction in\nservice rendered to the other. If the existence of this constituent of\nlove could be more widely recognized and watched for, it would probably\nprevent many a sensible young man or woman from being stampeded into a\nmarriage of passion, where the real community of interest is slight;[99]\nand sexual selection would be improved in a way that would count\nimmensely for the future of the race. Moreover, there would be much more\nreal love in the world. Eugenics, as Havelock Ellis has well pointed\nout,[100] is not plotting against love but against those influences that\ndo violence to love, particularly: (1) reckless yielding to mere\nmomentary desire; and (2) still more fatal influences of wealth and\nposition and worldly convenience which give a factitious value to\npersons who would never appear attractive partners in life were love and\neugenic ideals left to go hand in hand.\n\n\"The eugenic ideal,\" Dr. Ellis foresees, \"will have to struggle with the\ncriminal and still more resolutely with the rich; it will have few\nserious quarrels with normal and well-constituted lovers.\"\n\nThe point is an important one. To \"rationalize\" marriage, is out of the\nquestion. Marriage must be mainly a matter of the emotions; but it is\nimportant that the emotions be exerted in the right direction. The\neugenist seeks to remove the obstacles that are now driving the\nemotions into wrong channels. If the emotions can only be headed in the\nright direction, then the more emotions the better, for they are the\nsource of energy which are responsible for almost everything that is\ndone in the world.\n\nThere is in the world plenty of that love which is a matter of mutual\nservice and of emotions unswayed by any petty or sordid influences; but\nit ought not only to be common, it ought to be universal. It is not\nlikely to be in the present century; but at least, thinking people can\nconsciously adopt an attitude of respect toward love, and consciously\nabandon as far as possible the attitude of jocular cynicism with which\nthey too often treat it,--an attitude which is reflected so disgustingly\nin current vaudeville and musical comedy.\n\nIt is the custom to smile at the extravagantly romantic idea of love\nwhich the boarding-school girl holds; but unrealizable as it may be,\nhers is a nobler conception than that which the majority of adults\nvoice. Very properly, one does not care to make one's deepest feelings\npublic; but if such subjects as love and motherhood can not be discussed\nnaturally and without affectation, they ought to be left alone. If\nintelligent men and women will set the example, this attitude of mind\nwill spread, and cultured families at least will rid themselves of such\ndeplorable habits as that of plaguing children, not yet out of the\nnursery, about their \"sweethearts.\"\n\nNo sane man would deny the desirability of beauty in a wife,\nparticularly when it is remembered that beauty, especially as determined\nby good complexion, good teeth and medium weight, is correlated with\ngood health in some degree, and likewise with intelligence.\nNevertheless, we are strongly of the opinion that beauty of face is now\ntoo highly valued, as a standard of sexual selection.[101]\n\nGood health in a mate is a qualification which any sensible man or woman\nwill require, and for which a \"marriage certificate\" is in most cases\nquite unnecessary.[102] What other physical standard is there that\nshould be given weight?\n\nAlexander Graham Bell has lately been emphasizing the importance of\nlongevity in this connection, and in our judgment he has thereby opened\nup a very fruitful field for education. It goes without saying that\nanyone would prefer to marry a partner with a good constitution. \"How\ncan we find a test of a good, sound constitution?\" Dr. Bell asked in a\nrecent lecture. \"I think we could find it in the duration of life in a\nfamily. Take a family in which a large proportion live to old age with\nunimpaired faculties. There you know is a good constitution in an\ninheritable form. On the other hand, you will find a family in which a\nlarge proportion die at birth and in which there are relatively few\npeople who live to extreme old age. There has developed an hereditary\nweakness of constitution. Longevity is a guide to constitution.\" Not\nonly does it show that one's vital organs are in good running order, but\nit is probably the only means now available of indicating strains which\nare resistant to zymotic disease. Early death is not necessarily an\nevidence of physical weakness; but long life is a pretty good proof of\nconstitutional strength.\n\nDr. Bell has elsewhere called attention to the fact that, longevity\nbeing a characteristic which is universally considered creditable in a\nfamily, there is no tendency on the part of families to conceal its\nexistence, as there is in the case of unfavorable characters--cancer,\ntuberculosis, insanity, and the like. This gives it a great advantage as\na criterion for sexual selection, since there will be little difficulty\nin finding whether or not the ancestors of a young man or woman were\nlong-lived.[103]\n\nKarl Pearson and his associates have shown that there is a tendency to\nassortative mating for longevity: that people from long-lived stocks\nactually do marry people from similar stocks, more frequently than would\nbe the case if the matings were at random. An increase of this tendency\nwould be eugenically desirable.[104] So much for the physique.\n\nThough eugenics is popularly supposed to be concerned almost wholly with\nthe physical, properly it gives most attention to mental traits,\nrecognizing that these are the ones which most frequently make races\nstand or fall, and that attention to the physique is worth while mainly\nto furnish a sound body in which the sound mind may function. Now men\nand women may excel mentally in very many different ways, and eugenics,\nwhich seeks not to produce a uniform good type, but excellence in all\ndesirable types, is not concerned to pick out any particular sort of\nmental superiority and exalt it as a standard for sexual selection. But\nthe tendency, shown in Miss Gilmore's study, for men to prefer the more\nintelligent girls in secondary schools, is gratifying to the eugenist,\nsince high mental endowment is principally a matter of heredity. From a\neugenic point of view it would be well could such intellectual\naccomplishments weigh even more heavily with the average young man, and\nless weight be put on such superficial characteristics as \"flashiness,\"\nability to use the latest slang freely, and other \"smart\" traits which\nare usually considered attractive in a girl, but which have no real\nvalue and soon become tiresome. They are not wholly bad in themselves,\nbut certainly should not influence a young man very seriously in his\nchoice of a wife, nor a young woman in her choice of a husband. It is to\nbe feared that such standards are largely promoted by the stage, the\npopular song, and popular fiction.\n\nIn a sense, the education which a young woman has received is no\nconcern of the eugenist, since it can not be transmitted to her\nchildren. Yet when, as often happens, children die because their mother\nwas not properly trained to bring them up, this feature of education\ndoes become a concern of eugenics. Young men are more and more coming to\ndemand that their wives know something about woman's work, and this\ndemand must not only increase, but must be adequately met. Woman's\neducation is treated in more detail in another chapter.\n\nIt is proper to point out here, however, that in many cases woman's\neducation gives no great opportunity to judge of her real intellectual\nability. Her natural endowment in this respect should be judged also by\nthat of her sisters, brothers, parents, uncles, aunts and grandparents.\nIf a girl comes of an intellectual ancestry, it is likely that she\nherself will carry such traits germinally, even if she has never had an\nopportunity to develop them. She can, then, pass them on to her own\nchildren. Francis Galton long ago pointed out the good results of a\ncustom obtaining in Germany, whereby college professors tended to marry\nthe daughters or sisters of college professors. A tendency for men of\nscience to marry women of scientific attainments or training is marked\namong biologists, at least, in the United States; and the number of\ncases in which musicians intermarry is striking. Such assortative mating\nmeans that the offspring will usually be well endowed with a talent.\n\nFinally, young people should be taught a greater appreciation of the\nlasting qualities of comradeship, for which the purely emotional factors\nthat make up mere sexual attraction are far from offering a satisfactory\nsubstitute.\n\nIt will not be out of place here to point out that a change in the\nsocial valuation of reputability and honor is greatly needed for the\nbetter working of sexual selection. The conspicuous waste and leisure\nthat Thorstein Veblen points out as the chief criterion of reputability\nat present have a dubious relation to high mental or moral endowment,\nfar less than has wealth. There is much left to be done to achieve a\nmeritorious distribution of wealth. The fact that the insignia of\nsuccess are too often awarded to trickery, callousness and luck does not\nargue for the abolition altogether of the financial success element in\nreputability, in favor of a \"dead level\" of equality such as would\nresult from the application of certain communistic ideals. Distinctions,\nrightly awarded, are an aid, not a hindrance to sexual selection, and\neffort should be directed, from the eugenic point of view, no less to\nthe proper recognition of true superiority than to the elimination of\nunjustified differentiations of reputability.\n\nThis leads to the consideration of moral standards, and here again\ndetails are complex but the broad outlines clear. It seems probable that\nmorality is to a considerable extent a matter of heredity, and the care\nof the eugenist should be to work with every force that makes for a\nclear understanding of the moral factors of the world, and to work\nagainst every force that tends to confuse the issues. When the issue is\nclear cut, most people will by instinct tend to marry into moral rather\nthan immoral stocks.\n\nTrue quality, then, should be emphasized at the expense of false\nstandards. Money, social status, family alignment, though indicators to\nsome degree, must not be taken too much at their face value. Emphasis is\nto be placed on real merit as shown by achievement, or on descent from\nthe meritoriously eminent, whether or not such eminence has led to the\naccumulation of a family fortune and inclusion in an exclusive social\nset. In this respect, it is important that the value of a high average\nof ancestry should be realized. A single case of eminence in a pedigree\nshould not weigh too heavily. When it is remembered that statistically\none grandparent counts for less than one-sixteenth in the heredity of an\nindividual, it will be obvious that the individual whose sole claim to\nconsideration is a distinguished grandfather, is not necessarily a\nmatrimonial prize. A general high level of morality and mentality in a\nfamily is much more advantageous, from the eugenic point of view, than\none \"lion\" several generations back.\n\nWhile we desire very strongly to emphasize the importance of breeding\nand the great value of a good ancestry, it is only fair to utter a word\nof warning in this connection. Good ancestry does not _necessarily_ make\na man or woman a desirable partner. What stockmen know as the \"pure-bred\nscrub\" is a recognized evil in animal breeding, and not altogether\nabsent from human society. Due to any one or more of a number of causes,\nit is possible for a germinal degenerate to appear in a good family;\ndiscrimination should certainly be made against such an individual.\nFurthermore, it is possible that there occasionally arises what may be\ncalled a mutant of very desirable character from a eugenic point of\nview. Furthermore a stock in general below mediocrity will occasionally,\ndue to some fortuitous but fortunate combination of traits, give rise to\nan individual of marked ability or even eminence, who will be able to\ntransmit in some degree that valuable new combination of traits to his\nor her own progeny. Persons of this character are to be regarded by\neugenists as distinctly desirable husbands or wives.\n\nThe desirability of selecting a wife (or husband) from a family of more\nthan one or two children was emphasized by Benjamin Franklin, and is\nalso one of the time-honored traditions of the Arabs, who have always\nlooked at eugenics in a very practical, if somewhat cold-blooded way. It\nhas two advantages: in the first place, one can get a better idea of\nwhat the individual really is, by examining sisters and brothers; and in\nthe second place, there will be less danger of a childless marriage,\nsince it is already proved that the individual comes of a fertile stock.\nFrancis Galton showed clearly the havoc wrought in the English peerage,\nby marriages with heiresses (an heiress there being nearly always an\nonly child). Such women were childless in a much larger proportion than\nordinary women.\n\n\"Marrying a man to reform him\" is a speculation in which many women have\nindulged and usually--it may be said without fear of contradiction--with\nunfortunate results. It is always likely that she will fail to reform\nhim; it is certain that she can not reform his germ-plasm. Psychologists\nagree that the character of a man or woman undergoes little radical\nchange after the age of 25; and the eugenist knows that it is largely\ndetermined, _potentially_, when the individual is born. It is,\ntherefore, in most cases the height of folly to select a partner with\nany marked undesirable trait, with the idea that it will change after a\nfew years.\n\nAll these suggestions have in general been directed at the young man or\nwoman, but it is admitted that if they reach their target at all, it is\nlikely to be by an indirect route. No rules or devices can take the\nplace, in influencing sexual selection, of that lofty and rational ideal\nof marriage which must be brought about by the uplifting of public\nopinion. It is difficult to bring under the control of reason a subject\nthat has so long been left to caprice and impulse; yet much can\nunquestionably be done, in an age of growing social responsibility, to\nput marriage in a truer perspective. Much is already being done, but not\nin every case of change is the future biological welfare of the race\nsufficiently borne in mind. The interests of the individual are too\noften regarded to the exclusion of posterity. The eugenist would not\nsacrifice the individual, but he would add the welfare of posterity to\nthat of the individual, when the standards of sexual selection are being\nfixed. It is only necessary to make the young person remember that he\nwill marry, not merely an individual, but a family; and that not only\nhis own happiness but to some extent the quality of future generations\nis being determined by his choice.\n\nWe must have (1) the proper ideals of mating but (2) these ideals must\nbe realized. It is known that many young people have the highest kind of\nideals of sexual selection, and find themselves quite unable to act on\nthem. The college woman may have a definite idea of the kind of husband\nshe wants; but if he never seeks her, she often dies celibate. The young\nman of science may have an ideal bride in his mind, but if he never\nfinds her, he may finally marry his landlady's daughter. Opportunity for\nsexual selection must be given, as well as suitable standards; and while\neducation is perhaps improving the standards each year, it is to be\nfeared that modern social conditions, especially in the large cities,\ntend steadily to decrease the opportunity.\n\nStatistical evidence, as well as common observation, indicates that the\nupper classes have a much wider range of choice in marriage than the\nlower classes. The figures given by Karl Pearson for the degree of\nresemblance between husband and wife with regard to phthisis are so\nremarkable as to be worth quoting in this connection:\n\n All poor +.01\n Prosperous poor +.16\n Middle classes +.24\n Professional classes +.28\n\nIt can hardly be argued that infection between husband and wife would\nvary like this, even if infection, in general, could be proved.\nMoreover, the least resemblance is among the poor, where infection\nshould be greatest. Professor Pearson thinks, as seems reasonable, that\nthis series of figures indicates principally assortative mating, and\nshows that among the poor there is less choice, the selection of a\nhusband or wife being more largely due to propinquity or some other more\nor less random factor. With a rise in the social scale, opportunity for\nchoice of one from a number of possible mates becomes greater and\ngreater; the tendency for an unconscious selection of likeness then has\na chance to appear, as the coefficients graphically show.\n\nIf such a class as the peerage of Great Britain be considered, it is\nevident that the range of choice in marriage is almost unlimited. There\nare few girls who can resist the glamor of a title. The hereditary peer\ncan therefore marry almost anyone he likes and if he does not marry one\nof his own class he can select and (until recently) usually has selected\nthe daughter of some man who by distinguished ability has risen from a\nlower social or financial position. Thus the hereditary nobilities of\nEurope have been able to maintain themselves; and a similar process is\nundoubtedly taking place among the idle rich who occupy an analogous\nposition in the United States.\n\nBut it is the desire of eugenics to raise the average ability of the\nwhole population, as well as to encourage the production of leaders. To\nfulfill this desire, it is obvious that one of the necessary means is to\nextend to all desirable classes that range of choice which is now\npossessed only by those near the top of the social ladder. It is hardly\nnecessary to urge young people to widen the range of their\nacquaintance, for they will do it without urging if the opportunity is\npresented to them. It is highly necessary for parents, and for\norganizations and municipalities, deliberately to seek to further every\nmeans which will bring unmarried young people together under proper\nsupervision. Social workers have already perceived the need of\ninstitutional as well as municipal action on these lines, although they\nhave not in every case recognized the eugenic aspect, and from their\nefforts it is probable that suitable institutions, such as social\ncenters and recreation piers, and municipal dance halls, will be greatly\nmultiplied.\n\nIt is an encouraging sign to see such items as this from a Washington\nnewspaper: \"The Modern Dancing Club of the Margaret Wilson Social Center\ngave a masquerade ball at the Grover Cleveland school last night, which\nwas attended by about 100 couples.\" Still more promising are such\ninstitutions as the self-supporting Inkowa camp for young women, at\nGreenwood Lake, N. J., conducted by a committee of which Miss Anne Morgan\nis president, and directed by Miss Grace Parker. Near it is a similar\ncamp, Kechuka, for young men, and during the summer both are full of\nyoung people from New York City. A newspaper account says:\n\n There is no charity, no philanthropy, no subsidy connected with\n Camp Inkowa. Its members are successful business women, who earn\n from $15 to $25 a week. Board in the camp is $9 a week. So every\n girl who goes there for a vacation has the comfortable feeling that\n she pays her way fully. This rate includes all the activities of\n camp life.\n\n Architects, doctors, lawyers, bookkeepers, bank clerks, young\n business men of many kinds are the guests of Kechuka. Next week 28\n young men from the National City Bank will begin their vacations\n there.\n\n Inkowa includes young women teachers, stenographers, librarians,\n private secretaries and girls doing clerical work for insurance\n companies and other similar business institutions.\n\n Saturday and Sunday are \"at home\" days at Camp Inkowa and the young\n men from Kechuka may come to call on the Inkowa girls, participate\n with them in the day's \"hike\" or go on the moonlight cruise around\n the lake if there happens to be one.\n\n \"Young men and women need clean, healthy association with each\n other,\" Miss Parker told me yesterday, when I spent the day at Camp\n Inkowa. \"Social workers in New York city ask me sometimes, 'How\n dare you put young men and women in camps so near to each other?'\n\n \"How dare you not do it? No plan of recreation or out-of-door life\n which does not include the healthy association of men and woman can\n be a success. Young men and women need each other's society. And if\n you get the right kind they won't abuse their freedom.\"\n\nThe churches have been important instruments in this connection, and the\nworth of their services can hardly be over-estimated, as they tend to\nbring together young people of similar tastes and, in general, of a\nsuperior character. Such organizations as the Young People's Society of\nChristian Endeavor serve the eugenic end in a satisfactory way; it is\nalmost the unanimous opinion of competent observers that matches \"made\nin the church\" turn out well. Some idea of the importance of the\nchurches may be gathered from a census which F. O. George of the\nUniversity of Pittsburgh made of 75 married couples of his acquaintance,\nasking them where they first met each other. The answers were:\n\n Church 32\n School (only 3 at college) 19\n Private home 17\n Dance 7\n --\n 75\n\nThese results need not be thought typical of more than a small part of\nthe country's population, yet they show how far-reaching the influence\nof the church may be on sexual selection. Quite apart from altruistic\nmotives, the churches might well encourage social affairs where the\nyoung people could meet, because to do so is one of the surest way of\nperpetuating the church.\n\nAn increase in the number of non-sectarian bisexual societies, clubs\nand similar organizations, and a diminution of the number of those\nlimited to men or to women alone is greatly to be desired. It is\ndoubtful whether the Y. M. C. A. and Y. W. C. A. are, while separated,\nas useful to society as they might be. Each of them tends to create a\ncelibate community, where the chance for meeting possible mates is\npractically nil. The men's organization has made, so far as we are\naware, little organized attempt to meet this problem. The women's\norganization in some cities has made the attempt, but apparently with\nindifferent success. The idea of a merger of the two organizations with\nreasonable differentiation as well would probably meet with little\napproval from their directors just now, but is worth considering as an\nanswer to the urgent problem of providing social contacts for young\npeople in large cities.\n\nIt is encouraging that thoughtful people in all walks of life are\nbeginning to realize the seriousness of this problem of contacts for the\nyoung, and the necessity of finding some solution. The novelist Miss\nMaria Thompson Davies of Sweetbriar Farm, Madison, Tenn., is quoted in a\nrecent newspaper interview as saying:\n\n\"I'm a Wellesley woman, but one reason why I'm dead against women's\ncolleges is because they shut girls up with women, at the most\nimpressionable period of the girls' lives, when they should be meeting\nmembers of the opposite sex continually, learning to tolerate their\nlittle weaknesses and getting ready to marry them.\"\n\n\"The city should make arrangements to chaperon the meetings of its young\ncitizens. There ought to be municipal gathering places where, under the\nsupervision of tactful, warm-hearted women--themselves successfully\nmarried--girls and young men might get introduced to each other and\nmight get acquainted.\"\n\nIf it is thought that the time has not yet come for such municipal\naction, there is certainly plenty of opportunity for action by the\nparents, relatives and friends of young persons. The match-making\nproclivities of some mothers are matters of current jest: where subtly\nand wisely done they might better be taken seriously and held up as\nexamples worthy of imitation. Formal \"full dress\" social functions for\nyoung people, where acquaintance is likely to be too perfunctory, should\nbe discouraged, and should give place to informal dances, beach parties,\nhouse parties and the like, where boys and girls will have a chance to\ncome to know each other, and, at the proper age, to fall in love. Let\nsocial stratification be not too rigid, yet maintained on the basis of\nintrinsic worth rather than solely on financial or social position. If\nparents will make it a matter of concern to give their boys and girls as\nmany desirable acquaintances of the opposite sex as possible, and to\ngive them opportunity for ripening these acquaintances, the problem of\nthe improvement of sexual selection will be greatly helped. Young people\nfrom homes where such social advantages can not be given, or in large\ncities where home life is for most of them non-existent, must become the\nconcern of the municipality, the churches, and every institution and\norganization that has the welfare of the community and the race at\nheart.\n\nTo sum up this chapter, we have pointed out the importance of sexual\nselection, and shown that its eugenic action depends on young people\nhaving the proper ideals, and being able to live up to these ideals.\nEugenists have in the past devoted themselves perhaps too exclusively to\nthe inculcation of sound ideals, without giving adequate attention to\nthe possibility of these high standards being acted upon. One of the\ngreatest problems confronting eugenics is that of giving young people of\nmarriageable age a greater range of choice. Much could be done by\norganized action; but it is one of the hopeful features of the problem\nthat it can be handled in large part by intelligent individual action.\nIf older people would make a conscious effort to help young people widen\ntheir circles of suitable acquaintances, they would make a valuable\ncontribution to race betterment.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\nINCREASING THE MARRIAGE RATE OF THE SUPERIOR\n\n\nNo race can long survive unless it conforms to the principles of\neugenics, and indisputably the chief requirement for race survival is\nthat the superior part of the race should equal or surpass the inferior\npart in fecundity.\n\nIt follows that the superior members of the community must marry, and at\na reasonably early age. If in the best elements of the community\ncelibacy increases, or if marriage is postponed far into the\nreproductive period, the racial contribution of the superior will\nnecessarily fall, and after a few generations the race will consist\nmainly of the descendants of inferior people, its eugenic average being\nthereby much lowered.\n\nIn a survey of vital statistics, to ascertain whether marriages are as\nfrequent and as early as national welfare requires, the eugenist finds\nat first no particularly alarming figures.\n\nIn France, to whose vital statistics one naturally turns whenever race\nsuicide is suggested (and usually with a holier-than-thou attitude which\nthe Frenchman might much more correctly assume toward America), it\nappears that there has been a very slight decrease in the proportion of\npersons under 20 who are married, but that between the ages of 20 and 30\nthe proportion of those married has risen during recent years. The same\ncondition exists all over Europe, according to F. H. Hankins,[105]\nexcept in England and Scotland. \"Moreover on the whole marriages take\nplace earlier in France than in England, Germany or America. Nor is this\nall, for a larger proportion of the French population is married than in\nany of these countries. Thus the birth-rate in France has continued to\nfall in spite of those very conditions which should have sustained it\nor even caused it to increase.\"\n\nIn America, conditions are not dissimilar. Although it is generally\nbelieved that young persons are marrying at a later age than they did\nformerly, the census figures show that for the population as a whole the\nreverse is the case. Marriages are not only more numerous, but are\ncontracted at earlier ages than they were a quarter of a century ago.\nComparison of census returns for 1890, 1900 and 1910, reveals that for\nboth sexes the percentage of married has steadily increased and the\npercentage listed as single has as steadily decreased. The census\nclassifies young men, for this purpose, in three age-groups: 15-19,\n20-24, and 25-34; and in every one of these groups, a larger proportion\nwas married in 1910 than in 1900 or 1890. Conditions are the same for\nwomen. So far as the United States as a whole is concerned, therefore,\nmarriage is neither being avoided altogether, nor postponed unduly,--in\nfact, conditions in both respects seem to be improving every year.\n\nSo far the findings should gratify every eugenist. But the census\nreturns permit further analysis of the figures. They classify the\npopulation under four headings: Native White of Native Parentage, Native\nWhite of Foreign Parentage or of Mixed Parentage, Foreign-born White,\nand Negro. Except among Foreign-born Whites, who are standing still, the\nreturns for 1910 show that in every one of these groups the marriage\nrate has steadily increased during the past three decades; and that the\nage of marriage is steadily declining in all groups during the same\nperiod, with a slight irregularity of no real importance in the\nstatistics for foreign-born males.\n\nOn the whole, then, the marriage statistics of the United States are\nreassuring. Even if examination is limited to the Native Whites of\nNative Parentage, who are probably of greater eugenic worth, as a group,\nthan any of the other three, the marriage rate is found to be moving in\nthe right direction.\n\nBut going a step farther, one finds that within this group there are\ngreat irregularities, which do not appear when the group is considered\nas a whole. And these irregularities are of a nature to give the\neugenist grave concern.\n\nIf one sought, for example, to find a group of women distinctly superior\nto the average, he might safely take the college graduates. Their\nsuperior quality as a class lies in the facts that:\n\n(a) They have survived the weeding-out process of grammar and high\nschool, and the repeated elimination by examinations in college.\n\n(b) They have persevered, after those with less mental ability have\ngrown tired of the strain and have voluntarily dropped out.\n\n(c) Some have even forced their way to college against great obstacles,\nbecause attracted by the opportunities it offers them for mental\nactivity.\n\n(d) Some have gone to college because their excellence has been\ndiscovered by teachers or others who have strongly urged it.\n\nAll these attributes can not be merely acquired, but must be in some\ndegree inherent. Furthermore, these girls are not only superior in\nthemselves, but are ordinarily from superior parents, because\n\n(a) Their parents have in most cases cooeperated by desiring this higher\neducation for their daughters.\n\n(b) The parents have in most cases had sufficient economic efficiency to\nbe able to afford a college course for their daughters.\n\nTherefore, although the number of college women in the United States is\nnot great, their value eugenically is wholly disproportionate to their\nnumbers. If marriage within such a selected class as this is being\navoided, or greatly postponed, the eugenist can not help feeling\nconcerned.\n\nAnd the first glance at the statistics gives adequate ground for\nuneasiness. Take the figures for Wellesley College, for instance:\n\n _Status in fall of 1912_ _Graduates_ _All students_\n\n Per cent married (graduated 1879-1888) 55% 60%\n Per cent married in:\n 10 years from graduation 35% 37%\n 20 years from graduation 48% 49%\n\nFrom a racial standpoint, the significant marriage rate of any group of\nwomen is the percentage that have married before the end of the\nchild-bearing period. Classes graduating later than 1888 are therefore\nnot included, and the record shows the marital status in the fall of\n1912. In compiling these data deceased members and the few lost from\nrecord are of course omitted.\n\nIn the foregoing study care was taken to distinguish as to when the\nmarriage took place. Obviously marriages with the women at 45 or over\nbeing sterile must not be counted where it is the fecundity of the\nmarriage that is being studied. The reader is warned therefore to make\nany necessary correction for this factor in the studies to follow in\nsome of which unfortunately care has not been taken to make the\nnecessary distinction.\n\nTurn to Mount Holyoke College, the oldest of the great institutions for\nthe higher education of women in this country. Professor Amy Hewes has\ncollected the following data:\n\n _Decade of graduation Per cent remaining single Per cent marrying_\n\n 1842-1849 14.6 85.4\n 1850-1859 24.5 75.5\n 1860-1869 39.1 60.9\n 1870-1879 40.6 59.4\n 1880-1889 42.4 57.6\n 1890-1892 50.0 50.0\n\nBryn Mawr College, between 1888 and 1900, graduated 376 girls, of whom\n165, or 43.9%, had married up to January 1, 1913.\n\nStudying the Vassar College graduates between 1867 and 1892, Robert J.\nSprague found that 509 of the total of 959 had married, leaving 47%\ncelibate. Adding the classes up to 1900, it was found that less than\nhalf of the total number of graduates of the institution had married.\n\nRemembering what a selected group of young women go to college, the\neugenist can hardly help suspecting that the women's colleges of the\nUnited States, as at present conducted, are from his point of view doing\ngreat harm to the race. This suspicion becomes a certainty, as one\ninvestigation after another shows the same results. Statistics compiled\non marriages among college women (1901) showed that:\n\n 45% of college women marry before the age of 40.\n 90% of all United States women marry before the age of 40.\n 96% of Arkansas women marry before the age of 40.\n 80% of Massachusetts women marry before the age of 40.\n\nIn Massachusetts, it is further to be noted, 30% of all women have\nmarried at the age when college women are just graduating.\n\nIt has, moreover, been demonstrated that the women who belong to Phi\nBeta Kappa and other honor societies, and therefore represent a second\nselection from an already selected class, have a lower marriage rate\nthan college women in general.\n\nIn reply to such facts, the eugenist is often told that the college\ngraduates marry as often and as early as the other members of their\nfamilies. We are comparing conditions that can not properly be compared,\nwe are informed, when we match the college woman's marriage rate with\nthat of a non-college woman who comes from a lower level of society.\n\nBut the facts will not bear out this apology. Miss M. R. Smith's\nstatistics[106] from the data of the Collegiate Alumnae show the true\nsituation. The average age at marriage was found to be for\n\n _Years_\n College women 26.3\n Their sisters 24.2\n Their cousins 24.7\n Their friends 24.2\n\nand the age distribution of those married was as follows:\n\n _Equivalent_\n _Percentage of married_ _College_ _non-college_\n Under 23 years 8.6 30.1\n 23-32 years 83.2 64.9\n 33 and over 8.0 5.0\n\n[Illustration: Wellesley Graduates and Non-graduates\n\nFIG. 36.--Graph showing at a glance the record of the student\nbody in regard to marriage and birth rates, during the years indicated.\nStatistics for the latest years have not been compiled, because it is\nobvious that girls who graduated during the last fifteen years still\nhave a chance to marry and become mothers.]\n\nIf these differences did not bring about any change in the birth-rate,\nthey could be neglected. A slight sacrifice might even be made, for the\nsake of having mothers better prepared. But taken in connection with the\nbirth-rate figures which we shall present in the next chapter, they form\na serious indictment against the women's colleges of the United States.\n\nSuch conditions are not wholly confined to women's colleges, or to any\none geographical area. Miss Helen D. Murphey has compiled the statistics\nfor Washington Seminary, in Washington, Pennsylvania, a secondary school\nfor women, founded in 1837. The marriage rate among the graduates of\nthis institution has steadily declined, as is shown in the following\ntable where the records are considered by decades:\n\n '45 '55 '65 '75 '85 '95 '00\n Per cent. married 78 74 67 72 59 57 55\n Per cent. who have gone into 20 13 12 19 30 30 39\n other occupations than\n home-making\n\nA graph, plotted to show how soon after graduation these girls have\nmarried, demonstrates that the greatest number of them wed five or six\nyears after receiving their diplomas, but that the number of those\nmarrying 10 years afterward is not very much less than that of the girls\nwho become brides in the first or second year after graduation (see Fig.\n35).\n\nC. S. Castle's investigation[107] of the ages at which eminent women of\nvarious periods have married, is interesting in this connection, in\nspite of the small number of individuals with which it deals:\n\n _Century_ _Average age_ _Range_ _Number of cases_\n 12 16.2 8-30 5\n 13 16.6 12-29 5\n 14 13.8 6-18 11\n 15 17.6 13-26 20\n 16 21.7 12-50 28\n 17 20.0 13-43 30\n 18 23.1 13-53 127\n 19 26.2 15-67 189\n\nWomen in coeducational colleges, particularly the great universities of\nthe west, can not be compared without corrections with the women of the\neastern separate colleges, because they represent different family and\nenvironmental selection. Their record none the less deserves careful\nstudy. Miss Shinn[108] calculated the marriage rate of college women as\nfollows, assuming graduation at the age of 22:\n\n _Women over_ _Coeducated_ _Separate_\n 25 38.1 29.6\n 30 49.1 40.1\n 35 53.6 46.6\n 40 56.9 51.8\n\nShe has shown that only a part of this discrepancy is attributable to\nthe geographic difference, some of it is the effect of lack of\nco-education. Some of it is also attributable to the type of education.\n\nThe marriage rate of women graduates of Iowa State College[109] is as\nfollows:\n\n 1872-81 95.8\n 1882-91 62.5\n 1892-01 71.2\n 1902-06 69.0\n\nStudy of the alumni register of Oberlin,[110] one of the oldest\ncoeducational institutions, shows that the marriage rate of women\ngraduates, 1884-1905, was 65.2%, only 34.8% of them remaining unmarried.\nIf the later period, 1890-1905, alone is taken, only 55.2% of the girls\nhave married. The figures for the last few classes in this period are\nprobably not complete.\n\nAt Kansas State Agricultural College, 1885-1905, 67.6% of the women\ngraduates have married. At Ohio State University in the same period, the\npercentage is only 54.0. Wisconsin University, 1870-1905, shows a\npercentage of 51.8, the figures for the last five years of that period\nbeing:\n\n 1901 33.9\n 1902 52.9\n 1903 45.1\n 1904 32.3\n 1905 37.4\n\nFrom alumni records of the University of Illinois, 54% of the women,\n1880-1905, are found to be married.\n\nIt is difficult to discuss these figures without extensive study of each\ncase. But that only 53% of the women graduates of three great\nuniversities like Illinois, Ohio and Wisconsin, should be married, 10\nyears after graduation, indicates that something is wrong.\n\nIn most cases it is not possible to tell, from the alumni records of the\nabove colleges, whether the male graduates are or are not married. But\nthe class lists of Harvard and Yale have recently been carefully studied\nby John C. Phillips,[111] who finds that in the period 1851-1890 74% of\nthe Harvard graduates and 78% of the Yale graduates married. In that\nperiod, he found, the age of marriage has advanced only about 1 year,\nfrom a little over 30 to just about 31. This is a much higher rate than\nthat of college women.\n\nStatistics from Stanford University[112] offer an interesting comparison\nbecause they are available for both men and women. Of 670 male\ngraduates, classes 1892 to 1900, inclusive, 490 or 73.2% were reported\nas married in 1910. Of 330 women, 160 or 48.5% were married. These\nfigures are not complete, as some of the graduates in the later classes\nmust have married since 1910.\n\nThe conditions existing at Stanford are likewise found at Syracuse, on\nthe opposite side of the continent. Here, as H. J. Banker has shown,[113]\nthe men graduates marry most frequently 4.5 years after taking their\ndegrees, and the women 4.7 years. Of the women 57% marry, of the men\n81%. The women marry at the average age of 27.7 years and the men at\n28.8. Less than one-fourth of the marrying men married women within the\ncollege. The last five decades he studied show a steady decrease in the\nnumber of women graduates who marry, while the men are much more\nconstant. His figures are:\n\n _Per cent of men_ _Per cent of women_\n _Decade_ _graduates_ _graduates_\n _married_ _married_\n\n 1852-61 81 87\n 1862-71 87 87\n 1872-81 90 81\n 1882-91 84 55\n 1892-01 73 48\n\nC. B. Davenport, looking at the record of his own classmates at Harvard,\nfound[114] in 1909 that among the 328 original members there were 287\nsurviving, of whom nearly a third (31%) had never married.\n\n\"Of these (287),\" he continues, \"26 were in 'Who's Who in America?' We\nshould expect, were success in professional life promoted by\nbachelorship, to find something over a third of those in Who's Who to be\nunmarried. Actually all but two, or less than 8%, were married, and one\nof these has since married. The only still unmarried man was a temporary\nmember of the class and is an artist who has resided for a large part of\nthe time in Europe. There is, therefore, no reason to believe that\nbachelorship favors professional success.\"\n\nParticularly pernicious in tending to prevent marriage is the influence\nof certain professional schools, some of which have come to require a\ncollege degree for entrance. In such a case the aspiring physician, for\nexample, can hardly hope to obtain a license to practice until he has\nreached the age of 27 since 4 years are required in Medical College and\n1 year in a hospital. His marriage must in almost every case be\npostponed until a number of years after that of the young men of his own\nclass who have followed business careers.\n\nThis brief survey is enough to prove that the best educated young women\n(and to a less extent young men) of the United States, who for many\nreasons may be considered superior, are in many cases avoiding marriage\naltogether, and in other cases postponing it longer than is desirable.\nThe women in the separate colleges of the East have the worst record in\nthis respect, but that of the women graduates of some of the\ncoeducational schools leaves much to be desired.\n\nIt is difficult to separate the causes which result in a postponement of\nmarriage, from those that result in a total avoidance of marriage. To a\nlarge extent the causes are the same, and the result differs only in\ndegree. The effect of absolute celibacy of superior people, from a\neugenic point of view, is of course obvious to all, but the racial\neffect of postponement of marriage, even for a few years, is not always\nso clearly realized. The diagram in Fig. 36 may give a clearer\nappreciation of this situation.\n\nFrancis Galton clearly perceived the importance of this point, and\nattempted in several ways to arrive at a just idea of it. One of the\nmost striking of his investigations is based on Dr. Duncan's statistics\nfrom a maternity hospital. Dividing the mothers into five-year groups,\naccording to their age, and stating the median age of the group for the\nsake of simplicity, instead of giving the limits, he arrived at the\nfollowing table:\n\n _Age of mother at_ _Approximate average_\n _her marriage_ _fertility_\n 17 9.00--6 x 1.5\n 22 7.50--5 x 1.5\n 27 6.00--4 x 1.5\n 32 4.50--3 x 1.5\n\nwhich shows that the relative fertility of mothers married at the ages\nof 17, 22, 27 and 32, respectively, is as 6, 5, 4, and 3 approximately.\n\n\"The increase in population by a habit of early marriages,\" he adds, \"is\nfurther augmented by the greater rapidity with which the generations\nfollow each other. By the joint effect of these two causes, a large\neffect is in time produced.\"\n\nCertainly the object of eugenics is not to merely increase human\nnumbers. Quality is more important than quantity in a birth-rate. But it\nmust be evident that other things being equal, a group which marries\nearly will, after a number of generations, supplant a group which\nmarries even a few years later. And there is abundant evidence to show\nthat some of the best elements of the old, white, American race are\nbeing rapidly eliminated from the population of America, because of\npostponement or avoidance of marriage.\n\nTaking the men alone, we find that failure to marry may often be\nascribed to one of the following reasons:\n\n1. The cultivation of a taste for sexual variety and a consequent\nunwillingness to submit to the restraints of marriage.\n\n2. Pessimism in regard to women from premature or unfortunate sex\nexperiences.\n\n3. Infection by venereal disease.\n\n4. Deficiency in normal sexual feeling, or perversion.\n\n5. Deficiency of one kind or another, physical or mental, causing\ndifficulty in getting an acceptable mate.\n\nThe persons in groups 4 and 5 certainly and in groups 1, 2, and 3\nprobably to a less extent, are inferior, and their celibacy is an\nadvantage to the race, rather than a disadvantage, from a eugenic point\nof view. Their inferiority is in part the result of bad environment. But\nsince innate inferiority is so frequently a large factor, the bad\nenvironment often being experienced only because the nature was inferior\nto start with, the average of the group as a whole must be considered\ninnately inferior.\n\nThen there are among celibate men two other classes, largely superior by\nnature:\n\n6. Those who seek some other end so ardently that they will not make the\nnecessary sacrifice in money and freedom, in order to marry.\n\n7. Those whose likelihood of early marriage is reduced by a prolonged\neducation and apprenticeship. Prolongation of the celibate period often\nresults in life-long celibacy.\n\nSome of the most important means of remedying the above conditions, in\nso far as they are dysgenic, can be grouped under three general heads:\n\n1. Try to lead all young men to avoid a loose sexual life and venereal\ndisease. A general effort will be heeded more by the superior than by\nthe inferior.\n\n2. Hold up the role of husband and father as particularly honorable, and\nproclaim its shirking, without adequate cause, as dishonorable. Depict\nit as a happier and healthier state than celibacy or pseudo-celibacy.\nFor a man to say he has never met a girl he can love simply means he has\nnot diligently sought one, or else he has a deficient emotional\nequipment; for there are many, surprisingly many, estimable, attractive,\nunmarried women.\n\n3. Cease prolonging the educational period past the early twenties. It\nis time to call a halt on the schools and universities, whose constant\nlengthening of the educational period will result in a serious loss to\nthe race. External circumstances of an educational nature should not be\nallowed to force a young man to postpone his marriage past the age of\n25. This means that students must be allowed to specialize earlier. If\nthere is need of limiting the number of candidates, competitive entrance\nexaminations may be arranged on some rational basis. Superior young men\nshould marry, even at some cost to their early efficiency. The high\nefficiency of any profession can be more safely kept up by demanding a\nminimum amount of continuation work in afternoon, evening, or seasonal\nclasses, laboratories, or clinics. No more graduate fellowships should\nbe established until those now existing carry a stipend adequate for\nmarriage. Those which already carry larger stipends should not be\nlimited to bachelors, as are the most valuable awards at Princeton, the\nten yearly Proctor fellowships of $1,000 each.\n\nThe causes of the remarkable failure of college women to marry can not\nbe exhaustively investigated here, but for the purposes of eugenics they\nmay be roughly classified as unavoidable and avoidable. Under the first\nheading must be placed those girls who are inherently unmarriageable,\neither because of physical defect or, more frequently, mental\ndefect,--most often an over-development of intellect at the expense of\nthe emotions, which makes a girl either unattractive to men, or inclines\nher toward a celibate career and away from marriage and motherhood.\nOpinions differ as to the proportion of college girls who are inherently\nunmarriageable. Anyone who has been much among them will testify that a\nlarge proportion of them are not inherently unmarriageable, however, and\ntheir celibacy for the most part must be classified as avoidable. Their\nfailure to marry may be because\n\n(1) They desire not to marry, due to a preference for a career, or\ndevelopment of a cynical attitude toward men and matrimony, due to a\nfaulty education, or\n\n(2) They desire to marry, but do not, for a variety of reasons such as:\n\n(a) They are educated for careers, such as school-teaching, where they\nhave little opportunity to meet men.\n\n(b) Their education makes them less desirable mates than girls who have\nhad some training along the lines of home-making and mothercraft.\n\n(c) They have remained in partial segregation until past the age when\nthey are physically most attractive, and when the other girls of their\nage are marrying.\n\n(d) Due to their own education, they demand on the part of suitors a\nhigher degree of education than the young men of their acquaintance\npossess. A girl of this type wants to marry but desires a man who is\neducationally her equal or superior. As men of such type are relatively\nrare, her chances of marriage are reduced.\n\n(e) Their experience in college makes them desire a standard of living\nhigher than that of their own families or of the men among whom they\nwere brought up. They become resistant to the suit of men who are of\nordinary economic status. While waiting for the appearance of a suitor\nwho is above the average in both intelligence and wealth, they pass the\nmarriageable age.\n\n(f) They are better educated than the young men of their acquaintance,\nand the latter are afraid of them. Some young men dislike to marry girls\nwho know more than they do, except in the distinctively feminine fields.\n\nThese and various similar causes help to lower the marriage-rate of\ncollege women and to account for the large number of alumnae who desire\nto marry but are unable to do so. In the interest of eugenics, the\nvarious difficulties must be met in appropriate ways.\n\nMarriage is not desirable for those who are eugenically inferior, from\nweak constitutions, defective sexuality, or inherent mental deficiency.\nBut beyond these groups of women are the much larger groups of celibates\nwho are distinctly superior, and whose chances of marriage have been\nreduced for one of the reasons mentioned above or through living in\ncities with an undue proportion of female residents. Then there are,\nbesides these, superior women who, because they are brought up in\nfamilies without brothers or brothers' friends, are so unnaturally shy\nthat they are unable to become friendly with men, however much they may\ncare to. It is evident that life in a separate college for women often\nintensifies this defect. There are still other women who repel men by a\nmanner of extreme self-repression and coldness, sometimes the result of\nparents' or teachers' over-zealous efforts to inculcate modesty and\nreserve, traits valuable in due degree but harmful in excess.\n\nWhen will educators learn that the education of the emotions is as\nimportant as that of the intellect? When will the schools awake to the\nfact that a large part of life consists in relations with other human\nbeings, and that much of their educational effort is absolutely\nvalueless, or detrimental, to success in the fundamentally necessary\npractice of dealing with other individuals which is imposed on every\none? Many a college girl of the finest innate qualities, who sincerely\ndesires to enter matrimony, is unable to find a husband of her own\nclass, simply because she has been rendered so cold and unattractive, so\nover-stuffed intellectually and starved emotionally, that a typical man\ndoes not desire to spend the rest of his life in her company. The same\nindictment applies in a less degree to men. It is generally believed\nthat an only child is frequently to be found in this class.\n\nOn the other hand, it is equally true--perhaps more important--that many\ninnately superior young men are rejected, because of their manner of\nlife. Superior young men should be induced to keep their physical\nrecords clean, in order that they may not suffer the severe depreciation\nwhich they would otherwise sustain in the eyes of superior women.\n\nBut in efforts to teach chastity, sex itself must not be made to appear\nan evil thing. This is a grave mistake and all too common since the rise\nof the sex-hygiene movement. Undoubtedly a considerable amount of the\ncelibacy in sensitive women may be traced to ill-balanced mothers and\nteachers who, in word and attitude, build up an impression that sex is\nindecent and bestial, and engender in general a damaging suspicion of\nmen.[115]\n\nLevel heads are necessary in the sex ethics campaign. Whereas the\nvenereal diseases will probably, with a continuation of present progress\nin treatment and prophylaxis, be brought under control in the course of\na century, the problem of differential mating will exist as long as the\nrace does, which can hardly be less than tens of millions of years.\nLurid presentation, by drama, novel, or magazine-story, of dramatic and\nhighly-colored individual sex histories, is to be avoided. These often\nimpress an abnormal situation on sensitive girls so strongly that\naversion to marriage, or sex antagonism, is aroused. Every effort should\nbe made to permeate art--dramatic, plastic, or literary--with the\nhighest ideals of sex and parenthood. A glorification of motherhood and\nfatherhood in these ways would have a portentous influence on public\nopinion.\n\n\"The true, intimate chronicle of an everyday married life has not been\nwritten. Here is a theme for genius; for only genius can divine and\nreveal the beauty, the pathos, and the wonder of the normal or the\ncommonplace. A felicitous marriage has its comedy, its complexities, its\nelement, too, of tragedy and grief, as well as its serenity and fealty.\nMatrimony, whether the pair fare well or ill, is always a great\nadventure, a play of deep instincts and powerful emotions, a drama of\ntwo psyches. Every marriage provides a theme for the literary artist. No\nlives are free from enigmas.\"[116]\n\nMore \"temperance\" in work would probably promote marriage of able and\nambitious young people. Walter Gallichan complains that \"we do not even\nrecognize love as a finer passion than money greed. It is a kind of\nluxury, or pleasant pastime, for the sentimentally minded. Love is so\nundervalued as a source of happiness, a means of grace, and a completion\nof being, that many men would sooner work to keep a motor car than to\nmarry.\"\n\nMen should be taught greater respect for the individuality of women, so\nthat no high-minded girl will shrink from marriage with the idea that it\nmeans a surrender of her personality and a state of domestic servitude.\nA more discriminating idea of sex-equality is desirable, and a\nrecognition by men that women are not necessarily creatures of inferior\nmentality. It would be an advantage if men's education included some\ninstruction along these lines. It would be a great gain, also if\nintelligent women had more knowledge of domestic economy and\nmothercraft, because one of the reasons why the well-educated girl is\nhandicapped in seeking a mate is the belief all too frequently well\nfounded of many young men that she is a luxury which he can not afford.\n\nHigher education in general needs to be reoriented. It has too much\nglorified individualism, and put a premium on \"white collar\" work. The\ntrend toward industrial education will help to correct this situation.\n\nProfessor Sprague[117] points out another very important fault, when he\nsays: \"More strong men are needed on the staffs of public schools and\nwomen's colleges, and in all of these institutions more married\ninstructors of both sexes are desirable. The catalogue of one of the\n[women's] colleges referred to above shows 114 professors and\ninstructors, of whom 100 are women, of whom only two have ever married.\nIs it to be expected that the curriculum created by such a staff would\nidealize and prepare for family and home life as the greatest work of\nthe world and the highest goal of woman, and teach race survival as a\npatriotic duty? Or, would it be expected that these bachelor staffs\nwould glorify the independent vocation and life for women and create\nemployment bureaus to enable their graduates to get into the offices,\nschools and other lucrative jobs? The latter seems to be what occurs.\"\n\nIncrease of opportunity for superior young people to meet each other, as\ndiscussed in our chapter on sexual selection, will play a very large\npart in raising the marriage rate. And finally, the delayed or avoided\nmarriage of the intellectual classes is in large part a reflection of\npublic opinion, which has wrongly represented other things as being more\nworth while than marriage.\n\n\"The promotion of marriage in early adult life, as a part of social\nhygiene, must begin with a new canonization of marriage,\" Mr. Gallichan\ndeclares. \"This is equally the task of the fervent poet and the\nscientific thinker, whose respective labors for humanity are never at\nvariance in essentials.... The sentiment for marriage can be deepened by\na rational understanding of the passion that attracts and unites the\nsexes. We need an apotheosis of conjugal love as a basis for a new\nappreciation of marriage. Reverence for love should be fostered from the\noutset of the adolescent period by parents and pedagogues.\"\n\nIf, in addition to this \"diffusion of healthier views of the conjugal\nrelation,\" some of the economic changes suggested in later chapters are\nput in effect, it seems probable that the present racially disastrous\ntendency of the most superior young men and women to postpone or avoid\nmarriage would be checked.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII\n\nINCREASE OF THE BIRTH-RATE OF THE SUPERIOR\n\n\nImagine 200 babies born to parents of native stock in the United States.\nOn the average, 103 of them will be boys and 97 girls. By the time the\ngirls reach a marriageable age (say 20 years), at least 19 will have\ndied, leaving 78 possible wives, on whom the duty of perpetuating that\nsection of the race depends.\n\nWe said \"Possible\" wives, not probable; for not all will marry. It is\ndifficult to say just how many will become wives, but Robert J. Sprague\nhas reported on several investigations that illuminate the point.\n\nIn a selected New England village in 1890, he says, \"there were forty\nmarriageable girls between the ages of 20 and 35. To-day thirty-two of\nthese are married, 20 per cent. are spinsters.\n\n\"An investigation of 260 families of the Massachusetts Agricultural\nCollege students shows that out of 832 women over 40 years of age 755 or\n91 per cent. have married, leaving only 9 per cent. spinsters. This and\nother observations indicate that the daughters of farmers marry more\ngenerally than those of some other classes.\n\n\"In sixty-nine (reporting) families represented by the freshman class of\nAmherst College (1914) there are 229 mothers and aunts over 40 years of\nage, of whom 186 or 81 per cent. have already married.\n\n\"It would seem safe to conclude that about 15 per cent. of native women\nin general American society do not marry during the child-bearing\nperiod.\" Deducting 15 per cent. from the 78 possible wives leaves\nsixty-six probable wives. Now among the native wives of Massachusetts 20\nper cent. do not produce children, and deducting these thirteen\nchildless ones from the sixty-six probable wives leaves fifty-three\nprobable, married, child-bearing women, who must be depended on to\nreproduce the original 200 individuals with whom we began this chapter.\nThat means that each woman who demonstrates ability to bear offspring\nmust bear 3.7 children. This it must be noted, is a minimum number, for\nno account has been taken of those who, through some defect or disease\ndeveloped late in life, become unmarriageable. In general, unless every\nmarried woman brings three children to maturity, the race will not even\nhold its own in numbers. And this means that each woman must bear four\nchildren, since not all the children born will live. If the married\nwomen of the country bear fewer than nearly four children each, the race\nis in danger of losing ground.\n\nSuch a statement ought to strike the reader as one of grave importance;\nbut we labor under no delusion that it will do so. For we are painfully\naware that the bugaboo of the declining birth-rate of superior people\nhas been raised so often in late years, that it has become stale by\nrepetition. It no longer causes any alarm. The country is filled with\nsincere but mentally short-sighted individuals, who are constantly ready\nto vociferate that numbers are no very desirable thing in a birth-rate;\nthat quality is wanted, not quantity; that a few children given ideal\ncare are of much more value to the state and the race than are many\nchildren, who can not receive this attention.\n\nAnd this attitude toward the subject, we venture to assert, is a graver\nperil to the race than is the declining birth-rate itself. For there is\nenough truth in it to make it plausible, and to separate the truth from\nthe dangerous untruth it contains, and to make the bulk of the\npopulation see the distinction, is a task which will tax every energy of\nthe eugenist.\n\nUnfortunately, this is not a case of mere difference of opinion between\nmen; it is a case of antagonism between men and nature. If a race\nhypnotize itself into thinking that its views about race suicide are\nsuperior to nature's views, it may make its own end a little less\npainful; but it will not postpone that end for a single minute. The\ncontest is to the strong, and although numbers are not the most\nimportant element in strength, it is very certain that a race made up\nof families containing one child each will not be the survivor in the\nstruggle for existence.\n\nThe idea, therefore, that race suicide and general limitation of births\nto the irreducible minimum, can be effectively justified by any\nconceivable appeal to economic or sociological factors, is a mistake\nwhich will eventually bring about the extinction of the people making\nit.\n\nThis statement must not be interpreted wrongly. Certainly we would not\nargue that a high birth-rate in itself is necessarily a desirable thing.\nIt is not the object of eugenics to achieve as big a population as\npossible, regardless of quality. But in the last analysis, the only\nwealth of a nation is its people; moreover some people, are as national\nassets, worth more than others. The goal, then, might be said to be: a\npopulation adjusted in respect to its numbers to the resources of the\ncountry, and that number of the very best quality possible. Great\ndiversity of people is required in modern society, but of each desirable\nkind the best obtainable representatives are to be desired.\n\nIt is at once evident that a decline, rather than an increase, in the\nbirth-rate of some sections of the population, is wanted. There are some\nstrata at the bottom that are a source of weakness rather than of\nstrength to the race, and a source of unhappiness rather than of\nhappiness to themselves and those around them. These should be reduced\nin number, as we have shown at some length earlier in this book.\n\nThe other parts of the population should be perpetuated by the best,\nrather than the worst. In no other way can the necessary leaders be\nsecured, without whom, in commerce, industry, politics, science, the\nnation is at a great disadvantage. The task of eugenics is by no means\nwhat it is sometimes supposed to be: to breed a superior caste. But a\nvery important part of its task is certainly to increase the number of\nleaders in the race. And it is this part of its task, in particular,\nwhich is menaced by the declining birth-rate in the United States.\n\nAs every one knows, race suicide is proceeding more rapidly among the\nnative whites than among any other large section of the population; and\nit is exactly this part of the population which has in the past\nfurnished most of the eminent men of the country.\n\nIt has been shown in previous chapters that eminent men do not appear\nwholly by chance in the population. The production of eminence is\nlargely a family affair; and in America, \"the land of opportunity\" as\nwell as in older countries, people of eminence are much more\ninterrelated than chance would allow. It has been shown, indeed, that in\nAmerica it is at least a 500 to 1 bet that an eminent person will be\nrather closely related to some other eminent person, and will not be a\nsporadic appearance in the population.[118]\n\nTaken with other considerations advanced in earlier chapters, this means\nthat a falling off in the reproduction of the old American best strains\nmeans a falling off in the number of eminent men which the United States\nwill produce. No improvement in education can prevent a serious loss,\nfor the strong minds get more from education.\n\nThe old American stock has produced a vastly greater proportion of\neminence, has accomplished a great deal more proportionately, in modern\ntimes, than has other any stock whose representatives have been coming\nin large numbers as immigrants to these shores during the last\ngeneration. It is, therefore, likely to continue to surpass them, unless\nit declines too greatly in numbers. For this reason, we feel justified\nin concluding that the decline of the birth-rate in the old American\nstock represents a decline in the birth-rate of a superior element.\n\nThere is another way of looking at this point. The stock under\ndiscussion has been, on the whole, economically ahead of such stocks as\nare now immigrating. In competition with them under equal conditions, it\nappears to remain pretty consistently ahead, economically. Now,\nalthough we would not insist on this point too strongly, it can hardly\nbe questioned that eugenic value is to some extent correlated with\neconomic success in life, as all desirable qualities tend to be\ncorrelated together. Within reasonable limits, it is justifiable to\ntreat the economically superior sections of the nation as the\neugenically superior. And it is among these economically superior\nsections of the nation that the birth-rate has most rapidly and\ndangerously fallen.\n\nThe constant influx of highly fecund immigrant women tends to obscure\nthe fact that the birth-rate of the older residents is falling below\npar, and analysis of the birth-rate in various sections of the community\nis necessary to give an understanding of what is actually taking place.\n\nIn Rhode Island, F. L. Hoffmann found the average number of children for\neach foreign-born woman to be 3.35, and for each native-born woman to be\n2.06. There were wide racial differences among the foreign born; the\nvarious elements were represented by the following average number of\nchildren per wife:\n\n French-Canadians 4.42\n Russians 3.51\n Italians 3.49\n Irish 3.45\n Scotch and Welsh 3.09\n English 2.89\n Germans 2.84\n Swedes 2.58\n English-Canadians 2.56\n Poles 2.31\n\nIn short, the native-born whites in this investigation fell below every\none of the foreign nationalities.\n\nThe Massachusetts censuses for 1875 and 1884 showed similar results: the\nforeign-born women had 4.5 children each, and the native-born women 2.7\neach.\n\nFrederick S. Crum's careful investigation[119] of New England\ngenealogies, including 12,722 wives, has thrown a great deal of light\non the steady decline in their birth-rate. He found the average number\nof children to be:\n\n 1750-1799 6.43\n 1800-1849 4.94\n 1850-1869 3.47\n 1870-1879 2.77\n\nThere, in four lines, is the story of the decline of the old American\nstock. At present, it is barely reproducing itself, probably not even\nthat, for there is reason to believe that 1879 does not mark the lowest\npoint reached. Before 1700, less than 2% of the wives in this\ninvestigation had only one child, now 20% of them have only one. With\nthe emigration of old New England families to the west, and the constant\nimmigration of foreign-born people to take their places, it is no cause\nfor surprise that New England no longer exercises the intellectual\nleadership that she once held.\n\nFor Massachusetts as a whole, the birth-rate among the native-born\npopulation was 12.7 per 1,000 in 1890, 14.9 in 1910, while in the\nforeign-born population it was 38.6 in 1890 and 49.1 in 1910. After\nexcluding all old women and young women, the birth-rate of the\nforeign-born women in Massachusetts is still found to be 3/4 greater\nthan that of the native-born.[120]\n\nIn short, the birth-rate of the old American stock is now so low that\nthat stock is dying out and being supplanted by immigrants. In order\nthat the stock might even hold its own, we have shown that each married\nwoman should bear three to four children. At present the married women\nof the old white American race in New England appear to be bringing two\nor less to maturity.\n\nIt will be profitable to digress for a moment to consider farther what\nthis disappearance of the ancient population of Massachusetts means to\nthe country. When all the distinguished men of the United States are\ngraded, in accordance with their distinction, it is regularly found, as\nFrederick Adams Woods says, that \"Some states in the union, some\nsections of the country, have produced more eminence than others, far\nbeyond the expectation from their respective white populations. In this\nregard Massachusetts always leads, and Connecticut is always second, and\ncertain southern states are always behind and fail to render their\nexpected quota.\" The accurate methods used by Dr. Woods in this\ninvestigation leave no room for doubt that in almost every way\nMassachusetts has regularly produced twice as many eminent men as its\npopulation would lead one to expect, and has for some ranks and types of\nachievement produced about four times the expectation.\n\nScott Nearing's studies[121] confirm those of Dr. Woods. Taking the most\ndistinguished men and women America has produced, he found that the\nnumber produced in New England, per 100,000 population, was much larger\nthan that produced by any other part of the country. Rhode Island, the\npoorest New England state in this respect, was yet 30% above New York,\nthe best state outside New England.\n\nThe advantage of New England, however, he found to be rapidly\ndecreasing. Of the eminent persons born before 1850, 30% were New\nEnglanders although the population of New England in 1850 was only 11.8%\nof that of the whole country. But of the eminent younger men,--those\nborn between 1880 and 1889, New England, with 7.5% of the country's\npopulation, could claim only 12% of the genius. Cambridge, Mass., has\nproduced more eminent younger men of the present time than any other\ncity, he discovered, but the cities which come next in order are\nNashville, Tenn., Columbus, Ohio, Lynn, Mass., Washington, D. C.,\nPortland, Ore., Hartford, Conn., Boston, Mass., New Haven, Conn., Kansas\nCity, Mo., and Chicago, Ill.\n\nThere is reason to believe that some of the old New England stock, which\nemigrated to the West, retains a higher fecundity than does that part of\nthe stock which remains on the Atlantic seaboard. This fact, while a\ngratifying one, of course does not compensate for the low fertility of\nthe families which still live in New England.\n\nWithin this section of the population, the decline is undoubtedly taking\nplace faster in some parts than in others. Statistical evidence is not\navailable, to tell a great deal about this, but the birth-rate for the\ngraduates of some of the leading women's colleges is known, and their\nstudent bodies are made up largely of girls of superior stork. At\nWellesley, the graph in Fig. 36 shows at a glance just what is\nhappening. Briefly, the graduates of that college contribute less than\none child apiece to the race. The classes do not even reproduce their\nown numbers. Instead of the 3.7 children which, according to Sprague's\ncalculation, they ought to bear, they are bearing .86 of a child.\n\nThe foregoing study is one of the few to carefully distinguish between\nfamilies which were complete at the time of study and those families\nwhere additional children may yet be born. In the studies to follow this\ndistinction may in some cases be made by the reader in interpreting the\ndata while in other cases families having some years of possible\nproductiveness ahead are included with others and the relative\nproportion of the types is not indicated. The error in these cases is\ntherefore important and the reader is warned to accept them only with a\nmental allowance for this factor.\n\nThe best students make an even worse showing in this respect. The\nWellesley alumnae who are members of Phi Beta Kappa,--that is, the\nsuperior scholars--have not .86 of a child each, but only .65 of a\nchild; while the holders of the Durant and Wellesley scholarships,\nawarded for intellectual superiority,[122] make the following pathetic\nshowing in comparison with the whole class.\n\nWELLESLEY COLLEGE\n\nGraduates of '01, '02, '03, '04, Status of Fall of 1912\n\n _All_ _Durant or Wellesley_\n _scholars_\n Per cent married 44 35\n\n Number of children:\n Per graduate .37 .20\n Per wife .87 .57\n\nIt must not be thought that Wellesley's record is an exception, for most\nof the large women's colleges furnish deplorable figures. Mount\nHolyoke's record is:\n\n _Children per_ _Children per_\n _Decade of graduation_ _married_ _graduate_\n _graduate_\n\n 1842-1849 2.77 2.37\n 1850-1859 3.38 2.55\n 1860-1869 2.64 1.60\n 1870-1879 2.75 1.63\n 1880-1889 2.54 1.46\n 1890-1892 1.91 0.95\n\nNor can graduation from Bryn Mawr College be said to favor motherhood.\nBy the 376 alumnae graduated there between 1888 and 1900, only 138\nchildren had been produced up to Jan. 1, 1913. This makes .84 of a child\nper married alumna, or .37 of a child per graduate, since less than half\nof the graduates marry. These are the figures published by the college\nadministration.\n\nProfessor Sprague's tabulation of the careers of Vassar college\ngraduates, made from official records of the college, is worth quoting\nin full, for the light it throws on the histories of college girls,\nafter they leave college:\n\n\n CLASSES FROM 1867 TO 1892\n\n Number of graduates 959\n Number that taught 431 (45%)\n Number that married 509 (53%)\n Number that did not marry 450 (47%)\n Number that taught and afterward\n married 166 (39% of all who taught)\n Number that taught, married and had\n children 112 (67% of all who taught\n and married)\n Number that taught, married and\n were childless 54 (33%)\n Number of children of those who\n taught and had children 287 (1.73 children per family)\n Number of children of those who\n married but did not teach 686 (2 per married graduate\n that did not teach)\n Total number of children of all\n graduates 973 (1 child per graduate)\n Average number of children per\n married graduate 1.91\n Average number of children per\n graduate 1.00\n\n\n CLASSES FROM 1867 TO 1900\n\n Number of graduates 1739\n Number that taught 800 (46%)\n Number that married 854 (49%)\n Number that did not marry 885 (51%)\n Number that taught and afterward\n married 294 (31%)\n Number that taught, married and had\n children 203 (69% of all who taught and married)\n Number that taught, married and were\n childless 91 (31%)\n Number of children of those who\n taught and had children 463 (1.57 children per family)\n Number of children of those who\n married but did not teach 1025 (2 each)\n Total number of children of all\n graduates 1488 (.8 child per graduate)\n Average number of children per\n married graduate 1.74 (per married graduate)\n Average number of children per graduate 0.8\n\nIf the women's colleges were fulfilling what the writers consider to be\ntheir duty toward their students, their graduates would have a higher\nmarriage and birth-rate than that of their sisters, cousins and friends\nwho do not go to college. But the reverse is the case. M. R. Smith's\ninvestigation showed the comparison between college girls and girls of\nequivalent social position and of the same or similar families, as\nfollows:\n\n _Number of_ _Per cent childless_\n _children_ _at time_\n\n College 1.65 25.36\n Equivalent Non-College 1.874 17.89\n\nNow if education is tending toward race suicide, then the writers\nbelieve there is something wrong with modern educational methods. And\ncertainly all statistics available point to the fact that girls who have\nbeen in such an atmosphere as that of some colleges for four years, are,\nfrom a eugenic point of view, of diminished value to the race. This is\nnot an argument against higher education for women, but it is a potent\nargument for a different kind of higher education than many of the\ncolleges of America are now giving them.\n\nThis is one of the causes for the decline of the birth-rate in the old\nAmerican stock. But of course it is only one. A very large number of\ncauses are unquestionably at work to the same end, and the result can be\nadequately changed only if it is analyzed into as many of its component\nparts as possible, and each one of these dealt with separately. The\nwriters have emphasized the shortcoming of women's colleges, because it\nis easily demonstrated and, they believe, relatively easily mitigated.\nBut the record of men's colleges is not beyond criticism.\n\nMiss Smith found that among the college graduates of the 18th century in\nNew England, only 2% remained unmarried, while in the Yale classes of\n1861-1879, 21% never married, and of the Harvard graduates from\n1870-1879 26% remained single. The average number of children per\nHarvard graduate of the earlier period was found to be 3.44, for the\nlatest period studied 1.92. Among the Yale graduates it was found that\nthe number of children per father had declined from 5.16 to 2.55.\n\n[Illustration: BIRTH RATE OF HARVARD AND YALE GRADUATES\n\nFIG. 37.--During the period under consideration it declined\nsteadily, although marriage was about as frequent and as early at the\nend as at the beginning of the period. It is necessary to suppose that\nthe decline in the birth rate is due principally to voluntary limitation\nof families. J. C. Phillips, who made the above graph, thinks that since\n1890 the birth rate among these college graduates may be tending\nslightly to rise again.]\n\nFigures were obtained from some other colleges, which are incomplete and\nshould be taken with reservation. Their incompleteness probably led the\nnumber of children to be considerably underestimated. At Amherst,\n1872-1879, it was found that 44 of the 440 graduates of the period\nremained unmarried. The average number of children per married man was\n1.72. At Wesleyan it was found that 20 of the 208 graduates, from 1863\nto 1870, remained single; the average number of children per married man\nwas 2.31.\n\nThe only satisfactory study of the birth-rate of graduates of men's\ncolleges is that recently made by John C. Phillips from the class lists\nof Harvard and Yale, 1850-1890, summarized in the accompanying graph\n(Fig. 37). In discussing his findings, Dr. Phillips writes:\n\n\"Roughly, the number of children born per capita per married graduate\nhas fallen from about 3.25 in the first decade to 2.50 in the last\ndecade. The per cent of graduates marrying has remained about the same\nfor forty years, and is a trifle higher for Yale; but the low figure,\n68% for the first decade of Harvard, is probably due to faulty records,\nand must not be taken as significant.\n\n\"The next most interesting figure is the 'Children Surviving per Capita\nper Graduate.' This has fallen from over 2.50 to about 1.9. The per cent\nof childless marriages increased very markedly during the first two\ndecades and held nearly level for the last two decades. For the last\ndecade at Yale it has even dropped slightly, an encouraging sign. It is\nworthy of note that the number of children born to Yale graduates is\nalmost constantly a trifle higher than that for Harvard, while the\nnumber of childless marriages is slightly less.\" This is probably owing\nto the larger proportion of Harvard students living in a large city.\n\nIf the birth-rate of graduates both of separate men's colleges and of\nseparate women's colleges is alarmingly low, that of graduates of\ncoeducational institutions is not always satisfactory, either. To some\nextent the low birth-rate is a characteristic of educated people,\nwithout regard to the precise nature of their education. In a study of\nthe graduates of Syracuse University, one of the oldest coeducational\ncolleges of the eastern United States, H. J. Banker found[123] that the\nnumber of children declined with each decade. Thus married women\ngraduates prior to the Civil War had 2 surviving children each; in the\nlast decade of the nineteenth century they had only one. For married men\ngraduates, the number of surviving children had fallen in the same\nlength of time from 2.62 to 1.38. When all graduates, married or not,\nare counted in the decade 1892-1901, it is found that the men of\nSyracuse have contributed to the next generation one surviving child\neach, the women only half a child apiece.\n\nDr. Cattell's investigation of the families of 1,000 contemporary\nAmerican men of science all of which were probably not complete however,\nshows that they leave, on the average, less than two surviving children.\nOnly one family in 75 is larger than six, and 22% of them are childless.\nObviously, as far as those families are concerned, there will be fewer\nmen of inherent scientific eminence in the next generation than in this.\n\nThe decline in the birth-rate is sometimes attributed to the fact that\npeople as a whole are marrying later than they used to; we have already\nshown that this idea is, on the whole, false. The idea that people as a\nwhole are marrying less than they used to is also, as we have shown,\nmistaken. The decline in the general birth-rate can be attributed to\nonly one fact, and that is that married people are having fewer\nchildren.\n\nThe percentage of childless wives in the American stock is steadily\nincreasing. Dr. Crum's figures show the following percentage of\nchildless wives, in the New England genealogies with which he worked:\n\n 1750-1799 1.88\n 1800-1849 4.07\n 1850-1869 5.91\n 1870-1879 8.10\n\nJ. A. Hill[124] found, from the 1910 census figures, that one in eight\nof the native-born wives is childless, as compared with one in five\namong the Negroes, one in nineteen among the foreign born. Childlessness\nof American wives is therefore a considerable, although not a\npreponderant factor, in this decline of the birth rate.\n\nDr. Hill further found that from 10 marriages, in various stocks, the\nfollowing numbers of children could be expected:\n\n Native-born women 27\n Negro-born women 31\n English-born women 34\n Russian-born women 54\n French Canada-born women 56\n Polish-born women 62\n\nThe women of the old American stock are on the whole more sterile or, if\nnot sterile, less fecund, than other women in the United States. Why?\n\nIn answer, various physiological causes are often alleged. It is said\nthat the dissemination of venereal diseases has caused an increase of\nsterility; that luxurious living lowers fecundity, and so on. It is\nimpossible to take the time to analyze the many explanations of this\nsort which have been offered, and which are familiar to the reader; we\nmust content ourselves with saying that evidence of a great many kinds,\nlargely statistical and, in our opinion, reliable, indicates that\nphysiological causes play a minor part in the decrease of the\nbirth-rate.[125]\n\nOr, plainly, women no longer bear as many children, because they don't\nwant to.\n\nThis accords with Dr. Cattel's inquiry of 461 American men of science;\nin 285 cases it was stated that the family was voluntarily limited, the\ncause being given as health in 133 cases, expense in 98 cases, and\nvarious in 54 cases. Sidney Webb's investigation among \"intellectuals\"\nin London showed an even greater proportion of voluntary limitation. The\nexhaustive investigation of the Galton Laboratory of National Eugenics\nleaves little room for doubt that in England the decline in the\nbirth-rate began about 1876-78, when the trial of Charles Bradlaugh and\nthe Theosophist leader, Mrs. Annie Besant, on the charge of circulating\n\"neo-Malthusian\" literature, focused public attention on the\npossibility of birth control, and gradually brought a knowledge of the\nmeans of contraception within reach of many. In the United States\nstatistics are lacking, but medical men and others in a position to form\nopinions generally agree that the limitation of births has been steadily\nincreasing for the last few decades; and with the propaganda at present\ngoing on, it is pretty sure to increase much more rapidly during the\nnext decade or two.\n\nSome instructive results can be drawn, in this connection, from a study\nof the families of Methodist clergymen in the United States.[126]\nAlthough 98 out of every hundred of them marry, and they marry early,\nthe birth-rate is not high. Its distribution is presented in the\naccompanying graph (Fig. 38). It is evident that they have tended to\nstandardize the two-child family which is so much in evidence among\ncollege professors and educated classes generally, all over the world.\nThe presence of a considerable number of large families raises the\naverage number of surviving children of prominent Methodists to 3.12.\n\nAnd in so explaining the cause of the declining birth-rate among\nnative-born Americans, we have also found the principal reason for the\n_differential_ nature of the decline in the nation at large, which is\nthe feature that alarms the eugenist. The more intelligent and\nwell-to-do part of the population has been able to get and use the\nneeded information, and limit its birth-rate; the poor and ignorant has\nbeen less able to do so, and their rate of increase has therefore been\nmore natural in a large percentage of cases.\n\nIt is not surprising, therefore, that many eugenists should have\nadvocated wider dissemination of the knowledge of means of limiting\nbirths, with the idea that if this practice were extended to the lower\nclasses, their birth-rate would decrease just the same as has that of\nthe upper classes, and the alarming differential rate would therefore be\nabolished.\n\n[Illustration: FAMILIES OF PROMINENT METHODISTS\n\nFIG. 38.--The heavy line shows the distribution of families of\nprominent Methodists (mostly clergymen) who married only once. Eleven\npercent had no surviving children and nearly half of the families\nconsisted of two children or less. The dotted line shows the families of\nthose who were twice married. It would naturally be expected that two\nwomen would bear considerably more children than one woman, but as an\naverage fact it appears that a second wife means the addition of only\nhalf a child to the minister's family. It is impossible to avoid the\nconclusion that the birth-rate in these families is determined more by\nthe desire of the parents (based on economic grounds) than on the\nnatural fecundity of the women. In other words, the number of children\nis limited to the number whom the minister can afford to bring up on his\ninadequate salary.]\n\nAgainst this it might be argued that the desired result will never be\nwholly attained, because the most effective means of birth control\ninvolve some expense, and because their effective use presupposes a\ncertain amount of foresight and self-control which is not always found\namong the lower strata of society.\n\nDespite certain dangers accompanying a widespread dissemination of the\nknowledge of how to limit births, it seems to be the opinion of most\neugenists that if free access to such information be not permitted that\nat least such knowledge ought to be given in many families, where it\nwould be to the advantage of society that fewer children be produced.\nSuch a step, of course, must be taken on the individual responsibility\nof a doctor, nurse or other social worker. A propaganda has arisen\nduring recent years, in the United States, for the repeal of all laws\nwhich prohibit giving knowledge about and selling contraceptives.\nWhether or not it succeeds in changing the law it will, like the\nBradlaugh-Besant episode, spread contraception widely. This propaganda\nis based largely on social and economic grounds, and is sometimes\nunscientific in its methods and avowed aims. But whatever its nature may\nbe, there seems little reason (judging from analogy in European\ncountries) to believe that it can be stopped.\n\nThe \"infant mortality movement\" also has an effect here which is rarely\nrecognized. It is a stock argument of birth control propagandists that a\nhigh birth-rate means a high rate of infant mortality; but A. O. Powys\nhas demonstrated that cause and effect are to some extent reversed in\nthis statement, and that it is equally true that a high rate of infant\nmortality means a high birth-rate, in a section of the population where\nbirth control is not practiced. The explanation is the familiar fact\nthat conception takes place less often in nursing mothers. But if a\nchild dies early or is bottle-fed, a new conception is likely to occur\nmuch sooner than would otherwise be the case. By reducing infant\nmortality and teaching mothers to feed their babies naturally, the\ninfant mortality movement is thereby reducing the birth-rate in the\npoorer part of the population, a eugenic service which to some extent\noffsets the dysgenic results that, as we shall show in the last chapter,\nfollow the \"Save the Babies\" propaganda.\n\nWith the spread of the birth control and infant mortality movements one\nmay therefore look forward to some diminution of the differential\nelement in the birth-rate, together with a further decline in that\nbirth-rate as a whole.\n\nSuch a situation, which seems to us almost a certainty within the next\ndecade or two, will not change the duty of eugenics, on which we have\nbeen insisting in this chapter and, to a large extent, throughout the\npresent book. It will be just as necessary as ever that the families\nwhich are, and have been in the past, of the greatest benefit and value\nto the country, have a higher birth-rate. The greatest task of eugenics,\nas we see it, will still be to find means by which the birth-rate among\nsuch families can be increased. This increase in the birth-rate among\nsuperior people must depend largely on a change in public sentiment.\nSuch a change may be brought about in many ways. The authority of\nreligion may be invoked, as it is by the Roman Catholic and Mormon\nchurches[127] whose communicants are constantly taught that fecundity is\na virtue and voluntary sterility a sin. Unfortunately their appeal fails\nto make proper discriminations. Whatever may be the theological reasons\nfor such an attitude on the part of the churches, its practical eugenic\nsignificance is clear enough.\n\nNothing can be more certain than that, if present conditions continue,\nRoman Catholics will soon be in an overwhelming preponderance in the\neastern United States, because of the differential birth-rate, if for no\nother reason; and that the Mormon population will steadily gain ground\nin the west. Similarly, it is alleged that the population of France is\ngradually assuming the characteristics of the Breton race, because that\nrace is the notably fecund section of the population, while nearly all\nthe other components of the nation are committing race suicide (although\nnot so rapidly as is the old white stock in New England). Again, the\nrole of religion in eugenics is shown in China, where ancestor worship\nleads to a desire for children, and makes it a disgrace to be childless.\nA process analogous to natural selection applies to religions much as it\ndoes to races; and if the Chinese religion, with its requirement of a\nhigh birth-rate, and the present-day American Protestant form of the\nChristian religion, with its lack of eugenic teaching, should come into\ndirect competition, under equal conditions of environment, it is obvious\nthat the Chinese form would be the eventual survivor, just because its\nadherents would steadily increase and those of its rival would as\nsteadily decrease. Such a situation may seem fanciful; yet the leaders\nof every church may well consider whether the religion which they preach\nis calculated to fill all the needs of its adherents, if it is silent on\nthe subject of eugenics.\n\nThe influence of economic factors on the birth-rate is marked. The\nchild, under modern urban conditions, is not an economic asset, as he\nwas on the farm in earlier days. He is an economic liability instead.\nAnd with the constant rise of the standard of living, with the increase\nof taxation, the child steadily becomes more of a liability. Many\nmarried people desire children, or more children, but feel that they can\nnot have them without sacrificing something that they are unwilling to\nsacrifice.\n\nAnalysis of this increase in the cost of children, reveals not less than\nfive main elements which deserve attention from eugenists.\n\n1. It costs more to clothe children than it used to. Not only does\nclothing of a given quality cost more now than it did a decade or two\nago, but there are more fabrics and designs available, and many of\nthese, while attractive, are costly and not durable. Compliance to\nfashion has increasingly made itself felt in the clothing of the child.\n\n2. It costs more to feed them than it used to. Not only has food for\neveryone increased in price, but the standards for feeding children\nhave been raised. Once children were expected to be content with plain\nfare; now it is more frequently the custom to give them just what the\nrest of the family eats.\n\n3. The cost of medical attention has increased. All demand more of the\ndoctors now than they did in the last generation. The doctors are able\nto do more than they formerly could, and particularly for his children,\nevery man wants the best that he can possibly afford. Hence medical\nattendance for a child is constantly becoming more costly, because more\nfrequent; and further, the amount of money which parents spend on\nmedical attendance for their children usually increases with any\nincrease in their income.\n\n4. The cost of domestic labor is greater. Most kinds of domestic service\nhave more than doubled in price within the memory of relatively young\npeople. Moreover, it is gradually being realized that a high standard is\ndesirable in selecting a nurse for children. As a fact, a children's\nnurse ought to have much greater qualifications than the nurse whose\nduty is to care for sick adults. If a mother is obliged to delegate part\nof the work of bringing up her children to some other woman, she is\nbeginning to recognize that this substitute mother should have superior\nability; and the teachers of subconscious psychology have emphasized the\nimportance of giving a child only the best possible intellectual\nsurroundings. Ignorant nursemaids are unwillingly tolerated, and as the\nnumber of competent assistants for mothers is very small, the cost is\ncorrespondingly high. An increase in the number of persons trained for\nsuch work is to be anticipated, but it is likely that the demand for\nthem will grow even more rapidly; hence there is no reason to expect\nthat competent domestic help will become any less costly than it is now.\n\n5. The standards of education have risen steadily. There is perhaps no\nother feature which has tended more to limit families. Conscientious\nparents have often determined to have no more children than they could\nafford to educate in the best possible way. This meant at least a\ncollege education, and frequently has led to one and two-child families.\nIt is a motive of birth control which calls for condemnation. The old\nidea of valuable mental discipline for all kinds of mental work to be\ngained from protracted difficult formal education is now rejected by\neducational psychologists, but its prevalence in the popular mind serves\nto make \"higher education\" still something of a fetish, from which\nmarvelous results, not capable of precise comprehension, are\nanticipated. We do not disparage the value of a college education, in\nsaying that parents should not attach such importance to it as to lead\nthem to limit their family to the number to whom they can give 20 years\nof education without pecuniary compensation.\n\nThe effect of these various factors in the increasing cost of children\nis to decrease fecundity not so much on the basis of income of parents,\nas on the basis of their standards. The prudent, conscientious parent is\ntherefore the one most affected, and the reduction in births is greatest\nin that class, where eugenics is most loth to see it.\n\nThe remedy appears to be a change in public opinion which will result in\na truer idea of values. Some readjustments in family budgets are called\nfor, which will discriminate more clearly between expenditure that is\nworth while, and that which is not. Without depriving his children of\nthe best medical attention and education, one may eliminate those\ninvidious sources of expense which benefit neither the children nor\nanyone else,--overdressing, for instance. A simplification of life would\nnot only enable superior people to have larger families, but would often\nbe an advantage to the children already born.\n\nOn the other hand, the fact that higher standards in a population lead\nto fewer children suggests a valuable means of reducing the birth-rate\nof the inferior. Raise their low standards of living and they will\nreduce their own fertility voluntarily (the birth control movement\nfurnishing them with the possibility). All educational work in the slums\ntherefore is likely to have a valuable though indirect eugenic outcome.\nThe poor foreign-speaking areas in large cities, where immigrants live\nhuddled together in squalor, should be broken up. As these people are\ngiven new ideas of comfort, and as their children are educated in\nAmerican ways of living, there is every reason to expect a decline in\ntheir birth-rate, similar to that which has taken place among the\nnative-born during the past generation.\n\nThis elevation of standards in the lower classes will be accomplished\nwithout any particular exertion from eugenists; there are many agencies\nat work in this field, although they rarely realize the result of their\nwork which we have just pointed out.\n\nBut to effect a discriminating change in the standards of the more\nintelligent and better educated classes calls for a real effort on the\npart of all those who have the welfare of society at heart. The\ndifficulties are great enough and the obstacles are evident enough; it\nis more encouraging to look at the other side, and to see evidences that\nthe public is awakening. The events of every month show that the ideals\nof eugenics are filtering through the public mind more rapidly than some\nof us, a decade ago, felt justified in expecting. There is a growing\nrecognition of the danger of bad breeding; a growing recognition in some\nquarters at least of the need for more children from the superior part\nof the population; a growing outcry against the excessive standards of\nluxury that are making children themselves luxuries. The number of those\nwho call themselves eugenists, or who are in sympathy with the aims of\neugenics, is increasing every year, as is evidenced by the growth of\nsuch an organization as the American Genetic Association. Legislators\nshow an eager desire to pass measures that as they (too often wrongly)\nbelieve will have a eugenic result. Most colleges and universities are\nteaching the principles of heredity, and a great many of them add\ndefinite instruction in the principles of eugenics. Although the\nultimate aim of eugenics--to raise the level of the whole human race--is\nperhaps as great an undertaking as the human mind can conceive, the\nAmerican nation shows distinct signs of a willingness to grapple with\nit. And this book will have failed in its purpose, if it has not\nconvinced the reader that means are available for attacking the problem\nat many points, and that immediate progress is not a mere dream.\n\nOne of the first necessary steps is a change in educational methods to\ngive greater emphasis to parenthood. And this change, it is a great\npleasure to be able to say, is being made in many places. The public\nschools are gradually beginning to teach mothercraft, under various\nguises, in many cities and the School of Practical Arts, Columbia Univ.,\ngives a course in the \"Physical Care of the Infant.\" Public and private\ninstitutions are beginning to recognize, what has long been ignored,\nthat parenthood is one of the functions of men and women, toward which\ntheir education should be directed. Every such step will tend, we\nbelieve, to increase the birth-rate among the superior classes of the\ncommunity; every such step is therefore, indirectly if not directly, a\ngain for eugenics; for, as we have emphasized time and again, a change\nin public opinion, to recognize parenthood as a beautiful and desirable\nthing, is one of the first desiderata of the eugenics program.\n\nThe introduction of domestic science and its rapid spread are very\ngratifying, yet there are serious shortcomings, as rather too vigorously\nset forth by A. E. Hamilton:\n\n\"There are rows of little gas stoves over which prospective wives\nconduct culinary chemical experiments. There are courses in biology,\nsomething of physiology and hygiene, the art of interior decoration and\nthe science of washing clothes. There is text-book sociology and\nsometimes lectures on heredity or eugenics. But the smile of incredulity\nas to my seriousness when I asked a Professor in the Margaret Morrison\nCarnegie School [a college of Practical Arts for Women], 'Where are the\nbabies?' is typical. Babies were impossible. They would interfere with\nthe curriculum, there was no time for practice with babies, and besides,\nwhere could they be got, and how could they be taken care of? The\nstudents were altogether too busy with calories, balanced rations, and\nthe history of medieval art.\"\n\nPerhaps the time is not so far distant when babies will be considered an\nintegral part of a girl's curriculum. If educators begin systematically\nto educate the emotions as well as the intellect, they will have taken a\nlong step toward increasing the birth-rate of the superior. The next\nstep will be to correlate income more truly with ability in such a way\nas to make it possible for superior young parents to afford children\nearlier. The child ought, if eugenically desirable, to be made an asset\nrather than a liability; if this can not be done, the parents should at\nleast not be penalized for having children. In this chapter, emphasis\nhas been laid on the need for a change in public opinion; in future\nchapters some economic and social reforms will be suggested, which it is\nbelieved would tend to make superior parents feel willing to have more\nchildren.\n\nThe education of public opinion which, acting through the many agencies\nnamed, will gradually bring about an increase in the birth-rate of\nsuperior people, will not be speedy; but it has begun. The writers,\ntherefore, feel justified in thinking, not solely as a matter of\noptimistic affirmation, but because of the evidence available, that the\nrace suicide now taking place in the old American stock will soon reach\nits lowest limit, and that thereafter the birth-rate in that particular\nstock will slowly rise. If it does, and if, as seems probable, the\nbirth-rate in some inferior sections of the American population at the\nsame time falls from its present level, a change in the racial\ncomposition of the nation will take place, which, judged by past\nhistory, is bound to be of great eugenic value.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV\n\nTHE COLOR LINE\n\n\n\"A young white woman, a graduate of a great university of the far North,\nwhere Negroes are seldom seen, resented it most indignantly when she was\nthreatened with social ostracism in a city farther South with a large\nNegro population because she insisted upon receiving upon terms of\nsocial equality a Negro man who had been her classmate.[128]\"\n\nThe incident seems trivial. But the phenomenon back of it, the \"color\nline,\" is so far-reaching that it deserves careful examination.\n\nAs the incident suggests, the color line is not a universal phenomenon.\nThe Germans appear to have little aversion to receiving Negroes--_in\nGermany_--on terms of equality. These same Germans, when brought face to\nface with the question in their colonies, or in the southern United\nStates, quickly change their attitude. Similarly a Negro in Great\nBritain labors under much less disadvantage than he does among the\nBritish inhabitants of Australia or South Africa.\n\nThe color line therefore exists only as the result of race experience.\nThis fact alone is sufficient to suggest that one should not dismiss it\nlightly as the outgrowth of bigotry. Is is not perhaps a social\nadaptation with survival value?\n\nThe purpose of this chapter is to analyze society's \"unconscious\nreasoning\" which has led to the establishment of a color line--to the\ndenial of social equality--wherever the white[129] and black races have\nlong been in contact during recent history; and to see whether this\ndiscrimination appears to be justified by eugenics.\n\nJ. M. Mecklin[130] summarizes society's logic as follows:\n\n\"When society permits the free social intercourse of two young persons\nof similar training and interests, it tacitly gives its consent to the\npossible legitimate results of such relations, namely, marriage. But\nmarriage is not a matter that concerns the contracting parties alone; it\nis social in its origin and from society come its sanctions. It is\nsociety's legitimatised method for the perpetuation of the race in the\nlarger and inclusive sense of a continuous racial type which shall be\nthe bearer of a continuous and progressive civilization. There are,\nhowever, within the community, two racial groups of such widely\ndivergent physical and psychic characteristics that the blending of the\ntwo destroys the purity of the type of both and introduces\nconfusion--the result of the blend is a mongrel. The preservation of the\nunbroken, self-conscious existence of the white or dominant ethnic group\nis synonymous with the preservation of all that has meaning and\ninspiration in its past and hope for its future. It forbids by law,\ntherefore, or by the equally effective social taboo, anything that would\ntend to contaminate the purity of its stock or jeopardize the integrity\nof its social heritage.\"\n\nIt is needless to say that the \"social mind\" does not consciously go\nthrough any such process of reasoning, before it draws a color line. The\nsocial mind rarely even attempts to justify its conclusions. It merely\nholds a general attitude of superiority, which in many cases appears to\nbe nothing more than a feeling that another race is _different_.\n\nIn what way different?\n\nThe difference between the white race and the black (or any other race)\nmight consist of two elements: (1) differences in heredity--biological\ndifferences; (2) differences in traditions, environment, customs--social\ndifferences, in short. A critical inquirer would want to know which kind\nof difference was greater, for he would at once see that the second kind\nmight be removed by education and other social forces, while the first\nkind would be substantially permanent.\n\nIt is not difficult to find persons of prominence who will assert that\nall the differences between white and Negro are differences of a social\nnature, that the differences of a physical nature are negligible, and\nthat if the Negro is \"given a chance\" the significant differences will\ndisappear. This attitude permeates the public school system of northern\nstates. A recent report on the condition of Negro pupils in the New York\nCity public schools professes to give \"few, perhaps no, recommendations\nthat would not apply to the children of other races. Where the\napplication is more true in regard to colored children, it seems largely\nto be because of this lack of equal justice in the cases of their\nparents. Race weakness appears but this could easily be balanced by the\nsame or similar weakness in other races. Given an education carefully\nadapted to his needs and a fair chance for employment, the normal child\nof any race will succeed, unless the burden of wrong home conditions\nlies too heavily upon him.\"[131]\n\nAs the writer does not define what she means by \"succeed,\" one is\nobliged to guess at what she means: Her anthropology is apparently\nsimilar to that of Franz Boas of Columbia University, who has said that,\n\"No proof can be given of any material inferiority of the Negro\nrace;--without doubt the bulk of the individuals composing the race are\nequal in mental aptitude to the bulk of our own people.\"\n\nIf such a statement is wholly true, the color line can hardly be\njustified, but must be regarded, as it is now the case sometimes, as\nmerely the expression of prejudice and ignorance. If the only\ndifferences between white and black, which can not be removed by\neducation, are of no real significance,--a chocolate hue of skin, a\ncertain kinkiness of hair, and so on,--then logically the white race\nshould remove the handicaps which lack of education and bad environment\nhave placed on the Negro, and receive him on terms of perfect equality,\nin business, in politics, and in marriage.\n\nThe proposition needs only to be stated in this frank form, to arouse an\ninstinctive protest on the part of most Americans. Yet it has been urged\nin an almost equally frank form by many writers, from the days of the\nabolitionists to the present, and it seems to be the logical consequence\nof the position adopted by such anthropologists as Professor Boas, and\nby the educators and others who proclaim that there are no significant\ndifferences between the Negro and the white, except such as are due to\nsocial conditions and which, therefore, can be removed.\n\nBut what are these social differences, which it is the custom to dismiss\nin such a light-hearted way? Are they not based on fundamental\nincompatibilities of racial temperament, which in turn are based on\ndifferences in heredity? Modern sociologists for the main part have no\nillusions as to the ease with which these differences in racial\ntradition and custom can be removed.\n\nThe social heritage of the Negro has been described at great length and\noften with little regard for fact, by hundreds of writers. Only a glance\ncan be given the subject here, but it may profitably be asked what the\nNegro did when he was left to himself in Africa.\n\n\"The most striking feature of the African Negro is the low forms of\nsocial organization, the lack of industrial and political cooperation,\nand consequently the almost entire absence of social and national\nself-consciousness. This rather than intellectual inferiority explains\nthe lack of social sympathy, the presence of such barbarous institutions\nas cannibalism and slavery, the low position of woman, inefficiency in\nthe industrial and mechanical arts, the low type of group morals,\nrudimentary art-sense, lack of race-pride and self-assertiveness, and in\nintellectual and religious life largely synonymous with fetishism and\nsorcery.\"[132]\n\nAn elementary knowledge of the history of Africa, or the more recent and\nmuch-quoted example of Haiti, is sufficient to prove that the Negro's\nown social heritage is at a level far below that of the whites among\nwhom he is living in the United States. No matter how much one may\nadmire some of the Negro's individual traits, one must admit that his\ndevelopment of group traits is primitive, and suggests a mental\ndevelopment which is also primitive.\n\nIf the number of original contributions which it has made to the world's\ncivilization is any fair criterion of the relative value of a race, then\nthe Negro race must be placed very near zero on the scale.[133]\n\nThe following historical considerations suggest that in comparison with\nsome other races the Negro race is germinally lacking in the higher\ndevelopments of intelligence:\n\n1. That the Negro race in Africa has never, by its own initiative, risen\nmuch above barbarism, although it has been exposed to a considerable\nrange of environments and has had abundant time in which to bring to\nexpression any inherited traits it may possess.\n\n2. That when transplanted to a new environment--say, Haiti--and left to\nits own resources, the Negro race has shown the same inability to rise;\nit has there, indeed, lost most of what it had acquired from the\nsuperior civilization of the French.\n\n3. That when placed side by side with the white race, the Negro race\nagain fails to come up to their standard, or indeed to come anywhere\nnear it. It is often alleged that this third test is an unfair one; that\nthe social heritage of slavery must be eliminated before the Negro can\nbe expected to show his true worth. But contrast his career in and after\nslavery with that of the Mamelukes of Egypt, who were slaves, but slaves\nof good stock. They quickly rose to be the real rulers of the country.\nAgain, compare the record of the Greek slaves in the Roman republic and\nempire or that of the Jews under Islam. Without pushing these analogies\ntoo far, is not one forced to conclude that the Negro lacks in his\ngerm-plasm excellence of some qualities which the white races possess,\nand which are essential for success in competition with the\ncivilizations of the white races at the present day?\n\nIf so, it must be admitted not only that the Negro is _different_ from\nthe white, but that he is in the large eugenically _inferior_ to the\nwhite.\n\nThis conclusion is based on the relative achievements of the race; it\nmust be tested by the more precise methods of the anthropological\nlaboratory. Satisfactory studies of the Negro should be much more\nnumerous, but there are a few informative ones. Physical characters are\nfirst to be considered.\n\nAs a result of the careful measurement of many skulls, Karl Pearson[134]\nhas come to the following conclusions:\n\n\"There is for the best ascertainable characters a continuous\nrelationship from the European skull, through prehistoric European,\nprehistoric Egyptian, Congo-Gaboon Negroes to Zulus and Kafirs.\n\n\"The indication is that of a long differentiated evolution, in which the\nNegro lies nearer to the common stem than the European; he is nearer to\nthe childhood of man.\"\n\nThis does not prove any mental inferiority: there is little or no\nrelation between conformation of skull and mental qualities, and it is a\ngreat mistake to make hasty inferences from physical to mental traits.\nBean and Mall have made studies directly on the brain, but it is not\npossible to draw any sure conclusions from their work. A. Hrdlicka\nfound physical differences between the two races, but did not study\ntraits of any particular eugenic significance.\n\nOn the whole, the studies of physical anthropologists offer little of\ninterest for the present purpose. Studies of mental traits are more to\nthe point, but are unfortunately vitiated in many cases by the fact that\nno distinction was made between full-blood Negroes and mulattoes,\nalthough the presence of white blood must necessarily have a marked\ninfluence on the traits under consideration. If the investigations are\ndiscounted when necessary for this reason, it appears that in the more\nelementary mental processes the two races are approximately equal. White\nand \"colored\" children in the Washington, D. C., schools ranked equally\nwell in memory; the colored children were found to be somewhat the more\nsensitive to heat.[135] Summing up the available evidence, G. O. Ferguson\nconcludes that \"in the so-called lower traits there is no great\ndifference between the Negro and the white. In motor capacity there is\nprobably no appreciable racial difference. In sense capacity, in\nperceptive and discriminative ability, there is likewise a practical\nequality.\"\n\nThis is what one would, _a priori_, probably expect. But it is on the\n\"higher\" mental functions that race progress largely depends, and the\nNegro must be judged eugenically mainly by his showing in these higher\nfunctions. One of the first studies in this line is that of M. J.\nMayo,[136] who summarizes it as follows:\n\n\"The median age of white pupils at the time of entering high school in\nthe city of New York is 14 years 6 months: of colored pupils 15 years 1\nmonth--a difference of 7 months. The average deviation for whites is 9\nmonths; for colored 15 months. Twenty-seven per cent of the whites are\nas old as the median age of the colored or older.\n\n\"Colored pupils remain in school a greater length of time than do the\nwhites. For the case studied [150 white and 150 colored], the average\ntime spent in high school for white pupils was 3.8 terms; for colored\n4.5 terms. About 28% of the whites attain the average time of attendance\nfor colored.\n\n\"Considering the entire scholastic record, the median mark of the 150\nwhite pupils is 66; of the 150 colored pupils 62; a difference of 4%.\nThe average deviation of white pupils is 7; of colored 6.5. Twenty-nine\nper cent. of the colored pupils reach or surpass the median mark of the\nwhites.\n\n\"The white pupils have a higher average standing in all subjects ...\nthe colored pupils are about 3/4 as efficient as the whites in the\npursuit of high school studies.\"\n\nThis whole investigation is probably much too favorable to the Negro\nrace, first because Negro high school pupils represent a more careful\nselection than do the white pupils; but most of all because no\ndistinction was made between Negroes and mulattoes.\n\nB. A. Phillips, studying the public elementary schools of Philadelphia,\nfound[137] that the percentage of retardation in the colored schools\nranged from 72.8 to 58.2, while the percentage of retardation in the\ndistricts which contained the schools ranged from 45.1 to 33.3. The\naverage percentage of retardation for the city as a whole was 40.3. Each\nof the colored schools had a greater percentage of retardation than any\nof the white schools, even those composed almost entirely of foreigners,\nand in those schools attended by both white and colored pupils the\npercentage of retardation on the whole varied directly with the\npercentage of colored pupils in attendance.\n\nThese facts might be interpreted in several ways. It might be that the\ncurriculum was not well adapted to the colored children, or that they\ncame from bad home environments, or that they differed in age, etc. Dr.\nPhillips accordingly undertook to get further light on the cause of\nretardation of the colored pupils by applying Binet tests to white and\ncolored children of the same chronological age and home conditions, and\nfound \"a difference in the acceleration between the two races of 31% in\nfavor of the white boys, 25% in favor of the white girls, 28% in favor\nof the white pupils with boys and girls combined.\"\n\nA. C. Strong, using the Binet-Simon tests, found[138] colored school\nchildren of Columbia, S. C., considerably less intelligent than white\nchildren.\n\nW. H. Pyle made an extensive test[139] of 408 colored pupils in\nMissouri public schools and compared them with white pupils. He\nconcludes: \"In general the marks indicating mental ability of the Negro\nare about two-thirds those of the whites.... In the substitution,\ncontrolled association, and Ebbinghaus tests, the Negroes are less than\nhalf as good as the whites. In free association and the ink-blot tests\nthey are nearly as good. In quickness of perception and discrimination\nand in reaction, the Negroes equal or excel the whites.\"\n\n\"Perhaps the most important question that arises in connection with the\nresults of these mental tests is: How far is ability to pass them\ndependent on environmental conditions? Our tests show certain specific\ndifferences between Negroes and whites. What these differences would\nhave been had the Negroes been subject to the same environmental\ninfluences as the whites, it is difficult to say. The results obtained\nby separating the Negroes into two social groups would lead one to think\nthat the conditions of life under which the negroes live might account\nfor the lower mentality of the Negroes. On the other hand, it may be\nthat the Negroes living under better social conditions are of better\nstock. They may have more white blood in them.\"\n\nThe most careful study yet made of the relative intelligence of Negroes\nand whites is that of G. O. Ferguson, Jr.,[140] on 486 white and 421\ncolored pupils in the schools of Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Newport\nNews, Va. Tests were employed which required the use of the \"higher\"\nfunctions, and as far as possible (mainly on the basis of skin-color)\nthe amount of white blood in the colored pupils was determined. Four\nclasses were made: full-blood Negro, 3/4 Negro, 1/2 Negro (mulatto) and\n1/4 Negro (quadroon). It was found that \"the pure Negroes scored 69.2%\nas high as the whites; that the 3/4 pure Negroes scored 73.2% as high as\nthe whites; that the mulattoes scored 81.2% as high as the whites; and\nthat the quadroons obtained 91.8% of the white score.\" This confirms the\nbelief of many observers that the ability of a colored man is\nproportionate to the amount of white blood he has.\n\nSummarizing a large body of evidence, Dr. Ferguson concludes that \"the\nintellectual performance of the general colored population is\napproximately 75% as efficient as that of the whites,\" but that pure\nNegroes have only 60% of white intellectual efficiency, and that even\nthis figure is probably too high. \"It seems as though the white type has\nattained a higher level of development, based upon the common elementary\ncapacities, which the Negro has not reached to the same degree.\" \"All of\nthe experimental work which has been done has pointed to the same\ngeneral conclusion.\"\n\nThis is a conclusion of much definiteness and value, but it does not go\nas far as one might wish, for the deeper racial differences of impulse\nand inhibition, which are at present incapable of precise measurement,\nare likewise of great importance. And it is the common opinion that the\nNegro differs in such traits even more than in intellect proper. He is\nsaid to be lacking in that aggressive competitiveness which has been\nresponsible for so much of the achievement of the Nordic race; it is\nalleged that his sexual impulses are strongly developed and inhibitions\nlacking; that he has \"an instability of character, involving a lack of\nforesight, an improvidence, a lack of persistence, small power of\nserious initiative, a tendency to be content with immediate\nsatisfactions.\" He appears to be more gregarious but less apt at\norganization than most races.\n\nThe significance of these differences depends largely on whether they\nare germinal, or merely the results of social tradition. In favor of the\nview that they are in large part racial and hereditary, is the fact that\nthey persist in all environments. They are found, as Professor Mecklin\nsays, \"Only at the lower level of instinct, impulse and temperament, and\ndo not, therefore, admit of clear definition because they are overlaid\nin the case of every individual with a mental superstructure gotten from\nthe social heritage which may vary widely in the case of members of the\nsame race. That they do persist, however, is evidenced in the case of\nthe Negroes subjected to the very different types of civilization in\nHaiti, Santo Domingo, the United States, and Jamaica. In each of these\ncases a complete break has been made with the social traditions of\nAfrica and different civilizations have been substituted, and yet in\ntemperament and character the Negro in all these countries is\nessentially the same. The so-called 'reversion to type' often pointed\nout in the Negro is in reality but the recrudescence of fundamental,\nunchanged race traits upon the partial breakdown of the social heritage\nor the Negro's failure successfully to appropriate it.\"\n\nAgain, as Professor Ferguson points out, the experimental tests above\ncited may be thought to give some support to the idea that the emotional\ncharacteristics of the Negro are really inherent. \"Strong and changing\nemotions, an improvident character and a tendency to immoral conduct are\nnot unallied,\" he explains; \"They are all rooted in uncontrolled\nimpulse. And a factor which may tend to produce all three is a deficient\ndevelopment of the more purely intellectual capacities. Where the\nimplications of the ideas are not apprehended, where thought is not\nlively and fertile, where meanings and consequences are not grasped, the\nneed for the control of impulse will not be felt. And the demonstrable\ndeficiency of the Negro in intellectual traits may involve the dynamic\ndeficiencies which common opinion claims to exist.\"\n\nThere are other racial and heritable differences of much importance,\nwhich are given too little recognition--namely, the differences of\ndisease resistance. Here one can speak unhesitatingly of a real\ninferiority in respect to the environment of North America.\n\nAs was pointed out in the chapter on Natural Selection, the Negro has\nbeen subjected to lethal selection for centuries by the Negro diseases,\nthe diseases of tropical Africa, of which malaria and yellow fever are\nthe most conspicuous examples. The Negro is strongly resistant to these\nand can live where the white man dies. The white man, on the other hand,\nhas his own diseases, of which tuberculosis is an excellent example.\nCompared with the Negro, he is relatively resistant to phthisis and will\nsurvive where the Negro dies.\n\nWhen the two races are living side by side, it is obvious that each is\nproving a menace to the other, by acting as a disseminator of\ninfection. The white man kills the Negro with tuberculosis and typhoid\nfever. In North America the Negro can not kill the white man with\nmalaria or yellow fever, to any great extent, because these diseases do\nnot flourish here. But the Negro has brought some other diseases here\nand given them to the white race; elephantiasis is one example, but the\nmost conspicuous is hookworm, the extent and seriousness of which have\nonly recently been realized.\n\nIn the New England states the average expectation of life, at birth, is\n50.6 years for native white males, 34.1 years for Negro males. For\nnative white females it is 54.2 years and for Negro females 37.7 years,\naccording to the Bureau of the Census (1916). These very considerable\ndifferences can not be wholly explained away by the fact that the Negro\nis crowded into parts of the cities where the sanitation is worst. They\nindicate that the Negro is out of his environment. In tropical Africa,\nto which the Negro is adapted by many centuries of natural selection,\nhis expectation of life might be much longer than that of the white man.\nIn the United States he is much less \"fit,\" in the Darwinian sense.\n\nIn rural districts of the South, according to C. W. Stiles, the annual\ntyphoid death rate per 100,000 population is:\n\n _Whites_ _Negroes_\n Males 37.4 75.3\n Females 27.4 56.3\n\nThese figures again show, not alone the greater intelligence of the\nwhite in matters of hygiene, but probably also the greater inherent\nresistance of the white to a disease which has been attacking him for\nmany centuries. Biologically, North America is a white man's country,\nnot a Negro's country, and those who are considering the Negro problem\nmust remember that natural selection has not ceased acting on man.\n\nFrom the foregoing different kinds of evidence, we feel justified in\nconcluding that the Negro race differs greatly from the white race,\nmentally as well as physically, and that in many respects it may be said\nto be inferior, when tested by the requirements of modern civilization\nand progress, with particular reference to North America.\n\nWe return now to the question of intermarriage. What is to be expected\nfrom the union of these diverse streams of descent?\n\nThe best answer would be to study and measure the mulattoes and their\nposterity, in as many ways as possible. No one has ever done this. It is\nthe custom to make no distinction whatever between mulatto and Negro, in\nthe United States, and thus the whole problem is beclouded.\n\nThere is some evidence from life insurance and medical sources, that the\nmulatto stands above the Negro but below the white in respect to his\nhealth. There is considerable evidence that he occupies the same\nrelation in the intellectual world; it is a matter of general\nobservation that nearly all the leaders of the Negro race in the United\nStates are not Negroes but mulattoes.\n\nWithout going into detail, we feel perfectly safe in drawing this\nconclusion: that in general the white race loses and the Negro gains\nfrom miscegenation.\n\nThis applies, of course, only to the germinal nature. Taking into\nconsideration the present social conditions in America, it is doubtful\nwhether either race gains. But if social conditions be eliminated for\nthe moment, biologists may believe that intermarriage between the white\nand Negro races represents, on the whole, an advance for the Negro; and\nthat it represents for the white race a distinct loss.\n\nIf eugenics is to be thought of solely in terms of the white race, there\ncan be no hesitation about rendering a verdict. We must unhesitatingly\ncondemn miscegenation.\n\nBut there are those who declare that it is small and mean to take such a\nnarrow view of the evolution of the race. They would have America open\nits doors indiscriminately to immigration, holding it a virtue to\nsacrifice one's self permanently for someone else's temporary happiness;\nthey would equally have the white race sacrifice itself for the Negro,\nby allowing a mingling of the two blood-streams. That, it is alleged, is\nthe true way to elevate the Negro.\n\nThe question may well be considered from that point of view, even\nthough the validity of such a point of view is not admitted.\n\nTo ensure racial and social progress, nothing will take the place of\nleadership, of genius. A race of nothing but mediocrities will stand\nstill, or very nearly so; but a race of mediocrities with a good supply\nof men of exceptional ability and energy at the top, will make progress\nin discovery, invention and organization, which is generally recognized\nas progressive evolution.\n\nIf the level of the white race be lowered, it will hurt that race and be\nof little help to the Negro. If the white race be kept at such a level\nthat its productivity of men of talent will be at a maximum, everyone\nwill progress; for the Negro benefits just as the white does from every\nforward step in science and art, in industry and politics.\n\nRemembering that the white race in America is nine times as numerous as\nthe black race, we conclude that it would be desirable to encourage\namalgamation of the two races only in case the average of mulattoes is\nsuperior to the average of the whites. No one can seriously maintain\nthat this supposition is true. Biologically, therefore, there is no\nreason to think that an increase in the number of mulattoes is\ndesirable.\n\nThere is a curious argument in circulation, which points out that\nmulattoes are almost always the offspring of Negro mothers and white\nfathers, not of Negro fathers and white mothers. Therefore, it is said,\nproduction of mulattoes does not mean at all a decrease in the number of\nwhite births, but merely substitutes a number of mulatto births for an\nequivalent number of pure Negro births. It is therefore alleged that the\nproduction of mulattoes is in the long run a benefit, elevating the\nNegro race without impairing the white race.\n\nBut this argument assumes that most mulatto births are illegitimate,--a\ncondition which eugenists do not sanction, because it tends to\ndisintegrate the family. Rather than such a condition, the legitimate\nproduction of pure-blood Negroes is preferable, even though they be\ninferior in individual ability to the illegitimate mulattoes offered as\na substitute. There are not at the present time enough desirable white\nfathers in the country. If desirable ones are set aside to produce\nmulattoes, it would be a great loss to the nation; while if the\nmulattoes are the offspring of eugenically undesirable white fathers,\nthen the product is not likely to be anything America wants.\n\nFrom whatever standpoint we take, we see nothing good to be said for\nmiscegenation.[141] We have discussed the problem as a particular one\nbetween the blacks and whites but the argument will hold good when\napplied to any two races between which the differences are so marked\nthat one may be considered decidedly inferior to the other.\n\nSociety,--white society,--long ago reached the instinctive conclusion,\nwhich seems to us a correct one, that it must put a ban on intermarriage\nbetween two such races. It has given expression to this feeling by\npassing laws to prohibit miscegenation in 22 states, while six other\nstates prohibit it in their constitutions. There are thus 22 states\nwhich have attempted legally to prevent intermarriage of the white and\nblack race. While in 20 states there is no law on the subject, it is\nneedless to say that popular feeling about it is almost uniform, and\nthat the legislators of New England for instance would refuse to give\ntheir daughters in marriage to Negroes, even though they might the day\nbefore have voted down a proposed law to prohibit intermarriage on the\nground that it was an expression of race prejudice.\n\nIn a majority of the states which have no legislation of this kind,\nbills have been introduced during the last two or three years, and have\nbeen defeated through the energetic interference of the National\nAssociation for the Advancement of Colored People, an organization of\nwhich Oswald Garrison Villard is chairman of the Board of Directors and\nW. E. B. DuBois, a brilliant mulatto, is Director of Publicity and\nResearch. As this association represents a very large part of the more\nintelligent Negro public opinion, its attitude deserves careful\nconsideration. It is set forth summarily in a letter[142] which was\naddressed to legislators in various states, as follows:\n\n\"The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People\nearnestly protests against the bill forbidding intermarriage between the\nraces, not because the Association advocates intermarriage, which it\ndoes not, but primarily because whenever such laws have been enacted\nthey have become a menace to the whole institution of matrimony, leading\ndirectly to concubinage, bastardy, and the degradation of the Negro\nwoman. No man-made law can stop the union of the races. If intermarriage\nbe wrong, its prevention is best left to public opinion and to nature,\nwhich wreaks its own fearful punishments on those who transgress its\nlaws and sin against it. We oppose the proposed statute in the language\nof William Lloyd Garrison in 1843, in his successful campaign for the\nrepeal of a similar law in Massachusetts: 'Because it is not the\nprovince, and does not belong to the power of any legislative assembly,\nin a republican government, to decide on the complexional affinity of\nthose who choose to be united together in wedlock; and it may as\nrationally decree that corpulent and lean, tall and short, strong and\nweak persons shall not be married to each other as that there must be an\nagreement in the complexion of the parties.'\n\n\"We oppose it for the physical reason that to prohibit such\nintermarriage would be publicly to acknowledge that black blood is a\nphysical taint, something no self-respecting colored man and woman can\nbe asked to admit. We oppose it for the moral reason that all such laws\nleave the colored girl absolutely helpless before the lust of the white\nman, without the power to compel the seducer to marry. The statistics of\nintermarriage in those states where it is permitted show this happens\nso infrequently as to make the whole matter of legislation unnecessary.\nBoth races are practically in complete agreement on this question, for\ncolored people marry colored people, and white marry whites, the\nexceptions being few. We earnestly urge upon you an unfavorable report\non this bill.\"\n\nLegislation on the subject of marriage is clearly inside the province of\ngovernment. That such an argument as is quoted from William Lloyd\nGarrison can still be circulated in the United States and apparently\ncarry weight, is sufficient cause for one to feel pessimistic over the\nspread of the scientific spirit in this nation. Suffice it to say that\non this point the National Association is a century behind the times.\n\nThe following policy seems to us to be in accordance with modern\nscience, and yet meet all the legitimate arguments of the National\nAssociation. We will state our attitude as definitely as possible:\n\n1. We hold that it is to the interests of the United States, for the\nreasons given in this chapter, to prevent further Negro-white\namalgamation.\n\n2. The taboo of public opinion is not sufficient in all cases to prevent\nintermarriage, and should be supplemented by law, particularly as the\nUnited States have of late years received many white immigrants from\nother countries (e. g., Italy) where the taboo is weak because the\nproblem has never been pressing.\n\n3. But to prevent intermarriage is only a small part of the solution,\nsince most mulattoes come from extramarital miscegenation. The only\nsolution of this, which is compatible with the requirements of eugenics,\nis not that of _laissez faire_, suggested by the National Association,\nbut an extension of the taboo, and an extension of the laws, to prohibit\nall sexual intercourse between the two races.\n\nFour states (Louisiana, Nevada, South Dakota and Alabama) have already\nattempted to gain this end by law. We believe it to be highly desirable\nthat such laws should be enacted and enforced by all states. A necessary\npreliminary would be to standardize the laws all over the Union,\nparticularly with a view to agreement on what a \"Negro\" legally is; for\nin some states the legislation applies to one who is one-sixteenth, or\neven less, Negro in descent, while in other states it appears to refer\nonly to full-blood or, at the most, half-blood individuals.\n\nSuch legislation, and what is more important, such public opinion,\nleading to a cessation of Negro-white amalgamation, we believe to be in\nthe interests of national eugenics, and to further the welfare of both\nof the races involved. Miscegenation can only lead to unhappiness under\npresent social conditions and must, we believe, under _any_ social\nconditions be biologically wrong.\n\nWe favor, therefore, the support of the taboo which society has placed\non these mixed marriages, as well as any legal action which can\npracticably be taken to make miscegenation between white and black\nimpossible. Justice requires that the Negro race be treated as kindly\nand considerately as possible, with every economic and political\nconcession that is consistent with the continued welfare of the nation.\nSuch social equality and intercourse as might lead to marriage are not\ncompatible with this welfare.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV\n\nIMMIGRATION\n\n\nThere are now in the United States some 14,000,000 foreign-born persons,\ntogether with other millions of the sons and daughters of foreigners who\nalthough born on American soil have as yet been little assimilated to\nAmericanism. This great body of aliens, representing perhaps a fifth of\nthe population, is not a pool to be absorbed, but a continuous,\ninflowing stream, which until the outbreak of the Great War was steadily\nincreasing in volume, and of which the fountain-head is so inexhaustible\nas to appal the imagination. From the beginning of the century, the\ninflow averaged little less than a million a year, and while about\none-fifth of this represented a temporary migration, four-fifths of it\nmeant a permanent addition to the population of the New World.\n\nThe character of this stream will inevitably determine to a large extent\nthe future of the American nation. The direct biological results, in\nrace mixture, are important enough, although not easy to define. The\nindirect results, which are probably of no less importance to eugenics,\nare so hard to follow that some students of the problem do not even\nrealize their existence.\n\nThe ancestors of all white Americans, of course, were immigrants not so\nvery many generations ago. But the earlier immigration was relatively\nhomogeneous and stringently selected by the dangers of the voyage, the\nhardships of life in a new country, and the equality of opportunity\nwhere free competition drove the unfit to the wall. There were few\npeople of eminence in the families that came to colonize North America,\nbut there was a high average of sturdy virtues, and a good deal of\nability, particularly in the Puritan and Huguenot invasions and in a\npart of that of Virginia.\n\nIn the first three-quarters of the nineteenth century, the number of\nthese \"patriots and founders\" was greatly increased by the arrival of\nimmigrants of similar racial stocks from Ireland, Germany, Scandinavia,\nand to a less extent from the other countries of northern and western\nEurope. These arrivals added strength to the United States, particularly\nas a large part of them settled on farms.\n\nThis stream of immigration gradually dried up, but was succeeded by a\nflood from a new source,--southern and eastern Europe. Italians, Slavs,\nPoles, Magyars, East European Hebrews, Finns, Portuguese, Greeks,\nRoumanians and representatives of many other small nationalities began\nto seek fortunes in America. The earlier immigration had been made up\nlargely of those who sought escape from religious or political tyranny\nand came to settle permanent homes. The newer immigration was made up,\non the whole, of those who frankly sought wealth. The difference in the\nreason for coming could not fail to mean a difference in selection of\nthe immigrants, quite apart from the change in the races.\n\nLast of all began an immigration of Levantines, of Syrians, Armenians,\nand other inhabitants of Asiatic Turkey. Beyond this region lie the\ngreat nations of Asia, \"oversaturated\" with population. So far there has\nbeen little more than the threat of their overflow, but the threat is\ncertain to become a reality within a few years unless prevented by legal\nrestriction.\n\nThe eugenic results of immigration are partly indirect and partly\ndirect. Direct results follow if the newcomers are assimilated,--a word\nwhich we shall use rather narrowly to mean that free intermarriage takes\nplace between them and all parts of the older population. We shall\ndiscuss the direct results first, the nature of which depends largely on\nwhether the newcomers are racially homogeneous with the population\nalready in the country.\n\nIf they are like, the old and new will blend without difficulty. The\neffects of the immigration then depend on whether the immigrants are\nbetter or worse in average quality than the older residents. If as good\nor better, they are valuable additions; if inferior they are\nbiologically a detriment.\n\nBut if the new arrivals are different, if they represent a different\nsubspecies of _Homo sapiens_, the question is more serious, for it\ninvolves the problem of crossing races which are biologically more or\nless distinct. Genetics can throw some light on this problem.\n\nWaiving for the moment all question as to the relative quality of two\ndistinct races, what results are to be expected from crossing? It (1)\ngives an increase of vigor which diminishes in later generations and (2)\nproduces recombination of characters.\n\nThe first result may be disregarded, for the various races of man are\nprobably already much mixed, and too closely related, to give rise to\nmuch hybrid vigor in crosses.\n\nThe second result will be favorable or unfavorable, depending on the\ncharacters which go into the cross; and it is not possible to predict\nthe result in human matings, because the various racial characters are\nso ill known. It is, therefore, not worth while here to discuss at\nlength genetic theory. In general it may be said that some valuable\ncharacters are likely to disappear, as the result of such crosses, and\nless desirable ones to take their place. The great bulk of the\npopulation resulting from such racial crosses is likely to be more or\nless mongrel in nature. Finally, some individuals will appear who\ncombine the good characters of the two races, without the bad ones.\n\nThe net result will therefore probably be some distinct gain, but a\ngreater loss. There is danger that complex and valuable traits of a race\nwill be broken down in the process of hybridization, and that it will\ntake a long time to bring them together again. The old view that racial\ncrosses lead fatally to race degeneration is no longer tenable, but the\nview recently advanced, that crosses are advantageous, seems equally\nhasty. W. E. Castle has cited the Pitcairn Islanders and the\nBoer-Hottentot mulattoes of South Africa as evidence that wide crosses\nare productive of no evil results. These cases may be admitted to show\nthat such a hybrid race may be physically healthy, but in respect of\nmental traits they hardly do more than suggest the conclusion we\nadvanced in our chapter on the Color Line,--that such miscegenation is\nan advantage to the inferior race and a disadvantage to the superior\none.\n\nOn the whole, we believe wide racial crosses should be looked upon with\nsuspicion by eugenists.\n\nThe colonizers of North America mostly belonged to the Nordic race.[143]\nThe earlier immigrants to the United States,--roughly, those who came\nhere before the Civil War,--belonged mostly to the same stock, and\ntherefore mixed with the early settlers without difficulty. The\nadvantages of this immigration were offset by no impairment of racial\nhomogeneity.\n\nBut the more recent immigration belongs mostly to other races,\nprincipally the Mediterranean and Alpine. Even if these immigrants were\nsuperior on the average to the older population, it is clear that their\nassimilation would not be an unmixed blessing, for the evil of\ncrossbreeding would partly offset the advantage of the addition of\nvaluable new traits. If, on the other hand, the average of the new\nimmigration is inferior in quality, or in so far as it is inferior in\nquality, it is evident that it must represent biologically an almost\nunmixed evil; it not only brings in new undesirable traits, but injures\nthe desirable ones already here.\n\nE. A. Ross has attempted to predict some of the changes that will take\nplace in the population of the United States, as a result of the\nimmigration of the last half-century.[144] \"It is reasonable,\" he\nthinks, \"to expect an early falling off in the frequency of good looks\nin the American people.\" A diminution of stature, a depreciation of\nmorality, an increase in gross fecundity, and a considerable lowering of\nthe level of average natural ability are among other results that he\nconsiders probable. Not only are the races represented in the later\nimmigration in many cases inferior in average ability to the earlier\nimmigrant races, but America does not get the best, or even a\nrepresentative selection,[145] from the races which are now contributing\nto her population. \"Europe retains most of her brains, but sends\nmultitudes of the common and sub-common. There is little sign of an\nintellectual element among the Magyars, Russians, South Slavs, Italians,\nGreeks or Portuguese\" who are now arriving. \"This does not hold,\nhowever, for currents created by race discrimination or oppression. The\nArmenian, Syrian, Finnish and Russo-Hebrew streams seem\n_representative_, and the first wave of Hebrews out of Russia in the\neighties was superior.\"\n\nWhile the earlier immigration brought a liberal amount of intelligence\nand ability, the later immigration (roughly, that of the last half\ncentury) seems to have brought distinctly less. It is at present\nprincipally an immigration of unskilled labor, of vigorous, ignorant\npeasants. Some of this is \"promoted\" by agents of transportation\ncompanies and others who stand to gain by stirring up the population of\na country village in Russia or Hungary, excite the illiterate peasants\nby stories of great wealth and freedom to be gained in the New World,\nprovide the immigrant with a ticket to New York and start him for Ellis\nIsland. Naturally, such immigration is predominantly male. On the whole,\nfemales make up one-third of the recent inflow, but among some\nraces--Greeks, Italians and Roumanians, for example--only one-fifth.\n\nIn amount of inherent ability these immigrants are not only less highly\nendowed than is desirable, but they furnish, despite weeding out,\naltogether too large a proportion of the \"three D's\"--defectives,\ndelinquents and dependents. In the single year 1914 more than 33,000\nwould-be immigrants were turned back, about half of them because likely\nto become public charges. The immigration law of 1907, amended in 1910,\n1913 and 1917, excludes the following classes of aliens from admission\ninto the United States:\n\n Idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, epileptics, insane\n persons, persons who have been insane within 5 years previously;\n persons who have had two or more attacks of insanity at any time\n previously or who are affected by constitutional psychopathic\n inferiority or chronic alcoholism; paupers, vagrants, persons\n likely to become public charges; professional beggars, persons\n afflicted with tuberculosis or with a loathsome or contagious\n disease; persons who have been convicted of a crime involving moral\n turpitude; polygamists, anarchists, contract laborers, prostitutes,\n persons not comprehended within any one of the foregoing excluded\n classes who are found to be and are certified by the examining\n surgeon as being mentally or physically defective, such mental or\n physical defect being of such a nature as to affect the ability of\n the alien to earn a living.\n\n[Illustration: EXAMINING IMMIGRANTS AT ELLIS ISLAND, NEW YORK\n\nFIG. 39.--Surgeons of the United States Public Health Service\ntest every immigrant, physically and mentally, in order to send back any\nwho give promise of being undesirable additions to the population. The\nabove photograph shows how the examination of those whose condition has\naroused suspicion, is conducted. The boy under the measuring bar, in the\nforeground, and the three immediately to the left of the desk, are\nexamples of congenital asthenia and poor physique; two of the four were\nfound to be dull mentally. Photograph from U. S. Public Health Service.]\n\nDespite the efficiency of the U. S. Public Health Service, it is quite\nimpossible for its small staff to examine thoroughly every immigrant,\nwhen three or four thousand arrive in a single day, as has frequently\nhappened at Ellis Island. Under such circumstances, the medical officer\nmust pass the immigrants with far too cursory an inspection. It is not\nsurprising that many whose mental defects are not of an obvious nature\nmanage to slip through; particularly if, as is charged,[146] many of the\nundesirables are informed that the immigrant rush is greatest in March\nand April, and therefore make it a point to arrive at that time, knowing\nthe medical inspection will be so overtaxed that they will have a better\nchance to get by. The state hospitals of the Atlantic states are rapidly\nfilling up with foreign-born insane.[147] Probably few of these were\npatently insane when they passed through the port of entry. Insanity, it\nmust be remembered, is predominantly a disease of old age, whereas the\naverage alien on arrival is not old. The mental weakness appears only\nafter he has been here some years, perhaps inevitably or perhaps because\nhe finds his environment in, say, lower Manhattan Island is much more\ntaxing to the brain than the simple surroundings of his farm overlooking\nthe bay of Naples.\n\nThe amount of crime attributable to certain sections of the more recent\nimmigration is relatively large. \"It was frequently stated to the\nmembers of the Immigration Commission in southern Italy that crime had\ngreatly diminished in many communities because most of the criminals had\ngone to America.\" The amount of crime among immigrants in the United\nStates is partly due to their age and sex distribution, partly due to\ntheir concentration in cities, partly to the bad environment from which\nthey have sometimes come; partly to inherent racial characteristics,\nsuch as make crimes of violence frequent among the Southern Italians,\ncrimes of gain proportionately more frequent among the Jews, and\nviolence when drunk more a characteristic of the Slavs. No restriction\nof immigration can wholly eliminate the criminal tendencies, but, says\nDr. Warne,[148] after balancing the two sides, \"It still remains true\nthat because of immigration we have a greater amount of pauperism and\ncrime than would be the case if there were no immigration. It is also an\nindisputable fact that with a better regulation of immigration the\nUnited States would have less of these social horrors.\"\n\nTo dwell too much on the undesirable character of part of the present\nimmigration would be to lose perspective. Most of it consists of\nvigorous, industrious, ignorant peasants, induced to come here in search\nof a better living than they can get at home. But it is important to\nremember that if they come here and stay, they are pretty certain to be\nassimilated sooner or later. In cases superior to the average of the\nolder population, their arrival should be welcomed if not too racially\ndiverse; but if, as we believe the record of their achievements shows, a\nlarge part of the immigration is on the average inferior to the older\npopulation of the United States, such are eugenically a detriment to the\nfuture progress of the race. The direct biological result to be expected\nfrom the assimilation of such newcomers is the swamping of the best\ncharacteristics of the old American stock, and a diminution of the\naverage of intelligence of the whole country.\n\nThe interbreeding is too slow at present to be conspicuous, and hence\nits effects are little noticed. The foreigners tend to keep by\nthemselves, to form \"Little Italies,\" \"Little Russias,\" transplanted\nGhettoes and \"foreign quarters,\" where they retain their native\nlanguages and customs and marry compatriots. This condition of\nsegregation can not last forever; the process of amalgamation will be\nmore rapid with each generation, particularly because of the\npreponderance of males in the newer immigration who must marry outside\ntheir own race, if they are to marry at all.\n\nThe direct results of immigration that lead to intermarriage with the\nolder population are fairly easy to outline. The indirect results, which\nwe shall now consider, are more complex. We have dealt so far only with\nthe effects of an immigration that is assimilated; but some immigration\n(that from the Orient, for example) is not assimilated; other\nimmigration remains unassimilated for a long time. What are the eugenic\nconsequences of an unassimilated immigration?\n\nThe presence of large numbers of immigrants who do not intermarry with\nthe older stock will, says T. N. Carver,[149] inevitably mean one of\nthree things:\n\n1. Geographical separation of races.\n\n2. Social separation of races (as the \"color line\" in the South and to a\nlarge extent in the North, between Negroes and whites who yet live side\nby side).\n\n3. Continuous racial antagonism, frequently breaking out into race war.\nThis third possibility has been at least threatened, by the conflict\nbetween the white and yellow races in California, and the conflict\nbetween whites and Hindus in British Columbia.\n\nNone of these alternatives is attractive. The third is undesirable in\nevery way and the first two are difficult to maintain. The first is\nperhaps impossible; the second is partly practicable, as is shown by the\ncase of the Negro. One of its drawbacks is not sufficiently recognized.\n\nIn a soundly-organized society, it is necessary that the road should be\nopen from top to bottom and bottom to top, in order that genuine merit\nmay get its deserts. A valuable strain which appears at the bottom of\nthe social scale must be able to make its way to the top, receiving\nfinancial and other rewards commensurate with its value to the state,\nand being able to produce a number of children proportionate to its\nreward and its value. This is an ideal which is seldom approximated in\ngovernment, but it is the advantage of a democratic form of government\nthat it presents the open road to success, more than does an oligarchic\ngovernment. That this freedom of access to all rewards that the state\ncan give should be open to every one (and conversely that no one should\nbe kept at the top and over-rewarded if he is unworthy) is essential to\neugenics; but it is quite incompatible with the existence within the\nstate of a number of isolated groups, some of which must inevitably and\nproperly be considered inferior. It is certain that, at the present time\nin this country, no Negro can take a place in the upper ranks of\nsociety, which are and will long remain white. The fact that this\nsituation is inevitable makes it no less unfortunate for both Negro and\nwhite races; consolation can only be found in the thought that it is\nless of a danger than the opposite condition would be. But this\ncondition of class discrimination is likely to exist, to a much less\nextent it is true, in every city where there are foreign-born and\nnative-born populations living side by side, and where the epithets of\n\"Sheeny,\" \"Dago,\" \"Wop,\" \"Kike,\" \"Greaser,\" \"Guinea,\" etc., testify to\nthe feeling of the older population that it is superior.\n\nWhile eugenic strength in a state is promoted by variety, too great a\nheterogeneity offers serious social difficulties. It is essential if\nAmerica is to be strong eugenically that it slow down the flood of\nimmigrants who are not easily assimilable. At present a state of affairs\nis being created where class distinctions are likely to be barriers to\nthe promotion of individual worth--and equally, of course, to the\ndemotion of individual worthlessness.\n\nEven if an immigration is not assimilated, then, it yet has an indirect\neffect on eugenics. But there are other indirect effects of immigration,\nwhich are quite independent of assimilation: they inhere in the mere\nbulk and economic character of the immigration. The arrivals of the past\nfew decades have been nearly all unskilled laborers. Professor Carver\nbelieves that continuous immigration which enters the ranks of labor in\nlarger proportion and the business and professional classes in a smaller\nproportion than the native-born will produce the following results:\n\n1. Distribution. It will keep competition more intense among laborers\nand less intense among business and professional men: it will therefore\nraise the income of the employing classes and lower the wages of\nunskilled labor.\n\n2. Production. It will give a relatively low marginal productivity to a\ntypical immigrant and make him a relatively unimportant factor in the\nproduction of wealth.\n\n3. Organization of industry. Immigrants can only be employed\neconomically at low wages and in large gangs, because of (2).\n\n4. Agriculture. If large numbers of immigrants should go into\nagriculture, it will mean one of two things, probably the second:\n\n(a) Continuous subdivision of farms resulting in inefficient and\nwasteful application of labor and smaller crops per man, although\nprobably larger crops per acre.\n\n(b) Development of a class of landed proprietors on the one hand and a\nlandless agricultural proletariat on the other.\n\nIt is true that the great mass of unskilled labor which has come to the\nUnited States in the last few decades has made possible the development\nof many industries that have furnished an increased number of good jobs\nto men of intelligence, but many who have made a close study of the\nimmigration problem think that despite this, unskilled labor has been\ncoming in altogether too large quantities. Professor Ross publishes the\nfollowing illustration:\n\n\"What a college man saw in a copper-mine in the Southwest gives in a\nnutshell the logic of low wages.\n\n\"The American miners, getting $2.75 a day, are abruptly displaced\nwithout a strike by a train-load of 500 raw Italians brought in by the\ncompany and put to work at from $1.50 to $2 a day. For the Americans\nthere is nothing to do but to 'go down the road.' At first the Italians\nlive on bread and beer, never wash, wear the same filthy clothes night\nand day, and are despised. After two or three years they want to live\nbetter, wear decent clothes, and be respected. They ask for more wages,\nthe bosses bring in another train-load from the steerage, and the partly\nAmericanized Italians follow the American miners 'down the road.' No\nwonder the estimate of government experts as to the number of our\nfloating casual laborers ranges up to five millions!\"\n\n\"It is claimed that the natives are not displaced\" by the constant\ninflow of alien unskilled labor, says H. P. Fairchild,[150] but that they\n\"are simply forced into higher occupations. Those who were formerly\ncommon laborers are now in positions of authority. While this argument\nholds true of individuals, its fallacy when applied to groups is\nobvious. There are not nearly enough places of authority to receive\nthose who are forced out from below. The introduction of 500 Slav\nlaborers into a community may make a demand for a dozen or a score of\nAmericans in higher positions, but hardly for 500.\"\n\n\"The number of unskilled workers coming in at the present time is\nsufficient to check decidedly the normal tendency toward an improved\nstandard of living in many lines of industry,\" in the opinion of J. W.\nJenks, who was a member of the Immigration Commission appointed by\nPresident Roosevelt in 1907. He alludes to the belief that instead of\ncrowding the older workers _out_, the aliens merely crowd them up, and\nsays that he himself formerly held that view; \"but the figures collected\nby the Immigration commission, from a sufficient number of industries in\ndifferent sections of the country to give general conclusions, prove\nbeyond a doubt that in a good many cases these incoming immigrants\nactually drive out into other localities and into other unskilled trades\nlarge numbers of American workingmen and workingmen of the earlier\nimmigration who do not get better positions but, rather, worse ones....\nProfessor Lauck, our chief superintendent of investigators in the\nfield, and, so far as I am aware, every single investigator in the\nfield, before the work ended, reached the conclusion from personal\nobservation that the tendency of the large percentage of immigration of\nunskilled workers is clearly to lower the standard of living in a number\nof industries, and the statistics of the commission support this\nimpression. I therefore changed my earlier views.\"\n\nIf the immigration of large quantities of unskilled labor with low\nstandards of living tends in most cases to depress wages and lower the\nstandard of living of the corresponding class of the old American\npopulation, the consequences would appear to be:\n\n1. The employers of labor would profit, since they would get abundant\nlabor at low wages. If this increase in the wealth of employers led to\nan increase in their birth-rate, it would be an advantage. But it\napparently does not. The birth-rate of the employing class is probably\nlittle restricted by financial difficulties; therefore on them\nimmigration probably has no immediate eugenic effect.\n\n2. The American skilled laborers would profit, since there is more\ndemand for skilled labor in industries created by unskilled immigrant\nlabor. Would the increasing prosperity and a higher standard of living\nhere, tend to lower the relative birth-rate of the class or not?\n\nThe answer probably depends on the extent of the knowledge of birth\ncontrol which has been discussed elsewhere.\n\n3. The wages and standard of living of American unskilled laborers will\nfall, since they are obliged directly to compete with the newcomers. It\nseems most likely that a fall in wages and standards is correlated with\na fall in birth-rate. This case must be distinguished from cases where\nthe wages and standards _never were high_, and where poverty is\ncorrelated with a high birth-rate. If this distinction is correct, the\npresent immigration will tend to lower the birth-rate of American\nunskilled laborers.\n\nThe arguments here used may appear paradoxical, and have little\nstatistical support, but they seem to us sound and not in contradiction\nwith any known facts. If they are valid, the effect of such immigration\nas the United States has been receiving is to reduce the birth-rate of\nthe unskilled labor with little or no effect on the employers and\nmanagers of labor.\n\nSince both the character and the volume of immigration are at fault,\nremedial measures may be applied to either one or both of these\nfeatures. It is very desirable that we have a much more stringent\nselection of immigrants than is made at the present time. But most of\nthe measures which have been actually proposed and urged in recent years\nhave been directed at a diminution of the volume, and at a change in\ncharacter only by somewhat indirect and indiscriminate means.\n\nThe Immigration Commission made a report to Congress on Dec. 5, 1910, in\nwhich it suggested the following possible methods of restricting the\nvolume of immigration:\n\n1. The exclusion of those unable to read and write in some language.\n\n2. The reduction of the number of each race arriving each year to a\ncertain percentage of the average of that race arriving during a given\nperiod of years.\n\n3. The exclusion of unskilled laborers unaccompanied by wives or\nfamilies.\n\n4. Material increase in the amount of money required to be in the\npossession of the immigrant at the port of arrival.\n\n5. Material increase in the head tax.\n\n6. Limitation of the number of immigrants arriving annually at any port.\n\n7. The levying of the head tax so as to make a marked discrimination in\nfavor of men with families.\n\nEugenically, it is probable that (3) and (7), which would tend to admit\nonly families, would be a detriment to American welfare; (1) and (2)\nhave been the suggestions which have met with the most favor. All but\none member of the commission favored (1), the literacy test, as the most\nfeasible single method of restricting undesirable immigration, and it\nwas enacted into law by Congress, which passed it over President\nWilson's veto, in February, 1917.\n\nRecords for 1914 show that \"illiteracy among the total number of\narrivals of each race ranged all the way from 64% for the Turkish to\nless than 1% for the English, the Scotch, the Welsh, the Scandinavian,\nand the Finnish. The Bohemian and Moravian, the German, and the Irish\neach had less than 5% illiterate. Races other than the Turkish, whose\nimmigration in 1914 was more than one-third illiterate, include the\nDalmatians, Bosnians, Herzegovinians, Russians, Ruthenians, Italians,\nLithuanians, and Roumanians.\"\n\nIt is frankly admitted by the proponents of this method of restriction\nthat it will keep out some who ought to come in, and let in some who\nought to be kept out. It is in some cases a test of opportunity rather\nthan of character, but \"in the belief of its advocates, it will meet the\nsituation as disclosed by the investigation of the Immigration\nCommission better than any other means that human ingenuity can devise.\nIt is believed that it would exclude more of the undesirable and fewer\nof the desirable immigrants than any other method of restriction.\"\n\nOn the other hand, it is argued that the literacy test will fail of\nsuccess because those who want to come will learn to read and write,\nwhich will only delay their arrival a few months without changing their\nreal character. But the effect of such attempts will separate those who\nsucceed from those who are too inferior to succeed, which would be an\nadvantage of the plan rather than a defect.\n\nThe second method of selection enumerated (2) above, was proposed by\nRev. Sidney L. Gulick, particularly with a view to meeting the need of\nrestriction of Asiatic immigration.[151] This immigration will be\ndiscussed shortly, but in the meantime the details of his plan may be\npresented.\n\n\"Only so many immigrants of any people should be admitted as we can\nAmericanize. Let the maximum permissible annual immigration from any\npeople be a definite per cent. (say five) of the sum of the\nAmerican-born children of that people plus those who have become\nnaturalized of the same people. Let this restriction be imposed only\nupon adult males.\n\n\"Taking the 1910 census as our basis, the 5% Restriction Proposal would\nhave fixed the maximum permissible immigration of males from North and\nWest Europe at 759,000 annually, while the actual annual immigration for\nthe last 5 years averages but 115,000. The permissible immigration from\nSouth and East Europe would have been 189,000 annually, while the\naverage for the last five years has been 372,000. When applied to China,\nthe policy would have admitted 1,106 males per year, while the number\nadmitted on the average for the last 5 years has been 1,571. The\nproposal would provide for the admission of 1,200 Japanese annually,\nhere again resulting in the exclusion on the average of 1,238 males\nyearly during the years 1911-1915. No estimate is made here of the\neffect of the exclusion of males on the arrival of women and children.\"\nThe percentage restriction is unsatisfactory to a eugenist, as not\nsufficiently discriminating.\n\nThe literary restriction has been a great step forward but should be\nbacked by the addition of such mental tests as will make it fairly\ncertain to keep out the dull-minded as well as feeble-minded. Long\ndivision would suffice as such a test until better tests relatively\nunaffected by schooling can be put into operation, since it is at this\npoint in the grades that so many dull-minded drop out of the schools.\n\nOriental immigration is becoming an urgent problem, and it is essential\nthat its biological, as well as its economic and sociological features\nbe understood, if it is to be solved in a satisfactory and reasonably\npermanent way. In the foregoing discussion, Oriental immigration has\nhardly been taken into account; it must now receive particular\nconsideration.\n\nWhat are the grounds, then, for forbidding the yellow races, or the\nraces of British India, to enter the United States? The considerations\nurged in the past have been (1) Political: it is said that they are\nunable to acquire the spirit of American institutions. This is an\nobjection which concerns eugenics only indirectly. (2) Medical: it is\nsaid that they introduce diseases, such as the oriental liver, lung and\nintestinal flukes, which are serious, against which Americans have never\nbeen selected, and for which no cure is known. (3) Economic: it is\nargued that the Oriental's lower standard of living makes it impossible\nfor the white man to compete with him. The objection is well founded,\nand is indirectly of concern to eugenics, as was pointed out in a\npreceding section of this chapter. As eugenists we feel justified in\nobjecting to the immigration of large bodies of unskilled Oriental\nlabor, on the ground that they rear larger families than our stock on\nthe same small incomes.\n\nA biological objection has also been alleged, in the possibility of\ninterbreeding between the yellow and white races. In the past such cases\nhave been very rare; it is authoritatively stated[152] that \"there are\non our whole Pacific coast not more than 20 instances of intermarriage\nbetween Americans and Japanese, and ... one might count on the fingers\nof both hands the number of American-Chinese marriages between San Diego\nand Seattle.\" The presence of a body of non-interbreeding immigrants is\nlikely to produce the adverse results already discussed in the earlier\npart of this chapter.\n\nEugenically, then, the immigration of any considerable number of\nunskilled laborers from the Orient may have undesirable direct results\nand is certain to have unfavorable indirect results. It should therefore\nbe prevented, either by a continuation of the \"gentlemen's agreement\"\nnow in force between the United States and Japan, and by similar\nagreements with other nations, or by some such non-invidious measure as\nthat proposed by Dr. Gulick. This exclusion should not of course be\napplied to the intellectual classes, whose presence here would offer\nadvantages which would outweigh the disadvantages.\n\nWe have a different situation in the Philippine islands, there the\nyellow races have been denied admission since the United States took\npossession. Previously, the Chinese had been trading there for\ncenturies, and had settled in considerable numbers almost from the time\nthe Spaniards colonized the archipelago.\n\nAt present it is estimated that there are 100,000 Chinese in the\nislands, and their situation was not put too strongly by A. E. Jenks,\nwhen he wrote:[153]\n\n\"As to the Chinese, it does not matter much what they themselves desire;\nbut what their descendants desire will go far toward answering the whole\nquestion of the Filipinos' volition toward assimilation, because they\nare _the_ Filipinos. To be specific: During the latter days of my\nresidence in the Islands in 1905 Governor-General Wright one day told me\nthat he had recently personally received from one of the most\ndistinguished Filipinos of the time, and a member of the Insular Civil\nCommission, the statement that 'there was not a single prominent and\ndominant family among the Christianized Filipinos which did not possess\nChinese blood.' The voice and will of the Filipinos of to-day is the\nvoice and the will of these brainy, industrious, rapidly developing men\nwhose judgment in time the world is bound to respect.\"\n\nThis statement will be confirmed by almost any American resident in the\nIslands. Most of the men who have risen to prominence in the Islands are\nmestizos, and while in political life some of the leaders are merely\nSpanish metis, the financial leaders almost without exception, the\ncaptains of industry, have Chinese blood in their veins, while this\nclass has also taken an active part in the government of the\narchipelago. Emilio Aguinaldo is one of the most conspicuous of the\nChinese mestizos. Individual examples might be multiplied without limit;\nit will be sufficient to mention Bautista Lim, president of the largest\ntobacco firm in the islands and also a physician; his brother, formerly\nan insurgent general and later governor of Sampango province under the\nAmerican administration; the banker Lim Hap; Faustino Lechoco, cattle\nking of the Philippines; Fernandez brothers, proprietors of a steamship\nline; Locsin and Lacson, wealthy sugar planters; Mariano Velasco,\ndry-goods importer; Datto Piang, the Moro warrior and chieftain; Paua,\ninsurgent general in southern Luzon; Ricardo Gochuico, tobacco magnate.\nIn most of these men the proportion of Chinese blood is large.\n\nGeneralizing, we are justified in saying that the cross between Chinese\nand Filipinos produces progeny superior to the Filipinos. It must be\nremembered that it is not a very wide cross, the Malayans, who include\nmost of the Filipinos, being closely related to the Chinese.\n\nIt appears that even a small infusion of Chinese blood may produce\nlong-continued favorable results, if the case of the Ilocanos is\ncorrectly described. This tribe, in Northern Luzon, furnishes perhaps\nthe most industrious workers of any tribe in the islands; foremen and\noverseers of Filipinos are quite commonly found to be Ilocanos, while\nthe members of the tribe are credited with accomplishing more steady\nwork than any other element of the population. The current explanation\nof this is that they are Chinese mestizos: their coast was constantly\nexposed the raids of Chinese pirates, a certain number of whom settled\nthere and took Ilocano women as wives. From these unions, the whole\ntribe in the course of time is thought to have benefited.[154]\n\nThe history of the Chinese in the Philippines fails to corroborate the\nidea that he never loses his racial identity. It must be borne in mind\nthat nearly all the Chinese in the United States are of the lowest\nworking class, and from the vicinity of Canton; while those in the\nPhilippines are of a higher class, and largely from the neighborhood of\nAmoy. They have usually married Filipino women of good families, so\ntheir offspring had exceptional advantages, and stand high in the\nestimation of the community. The requirement of the Spanish government\nwas that a Chinese must embrace Christianity and become a citizen,\nbefore he could marry a Filipino. Usually he assumed his wife's name, so\nthe children were brought up wholly as Filipinos, and considered\nthemselves such, without cherishing any particular sentiment for the\nFlowery Kingdom.\n\nThe biologist who studies impartially the Filipino peoples may easily\nconclude that the American government is making a mistake in excluding\nthe Chinese; that the infiltration of intelligent Chinese and their\nintermixture with the native population would do more to raise the level\nof ability of the latter than a dozen generations of that compulsory\neducation on which the government has built such high hopes.\n\nAnd this conclusion leads to the question whether much of the surplus\npopulation of the Orient could not profitably be diverted to regions\noccupied by savage and barbarian people. Chinese immigrants, mostly\ntraders, have long been going in small numbers to many such regions and\nhave freely intermarried with native women. It is a matter of common\nobservation to travelers that much of the small mercantile business has\npassed into the hands of Chinese mestizos. As far as the first few\ngenerations, at least, the cross here seems to be productive of good\nresults. Whether Oriental immigration should be encouraged must depend\non the decision of the respective governments, and considerations other\nthan biologic will have weight. As far as eugenics is concerned it is\nlikely that such regions would profit by a reasonable amount of Chinese\nor Japanese immigration which resulted in interbreeding and not in the\nformation of isolated race-groups, because the superior Orientals tend\nto raise the level of the native population into which they marry.\n\nThe question of the regulation of immigration is, as we have insisted\nthroughout this chapter, a question of weighing the consequences. A\ndecision must be reached in each case by asking what course will do most\nfor the future good both of the nation and of the whole species. To talk\nof the sacred duty of offering an asylum to any who choose to come, is\nto indulge in immoral sentimentality. Even if the problem be put on the\nmost unselfish plane possible, to ask not what will be for this\ncountry's own immediate or future benefit, but what will most benefit\nthe world at large, it can only be concluded that the duty of the\nUnited States is to make itself strong, efficient, productive and\nprogressive. By so doing they will be much better able to help the rest\nof the world than by progressively weakening themselves through failure\nto regulate immigration.\n\nFurther, in reaching a decision on the regulation of immigration, there\nare numerous kinds of results to be considered: political, social,\neconomic and biologic, among others. All these interact, and it is hard\nto say that one is more important than another; naturally we have\nlimited ourselves to the biologic aspect, but not without recognizing\nthat the other aspects exist and must be taken into account by those who\nare experts in those fields.\n\nLooking only at the eugenic consequences, we can not doubt that a\nconsiderable and discriminatory selection of immigrants to this country\nis necessary. Both directly and indirectly, the immigration of recent\nyears appears to be diminishing the eugenic strength of the nation more\nthan it increases it.\n\nThe state would be in a stronger position eugenically (and in many other\nways) if it would decrease the immigration of unskilled labor, and\nincrease the immigration of creative and directing talent. A selective\ndiminution of the volume of immigration would tend to have that result,\nbecause it would necessarily shut out more of the unskilled than the\nskilled.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI\n\nWAR\n\n\nWar always changes the composition of a nation; but this change may be\neither a loss or a gain. The modification of selection by war is far\nmore manifold than the literature on the biological effects of war would\nlead the reader to suppose. All wars are partly eugenic and partly\ndysgenic; some are mainly the one, some are mainly the other. The racial\neffects of war occur in at least three periods:\n\n1. The period of preparation.\n\n2. The period of actual fighting.\n\n3. The period of readjustment after the war.\n\nThe first division involves the effect of a standing army, which\nwithdraws men during a part of the reproductive period and keeps most of\nthem in a celibate career. The officers marry late if at all and show a\nvery low birth-rate. The prolonged celibacy has in many armies led to a\nhigher incidence of venereal diseases which prolongs the celibacy and\nlowers the birthrate.[155] Without extended discussion, the following\nconsiderations may be named as among those which should govern a policy\nof military preparedness that will safeguard, as far as possible, the\neugenic interests:\n\n1. If the army is a standing one, composed of men serving long terms of\nenlistment, they should be of as advanced an age as is compatible with\nmilitary efficiency. If a man of 35 has not married, it is probable that\nhe will never marry, and therefore there is less loss to the race in\nenrolling him for military service, than is the case with a man of\n20-25.\n\n2. The army (except in so far as composed of inferior men) should not\nfoster celibacy. Short enlistments are probably the most valuable means\nof avoiding this evil.\n\n3. Universal conscription is much better than voluntary service, since\nthe latter is highly selective, the former much less so. Those in\nregular attendance in college should receive their military training in\ntheir course as is now done.\n\n4. Officers' families should be given an additional allowance for each\nchild. This would aid in increasing the birth-rate, which appears to be\nvery low among army and navy officers in the United States service, and\nprobably in that of all civilized countries.\n\n5. Every citizen owes service to his nation, in time of need, but\nfighting service should not be exacted if some one else could perform it\nbetter than he where he is expert in some other needed field. The recent\naction of England in sending to the front as subaltern officers, who\nwere speedily killed, many highly trained technicians and young\nscientists and medical men who would have been much more valuable at\nhome in connection with war measures, is an example of this mistake.\nCarrying the idea farther, one sees that in many nations there are\ncertain races which are more valuable on the firing line than in\nindustries at the rear; and it appears that they should play the part\nfor which they are best fitted. From this point of view, the Entente\nallies were wholly justified in employing their Asiatic and African\nsubjects in war. In the United States are millions of negroes who are of\nless value than white men in organized industry but almost as valuable\nas the whites, when properly led, at the front. It would appear to be\nsound statesmanship to enlist as many Negroes as possible in the active\nforces, in case of war, thus releasing a corresponding number of more\nskilled white workers for the industrial machine on whose efficiency\nsuccess in modern warfare largely rests.\n\nThe creation of the National Army in the United States, in 1917, while\nin most ways admirably conducted, was open to criticism in several\nrespects, from the eugenic point of view:\n\n(a) Too many college men and men in intellectual pursuits were taken as\nofficers, particularly in the aviation corps. There should have been\nmore men employed as officers who had demonstrated the necessary\nqualifications, as foremen and others accustomed to boss gangs of men.\n\n(b) The burden was thrown too heavily on the old white Americans, by the\nexemption of aliens, who make up a large part of the population in some\nstates. There were communities in New England which actually could not\nfill their quotas, even by taking every acceptable native-born resident,\nso large is their alien population. The quota should have been adjusted\nif aliens were to be exempt.\n\n(c) The district boards were not as liberal as was desirable, in\nexempting from the first quota men needed in skilled work at home. The\nspirit of the _selective_ draft was widely violated, and necessitated a\ncomplete change of method before the second quota was called by the much\nimproved questionnaire method.\n\nIt is difficult to get such mistakes as these corrected; nevertheless a\nnation should never lose sight of the fact that war is inevitably\ndamaging, and that the most successful nation is the one which wins its\nwars with the least possible eugenic loss.\n\nLeaving the period of preparedness, we consider the period of open\nwarfare. The reader will remember that, in an earlier chapter, we\ndivided natural selection into (1) lethal, that which operates through\ndifferential mortality; (2) sexual, that which operates through\ndifferential mating; and (3) fecundal, that which operates through\ndifferential fecundity. Again, selection operates both in an inter-group\ncompetition and an intra-group competition. The influence of any agency\non natural selection must be examined under each of these six heads. In\nthe case of war, however, fecundal selection may be eliminated, as it is\nlittle influenced. Still another division arises from the fact that the\naction of selection is different during war upon the armed forces\nthemselves and upon the population at home; and after the war, upon the\nnations with the various modifications that the war has left.\n\nWe will consider lethal selection first. To measure the effect of the\ninter-group selection of the armed forces, one must compare the\nrelative quality of the two races involved. The evidence for believing\nin substantial differences between races is based (a) upon their\nrelative achievement when each is isolated, (b) upon the relative rank\nwhen the two are competing in one society, and (c) upon the relative\nnumber of original contributions to civilization each has made. Such\ncomparisons are fatal to the sentimental equalitarianism that denies\nrace differences. While there is, of course, a great deal of\noverlapping, there are, nevertheless, real average differences. To think\notherwise is to discard evolution and revert to the older standpoint of\n\"special creation.\"\n\nComparison of the quality of the two sides is sometimes, of course, very\ndifficult. One may feel little hesitation in giving a decision in the\nclassical war of the Greeks and Persians, or the more modern case of the\nEnglish and Afghans, but when considering the Franco-Prussian war, or\nthe Russo-Japanese war, or the Boer war, or the American civil war, it\nis largely a matter of mere opinion, and perhaps an advantage can hardly\nbe conceded to either side. Those who, misunderstanding the doctrine of\nevolution, adhere to the so-called \"philosophy of force,\" would answer\nwithout hesitation that the side which won was, _ipso facto_, the better\nside. But such a judgment is based on numerous fallacies, and can not be\nindorsed in the sweeping way it is uttered. Take a concrete example:\n\n\"In 1806, Prussia was defeated at the battle of Jena. According to the\nphilosophy of force, this was because Prussia was 'inferior' and France\nwas 'superior.' Suppose we admit for the moment that this was the case.\nThe selection now represents the survival of the fittest, the selection\nwhich perfects the human species. But what shall we say of the battle of\nLeipsic? At Leipsic, in 1813, all the values were reversed; it is now\nFrance which is the 'inferior' nation.... Furthermore, a large number of\nthe same generals and soldiers who took part in the battle of Jena also\ntook part in the battle of Leipsic. Napoleon belonged, therefore, to a\nrace which was superior to that of Bluecher in 1806, but to an inferior\nrace in 1813, in spite of the fact that they were the same persons and\nhad not changed their nationality. As soon as we bring these assertions\nto the touchstone of concrete reality we see at once how untenable and\neven ridiculous are direct biological comparisons.\"[156]\n\nWithout going into further detail, it is readily seen that, on the world\nat large, the eugenic effect of a war would be very different according\nas the sides differ much or little. Yet this difference in quality,\nhowever great, will have no significance, unless the superior or\ninferior side is in general more likely to lose fewer men. Where the\ndifference has been considerable, as between a civilized and savage\nnation, it has been seldom that the superior has not triumphed with\nfewer losses. Victory, however, is influenced much less in these later\ndays by the relative military efficiency of two single nations than by\ntheir success in making powerful alliances. But such alignments are by\nno means always associated with better quality, because (a) there is a\nnatural tendency for the weak to unite against a strong nation, (b) to\nside with a group which is apparently succeeding, and (c) the alliances\nmay be the work of one or a few individuals who happen to be in\npositions of power at the critical time.\n\nModern European wars, especially the latest one, have been marked by the\nhigh quality of the combatants on both sides relative to the rest of the\nworld. As these same races fight with pertinacity, there is a high\nmortality rate, so that the dysgenic result of these wars is\nparticularly deplorable.\n\nAs for the selection taking place _within_ each of the struggling\nnations, the combatants and the non-combatants of the same age and sex\nmust first be compared. The difference here depends largely on how the\narmy in question was raised. Where the army is a permanent, paid force,\nit probably does not represent a quality above the average of the\nnation, except physically. When it is conscripted, it is superior\nphysically and probably slightly in other respects. If it is a\nvolunteer army, its quality depends largely on whether the cause being\nfought for is one that appeals merely to the spirit of adventure or one\nthat appeals to some moral principle. In the latter case, the quality\nmay be such that the loss of a large part of the army will be peculiarly\ndamaging to the progress of the race. This situation is more common than\nmight be supposed, for by skillful diplomacy and journalism a cause\nwhich may be really questionable is presented to the public in a most\nidealistic light. But here, again, one can not always apply sweeping\ngeneralizations to individual cases. It might be supposed, for instance,\nthat in the Confederate army the best eugenic quality was represented by\nthe volunteers, the second best by those who stayed out until they were\nconscripted, and the poorest by the deserters. Yet David Starr Jordan\nand Harvey Ernest Jordan, who investigated the case with care, found\nthat this was hardly true and that, due to the peculiar circumstances,\nthe deserters were probably not as a class eugenically inferior to the\nvolunteers.[157] Again some wars, such as that between the United States\nand Spain, probably develop a volunteer army made up largely of the\nadventurous, the nomadic, and those who have fewer ties; it would be\ndifficult to demonstrate that they are superior to those who, having\nsettled positions at home, or family obligations, fail to volunteer. The\ngreatest damage appears to be done in such wars as those waged by great\nEuropean nations, where the whole able-bodied male population is called\nout, and only those left at home who are physically or mentally unfit\nfor fighting--but not, it appears to be thought, unfit to perpetuate the\nrace.\n\nEven within the army of one side, lethal selection is operative. Those\nwho are killed are by no means a haphazard sample of the whole army.\nAmong the victims there is a disproportionate representation of those\nwith (1) dauntless bravery, (2) recklessness, (3) stupidity. These\nqualities merge into each other, yet in their extremes they are widely\ndifferent. However, as the nature of warfare changes with the increase\nof artillery, mines, bombs, and gases, and decrease of personal combat,\nthose who fall are more and more chance victims.\n\nIn addition to the killed and mortally wounded, there are many deaths\nfrom disease or from wounds which were not necessarily fatal. Probably\nthe most selective of any of these three agencies is the variable\nresistance to disease and infection and the widely varying knowledge and\nappreciation of the need for hygienic living shown by the individual,\nas, for instance, by less reckless drinking of unsterilized water. But\nhere, too, in modern warfare, this item is becoming less selective, with\nthe advance in discipline and in organized sanitation.\n\nThe efficiency of selection will be affected by the percentage that each\nside has sent to the front, if the combatants are either above or below\nthe average of the population. A nation that sends all its able-bodied\nmales forward will be affected differently from its enemy that has\nneeded to call upon only one-half of its able-bodied men in order to win\nits cause.\n\nAway from the fighting lines of the contending sides, conditions that\nprevail are rendered more severe in many ways than in times of peace.\nPoverty becomes rife, and sanitation and medical treatment are commonly\nsacrificed under the strain. During a war, that mitigation of the action\nof natural selection which is so common now among civilized nations, is\nsomewhat less effective than in times of peace. The scourge of typhus in\nSerbia is a recent and graphic illustration.\n\nAfter a war has been concluded, certain new agencies of inter-group\nselection arise. The result depends largely on whether the vanquished\nhave had a superior culture brought to them, as in the case of the\nPhilippines, or whether, on the contrary, certain diseases have been\nintroduced, as to the natives of the New World by the Spanish conquerors\nand explorers, or crushing tribute has been levied, or grievous\noppression such as has befallen Belgium.\n\nSometimes the conquerors themselves have suffered severely as the result\nof excessive spoliation, which has produced vicious idleness and\nluxurious indulgence, with the ultimate effect of diminishing the\nbirth-rate.\n\nWithin the nation there may be various results. Sometimes, by the\nreduction of overcrowding, natural selection will be less severe. On the\nother hand, the loss of that part of the population which is more\neconomically productive is a very serious loss, leading to excessive\npoverty with increased severity in the action of natural selection, of\nwhich some of the Southern States, during the Reconstruction period,\noffer a good illustration.\n\nSelection is also rendered more intense by the heavy burden of taxation,\nand in the very common depreciation of currency as is now felt in\nRussia.\n\nSexual selection as well as lethal is affected by war in manifold ways.\nConsidering the armed force, there is an inter-group selection, when the\nenemy's women are assaulted by the soldiers. While this has been an\nimportant factor in the past, it is somewhat less common now, with\nbetter army discipline and higher social ideals.\n\nWithin the group, mating at the outset of a war is greatly increased by\nmany hurried marriages. There is also alleged to be sometimes an\nincrease of illegitimacy in the neighborhood of training camps. In each\nof these instances, these matings do not represent as much maturity of\njudgment as there would have been in times of peace, and hence give a\nless desirable sexual selection.\n\nIn the belligerent nation at home, the number of marriageable males is\nof course far less than at ordinary times. It becomes important, then,\nto compare the quality of the non-combatants and those combatants who\nsurvive and return home, since their absence during the war period of\ncourse decreases their reproduction as compared with the non-combatants.\nThe marked excess of women over men, both during the war and after,\nnecessarily intensifies the selection of women and proportionately\nreduces that of men, since relatively fewer men will remain unmated.\nThis excess of women is found in all classes. Among superiors there are,\nin addition, some women who never marry because the war has so reduced\nthe number of suitors thought eligible.\n\nThe five years' war of Paraguay with Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina\n(1864-1869) is perhaps the most glaring case on record[158] in recent\nyears of the destruction of the male population of a country. Whole\nregiments were made up of boys of 16 or less. At the beginning of the\nwar the population of Paraguay had been given as 1,337,437. It fell to\n221,709 (28,746 men, 106,254 women, 86,079 children); it is even now\nprobably not more than half of the estimate made at the beginning of the\nwar. \"Here in a small area has occurred a drastic case of racial ravage\nwithout parallel since the time of the Thirty Years' War.\" Macedonia,\nhowever, furnishes a fairly close parallel--D. S. Jordan found whole\nvillages there in 1913 in which not a single man remained: only women\nand children. Conditions were not so very much better in parts of the\nSouth at the close of the Civil War, particularly in Virginia and North\nCarolina, where probably 40% of the young men of reproductive age died\nwithout issue. And in a few of the Northern states, such as Vermont,\nConnecticut and Massachusetts, the loss was proportionately almost as\ngreat. These were probably as good men as any country has produced, and\ntheir loss, with that of their potential offspring, undoubtedly is\ncausing more far-reaching effects in the subsequent history of the\nUnited States than has ever been realized.\n\nIn the past and still among many savage peoples, inter-group selection\nhas been affected by the stealing of women from the vanquished. The\neffect of this has been very different, depending on whether these women\nwould otherwise have been killed or spared, and also depending on the\nrelative quality of their nation to that of their conquerors.\n\nTo sum up, there are so many features of natural selection, each of\nwhich must be separately weighed and the whole then balanced, that it is\na matter of extensive inquiry to determine whether a certain war has a\npreponderance of eugenic or dysgenic results.\n\nWhen the quality of the combatants is so high, compared with the rest\nof the world, as during the Great War, no conceivable eugenic gains from\nthe war can offset the losses. It is probably well within the facts to\nassume that the period of this war represents a decline in inherent\nhuman quality, greater than in any similar length of time in the\nprevious history of the world.\n\nUnfortunately, it does not appear that war is becoming much less common\nif we consider number of combatants rather than number of wars as times\ngoes on,[159] and it steadily tends to be more destructive. War, then,\noffers one of the greatest problems which the eugenist must face, for a\nfew months of war may undo all that eugenic reforms can gain in a\ngeneration.\n\nThe total abolition of war would, of course, be the ideal, but there is\nno possibility of this in the near future. The fighting instinct, it\nmust be remembered, is one of the most primitive and powerful that the\nhuman mechanism contains. It was evolved in great intensity, to give man\nsupremacy over his environment--for the great \"struggle for existence\"\nis with the environment, not with members of one's own species. Man long\nago conquered the environment so successfully that he has never since\nhad to exert himself in physical combat in this direction; but the\nfighting instinct remained and could not be baulked without causing\nuneasiness. Spurred on by a complex set of psychological and economic\nstimuli, man took to fighting his own kind, to a degree that no other\nspecies shows.\n\nNow contrary to what the militarist philosophers affirm, this particular\nsort of \"struggle for existence\" is not a necessity to the further\nprogressive evolution of the race. On the contrary it more frequently\nreverses evolution and makes the race go backward, rather than forward.\n\nThe struggle for existence which makes the race progress is principally\nthat of the species with its environment, not that of some members of\nthe species with others. If the latter struggle could be supplanted by\nthe former then racial evolution would go ahead steadily without the\ncontinuous reversals that warfare now gives.\n\nWilliam James saw, we believe, the true solution of the problem of\nmilitarism, when he wrote his famous essay on _The Moral Equivalent of\nWar_. Here is man, full of fighting instinct which will not be baulked.\nWhat is he to do? Professor James suggested that the youth of the nation\nbe conscripted to fight the environment, thus getting the fight \"out of\nits system\" and rendering a real service to the race by constructive\nreclamation work, instead of slaying each other and thus turning the\nhands of the evolutionary clock backward.\n\nWhen education has given everyone the evolutionary and eugenic view of\nman as a species adapted to his environment, it may be possible to work\nout some such solution as this of James. The only immediate course of\naction open seems to be to seek, if possible, to diminish the frequency\nof war by subduing nations which start wars and, by the organization of\na League to Enforce Peace; to avoid war-provoking conquests; to diminish\nas much as possible the disastrous effects of war when it does come, and\nto work for the progress of science and the diffusion of knowledge which\nwill eventually make possible the greater step, effective international\norganization.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII\n\nGENEALOGY AND EUGENICS\n\n\nScientific plant breeders to-day have learned that their success often\ndepends on the care with which they study the genealogy of their plants.\n\nLive-stock breeders admit that their profession is on a sure scientific\nbasis only to the extent that the genealogy of the animals used is\nknown.\n\nHuman genealogy is one of the oldest manifestations of man's\nintellectual activity, but until recently it has been subservient to\nsentimental purposes, or pursued from historical or legal motives.\nBiology has had no place in it.\n\nGenealogy, however, has not altogether escaped the re-examination which\nall sciences received after the Darwinian movement revolutionized modern\nthought. Numerous ways have been pointed out in which it could be\nbrought into line with the new way of looking at man and his world. The\nfield of genealogy has already been invaded at many points by\nbiologists, seeking the furtherance of their own aims.\n\nIt will be worth while to discuss briefly the relations between the\nconventional genealogy and eugenics. It may be that genealogy could\nbecome an even more valuable branch of human knowledge than it now is,\nif it were more closely aligned with biology. In order to test this\npossibility, one must inquire:\n\n(1) What is genealogy?\n\n(2) What does it now attempt to do?\n\n(3) What faults, from the eugenist's standpoint, seem to exist in\npresent genealogical methods?\n\n(4) What additions should be made to the present methods?\n\n(5) What can be expected of it, after it is revised in accordance with\nthe ideas of the eugenist?\n\nThe answer to the first question, \"What is genealogy?\" may be brief.\nGenealogy may be envisaged from several points. It serves history. It\nhas a legal function, which is of more consequence abroad than in\nAmerica. It has social significance, in bolstering family pride and\ncreating a feeling of family solidarity--this is perhaps its chief\noffice in the United States. It has, or can have, biological\nsignificance, and this in two ways: either in relation to pure science\nor applied science. In connection with pure science, its function is to\nfurnish means for getting knowledge of the laws of heredity. In\napplication, its function is to furnish a knowledge of the inherited\ncharacters of any given individual, in order to make it possible for the\nindividual to find his place in the world and, in particular, to marry\nwisely. It is obvious that the use of genealogy in the applied science\nof eugenics is dependent on previous research by geneticists; for\nmarriage matings which take account of heredity can not be made unless\nthe mode of inheritance of human traits has previously been discovered.\n\nThe historical, social, legal and other aspects of genealogy do not\nconcern the present discussion. We shall discuss only the biological\naspect; not only because it alone is germane to the present book, but\nbecause we consider it to have by far the greatest true value, accepting\nthe criterion of value as that which increases the welfare of mankind.\nBy this criterion, the historical, legal and social aspects of genealogy\nwill be seen, with a little reflection, to be of secondary importance to\nits biological aspect.\n\n(2) Genealogy now is too often looked upon as an end in itself. It would\nbe recognized as a science of much greater value to the world if it were\nconsidered not an end but a means to a far greater end than it alone can\nsupply. It has, indeed, been contended, even by such an authority as\nOttokar Lorenz, who is often called the father of modern scientific\ngenealogy, that a knowledge of his own ancestry will tell each\nindividual exactly what he himself is. This appears to be the basis of\nLorenz's valuation of genealogy. It is a step in the right direction:\nbut\n\n(3) The present methods of genealogy are inadequate to support such a\nclaim. Its methods are still based mainly on the historical, legal and\nsocial functions. A few of the faults of method in genealogy, which the\neugenist most deplores, are:\n\n(a) The information which is of most value is exactly that which\ngenealogy ordinarily does not furnish. Dates of birth, death and\nmarriage of an ancestor are of interest, but of limited biological\nimportance. The facts about that ancestor which vitally concern his\nliving descendant are the facts of his character, physical and mental;\nand these facts are given in very few genealogies.\n\n[Illustration: LINE OF ASCENT THAT CARRIES THE FAMILY NAME\n\nFIG. 40.--In some pedigrees, particularly those dealing with\nantiquity, the only part known is the line of ascent which carries the\nfamily name,--what animal breeders call the tail-male. In such cases it\nis evident that from the point of view of a geneticist practically\nnothing is known. How insignificant any single line of ascent is, by\ncomparison with the whole ancestry, even for a few generations, is\ngraphically shown by the above chart. It is assumed in this chart that\nno cousin marriages took place.]\n\n(b) Genealogies are commonly too incomplete to be of real value.\nSometimes they deal only with the direct male line of ascent--the line\nthat bears the family name, or what animal breeders call the tail-male.\nIn this case, it is not too much to say that they are nearly devoid of\ngenuine value. It is customary to imagine that there is some special\nvirtue inherent in that line of descent which carries the family name.\nSome one remarks, for instance, to Mr. Jones that he seems to be fond of\nthe sea.\n\n\"Yes,\" he replies, \"You know the Joneses have been sailors for many\ngenerations.\"\n\nBut the small contribution of heredity made to an individual by the line\nof descent carrying his family name, in comparison with the rest of his\nancestry, may be seen from Fig. 40.\n\nSuch incomplete pedigrees are rarely published nowadays, but in studying\nhistoric characters, one frequently finds nothing more than the single\nline of ascent in the family name. Fortunately, American genealogies\nrarely go to this extreme, unless it be in the earliest generations; but\nit is common enough for them to deal only with the direct ancestors of\nthe individual, omitting all brothers and sisters of those ancestors.\nAlthough this simplifies the work of the genealogist immensely, it\ndeprives it of value to a corresponding degree.\n\n(c) As the purpose of genealogy in this country has been largely social,\nit is to be feared that in too many cases discreditable data have been\ntacitly omitted from the records. The anti-social individual, the\nfeeble-minded, the insane, the alcoholic, the \"generally no-count,\" has\nbeen glossed over. Such a lack of candor is not in accord with the\nscientific spirit, and makes one uncertain, in the use of genealogies,\nto what extent one is really getting all the facts. There are few\nfamilies of any size which have not one such member or more, not many\ngenerations removed. To attempt to conceal the fact is not only\nunethical but from the eugenist's point of view, at any rate, it is a\nfalsification of records that must be regarded with great disapproval.\nAt present it is hard to say to what extent undesirable traits occur in\nthe most distinguished families; and it is of great importance that this\nshould be learned.\n\nMaurice Fishberg contends[160] that many Jewish families are\ncharacterized by extremes,--that in each generation they have produced\nmore ability and also more disability than would ordinarily be expected.\nThis seems to be true of some of the more prominent old American\nfamilies as well. On the other hand, large families can be found, such\nas the remarkable family of New England office-holders described by\nMerton T. Goodrich,[161] in which there is a steady production of civic\nworth in every generation with almost no mental defectives or gross\nphysical defectives. In such a family there is a high sustained level.\nIt is such strains which eugenists wish especially to increase.\n\nIn this connection it is again worth noting that a really great man is\nrarely found in an ancestry devoid of ability. This was pointed out in\nthe first chapter, but is certain to strike the genealogist's attention\nforcibly. Abraham Lincoln is often quoted as an exception; but more\nrecent studies of his ancestry have shown that he is not really an\nexception; that, as Ida M. Tarbell[162] says, \"So far from his later\ncareer being unaccounted for in his origin and early history, it is as\nfully accounted for as is the case of any man.\" The Lincoln family was\none of the best in America, and while Abraham's own father was an\neccentric person, he was yet a man of considerable force of character,\nby no means the \"poor white trash\" which he is often represented to have\nbeen. The Hanks family, to which the Emancipator's mother belonged, had\nalso maintained a high level of ability in every generation;\nfurthermore, Thomas Lincoln and Nancy Hanks, the parents of Abraham\nLincoln, were first cousins.\n\nThe more difficult cases, for the eugenist, are rather to be found in\nsuch ancestries as those of Louis Pasteur and Michael Faraday.\nPasteur[163] might perhaps be justly considered the greatest man France\nhas ever produced; his father was a non-commissioned soldier who came of\na long line of tanners, while his mother's family had been gardeners for\ngenerations. Faraday, who is worthy to be placed close to Charles\nDarwin among eminent Englishmen, was the son of a blacksmith and a\nfarmer's daughter. Such pedigrees are striking; and yet, as Frederick\nAdams Woods has remarked, they ought to strengthen rather than to weaken\none's belief in the force of heredity. When it is considered how rarely\nsuch an ancestry produces a great man, it must be fairly evident that\nhis greatness is due to an accidental conjunction of favorable traits,\nas the modern theory of genetics holds; and that greatness is not due to\nthe inheritance of acquired characters, on which hypothesis Pasteur and\nFaraday would indeed be difficult to explain.\n\nCases of this sort, even though involving much less famous people, will\nbe found in almost every genealogy, and add greatly to the interest of\nits study, as well as offering valuable data to the professional\ngeneticist.\n\n(d) Even if the information it furnishes were more complete, human\ngenealogy would not justify the claims sometimes made for it as a\nscience, because, to use a biological phrase, \"the matings are not\ncontrolled.\" The results of a certain experiment are exhibited, but can\nnot be interpreted unless one knows what the results would have been,\nhad the preceding conditions been varied in this way or in that way.\nThese controlled experiments can be made in plant and animal breeding;\nthey have been made by the thousand, by the hundred thousand, for many\nyears. They can not be made in human society. It is, of course, not\ndesirable that they should be made; but the consequence is that the\nbiological meaning of human history, the real import of genealogy, can\nnot be known unless it is interpreted in the light of modern plant and\nanimal breeding. It is absolutely necessary that genealogy go into\npartnership with genetics, the general science of heredity. If a spirit\nof false pride leads genealogists to hold aloof from these experiments,\nthey will make slow progress. The interpretation of genealogy in the\nlight of modern research in heredity through the experimental breeding\nof plants and animals is full of hope; without such light, it will be\ndiscouragingly slow work.\n\nGenealogists are usually proud of their pedigrees; they usually have a\nright to be. But their pride should not lead them to scorn the pedigrees\nof some of the peas, and corn, snapdragons and sugar beets, bulldogs and\nShorthorn cattle, with which geneticists have been working during the\nlast generation; for these humble pedigrees may throw more light on\ntheir own than a century of research in purely human material.\n\nThe science of genealogy will not have full meaning and full value to\nthose who pursue it, unless they bring themselves to look on men and\nwomen as organisms subject to the same laws of heredity and variation as\nother living things. Biologists were not long ago told that it was\nessential for them to learn to think like genealogists. For the purpose\nof eugenics, neither science is complete without the other; and we\nbelieve that it is not invidious to say that biologists have been\nquicker to realize this than have genealogists. The Golden Age of\ngenealogy is yet to come.\n\n(4) In addition to the correction of these faulty methods, there are\ncertain extensions of genealogical method which could advantageously be\nmade without great difficulty.\n\n(a) More written records should be kept, and less dependence placed on\noral communication. The obsolescent family Bible, with its chronicle of\nbirths, deaths and marriages, is an institution of too great value in\nmore ways than one, to be given up. The United States have not the\nadvantage of much of the machinery of State registration which aids\nEuropean genealogy, and while working for better registration of vital\nstatistics, it should be a matter of pride with every family to keep its\nown archives.\n\n(b) Family trees should be kept in more detail, including all brothers\nand sisters in every family, no matter at what age they died, and\nincluding as many collaterals as possible. This means more work for the\ngenealogist, but the results will be of much value to science.\n\n(c) More family traits should be marked. Those at present recorded are\nmostly of a social or economic nature, and are of little real\nsignificance after the death of their possessor. But the traits of his\nmind and body are likely to go on to his descendants indefinitely.\nThese are therefore the facts of his life on which attention should be\nfocused.\n\n(d) More pictorial data should be added. Photographs of the members of\nthe family, at all ages, should be carefully preserved. Measurements\nequally deserve attention. The door jamb is not a satisfactory place for\nrecording the heights of children, particularly in this day when\nremovals are so frequent. Complete anthropometric measurements, such as\nevery member of the Young Men's Christian Association, most college\nstudents, and many other people are obliged to undergo once or\nperiodically, should be placed on file.\n\n(e) Pedigrees should be traced upward from a living individual, rather\nthan downward from some hero long since dead. Of course, the ideal\nmethod would be to combine these two, or to keep duplicate pedigrees,\none a table of ascendants and the other of descendants, in the same\nstock.\n\nGenealogical data of the needed kind, however, can not be reduced to a\nmere table or a family tree. The ideal genealogy starts with a whole\nfraternity--the individual who is making it and all his brothers and\nsisters. It describes fully the fraternity to which the father belongs,\ngiving an account of each member, of the husband or wife of that member\n(if married) and their children, who are of course the first cousins of\nthe maker of the genealogical study. It does the same for the mother's\nfraternity. Next it considers the fraternity to which the father's\nfather belongs, considers their consorts and their children and\ngrandchildren, and then takes up the study of the fraternity of the\nfather's mother in the same way. The mother's parents next receive\nattention; and then the earlier generations are similarly treated, as\nfar as the available records will allow. A pedigree study constructed on\nthis plan really shows what traits are running through the families\ninvolved, and is vastly more significant than a mere chain of links,\neven though this might run through a dozen generations.\n\n(5) With these changes, genealogy would become the study of heredity,\nrather than the study of lineage.\n\nIt is not meant to say that the study of heredity is nothing more than\napplied genealogy. As understood nowadays, it includes mathematical and\nbiological territory which must always be foreign to genealogy. It might\nbe said that in so far as man is concerned, heredity is the\ninterpretation of genealogy, and eugenics the application of heredity.\nGenealogy should give its students a vision of the species as a great\ngroup of ever-changing, interrelated organisms, a great network\noriginating in the obscurity of the past, stretching forward into the\nobscurity of the future, every individual in it organically related to\nevery other, and all of them the heritors of the past in a very real\nsense.\n\nGenealogists do well in giving a realization of the importance of the\nfamily, but they err if they base this teaching altogether on the\nfamily's pride in some remote ancestor who, even though he bore the\nfamily name and was a prodigy of virtues, probably counts for very\nlittle in the individual's make-up to-day. To take a concrete though\nwholly imaginary illustration: what man would not feel a certain\nsatisfaction in being a lineal descendant of George Washington? And yet,\nif the Father of his Country be placed at only four removes from the\nliving individual, nothing is more certain than that this hypothetical\nliving individual had fifteen other ancestors in George Washington's\ngeneration, any one of whom may play as great or a greater part in his\nancestry; and so remote are they all that, as a statistical average, it\nis calculated that the contribution of George Washington to the ancestry\nof the hypothetical living individual would be perhaps not more than\none-third of 1% of the total. The small influence of one of these remote\nancestors may be seen at a glance, if a chart of all the ancestors up to\nthe generation of the great hero is made. Following out the\nillustration, a pedigree based on George Washington would look like the\ndiagram in Fig. 41. In more remote generations, the probable biological\ninfluence of the ancestor becomes practically nil. Thus Americans who\ntrace their descent to some royal personage of England or the Continent,\na dozen generations ago, may get a certain amount of spiritual\nsatisfaction out of the relationship, but they certainly can derive\nlittle real help, of a hereditary kind, from this ancestor. And when\none goes farther back,--as to William the Conqueror, who seems to rank\nwith the Mayflower immigrants as a progenitor of many descendants--the\nclaim of descent becomes really a joke. If 24 generations have elapsed\nbetween the present and the time of William the Conqueror, every\nindividual living to-day must have had living in the epoch of the Norman\nconquest not less than sixteen million ancestors. Of course, there was\nno such number of people in all England and Normandy, at that time,\nhence it is obvious that the theoretical number has been greatly reduced\nin every generation by consanguineous marriages, even though they were\nbetween persons so remotely related that they did not know they were\nrelated. C. B. Davenport, indeed, has calculated that most persons of the\nold American stock in the United States are related to each other not\nmore remotely than thirtieth cousins, and a very large proportion as\nclosely as fifteenth cousins.\n\n[Illustration: THE SMALL VALUE OF A FAMOUS, BUT REMOTE, ANCESTOR\n\nFIG. 41.--A living individual who was a lineal descendant of\nGeorge Washington might well take pride in the fact, but genetically\nthat fact might be of very little significance. The above chart shows\ngraphically how small a part any single ancestor plays, a few\ngenerations back. A general high average of ability in an ancestry is\nmuch more important, eugenically, than the appearance of one or two\ndistinguished individuals.]\n\nAt any rate, it must be obvious that the ancestors of any person of old\nAmerican stock living to-day must have included practically all the\ninhabitants of England and Normandy, in the eleventh century. Looking\nat the pedigree from the other end, William the Conqueror must have\nliving to-day at least 16,000,000 descendants. Most of them can not\ntrace back their pedigrees, but that does not alter the fact.\n\nSuch considerations give one a vivid realization of the brotherhood of\nman; but they can hardly be said to justify any great pride in descent\nfrom a family of crusaders for instance, except on purely sentimental\ngrounds.\n\nDescent from a famous man or woman should not be disparaged. It is a\nmatter of legitimate pride and congratulation. But claims for respect\nmade on that ground alone are, from a biological point of view,\nnegligible, if the hero is several generations removed. What Sir Francis\nGalton wrote of the peers of England may, with slight alterations, be\ngiven general application to the descendants of famous people:\n\n\"An old peerage is a valueless title to natural gifts, except so far as\nit may have been furbished up by a succession of wise intermarriages....\nI cannot think of any claim to respect, put forward in modern days, that\nis so entirely an imposture as that made by a peer on the ground of\ndescent, who has neither been nobly educated, nor has any eminent\nkinsman within three degrees.\"\n\nBut, some one may protest, are we not shattering the very edifice of\nwhich we are professed defenders, in thus denying the force of heredity?\nNot at all. We wish merely to emphasize that a man has sixteen\ngreat-great-grandparents, instead of one, and that those in the maternal\nlines are too often overlooked, although from a biological point of view\nthey are every bit as important as those in the paternal lines. And we\nwish further to emphasize the point that it is the near relatives who,\non the whole, represent what one is. The great family which for a\ngeneration or two makes unwise marriages, must live on its past\nreputation and see the work of the world done and the prizes carried\naway by the children of wiser matings. No family can maintain its\neugenic rank merely by the power of inertia. Every marriage that a\nmember of the family makes is a matter of vital concern to the future of\nthe family: and this is one of the lessons which a broad science of\ngenealogy should inculcate in every youth.\n\nIs it practicable to direct genealogy on this slightly different line?\nAs to that, the genealogist must decide. These are the qualifications\nwhich old Professor William Chauncey Fowler laid down as essential for a\nsuccessful genealogist:\n\n Love of kindred.\n Love of investigation.\n Active imagination.\n Sound and disciplined judgment.\n Conscientious regard to truth.\n A pleasing style as a writer.\n\nWith such qualifications, one can go far, and it would seem that one who\npossesses them has only to fix his attention upon the biological aspect\nof genealogy, to become convinced that his science is only part of a\nscience, as long as it ignores eugenics. After all, nothing more is\nnecessary than a slight change in the point of view; and if genealogists\ncan adopt this new point of view, can add to their equipment some\nfamiliarity with the fundamental principles of biology as they apply to\nman and are laid down in the science of eugenics, the value of the\nscience of genealogy to the world ought to increase at least five-fold\nwithin a generation.\n\nWhat can be expected from a genealogy with eugenic foundation?\n\nFirst and foremost, it will give genetics a chance to advance with more\nrapidity, in its study of man. Genetics, the study of heredity, can not\nsuccessfully proceed by direct observation in the human species as it\ndoes with plants and rapidly-breeding animals, because the generations\nare too long. Less than three generations are of little value for\ngenetic researches, and even three can rarely be observed to advantage\nby any one person. Therefore, second-hand information must be used. So\nfar, most of this has been gained by sending field-workers--a new kind\nof genealogist--out among the members of a family, and having them\ncollect the desired information, either by study of extant records, or\nby word of mouth. But the written records of value have been usually\nnegligible in quantity, and oral communication has therefore been the\nmainstay. It has not been wholly satisfactory. Few people--aside from\ngenealogists--can give even the names of all their great-grandparents,\nfar less can they tell anything of importance about them.\n\nIt is thus to genealogy that genetics is driven. Unless family records\nare available, it can accomplish little. And it can not get these family\nrecords unless genealogists realize the importance of furnishing them;\nfor as has already been pointed out, most genealogies at present\navailable are of little value to genetics, because of the inadequacy of\nthe data they furnish. It is only in the case of exceptional families,\nsuch as the royal houses of Europe, that enough information is given\nabout each individual to furnish an opportunity for analysis. What could\nbe done if there were more such data available is brilliantly\nillustrated in the investigation by Frederick Adams Woods of Boston of\nthe reigning houses of Europe. His writings should be read by every\ngenealogist, as a source of inspiration as well as information.\n\nMore such data must be obtained in the future. Genealogists must begin\nat once to keep family records in such a way that they will be of the\ngreatest value possible--that they will serve not only family pride, but\nbigger purposes. It will not take long to get together a large number of\nfamily histories, in which the idea will be to tell as much as possible,\ninstead of as little as possible, about every individual mentioned.\n\nThe value of pedigrees of this kind is greater than most people realize.\n\nIn the first place, it must be remembered that these traits, on whose\nimportance in the pedigree we have been insisting, are responsible not\nonly for whatever the individual is, but for whatever society\nis,--whatever the race is. They are not personal matters, as C. B.\nDavenport and H. H. Laughlin well point out; \"they come to us from out\nof the population of the past, and, in so far as we have children, they\nbecome disseminated throughout the population of the future. Upon such\ntraits society is built; good or bad they determine the fate of our\nsociety. Apart from migration, there is only one way to get socially\ndesirable traits into our social life, and that is reproduction; there\nis only one way to get them out, by preventing the reproduction. All\nsocial welfare work is merely education of the germs of traits; it does\nnot provide such germs. In the absence of the germs the traits can not\ndevelop. On the other hand, it is possible with difficulty, if possible\nat all, by means of the strongest repressive measures merely, to prevent\nthe development of undesirable hereditary traits. Society can treat the\ndelinquent individual more reasonably, more effectively, and more\nhumanely, if it knows the 'past performance' of his germ-plasm.\"\n\nIn addition to their importance to society, a knowledge of the traits of\na pedigree has a great direct importance to the individual; one of the\nmost valuable things to be learned from that knowledge is the answer to\nthe question, \"What shall a boy or girl do? What career shall one lay\nout for one's children?\" A knowledge of the child's inborn nature, such\nas can be had only through study of his ancestry, will guide those who\nhave his education in hand, and will further guide those who decide, or\nhelp the child decide, what work to take up in life. This helps to put\nthe problem of vocational guidance on a sound basis,--the basis of the\nindividual's inherent aptitudes.\n\nNot too much must be expected from vocational guidance at the present\ntime, but in the case of traits that are inherited, it is a fair\ninference that a child is more likely to be highly endowed with a trait\nwhich both parents possess, than with one that only one parent\npossesses. \"Among the traits which have been said to occur in some such\ndirect hereditary way,\" H. L. Hollingworth[164] observes, \"or as the\nresult of unexplained mutation or deviation from type, are: mathematical\naptitude, ability in drawing,[165] musical composition,[166] singing,\npoetic reaction, military strategy, chess playing. Pitch discrimination\nseems to depend on structural factors which are not susceptible of\nimprovement by practice.[167] The same may be said of various forms of\nprofessional athletic achievement. Color blindness seems to be an\ninstance of the conspicuous absence of such a unit characteristic.\"\n\nAgain, the knowledge of ancestry is an essential factor in the wise\nselection of a husband or wife. Insistence has been laid on this point\nin an earlier chapter of this book, and it is not necessary here to\nrepeat what was there said. But it seems certain that ancestry will\nsteadily play a larger part in marriage selection in the future; it is\nat least necessary to know that one is not marrying into a family that\ncarries the taint of serious hereditary defect, even if one knows\nnothing more. An intelligent study of genealogy will do much, we\nbelieve, to bring about the intelligent selection of the man or woman\nwith whom one is to fall in love.\n\nIn addition to these general considerations, it is evident that\ngenealogy, properly carried out, would throw light on most of the\nspecific problems with which eugenics is concerned, or which fall in the\nfield of genetics. A few examples of these problems may be mentioned, in\naddition to those which are discussed in various other chapters of this\nbook.\n\n[Illustration: HISTORY OF 100 BABIES\n\nFIG. 42.--The top of the diagram shows the children \"starting\nfrom scratch.\" By following down the vertical lines, one can see that\ntheir longevity depends largely on the size of family from which they\ncome. Those who had 10 or a dozen brothers and sisters are most likely\nto live to extreme age. Alexander Graham Bell's data, 2964 members of\nthe Hyde family in America.]\n\n\n[Illustration: ADULT MORTALITY\n\nFIG. 43--If child mortality is eliminated, and only those\nindividuals studied who live to the age of 20 or longer, the small\nfamilies are still found to be handicapped. In general it may be said\nthat the larger the family, the longer a member of it will live. Large\nfamilies (in a normal, healthy section of the population) indicate\nvitality on the part of the parents. This does not, of course, hold good\nin the slums, where mental and financial inefficiency are abundant.\nWithin certain classes, however, it may be said with confidence that the\nweaklings in the population are most likely to be from small families.\nAlexander Graham Bell's data.]\n\n1. The supposed inferiority of first-born children has been debated at\nsome length during the last decade, but is not yet wholly settled. It\nappears possible that the first-born may be, on the average, inferior\nboth physically and mentally to the children who come directly after\nhim; on the other hand, the number of first-born who attain eminence is\ngreater than would be expected on the basis of pure chance. More data\nare needed to clear up this problem.[168]\n\n2. The advantage to a child of being a member of a large or small family\nis a question of importance. In these days of birth control, the\nargument is frequently heard that large families are an evil of\nthemselves, the children in them being handicapped by the excessive\nchild-bearing of the mother. The statistics cited in support of this\nclaim are drawn from the slums, where the families are marked by poverty\nand by physical and mental inferiority. It can easily be shown, by a\nstudy of more favored families, that the best children come from the\nlarge fraternities. In fact Alexander Graham Bell found evidence,[169]\nin his investigation of the Hyde Family in America, that the families of\n10 or more children were those which showed the greatest longevity (see\nFigs. 42 and 43). In this connection, longevity is of course a mark of\nvitality and physical fitness.\n\n3. The question of the effect of child-bearing on the mother is equally\nimportant, since exponents of birth control are urging that mothers\nshould not bear more children than they desire. A. O. Powys' careful\nstudy[170] of the admirable vital statistics of New South Wales showed\nthat the mothers who lived longest were those who bore from five to\nseven children.\n\n4. The age at which men and women should marry has not yet been\nsufficiently determined, on biological grounds. Statistics so far\ncompiled do not indicate that the age of the father has any direct\ninfluence on the character of the children, but the age of the mother\nundoubtedly exercises a strong influence on them. Thus it is now well\nestablished[171] that infant mortality is lowest among the children of\nyoung mothers,--say from 20 to 25 years of age,--and that delay in\nchild-bearing after that age penalizes the children (see Fig. 44). There\nis also some evidence that, altogether apart from the infant mortality,\nthe children of young mothers attain a greater longevity than do those\nof older women. More facts are needed, to show how much of this effect\nis due to the age of the mother, how much to her experience, and how\nmuch to the influence of the number of children she has previously\nborne.\n\n5. Assortative mating, consanguineous marriage, the inheritance of a\ntendency to disease, longevity, sex-linked heredity, sex-determination,\nthe production of twins, and many other problems of interest to the\ngeneral public as well as to the biologist, are awaiting the collection\nof fuller data. All such problems will be illuminated, when more\ngenealogies are kept on a biological basis.\n\n[Illustration: INFLUENCE OF MOTHER'S AGE\n\nFIG. 44.--As measured by the percentage of infant deaths, those\nchildren show the greatest vitality who were born to mothers between the\nages of 20 and 25. Infant mortality increases steadily as the mother\ngrows older. In this case the youngest mothers (those under 20 years of\nage) do not make quite as good a showing as those who are a little\nolder, but in other studies the youngest mothers have made excellent\nrecords. In general, such studies all show that the babies are penalized\nif marriage is delayed beyond the age of 25, or if child-bearing is\nunduly delayed after marriage. Alexander Graham Bell's data.]\n\nHere, however, an emphatic warning against superficial investigation\nmust be uttered. The medical profession has been particularly hasty,\nmany times, in reporting cases which were assumed to demonstrate\nheredity. The child was so and so; it was found on inquiry that the\nfather was also so and so: _Post hoc, ergo propter hoc_--it was\nheredity. Such a method of investigation is calculated to bring genetics\ninto disrepute, and would hazard the credit of genealogy. As a fact, one\ncase counts for practically nothing as proof of hereditary influence;\neven half a dozen or a dozen may be of no significance. There are two\nways in which genealogical data can be analyzed to deduce biological\nlaws: one is based on the application of statistical and graphic methods\nto the data, and needs some hundreds of cases to be of value; the other\nis by pedigree-study, and needs at least three generations of pedigree,\nusually covering numerous collaterals, to offer important results. It is\nnot to be supposed that anyone with a sufficiently complete record of\nhis own ancestry would necessarily be able by inspection to deduce from\nit any important contribution to science. But if enough complete family\nrecords are made available, the professional geneticist can be called\ninto cooperation, can supplement the human record with his knowledge of\nthe results achieved by carefully controlled animal and plant breeding,\nand between them, the genealogist and the geneticist can in most cases\narrive at the truth. That such truth is of the highest importance to any\nfamily, and equally to society as a whole, must be evident.\n\nLet the genealogist, then, bring together data on every trait he can\nthink of. As a guide and stimulus, he should read the opening chapters\nof Herbert's Spencer's _Autobiography_, or of Karl Pearson's, _Life,\nLetters and Labors of Sir Francis Galton_, or C. B. Davenport's\nstudy[172] of C. O. Whitman, one of the foremost American biologists. He\nwill also find help in Bulletin No. 13 of the Eugenics Record Office,\nCold Spring Harbor, Long Island, New York. It is entitled, _How to Make\na Eugenical Family Study_, and gives a list of questions which should be\nanswered, and points which should be noted. With some such list as this,\nor even with his own common-sense, the genealogist may seek to ascertain\nas much as possible about the significant facts in the life of his\nancestors, bearing in mind that the geneticist will ask two questions\nabout every trait mentioned:\n\n1. Is this characteristic inherited?\n\n2. If so, how?\n\nNor must it be forgotten that the geneticist is often as much\ninterested in knowing that a given character is not inherited under\ncertain conditions, as that it is.\n\nIt is highly desirable that genealogists should acquire the habit of\nstating the traits of their subjects in quantitative terms. They too\noften state that a certain amount is \"much\"; what should be told is \"how\nmuch.\" Instead of saying that an individual had fairly good health, tell\nexactly what diseases he had during his lifetime; instead of remarking\nthat he was a good mathematician, tell some anecdote or fact that will\nallow judgment of the extent of his ability in this line. Did he keep\nrecord of his bank balance in his head instead of on paper? Was he fond\nof mathematical puzzles? Did he revel in statistics? Was the study of\ncalculus a recreation to him? Such things probably will appear trivial\nto the genealogist, but to the eugenist they are sometimes important.\n\nAside from biology, or as much of it as is comprised in eugenics,\ngenealogy may also serve medicine, jurisprudence, sociology, statistics,\nand various other sciences as well as the ones which it now serves. But\nin most cases, such service will have a eugenic aspect. The alliance\nbetween eugenics and genealogy is so logical that it can not be put off\nmuch longer.\n\nGenealogists may well ask what facilities there are for receiving and\nusing pedigrees such as we have been outlining, if they were made up.\nAll are, of course, familiar with the repositories which the different\npatriotic societies, the National Genealogical Society, and similar\norganizations maintain, as well as the collections of the Library of\nCongress and other great public institutions. Anything deposited in such\na place can be found by investigators who are actively engaged in\neugenic research.\n\nIn addition to this, there are certain establishments founded for the\nsole purpose of analyzing genealogies from a biological or statistical\npoint of view. The first of these was the Galton Laboratory of the\nUniversity of London, directed by Karl Pearson. There are two such at\nwork in the United States. The larger is the Eugenics Record Office at\nCold Spring Harbor, Long Island, New York, directed by Charles B.\nDavenport. Blank schedules are sent to all applicants, in which the\npedigree of an individual may be easily set down, with reference\nparticularly to the traits of eugenic importance. When desired, the\noffice will send duplicate schedules, one of which may be retained by\nthe applicant for his own files. The schedules filed at the Eugenics\nRecord Office are treated as confidential, access to them being given\nonly to accredited investigators.\n\nThe second institution of this kind is the Genealogical Record Office,\nfounded and directed by Alexander Graham Bell at 1601 Thirty-fifth\nStreet N. W., Washington D. C. This devotes itself solely to the\ncollection of data regarding longevity, and sends out schedules to all\nthose in whose families there have been individuals attaining the age of\n80 or over. It welcomes correspondence on the subject from all who know\nof cases of long life, and endeavors to put the particulars on record,\nespecially with reference to the ancestry and habits of the long-lived\nindividual.\n\nThe Eugenics Registry at Battle Creek, Mich., likewise receives\npedigrees, which it refers to Cold Spring Harbor for analysis.\n\nPersons intelligently interested in their ancestry might well consider\nit a duty to society, and to their own posterity, to send for one of the\nEugenics Record Office schedules, fill it out and place it on file\nthere, and to do the same with the Genealogical Record Office, if they\nare so fortunate as to come of a stock characterized by longevity. The\nfilling out of these schedules would be likely to lead to a new view of\ngenealogy; and when this point of view is once gained, the student will\nfind it adds immensely to his interest in his pursuit.\n\nGenealogists are all familiar with the charge of long standing that\ngenealogy is a subject of no use, a fad of a privileged class. They do\nnot need to be told that such a charge is untrue. But genealogy can be\nmade a much more useful science than it now is, and it will be at the\nsame time more interesting to its followers, if it is no longer looked\nupon as an end in itself, nor solely as a minister to family pride. We\nhope to see it regarded as a handmaid of evolution, just as are the\nother sciences; we hope to see it linked with the great biological\nmovement of the present day, for the betterment of mankind.\n\nSo much for the science as a whole. What can the individual do? Nothing\nbetter than to broaden his outlook so that he may view his family not as\nan exclusive entity, centered in a name, dependent on some illustrious\nman or men of the past; but rather as an integral part of the great\nfabric of human life, its warp and woof continuous from the dawn of\ncreation and criss-crossed at each generation. When he gets this vision,\nhe will desire to make his family tree as full as possible, to include\nhis collaterals, to note every trait which he can find on record, to\npreserve the photographs and measurements of his own contemporaries, and\nto take pleasure in feeling that the history of his family is a\ncontribution to human knowledge, as well as to the pride of the family.\n\nIf the individual genealogist does this, the science of genealogy will\nbecome a useful servant of the whole race, and its influence, not\nconfined to a few, will be felt by all, as a positive, dynamic force\nhelping them to lead more worthy lives in the short span allotted to\nthem, and helping them to leave more worthy posterity to carry on the\nnames they bore and the sacred thread of immortality, of which they were\nfor a time the custodians.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII\n\nTHE EUGENIC ASPECT OF SOME SPECIFIC REFORMS\n\n\nNearly every law and custom of a country has an influence direct or\nremote on eugenics. The eugenic progress to be expected if laws and\ncustoms are gradually but steadily modified in appropriate ways, is\nvastly greater and more practicable than is any possible gain which\ncould be made at present through schemes for the direct control of\n\"eugenic marriages.\"\n\nIn this present chapter, we try to point out some of the eugenic aspects\nof certain features of American society. It must not be supposed that we\nhave any legislative panaceas to offer, or that the suggestions we make\nare necessarily the correct ones. We are primarily concerned with\nstimulating people to think about the eugenic aspects of their laws and\ncustoms. Once the public thinks, numerous changes will be tried and the\nresults will show whether the changes shall be followed up or\ndiscontinued.\n\nThe eugenic point of view that we have here taken is becoming rather\nwidespread, although it is often not recognized as eugenic. Thinkers in\nall subjects that concern social progress are beginning to realize that\nthe test of whether or not a measure is good is its effect. The\npragmatic school of philosophy, which has been in vogue in recent years,\nhas reduced this attitude to a system. It is an attitude to be welcomed\nwherever it is found, for it only needs the addition of a knowledge of\nbiology, to become eugenic.\n\n\nTAXATION\n\nTo be just, any form of taxation should repress productive industry as\nlittle as possible, and should be of a kind that can not easily be\nshifted. In addition to these qualifications, it should, if possible,\ncontribute directly to the eugenic strength of the nation by favoring,\nor at least by not penalizing, useful families. A heavy tax on land\nvalues (in extreme, the single-tax) and a heavy tax on bachelors have\nsometimes been proposed as likely to be eugenic in effect. But they are\nopen to criticism. The tax on land values appears too likely to be\nindiscriminate in working: it would appear to favor inferior families as\nmuch as superior ones. The tax on bachelors is proposed as a means of\ngetting bachelors to marry; but is this always desirable? It depends on\nthe quality of the bachelors. Even at present it is our belief that, on\nthe whole, the married men of the population are superior to the\nunmarried men. If the action of sexual selection is improved still\nfurther by the eugenics campaign, this difference in quality will be\nincreased. It will then be rather an advantage that the bachelors should\nremain single, and a tax which would force them into marriage for\nreasons of economy, is not likely to result in any eugenic gain. But a\nmoderate indirect tax by an exemption for a wife and each child after a\ngeneral exemption of $2,000 would be desirable.\n\nThe inheritance tax seems less open to criticism. Very large\ninheritances should be taxed to a much greater degree than is at present\nattempted in the United States, and the tax should be placed, not on the\ntotal amount of the inheritance, but on the amount received by each\nindividual beneficiary. This tends to prevent the unfair guarantee of\nriches to individuals regardless of their own worth and efforts. But to\nsuggest, on the other hand, as has often been done, that inheritances\nshould be confiscated by the government altogether, shows a lack of\nappreciation of the value of a reasonable right to bequeath in\nencouraging larger families among those having a high standard of\nliving. It is not desirable to penalize the kind of strains which\npossess directing talent and constructive efficiency; and they certainly\nwould be penalized if a man felt that no matter how much he might\nincrease his fortune, he could not leave any of it to those who\ncontinued his stock.\n\nThe sum exempted should not be large enough to tempt the beneficiary to\ngive up work and settle down into a life of complacent idleness, but\nenough to be of decided assistance to him in bringing up a family:\n$50,000 might be a good maximum. Above this, the rate should advance\nrapidly, and should be progressive, not proportional. A 50% tax on\ninheritances above $250,000 seems to us desirable, since large\ninheritances tend to interfere with the correlation of wealth and social\nworth, which is so necessary from a eugenic point of view as well as\nfrom that of social justice.\n\nThe Federal estate law, passed in September, 1916, is a step in the\nright direction. It places the exemption at $50,000 net. The rate,\nhowever, is not rapid enough in its rise: e.g., estates exceeding\n$250,000 but less than $450,000 are taxed only 4%, while the maximum,\nfor estates above $5,000,000, is only 10%. This, moreover, is on the\ntotal estate, while we favor the plan that taxes not the total amount\nbequeathed but the amount inherited by each individual. With the ever\nincreasing need of revenue, it is certain that Congress will make a\nradical increase in progressive inheritance tax on large fortunes, which\nshould be retained after the war.\n\nWisconsin and California have introduced an interesting innovation by\nproviding a further graded tax on inheritances in accordance with the\ndegree of consanguinity between the testator and the beneficiary. Thus a\nsmall bequest to a son or daughter might be taxed only 1%; a large\nbequest to a trained nurse or a spiritualistic medium might be taxed\n15%. This is frank recognition of the fact that inheritance is to be\nparticularly justified as it tends to endow a superior family.\nEugenically it may be permissible to make moderate bequests to brothers,\nnephews and nieces, as well as one's own children; and to endow\nphilanthropies; but the State might well take a large part of any\ninheritance which would otherwise go to remote heirs, or to persons not\nrelated to the testator.\n\nAt present there is, on the whole, a negative correlation between size\nof family and income. The big families are, in general in the part of\nthe population which has the smallest income, and it is well established\nthat the number of children tends to decrease as the income increases\nand as a family rises in the social scale--a fact to which we have\ndevoted some attention in earlier chapters. If this condition were to be\npermanent, it would be somewhat difficult to suggest a eugenic form of\nincome tax. We believe, however, that it is not likely to be permanent\nin its present extent. The spread of birth control seems likely to\nreduce the negative correlation and the spread of eugenic ideas may\npossibly convert it into a slight positive correlation, so that the\nnumber of children may be more nearly proportional to the means of the\nfamily. Perhaps it is Utopian to expect a positive correlation in the\nnear future, yet a decrease in the number of children born to the class\nof casual laborers and unskilled workers is pretty certain to take place\nas rapidly as the knowledge of methods of birth control is extended; and\nat present it does not seem that this extension can be stopped by any of\nthe agencies that are opposing it.\n\nIf the size of a family becomes more nearly proportional to the income,\ninstead of being inversely proportional to it as at present, and if\nincome is even roughly a measure of the value of a family to the\ncommunity--an assumption that can hardly be denied altogether, however\nmuch one may qualify it in individual cases,--then the problem of taxing\nfamily incomes will be easier. The effect of income differences will be,\non the whole, eugenic. It would then seem desirable to exempt from\ntaxation all incomes of married people below a certain critical sum,\nthis amount being the point at which change in income may be supposed to\nnot affect size of family. This means exemption of all incomes under\n$2,000, an additional $2,000 for a wife and an additional $2,000 for\neach child, and a steeply-graded advance above that amount, as very\nlarge incomes act to reduce the size of family by introducing a\nmultiplicity of competing cares and interests. There is also a eugenic\nadvantage in heavy taxes on harmful commodities and unapprovable\nluxuries.\n\n\nTHE \"BACK TO THE FARM\" MOVEMENT\n\nOne of the striking accompaniments of the development of American\ncivilization, as of all other civilizations, is the growth of the\ncities. If (following the practice of the U. S. Census) all places with\n2,500 or more population be classed as urban, it appears that 36.1% of\nthe population of the United States was urban in 1890, that the\npercentage had risen to 40.5 in 1900, and that by 1910 not less than\n46.3% of the total population was urban.\n\nThere are four components of this growth of urban population: (1) excess\nof births over deaths, (2) immigration from rural districts, (3)\nimmigration from other countries, and (4) the extension of area by\nincorporation of suburbs. It is not to be supposed that the growth of\nthe cities is wholly at the expense of the country; J. M. Gillette\ncalculates[173] that 29.8% of the actual urban gain of 11,826,000\nbetween 1900 and 1910 was due to migration from the country, the\nremaining 70.2% being accounted for by the other three causes\nenumerated.\n\nThus it appears that the movement from country to city is of\nconsiderable proportions, even though it be much less than has sometimes\nbeen alleged. This movement has eugenic importance because it is\ngenerally believed, although more statistical evidence is needed, that\nfamilies tend to \"run out\" in a few generations under city conditions;\nand it is generally agreed that among those who leave the rural\ndistricts to go to the cities, there are found many of the best\nrepresentatives of the country families.\n\nIf superior people are going to the large cities, and if this removal\nleads to a smaller reproductive contribution than they would otherwise\nhave made, then the growth of great cities is an important dysgenic\nfactor.\n\nThis is the view taken by O. F. Cook,[174] when he writes:\n\"Statistically speaking cities are centers of population, but\nbiologically or eugenically speaking they are centers of depopulation.\nThey are like sink-holes or _siguanas_, as the Indians of Guatemala call\nthe places where the streams of their country drop into subterranean\nchannels and disappear. It never happens that cities develop large\npopulations that go out and occupy the surrounding country. The movement\nof population is always toward the city. The currents of humanity pass\ninto the urban _siguanas_ and are gone.\"\n\n\"If the time has really come for the consideration of practical eugenic\nmeasures, here is a place to begin, a subject worthy of the most careful\nstudy--how to rearrange our social and economic system so that more of\nthe superior members of our race will stay on the land and raise\nfamilies, instead of moving to the city and remaining unmarried or\nchildless, or allowing their children to grow up in unfavorable urban\nenvironments that mean deterioration and extinction.\"\n\n\"The cities represent an eliminating agency of enormous efficiency, a\npresent condition that sterilizes and exterminates individuals and lines\nof descent rapidly enough for all but the most sanguinary reformer. All\nthat is needed for a practical solution of the eugenic problem is to\nreverse the present tendency for the better families to be drawn into\nthe city and facilitate the drafting of others for urban duty.... The\nmost practical eugenists of our age are the men who are solving the\nproblems of living in the country and thus keeping more and better\npeople under rural conditions where their families will survive.\"\n\n\"To recognize the relation of eugenics to agriculture,\" Mr. Cook\nconcludes, \"does not solve the problems of our race, but it indicates\nthe basis on which the problems need to be solved, and the danger of\nwasting too much time and effort in attempting to salvage the derelict\npopulations of the cities. However important the problems of urban\nsociety may be, they do not have fundamental significance from the\nstandpoint of eugenics, because urban populations are essentially\ntransient. The city performs the function of elimination, while\nagriculture represents the constructive eugenic condition which must be\nmaintained and improved if the development of the race is to continue.\"\n\nOn the other hand, city life does select those who are adapted to it. It\nis said to favor the Mediterranean race in competition with the Nordic,\nso that mixed city populations tend to become more brunette, the Nordic\nstrains dying out. How well this claim has been established\nstatistically is open to question; but there can be no doubt that the\nJewish race is an example of urban selection. It has withstood centuries\nof city life, usually under the most severe conditions, in ghettoes, and\nhas survived and maintained a high average of mentality.\n\nUntil recently it has been impossible, because of the defective\nregistration of vital statistics in the United States, to get figures\nwhich show the extent of the problem of urban sterilization. But Dr.\nGillette has obtained evidence along several indirect lines, and is\nconvinced that his figures are not far from the truth.[175] They show\nthe difference to be very large and its eugenic significance of\ncorresponding importance.\n\n\"When it is noted,\" Dr. Gillette says, \"that the rural rate is almost\ntwice the urban rate for the nation as a whole, that in only one\ndivision does the latter exceed the former, and that in some divisions\nthe rural rate is three times the urban rate, it can scarcely be doubted\nthat the factor of urbanization is the most important cause of lowered\nincrease rates. Urban birth-rates are lower than rural birth-rates, and\nits death-rates are higher than those of the latter.\"\n\nConsidering the United States in nine geographical divisions, Dr.\nGillette secured the following results:\n\n RATE OF NET ANNUAL INCREASE\n _Division_ _Rural_ _Urban_ _Average_\n New England 5.0 7.3 6.8\n Middle Atlantic 10.7 9.6 10.4\n East North Central 12.4 10.8 11.6\n West North Central 18.1 10.1 15.8\n South Atlantic 18.9 6.00 16.0\n East South Central 19.7 7.4 17.8\n West South Central 23.9 10.2 21.6\n Mountain 21.1 10.5 17.6\n Pacific 12.6 6.6 9.8\n ---- ---- -----\n Average 16.9 8.8 13.65\n\nEven though fuller returns might show these calculations to be\ninaccurate, Dr. Gillette points out, they are all compiled on the same\nbasis, and therefore can be fairly compared, since any unforeseen cause\nof increase or decrease would affect all alike.\n\nIt is difficult to compare the various divisions directly, because the\nracial composition of the population of each one is different. But the\ndifference in rates is marked. The West South Central states would\nalmost double their population in four decades, by natural increase\nalone, while New England would require 200 years to do so.\n\nDr. Gillette tried, by elaborate computations, to eliminate the effect\nof immigration and emigration in each division, in order to find out the\nstanding of the old American stock. His conclusions confirm the beliefs\nof the most pessimistic. \"Only three divisions, all Western, add to\ntheir population by means of an actual excess of income over outgo of\nnative-born Americans,\" he reports. Even should this view turn out to be\nexaggerated, it is certain that the population of the United States is\nat present increasing largely because of immigration and the high\nfecundity of immigrant women, and that as far as its own older stock is\nconcerned, it has ceased to increase.\n\nTo state that this is due largely to the fact that country people are\nmoving to the city is by no means to solve the problem, in terms of\neugenics. It merely shows the exact nature of the problem to be solved.\nThis could be attacked at two points.\n\n1. Attempts might be made to keep the rural population on the farms, and\nto encourage a movement from the cities back to the country. Measures to\nmake rural life more attractive and remunerative and thus to keep the\nmore energetic and capable young people on the farm, have great eugenic\nimportance, from this point of view.\n\n2. The growth of cities might be accepted as a necessary evil, an\nunavoidable feature of industrial civilization, and direct attempts\nmight be made, through eugenic propaganda, to secure a higher birth-rate\namong the superior parts of the city population.\n\nThe second method seems in many ways the more practicable. On the other\nhand, the first method is in many ways more ideal, particularly because\nit would not only cause more children to be born, but furnish these\nchildren with a suitable environment after they were born, which the\ncity can not do. On the other hand, the city offers the better\nenvironment for the especially gifted who require a specialized training\nand later the field for its use in most cases.\n\nIn practice, the problem will undoubtedly have to be attacked by\neugenists on both sides. Dr. Gillette's statistics, showing the\nappalling need, should prove a stimulus to eugenic effort.\n\n\nDEMOCRACY\n\nBy democracy we understand a government which is responsive to the will\nof a majority of the entire population, as opposed to an oligarchy where\nthe sole power is in the hands of a small minority of the entire\npopulation, who are able to impose their will on the rest of the nation.\nIn discussing immigration, we have pointed out that it is of great\nimportance that the road for promotion of merit should always be open,\nand that the road for demotion of incompetence should likewise be open.\nThese conditions are probably favored more by a democracy than by any\nother form of government, and to that extent democracy is distinctly\nadvantageous to eugenics.\n\nYet this eugenic effect is not without a dysgenic after-effect. The very\nfact that recognition is attainable by all, means that democracy leads\nto social ambition; and social ambition leads to smaller families. This\ninfluence is manifested mainly in the women, whose desire to climb the\nsocial ladder is increased by the ease of ascent which is due to lack of\nrigid social barriers. But while ascent is possible for almost anyone,\nit is naturally favored by freedom from handicaps, such as a large\nfamily of children. In the \"successful\" business and professional\nclasses, therefore, there is an inducement to the wife to limit the\nnumber of her offspring, in order that she may have more time to devote\nto social \"duties.\" In a country like Germany, with more or less\nstratified social classes, this factor in the differential birth-rate\nis probably less operative. The solution in America is not to create an\nimpermeable social stratification, but to create a public sentiment\nwhich will honor women more for motherhood than for eminence in the\nlargely futile activities of polite society.\n\nIn quite another way, too great democratization of a country is\ndangerous. The tendency is to ask, in regard to any measure, \"What do\nthe people want?\" while the question should be \"What ought the people to\nwant?\" The _vox populi_ may and often does want something that is in the\nlong run quite detrimental to the welfare of the state. The ultimate\ntest of a state is whether it is strong enough to survive, and a measure\nthat all the people, or a voting majority of them (which is the\nsignificant thing in a democracy), want, may be such as to handicap the\nstate severely.\n\nIn general, experts are better able to decide what measures will be\ndesirable in the long run, than are voters of the general population,\nmost of whom know little about the real merits of many of the most\nimportant projects. Yet democracies have a tendency to scorn the advice\nof experts, most of the voters feeling that they are as good as any one\nelse, and that their opinion is entitled to as much weight as that of\nthe expert. This attitude naturally makes it difficult to secure the\npassage of measures which are eugenic or otherwise beneficial in\ncharacter, since they often run counter to popular prejudices.\n\nThe initiative by small petitions, and the referendum as a frequent\nresort, are dangerous. They are of great value if so qualified as to be\nused only in real emergencies, as where a clique has got control of the\ngovernment and is running it for its self-interest, but as a regularly\nand frequently functioning institution they are unlikely to result in\nwise statesmanship.\n\nThe wise democracy is that which recognizes that officials may be\neffectively chosen by vote, only for legislative offices; and which\nrecognizes that for executive offices the choice must be definitely\nselective, that is, a choice of those who by merit are best fitted to\nfill the positions. Appointment in executive officers is not offensive\nwhen, as the name indicates, it is truly the best who govern. All\nmethods of choice by properly judged competition or examination with a\nfree chance to all, are, in principle, selective yet democratic in the\nbest sense, that of \"equality of opportunity.\" When the governing few\nare not the best fitted for the work, a so-called aristocracy is of\ncourse not an aristocracy (government by the best) at all, but merely an\noligarchy. When officers chosen by vote are not well fitted then such a\ngovernment is not \"for the people.\"\n\nGood government is then an aristo-democracy. In it the final control\nrests in a democratically chosen legislature working with a legislative\ncommission of experts, but all executive and judicial functions are\nperformed by those best qualified on the basis of executive or judicial\nability, not vote-getting or speech-making ability. All, however, are\neligible for such positions provided they can show genuine\nqualifications.\n\n\nSOCIALISM\n\nIt is difficult to define socialism in terms that will make a discussion\npracticable. The socialist movement is one thing, the socialist\npolitical program is another. But though the idea of socialism has as\nmany different forms as an amoeba, there is always a nucleus that\nremains constant,--the desire for what is conceived to be a more\nequitable distribution of wealth. The laborer should get the value which\nhis labor produces, it is held, subject only to subtraction of such a\npart as is necessary to meet the costs of maintenance; and in order that\nas little as possible need be subtracted for that purpose, the\nsocialists agree in demanding a considerable extension of the functions\nof government: collective ownership of railways, mines, the tools of\nproduction. The ideal socialistic state would be so organized, along\nthese lines, that the producer would get as much as possible of what he\nproduces, the non-producer nothing.\n\nThis principle of socialism is invariably accompanied by numerous\nassociated principles, and it is on these associated principles, not on\nthe fundamental principle, that eugenists and socialists come into\nconflict. Equalitarianism, in particular, is so great a part of current\nsocialist thought that it is doubtful whether the socialist movement as\nsuch can exist without it. And this equalitarianism is usually\ninterpreted not only to demand equality of opportunity, but is based on\na belief in substantial equality of native ability, where opportunity is\nequal.\n\nAny one who has read the preceding chapters will have no doubt that such\na belief is incompatible with an understanding of the principles of\nbiology. How, then, has it come to be such an integral part of\nsocialism?\n\nApparently it is because the socialist movement is, on the whole, made\nup of those who are economically unsatisfied and discontented. Some of\nthe intellectual leaders of the movement are far from inferior, but they\ntoo often find it necessary to share the views of their following, in\norder to retain this following. A group which feels itself inferior will\nnaturally fall into an attitude of equalitarianism, whereas a group\nwhich felt itself superior to the rest of society would not be likely\nto.\n\nBefore criticising the socialistic attitude in detail, we will consider\nsome of the criticisms which some socialists make of eugenics.\n\n1. It is charged that eugenics infringes on the freedom of the\nindividual. This charge (really that of the individualists more than of\nsocialists strictly speaking) is based mainly on a misconception of what\neugenics attempts to do. Coercive measures have little place in modern\neugenics, despite the gibes of the comic press. We propose little or no\ninterference with the freedom of the normal individual to follow his own\ninclinations in regard to marriage or parenthood; we regard indirect\nmeasures and the education of public opinion as the main practicable\nmethods of procedure. Such coercive measures as we indorse are limited\nto grossly defective individuals, to whom the doctrine of personal\nliberty can not be applied without stultifying it.\n\nIt is indeed unfortunate that there are a few sincere advocates of\neugenics who adhered to the idea of a wholesale surgical campaign. A few\nreformers have told the public for several years of the desirability of\nsterilizing the supposed 10,000,000 defectives at the bottom of the\nAmerican population. Lately one campaigner has raised this figure to\n15,000,000. Such fantastic proposals are properly resented by socialists\nand nearly every one else, but they are invariably associated in the\npublic mind with the conception of eugenics, in spite of the fact that\n99 out of 100 eugenists would repudiate them. The authors can speak only\nfor themselves, in declaring that eugenics will not be promoted by\ncoercive means except in a limited class of pathological cases; but they\nare confident that other geneticists, with a very few exceptions, hold\nthe same attitude. There is no danger that this surgical campaign will\never attain formidable proportions, and the socialist, we believe, may\nrest assured that the progress of eugenics is not likely to infringe\nunwarrantably on the principle of individual freedom, either by\nsterilization or by coercive mating.\n\n2. Eugenists are further charged with ignoring or paying too little\nattention to the influence of the environment in social reform. This\ncharge is sometimes well founded, but it is not an inherent defect in\nthe eugenics program. The eugenist only asks that both factors be taken\ninto account, whereas in the past the factor of heredity has been too\noften ignored. In the last chapter of this book we make an effort to\nbalance the two sides.\n\n3. Again, it is alleged that eugenics proposes to substitute an\naristocracy for a democracy. We do think that those who have superior\nability should be given the greatest responsibilities in government. If\naristocracy means a government by the people who are best qualified to\ngovern, then eugenics has most to hope from an aristo-democratic system.\nBut admission to office should always be open to anyone who shows the\nbest ability; and the search for such ability must be much more thorough\nin the future than it has been in the past.\n\n4. Eugenists are charged with hindering social progress by endeavoring\nto keep woman in the subordinate position of a domestic animal, by\nopposing the movement for her emancipation, by limiting her activity to\nchild-bearing and refusing to recognize that she is in every way fitted\nto take an equal part with man in the world's work. This objection we\nhave answered elsewhere, particularly in our discussion of feminism. We\nrecognize the general equality of the two sexes, but demand a\ndifferentiation of function which will correspond to biological\nsex-specialization. We can not yield in our belief that woman's greatest\nfunction is motherhood, but recognition of this should increase, not\ndiminish, the strength of her position in the state.\n\n5. Eugenists are charged with ignoring the fact of economic determinism,\nthe fact that a man's acts are governed by economic conditions. To\ndebate this question would be tedious and unprofitable. While we concede\nthe important role of economic determinism, we can not help feeling that\nits importance in the eyes of socialists is somewhat factitious. In the\nfirst place, it is obvious that there are differences in the\nachievements of fellow men. These socialists, having refused to accept\nthe great weight of germinal differences in accounting for the main\ndifferences in achievement, have no alternative but to fall back on the\ntheory of economic determinism. Further, socialism is essentially a\nreform movement; and if one expects to get aid for such a movement, it\nis essential that one represent the consequences as highly important.\nThe doctrine of economic determinism of course furnishes ground for\nglowing accounts of the changes that could be made by economic reform,\nand therefore fits in well with the needs of the socialist\npropagandists. When the failure of many nations to make any use of their\ngreat resources in coal and water power is remembered; when the fact is\nrecalled that many of the ablest socialist leaders have been the sons of\nwell-to-do intellectuals who were never pinched by poverty; it must be\nbelieved that the importance of economic determinism in the socialist\nmind is caused more by its value for his propaganda purposes than a\nweighing of the evidence.\n\nSuch are, we believe, the chief grounds on which socialists criticise\nthe eugenics movement. All of these criticisms should be stimulating,\nshould lead eugenists to avoid mistakes in program or procedure. But\nnone of them, we believe, is a serious objection to anything which the\ngreat body of eugenists proposes to do.\n\nWhat is to be said on the other side? What faults does the eugenist find\nwith the socialist movement?\n\nFor the central principle, the more equitable distribution of wealth, no\ndiscussion is necessary. Most students of eugenics would probably assent\nto its general desirability, although there is much room for discussion\nas to what constitutes a really equitable division of wealth. In sound\nsocialist theory, it is to be distributed according to a man's value to\nsociety; but the determination of this value is usually made impossible,\nin socialist practice, by the intrusion of the metaphysical and\nuntenable dogma of equalitarianism.\n\nIf one man is by nature as capable as another, and equality of\nopportunity[176] can be secured for all, it must follow that one man\nwill be worth just as much as another; hence the equitable distribution\nof wealth would be an equal distribution of wealth, a proposal which\nsome socialists have made. Most of the living leaders of the socialist\nmovement certainly recognize its fallacy, but it seems so far to have\nbeen found necessary to lean very far in this direction for the\nmaintenance of socialism as a movement of class protest.\n\nNow this idea of the equality of human beings is, in every respect that\ncan be tested, absolutely false, and any movement which depends on it\nwill either be wrecked or, if successful, will wreck the state which it\ntries to operate. It will mean the penalization of real worth and the\nendowment of inferiority and incompetence. Eugenists can feel no\nsympathy for a doctrine which is so completely at variance with the\nfacts of human nature.\n\nBut if it is admitted that men differ widely, and always must differ, in\nability and worth, then eugenics can be in accord with the socialistic\ndesire for distribution of wealth according to merit, for this will\nmake it possible to favor and help perpetuate the valuable strains in\nthe community and to discourage the inferior strains. T. N. Carver sums\nup the argument[177] concisely:\n\n\"Distribution according to worth, usefulness or service is the system\nwhich would most facilitate the progress of human adaptation. It would,\nin the first place, stimulate each individual by an appeal to his own\nself-interest, to make himself as useful as possible to the community.\nIn the second place, it would leave him perfectly free to labor in the\nservice of the community for altruistic reasons, if there was any\naltruism in his nature. In the third place it would exercise a\nbeneficial selective influence upon the stock or race, because the\nuseful members would survive and perpetuate their kind and the useless\nand criminal members would be exterminated.\"\n\nIn so far as socialists rid themselves of their sentimental and Utopian\nequalitarianism, the eugenist will join them willingly in a demand that\nthe distribution of wealth be made to depend as far as feasible on the\nvalue of the individual to society.[178] As to the means by which this\ndistribution can be made, there will of course be differences of\nopinion, to discuss which would be outside the province of this volume.\nFundamentally, eugenics is anti-individualistic and in so far a\nsocialistic movement, since it seeks a social end involving some degree\nof individual subordination, and this fact would be more frequently\nrecognized if the movement which claims the name of socialist did not so\noften allow the wish to believe that a man's environmental change could\neliminate natural inequalities to warp its attitude.\n\n\nCHILD LABOR\n\nIt is often alleged that the abolition of child labor would be a great\neugenic accomplishment; but as is the case with nearly all such\nproposals, the actual results are both complex and far-reaching.\n\nThe selective effects of child labor obviously operate directly on two\ngenerations: (1) the parental generation and (2) the filial generation,\nthe children who are at work. The results of these two forms of\nselection must be considered separately.\n\n1. On the parental generation. The children who labor mostly come from\npoor families, where every child up to the age of economic productivity\nis an economic burden. If the children go to work at an early age, the\nparents can afford to have more children and probably will, since the\nchildren soon become to some extent an asset rather than a liability.\nChild labor thus leads to a higher birth-rate of this class, abolition\nof child labor would lead to a lower birth-rate, since the parents could\nno longer afford to have so many children.\n\nKarl Pearson has found reason to believe that this result can be\nstatistically traced in the birth-rate of English working people,--that\na considerable decline in their fecundity, due to voluntary restriction,\nbegan after the passage of each of the laws which restricted child labor\nand made children an expense from which no return could be expected.\n\nIf the abolition of child labor leads to the production of fewer\nchildren in a certain section of the population the value of the result\nto society, in this phase, will depend on whether or not society wants\nthat strain proportionately increased. If it is an inferior stock, this\none effect of the abolition of child labor would be eugenic.\n\nComparing the families whose children work with those whose children do\nnot, one is likely to conclude that the former are on the average\ninferior to the latter. If so, child labor is in this one particular\naspect dysgenic, and its abolition, leading to a lower birth-rate in\nthis class of the population, will be an advantage.\n\n2. On the filial generation. The obvious result of the abolition of\nchild labor will be, as is often and graphically told, to give children\na better chance of development. If they are of superior stock, and will\nbe better parents for not having worked as children (a proviso which\nrequires substantiation) the abolition of their labor will be of direct\neugenic benefit. Otherwise, its results will be at most indirect; or,\npossibly, dysgenic, if they are of undesirable stock, and are enabled to\nsurvive in greater numbers and reproduce. In necessarily passing over\nthe social and economic aspects of the question, we do not wish it\nthought that we advocate child labor for the purpose of killing off an\nundesirable stock prematurely. We are only concerned in pointing out\nthat the effects of child labor are many and various.\n\nThe effect of its abolition within a single family further depends on\nwhether the children who go to work are superior to those who stay at\nhome. If the strongest and most intelligent children are sent to work\nand crippled or killed prematurely, while the weaklings and\nfeeble-minded are kept at home, brought up on the earnings of the\nstrong, and enabled to reach maturity and reproduce, then this aspect of\nchild labor is distinctly dysgenic.\n\nThe desirability of prohibiting child labor is generally conceded on\neuthenic grounds, and we conclude that its results will on the whole be\neugenic as well, but that they are more complex than is usually\nrecognized.\n\n\nCOMPULSORY EDUCATION\n\nWhether one favors or rejects compulsory education will probably be\ndetermined by other arguments than those derived from eugenics;\nnevertheless there are eugenic aspects of the problem which deserve to\nbe recognized.\n\nOne of the effects of compulsory education is similar to that which\nfollows the abolition of child labor--namely, that the child is made a\nsource of expense, not of revenue, to the parent. Not only is the child\nunable to work, while at school, but to send him to school involves in\npractice dressing him better than would be necessary if he stayed at\nhome. While it might fit the child to work more gainfully in later\nyears, yet the years of gain are so long postponed that the parent can\nexpect to share in but little of it.\n\nThese arguments would not affect the well-to-do parent, or the\nhigh-minded parent who was willing or able to make some sacrifice in\norder that his children might get as good a start as possible. But they\nmay well affect the opposite type of parent, with low efficiency and low\nideals.[179] This type of parent, finding that the system of compulsory\neducation made children a liability, not an immediate asset, would\nthereby be led to reduce the size of his family, just as he seems to\nhave done when child labor was prohibited in England and children ceased\nto be a source of revenue. Compulsory education has here, then, a\neugenic effect, in discouraging the reproduction of parents with the\nleast efficiency and altruism.\n\nIf this belief be well founded, it is likely that any measure tending to\ndecrease the cost of schooling for children will tend to diminish this\neffect of compulsory education. Such measures as the free distribution\nof text-books, the provision of free lunches at noon, or the extension\nto school children of a reduced car-fare, make it easier for the selfish\nor inefficient parent to raise children; they cost him less and\ntherefore he may tend to have more of them. If such were the case, the\nmeasures referred to, despite the euthenic considerations, must be\nclassified as dysgenic.\n\nIn another and quite different way, compulsory education is of service\nto eugenics. The educational system should be a sieve, through which all\nthe children of the country are passed,--or more accurately, a series of\nsieves, which will enable the teacher to determine just how far it is\nprofitable to educate each child so that he may lead a life of the\ngreatest possible usefulness to the state and happiness to himself.\nObviously such a function would be inadequately discharged, if the\nsieve failed to get all the available material; and compulsory education\nmakes it certain that none will be omitted.\n\nIt is very desirable that no child escape inspection, because of the\nimportance of discovering every individual of exceptional ability or\ninability. Since the public educational system has not yet risen to the\nneed of this systematic mental diagnosis, private philanthropy should\nfor the present be alert to get appropriate treatment for the unusually\npromising individual. In Pittsburgh, a committee of the Civic Club is\nseeking youths of this type, who might be obliged to leave school\nprematurely for economic reasons, and is aiding them to appropriate\nopportunities. Such discriminating selection will probably become much\nmore widespread and we may hope a recognized function of the schools,\nowing to the great public demonstration of psychometry now being\nconducted at the cantonments for the mental classification of recruits.\nCompulsory education is necessary for this selection.\n\nWe conclude that compulsory education, as such, is not only of service\nto eugenics through the selection it makes possible, but may serve in a\nmore unsuspected way by cutting down the birth-rate of inferior\nfamilies.\n\n\nVOCATIONAL GUIDANCE AND TRAINING\n\nIn arguments for vocational guidance and education of youth, one does\nnot often hear eugenics mentioned; yet these measures, if effectively\ncarried out, seem likely to be of real eugenic value.\n\nThe need for as perfect a correlation as possible between income and\neugenic worth, has been already emphasized. It is evident that if a man\ngets into the wrong job, a job for which he is not well fitted, he may\nmake a very poor showing in life, while if properly trained in something\nsuited to him, his income would have been considerably greater. It will\nbe a distinct advantage to have superior young people get established\nearlier, and this can be done if they are directly taught efficiency in\nwhat they can do best, the boys being fitted for gainful occupations,\nand the girls for wifehood and motherhood in addition.\n\nAs to the details of vocational guidance, the eugenist is perhaps not\nentitled to give much advice; yet it seems likely that a more thorough\nstudy of the inheritance of ability would be of value to the educator.\nIt was pointed out in Chapter IV that inheritance often seems to be\nhighly specialized,--a fact which leads to the inference that the son\nmight often do best in his father's calling or vocation, especially if\nhis mother comes from a family marked by similar capacities. It is\ndifficult to say how far the occupation of the son is, in modern\nconditions, determined by heredity and how far it is the result of\nchance, or the need of taking the first job open, the lack of any\nspecial qualifications for any particular work, or some similar\nenvironmental influence. Miss Perrin investigated 1,550 pairs of fathers\nand sons in the English _Dictionary of National Biography_ and an equal\nnumber in the English _Who's Who_. \"It seems clear,\" she concluded,\n\"that whether we take the present or the long period of the past\nembraced by the Dictionary, the environmental influences which induce a\nman in this country to follow his father's occupation must have remained\nvery steady.\" She found the coefficient of contingency[180] between\noccupation of father and occupation of son in _Who's Who_ to be .75 and\nin the _Dictionary of National Biography_ .76. For the inheritance of\nphysical and mental characters, in general, the coefficient would be\nabout .5. She thinks, \"therefore, we may say that in the choice of a\nprofession inherited taste counts for about 2/3 and environmental\nconditions for about 1/3.\"\n\nAn examination of 990 seventh and eighth grade boys in the public\nschools of St. Paul[181] showed that only 11% of them desired to enter\nthe occupation of their fathers; there was a pronounced tendency to\nchoose occupations of a more remunerative or intellectual and less\nmanual sort than that followed by the father. That this preference\nwould always determine the ultimate occupation is not to be expected, as\na considerable per cent may fail to show the necessary ability.\n\nWhile inherited tastes and aptitude for some calling probably should\ncarry a good deal of weight in vocational guidance, we can not share the\nexaggerated view which some sociologists hold about the great waste of\nability through the existence of round pegs in square holes. This\nattitude is often expressed in such words as those of E. B. Woods:\n\"Ability receives its reward only when it is presented with the\nopportunities of a fairly favorable environment, _its_ peculiarly\nindispensable sort of environment. Naval commanders are not likely to be\ndeveloped in the Transvaal, nor literary men and artists in the soft\ncoal fields of western Pennsylvania. For ten men who succeed as\ninvestigators, inventors, or diplomatists, there may be and probably are\nin some communities fifty more who would succeed better under the same\ncircumstances.\"\n\nWhile there is some truth in this view, it exaggerates the evil by\nignoring the fact that good qualities frequently go together in an\nindividual. The man of Transvaal who is by force of circumstances kept\nfrom a naval career is likely to distinguish himself as a successful\ncolonist, and perhaps enrich the world even more than if he had been\nbrought up in a maritime state and become a naval commander. It may be\nthat his inherited talent fitted him to be a better naval commander than\nanything else; if so, it probably also fitted him to be better at many\nother things, than are the majority of men. \"Intrinsically good traits\nhave also good correlatives,\" physical, mental and moral.\n\nF. A. Woods has brought together the best evidence of this, in his\nstudies of the royal families of Europe. If the dozen best generals were\nselected from the men he has studied, they would of course surpass the\naverage man enormously in military skill; but, as he points out, they\nwould also surpass the average man to a very high degree as poets,--or\ndoubtless as cooks or lawyers, had they given any time to those\noccupations.[182]\n\nThe above considerations lead to two suggestions for vocational\nguidance: (i) it is desirable to ascertain and make use of the child's\ninherited capacities as far as possible; but (2) it must not be supposed\nthat every child inherits the ability to do one thing only, and will\nwaste his life if he does not happen to get a chance to do that thing.\nIt is easy to suppose that the man who makes a failure as a paperhanger\nmight, if he had had the opportunity, have been a great electrical\nengineer; it is easy to cite a few cases, such as that of General U. S.\nGrant, which seem to lend some color to the theory, but statistical\nevidence would indicate it is not the rule. If a man makes a failure as\na paperhanger, it is at least possible that he would have made a failure\nof very many things that he might try; and if a man makes a brilliant\nsuccess as a paperhanger, or railway engineer, or school teacher, or\nchemist, he is a useful citizen who would probably have gained a fair\nmeasure of success in any one of several occupations that he might have\ntaken up but not in all.\n\nTo sum up: vocational guidance and training are likely to be of much\nservice to eugenics. They may derive direct help from heredity; and\ntheir exponents may also learn that a man who is really good in one\nthing is likely to be good in many things, and that a man who fails in\none thing would not necessarily achieve success if he were put in some\nother career. One of their greatest services will probably be to put a\nlot of boys into skilled trades, for which they are adapted and where\nthey will succeed, and thus prevent them from yielding to the desire for\na more genteel clerical occupation, in which they will not do more than\nearn a bare living. This will assist in bringing about the high\ncorrelation between merit and income which is so much to be desired.\n\n\nTHE MINIMUM WAGE\n\nLegal enactment of a minimum wage is often urged as a measure that would\npromote social welfare and race betterment. By minimum wage is to be\nunderstood, according to its advocates, not the wage that will support a\nsingle man, but one that will support a man, wife, and three or four\nchildren. In the United States, the sum necessary for this purpose can\nhardly be estimated at less than $2.50 a day.\n\nA living wage is certainly desirable for every man, but the idea of\ngiving every man a wage sufficient to support a family can not be\nconsidered eugenic. In the first place, it interferes with the\nadjustment of wages to ability, on the necessity of which we have often\ninsisted. In the second place, it is not desirable that society should\nmake it possible for every man to support a wife and three children; in\nmany cases it is desirable that it be made impossible for him to do so.\nEugenically, teaching methods of birth control to the married unskilled\nlaborer is a sounder way of solving his problems, than subsidizing him\nso he can support a large family.\n\nIt must be frankly recognized that poverty is in many ways eugenic in\nits effect, and that with the spread of birth control among people below\nthe poverty line, it is certain to be still more eugenic than at\npresent. It represents an effective, even though a cruel, method of\nkeeping down the net birth-rate of people who for one reason or another\nare not economically efficient; and the element of cruelty, involved in\nhigh infant mortality, will be largely mitigated by birth control. Free\ncompetition may be tempered to the extent of furnishing every man enough\ncharity to feed him, if he requires charity for that purpose; and to\nfeed his family, if he already has one; but charity which will allow him\nto increase his family, if he is too inefficient to support it by his\nown exertions, is rarely a benefit eugenically.\n\nThe minimum wage is admittedly not an attempt to pay a man what he is\nworth. It is an attempt to make it possible for every man, no matter\nwhat his economic or social value, to support a family. Therefore, in so\nfar as it would encourage men of inferior quality to have or increase\nfamilies, it is unquestionably dysgenic.\n\n\nMOTHERS' PENSIONS\n\nHalf of the states of the Union have already adopted some form of\npension for widowed mothers, and similar measures are being urged in\nnearly all remaining states. The earliest of these laws goes back only\nto 1911.\n\nIn general,[183] these laws apply to mothers who are widows, or in some\ncases to those who have lost their means of support through imprisonment\nor incapacity of the husband. The maximum age of the child on whose\naccount allowance is made varies from 14 to 16, in a few cases to 17 or\n18. The amount allowed for each child varies in each state,\napproximately between the limits of $100 and $200 a year. In most states\nthe law demands that the mother be a fit person, physically, mentally\nand morally to bring up her children, and that it be to their interest\nthat they remain with her at home instead of being placed at work or\nsent to some institution. In all cases considerable latitude is allowed\nthe administrator of the law,--a juvenile court, or board of county\ncommissioners, or some body with equivalent powers.\n\nLaws of this character have often been described as being eugenic in\neffect, but examination shows little reason for such a characterization.\nSince the law applies for the most part to women who have lost their\nhusbands, it is evident that it is not likely to affect the differential\nbirth-rate which is of such concern to eugenics. On the whole, mothers'\npensions must be put in the class of work which may be undertaken on\nhumanitarian grounds, but they are probably slightly dysgenic rather\nthan eugenic, since they favor the preservation of families which are,\non the whole, of inferior quality, as shown by the lack of relatives\nwith ability or willingness to help them. On the other hand, they are\nnot likely to result in the production from these families of more\nchildren than those already in existence.\n\n\nHOUSING\n\nAt present it is sometimes difficult, in the more fashionable quarters\nof large cities, to find apartments where families with children are\nadmitted. In other parts of the city, this difficulty appears to be much\nless. Such a situation tends to discourage parenthood, on the part of\nyoung couples who come of good families and desire to live in the part\nof the city where their friends are to be found. It is at least likely\nto cause postponement of parenthood until they feel financially able to\ntake a separate house. Here is an influence tending to lower the\nbirth-rate of young couples who have social aspirations, at least to the\nextent of desiring to live in the pleasanter and more reputable part of\ntheir city. Such a hindrance exists to a much less extent, if at all,\nfor those who have no reason for wanting to live in the fashionable part\nof the city. This discrimination of some apartment owners against\nfamilies with children would therefore appear to be dysgenic in its\neffect.\n\nMarried people who wish to live in the more attractive part of a city\nshould not be penalized. The remedy is to make it illegal to\ndiscriminate against children. It is gratifying to note that recently a\nnumber of apartment houses have been built in New York, especially with\na view to the requirements of children. The movement deserves wide\nencouragement. Any apartment house is an unsatisfactory place in which\nto bring up children, but since under modern urban conditions it is\ninevitable that many children must be brought up in apartments, if they\nare brought up at all, the municipality should in its own interests take\nsteps to ensure that conditions will be as good as possible for them. In\na few cases of model tenements, the favored poor tenants are better off\nthan the moderately well-to-do. It is essential that the latter be given\na chance to have children and bring them up in comfortable surroundings,\nand the provision of suitable apartment houses would be a gain in every\nlarge city.\n\nThe growing use of the automobile, which permits a family to live under\npleasant surroundings in the suburbs and yet reach the city daily,\nalleviates the housing problem slightly. Increased facilities for rapid\ntransit are of the utmost importance in placing the city population (a\nselected class, it will be remembered) under more favorable conditions\nfor bringing up their children. Zone rates should be designed to effect\nthis dispersal of population.\n\n\nFEMINISM\n\nThe word \"feminism\" might be supposed to characterize a movement which\nsought to emphasize the distinction between woman's nature and that of\nman to provide for women's special needs. It was so used in early days\non the continent. But at present in England and America it denotes a\nmovement which is practically the reverse of this; which seeks to\nminimize the difference between the two sexes. It may be broadly\ndescribed as a movement which seeks to remove all discrimination based\non sex. It is a movement to secure recognition of an equality of the two\nsexes. The feminists variously demand that woman be recognized as the\nequal of man (1) biologically, (2) politically, (3) economically.\n\n1. Whether or not woman is to be regarded as biologically equal to man\ndepends on how one uses the word \"equal.\" If it is meant that woman is\nas well adapted to her own particular kind of work as is man to his, the\nstatement will readily be accepted. Unfortunately, feminists show a\ntendency to go beyond this and to minimize differentiation in their\nclaims of equality. An attempt is made to show that women do not differ\nmaterially from men in the nature of their capacity of mental or\nphysical achievement. Mrs. Charlotte Perkins Gilman makes the logical\napplication by demanding that little girls' hair be cut short and that\nthey be prevented from playing with dolls in order that differences\nfostered in this way be reduced.\n\nIn forming a judgment on this proposition, it must be remembered that\ncivilization covers not more than 10,000 years out of man's history of\nhalf a million or more. During 490,000 out of the 500,000 years, man was\nthe hunter and warrior; while woman stayed at home of necessity to bear\nand rear the young, to skin the prey, to prepare the food and clothing.\nHe must have a small knowledge of biology who could suppose that this\nlong history would not lead to any differentiation of the two sexes;\nand the biologist knows that man and woman in some respects differ in\nevery cell of their bodies: that, as Jacques Loeb says, \"Man and woman\nare, physiologically, different species.\"\n\nBut the biologist also knows that sex is a quantitative character. It is\nimpossible to draw a sharp line and say that those on one side are in\nevery respect men, and those on the other side in every respect women,\nas one might draw a line between goats and sheep. Many women have a\nconsiderable amount of \"maleness\"; numerous men have distinct feminine\ncharacteristics, physical and mental. There is thus an ill-defined\n\"intermediate sex,\" as Edward Carpenter called it, whose size has been\nkept down by sexual selection; or better stated there is so much\noverlapping that it is a question of different averages with many\nindividuals of each sex beyond the average of the other sex.\n\nA perusal of Havelock Ellis' book, _Man and Woman_, will leave little\ndoubt about the fact of sex differentiation, just as it will leave\nlittle doubt that one sex is, in its way, quite as good as the other,\nand that to talk of one sex as being inferior is absurd.\n\nIt is worth noting that the spread of feminism will reinforce the action\nof sexual selection in keeping down the numbers of this \"intermediate\nsex.\" In the past, women who lacked femininity or maternal instinct have\noften married because the pressure of public opinion and economic\nconditions made it uncomfortable for any woman to remain unmarried. And\nthey have had children because they could not help it, transmitting to\ntheir daughters their own lack of maternal instinct. Under the new\nregime a large proportion of such women do not marry, and accordingly\nhave few if any children to inherit their defects. Hence the average\nlevel of maternal instinct of the women of America is likely steadily to\nrise.\n\nWe conclude that any claim of biological equality of the two sexes must\nuse the word in a figurative sense, not ignoring the differentiation of\nthe two sexes, as extreme feminists are inclined to do. To this\ndifferentiation we shall return later.\n\n2. Political equality includes the demand for the vote and for the\nremoval of various legal restrictions, such as have sometimes prevented\na wife from disposing of her own property without the consent of her\nhusband or such as have made her citizenship follow that of her husband.\nIn the United States, these legal restrictions are rapidly being\nremoved, at such a rate that in some states it is now the husband who\nhas a right to complain of certain legal discriminations.\n\nEqual suffrage is also gaining steadily, but its eugenic aspect is not\nwholly clear. Theoretically much is to be said for it, as making use of\nwoman's large social sympathies and responsibilities and interest in the\nfamily; but in the states where it has been tried, its effects have not\nbeen all that was hoped. Beneficial results are to be expected unless an\nobjectionably extreme feminism finds support.\n\nIn general, the demand for political equality, in a broad sense, seems\nto the eugenist to be the most praiseworthy part of the feminist\nprogram. The abolition of those laws, which now discharge women from\npositions if they marry or have children, promises to be in principle a\nparticularly valuable gain.\n\n3. Economic equality is often summed up in the catch phrase \"equal pay\nfor equal work.\" If the phrase refers to jobs where women are competing\non piecework with men, no one will object to it. In practice it applies\nparticularly to two distinct but interlocking demands: (a) that women\nshould receive the same pay as men for any given occupation--as,\nstenography, for example; and (b) that child-bearing should be\nrecognized as just as much worthy of remuneration as any occupation\nwhich men enter, and should be paid for (by the state) on the same\nbasis.\n\nAt present, there is almost universally a discrimination against women\nin commerce and industry. They sometimes get no more than half as much\npay as men for similar grades of employment. But there is for this one\ngood reason. An employer needs experienced help, and he expects a man to\nremain with him and become more valuable. He is, therefore, willing to\npay more because of this anticipation. In hiring a woman, he knows that\nshe will probably soon leave to marry. But whatever may be the origin of\nthis discrimination, it is justified in the last analysis by the fact\nthat a man is paid as the head of a family, a woman only as an\nindividual who ordinarily has fewer or no dependents to support. Indeed,\nit is largely this feature which, under the law of supply and demand,\nhas caused women to work for low wages.\n\nIt is evident that real economic equality between men and women must be\nimpossible, if the women are to leave their work for long periods of\ntime, in order to bear and rear children. It is normally impossible for\na woman to earn her living by competitive labor, at the same time that\nshe is bearing and rearing children. Either the doctrine of economic\nequality is largely illusory, therefore, or else it must be extended to\nmaking motherhood a salaried occupation just as much as mill work or\nstenography.\n\nThe feminists have almost universally adopted the latter alternative.\nThey say that the woman who is capable of earning money, and who\nabandons wage-earning for motherhood, ought to receive from the state as\nnearly as possible what she would have received if she had not had\nchildren; or else they declare that the expense of children should be\nborne wholly by the community.\n\nThis proposal must be tested by asking whether it would tend to\nstrengthen and perpetuate the race or not. It is, in effect, a proposal\nto have the state pay so much a head for babies. The fundamental\nquestion is whether or not the quality of the babies would be taken into\naccount. Doubtless the babies of obviously feeble-minded women would be\nexcluded, but would it be possible for the state to pay liberally for\nbabies who would grow up to be productive citizens, and to refuse to pay\nfor babies that would doubtless grow up to be incompetents, dolts,\ndullards, laggards or wasters? The scheme would work, eugenically, in\nproportion as it is discriminatory and graded.\n\nBut the example of legislation in France and England, and the main trend\nof popular thought in America, make it quite certain that at present,\nand for many years to come, it will be impossible to have babies valued\non the basis of quality rather than mere numbers. It is sometimes\npossible to get indirect measures of a eugenic nature passed, and it has\nbeen found possible to secure the passage of direct measures which\nprevent reproduction of those who are actually defective. But even the\nmost optimistic eugenist must feel that, short of the remote future, any\nattempt to have the state grade and pay for babies on the basis of their\nquality is certain to fail to pass.\n\nThe recent action of the municipality of Schoenberg, Berlin, is typical.\nIt is now paying baby bounties at the rate of $12.50 a head for the\nfirst born, $2.50 a head for all later born, and no questions asked. It\nis to be feared that any success which the feminists may gain in\nsecuring state aid for mothers in America will secure, as in Schoenberg,\nin England, in France, and in Australia, merely a small uniform sum.\nThis acts dysgenically because it is a stimulus to married people to\nhave large families in inverse proportion to their income, and is felt\nmost by those whose purpose in having children is least approvable.\n\nThe married woman of good stock ought to bear four children. For many\nreasons these ought to be spaced well apart, preferably not much less\nthan three years. She must have oversight of these children until they\nall reach adolescence. This means a period of about 12 + 13 = 25 years\nduring which her primary, though by no means her only, concern will be\nmothercraft. It is hardly possible and certainly not desirable that she\nshould support herself outside of the home during this period. As state\nsupport would pretty certainly be indiscriminate and dangerously\ndysgenic, it therefore appears that the present custom of having the\nfather responsible for the support of the family is not only unavoidable\nbut desirable. If so, it is desirable to avoid reducing the wages of\nmarried men too much by the competition of single women.\n\nTo attain this end, without working any injustice to women, it seems\nwise to modify their education in general in such a way as to prepare\nwomen for the kinds of work best adapted to her capacities and needs.\nWomen were long excluded from a higher education, and when they secured\nit, they not unnaturally wanted the kind of education men were\nreceiving,--partly in order to demonstrate that they were not\nintellectually inferior to men. Since this demonstration is now\ncomplete, the continuation of duplicate curricula is uncalled for. The\ncoeducational colleges of the west are already turning away from the old\nsingle curriculum and are providing for the election of more\ndifferentiated courses for women. The separate women's colleges of the\neast will doubtless do so eventually, since their own graduates and\nstudents are increasingly discontented with the present narrow and\nobsolete ideals. If the higher education of women, and much of the\nelementary education, is directed toward differentiating them from men\nand giving them distinct occupations (including primarily marriage and\nmotherhood) instead of training them so the only thing they are capable\nof doing is to compete with men for men's jobs, the demand of \"equal pay\nfor equal work\" will be less difficult to reconcile with the interests\nof the race. In this direction the feminists might find a large and\nprofitable field for the employment of their energies.\n\nThere is good ground for the feminist contention that women should be\nliberally educated, that they should not be regarded by men as inferior\ncreatures, that they should have the opportunity of self-expression in a\nricher, freer life than they have had in the past. All these gains can\nbe made without sacrificing any racial interests; and they must be so\nmade. The unrest of intelligent women is not to be lessened or removed\nby educating them in the belief that they are not different from men and\nsetting them to work as men in the work of the world. Except where the\nwork is peculiarly adapted to women or there is a special individual\naptitude, such work will, for the reasons we have set forth, operate\ndysgenically and therefore bring about the decadence of the race which\npractices it.\n\nThe true solution is rather to be sought in recognizing the natural\ndifferentiation of the two sexes and in emphasizing this differentiation\nby education. Boys will be taught the nobility of being productive and\nof establishing families; girls will have similar ideals held up to them\nbut will be taught to reach them in a different way, through cultivation\nof the intellectual and emotional characters most useful to that\ndivision of labor for which they are supremely adapted, as well as those\nthat are common to both sexes. The home must not be made a subordinate\ninterest, as some feminists desire, but it must be made a much richer,\ndeeper, more satisfying interest than it is too frequently at present.\n\n\nOLD AGE PENSIONS\n\nPensions for aged people form an important part of the modern program of\nsocial legislation. What their merits may be in relieving poverty will\nnot be discussed here. But beyond the direct effect, it is important to\ninquire what indirect eugenic effect they would have, as compared with\nthe present system where the aged are most frequently supported by their\nown children when they have failed through lack of thrift or for other\nreasons to make provision for their old age.\n\nThe ordinary man, dependent on his daily work for a livelihood, can not\neasily support his parents and his offspring at the same time. Aid given\nto the one must be in some degree at the expense of the other. The\neugenic consequences will depend on what class of man is required to\ncontribute thus to parental support.\n\nIt is at once obvious that superior families will rarely encounter this\nproblem. The parents will, by their superior earning capacity and the\nexercise of thrift and foresight, have provided for the wants of their\nold age. A superior man will therefore seldom be under economic pressure\nto limit the number of his own children because of the necessity of\nsupporting his parents. In inferior families, on the other hand, the\nparents will have made no adequate provision for their old age. A son\nwill have to assume their support, and thus reduce the number of his own\nchildren,--a eugenic result. With old age pensions from the state, the\neconomic pressure would be taken off these inferior families and the\nchildren would thus be encouraged to marry earlier and have more\nchildren,--a dysgenic result.\n\nFrom this point of view, the most eugenic course would perhaps be to\nmake the support of parents by children compulsory, in cases where any\nsupport was needed. Such a step would not handicap superior families,\nbut would hold back the inferior. A contributory system of old age\npensions, for which the money was provided out of the individual's\nearnings, and laid aside for his old age, would also be satisfactory. A\nsystem which led to the payment of old age pensions by the state would\nbe harmful.\n\nThe latter system would be evil in still another way because, as is the\ncase with most social legislation of this type, the funds for carrying\nout such a scheme must naturally be furnished by the efficient members\nof the community. This adds to their financial burdens and encourages\nthe young men to postpone marriage longer and to have fewer children\nwhen they do marry,--a dysgenic result.\n\nIt appears, therefore, that old age pensions paid by the state would be\ndysgenic in a number of ways, encouraging the increase of the inferior\npart of the population at the expense of the superior. If old age\npensions are necessary, they should be contributory.\n\n\nTHE SEX HYGIENE MOVEMENT\n\nSexual morality is thought by some to be substantially synonymous with\neugenics or to be included by it. One of the authors has protested\npreviously[184] against this confusion of the meaning of the word\n\"eugenics.\" The fallacy of believing that a campaign against sexual\nimmorality is a campaign for eugenics will be apparent if the\nproposition is analyzed.\n\nFirst, does sexual immorality increase or decrease the marriage rate of\nthe offenders? We conclude that it reduces the marriage rate. Although\nit is true that some individuals might by sexual experience become so\nawakened as to be less satisfied with a continent life, and might thus\nin some cases be led to marriage, yet this is more than counterbalanced\nby the following considerations:\n\n1. The mere consciousness of loss of virginity has led in some sensitive\npersons, especially women, to an unwillingness to marry from a sense of\nunworthiness. This is not common, yet such cases are known.\n\n2. The loss of reputation has prevented the marriage of the desired\nmates. This is not at all uncommon.\n\n3. Venereal infection has led to the abandonment of marriage. This is\nespecially common.\n\n4. Illicit experiences may have been so disillusioning, owing to the\ndisaffecting nature of the consorts, that an attitude of pessimism and\nmisanthropy or misogyny is built up. Such an attitude prevents marriage\nnot only directly, but also indirectly, since persons with such an\noutlook are thereby less attractive to the opposite sex.\n\n5. A taste for sexual variety is built up so that the individual is\nunwilling to commit himself to a monogamous union.\n\n6. Occasionally, threat of blackmail by a jilted paramour prevents\nmarriage by the inability to escape these importunities.\n\nWe consider next the relative birth-rate of the married and the\nincontinent unmarried. There can not be the slightest doubt that this is\nvastly greater in the case of the married. The unmarried have not only\nall the incentives of the married to keep down their birth-rate but also\nthe obvious and powerful incentive of concealment as well.\n\nPassing to the relative death-rate of the illegitimate and legitimate\nprogeny, the actual data invariably indicate a decided advantage of the\nlegitimately born. The reasons are too obvious to be retailed.\n\nNow, then, knowing that the racial contribution of the sexually moral is\ngreater than that of the sexually immoral, we may compare the quality of\nthe sexually moral and immoral, to get the evolutionary effect.\n\nFor this purpose a distinction must be made between the individual who\nhas been chaste till the normal time of marriage and whose sexual life\nis truly monogamous, and that abnormal group who remain chaste and\ncelibate to an advanced age. These last are not moral in the last\nanalysis, if they have valuable and needed traits and are fertile,\nbecause in the long run their failure to reproduce affects adversely the\nwelfare of their group. While the race suffers through the failure of\nmany of these individuals to contribute progeny, probably this does not\nhappen, so far as males are concerned, as much as might be supposed, for\nsuch individuals are often innately defective in their instincts or, in\nthe case of disappointed lovers, have a badly proportioned emotional\nequipment, since it leads them into a position so obviously opposed to\nrace interests.\n\nBut, to pass to the essential comparison, that between the sexually\nimmoral and the sexually moral as limited above, it is necessary first\nof all to decide whether monogamy is a desirable and presumably\npermanent feature of human society.\n\nWe conclude that it is:\n\n1. Because it is spreading at the expense of polygamy even where not\nfavored by legal interference. The change is most evident in China.\n\n2. In monogamy, sexual selection puts a premium on valuable traits of\ncharacter, rather than on mere personal beauty or ability to acquire\nwealth; and\n\n3. The greatest amount of happiness is produced by a monogamous system,\nsince in a polygamous society so many men must remain unmarried and so\nmany women are dissatisfied with having to share their mates with\nothers.\n\nAssuming this, then adaptation to the condition of monogamous society\nrepresents race progress. Such a race profits if those who do not comply\nwith its conditions make a deficient racial contribution. It follows\nthen that sexual immorality is eugenic in its result for the species and\nthat if all sexual immorality should cease, an important means of race\nprogress might be lost. An illustration is the case of the Negro in\nAmerica, whose failure to increase more rapidly in number is largely\nattributable to the widespread sterility resulting from venereal\ninfection.[185] Should venereal diseases be eliminated, that race might\nbe expected to increase in numbers very much faster than the whites.\n\nIt may be felt by some that this position would have an immoral effect\nupon youth if widely accepted. This need not be feared. On the contrary,\nwe believe that one of the most powerful factors in ethical culture is\npride due to the consciousness of being one who is fit and worthy.\n\nThe traditional view of sexual morality has been to ignore the\nselectional aspect here discussed and to stress the alleged\ndeterioration of the germ-plasm by the direct action of the toxins of\nsyphilis. The evidence relied upon to demonstrate this action seems to\nbe vitiated by the possibility that there was, instead, a transmitted\ninfection of the progeny. This \"racial poison\" action, since it is so\nhighly improbable from analogy, can not be credited until it has been\ndemonstrated in cases where the parents have been indubitably cured.\n\nIs it necessary, then, to retain sexual immorality in order to achieve\nrace progress? No, because it is only one of many factors contributing\nto race progress. Society can mitigate this as well as alcoholism,\ndisease, infant mortality--all powerful selective factors--without harm,\nprovided increased efficiency of other selective factors is ensured,\nsuch as the segregation of defectives, more effective sexual selection,\na better correlation of income and ability, and a more eugenic\ndistribution of family limitation.\n\n\nTRADES UNIONISM\n\nA dysgenic feature often found in trades unionism will easily be\nunderstood after our discussion of the minimum wage. The union tends to\nstandardize wages; it tends to fix a wage in a given industry, and\ndemand that nearly all workers in that classification be paid that wage.\nIt cannot be denied that some of these workers are much more capable\nthan others. Artificial interference with a more exact adjustment of\nwages to ability therefore penalizes the better workmen and subsidizes\nthe worse ones. Economic pressure is thereby put on the better men to\nhave fewer children, and with the worse men encourages more children,\nthan would be the case if their incomes more nearly represented their\nreal worth. Payment according to the product, with prizes and bonuses so\nmuch opposed by the unions, is more in accord with the principles of\neugenics.\n\n\nPROHIBITION\n\nIt was shown in Chapter II that the attempt to ban alcoholic beverages\non the ground of direct dysgenic effect is based on dubious evidence.\nBut the prohibition of the use of liquors, at least those containing\nmore than 5% alcohol, can be defended on indirect eugenic grounds, as\nwell as on the familiar grounds of pathology and economics which are\ncommonly cited.\n\n1. Unless it is present to such a degree as to constitute a neurotic\ntaint, the desire to be stimulated is not of itself necessarily a bad\nthing. This will be particularly clear if the distribution of the\nresponsiveness to alcoholic stimulus is recalled. Some really valuable\nstrains, marked by this susceptibility, may be eliminated through the\ndeath of some individuals from debauchery and the penalization of others\nin preferential mating; this would be avoided if narcotics were not\navailable.\n\n2. In selection for eugenic improvement, it is desirable not to have to\nselect for too many traits at once. If alcoholism could, through\nprohibition, be eliminated from consideration, it would just so far\nsimplify the problem of eugenics.\n\n3. Drunkenness interferes with the effectiveness of means for family\nlimitation, so that if his alcoholism is not extreme, the drunkard's\nfamily is sometimes larger than it would otherwise be.\n\nOn the other hand, prohibition is dysgenic and intemperance is eugenic\nin their effect on the species in so far as alcoholism is correlated\nwith other undesirable characters and brings about the elimination of\nundesirable strains. But its action is not sufficiently discriminating\nnor decisive; and if the strains have many serious defects, they can\nprobably be dealt with better in some other, more direct way.\n\nWe conclude, then, that, on the whole, prohibition is desirable for\neugenic as well as for other reasons.\n\n\nPEDAGOGICAL CELIBACY\n\nWhether women are more efficient teachers than men, and whether single\nwomen are more efficient teachers than married women, are disputed\nquestions which it is not proposed here to consider. Accepting the\npresent fact, that most of the school teachers in the United States are\nunmarried women, it is proper to examine the eugenic consequences of\nthis condition.\n\nThe withdrawal of this large body of women from the career of motherhood\ninto a celibate career may be desirable if these women are below the\naverage of the rest of the women of the population in eugenic quality.\nBut it would hardly be possible to find enough eugenic inferiors to fill\nthe ranks of teachers, without getting those who are inferior in actual\nability, in patent as well as latent traits. And the idea of placing\neducation in the hands of such inferior persons is not to be considered.\n\nIt is, therefore, inevitable that the teachers are, on the whole,\nsuperior persons eugenically. Their celibacy must be considered highly\ndetrimental to racial welfare.\n\nBut, it may be said, there is a considerable number of women so\ndeficient in sex feeling or emotional equipment that they are certain\nnever to marry; they are, nevertheless, persons of intellectual ability.\nLet them be the school teachers. This solution is, however, not\nacceptable. Many women of the character described undoubtedly exist, but\nthey are better placed in some other occupation. It is wholly\nundesirable that children should be reared under a neuter influence,\nwhich is probably too common already in education.\n\nIf women are to teach, then, it must be concluded that on eugenic\ngrounds preference should be given to married rather than single\nteachers, and that the single ones should be encouraged to marry. This\nrequires (1) that considerable change be made in the education of young\nwomen, so that they shall be fitted for motherhood rather than\nexclusively for school teaching as is often the case, and (2) that\nsocial devices be brought into play to aid them in mating--since\nundoubtedly a proportion of school teachers are single from the\nsegregating character of their profession, not from choice, and (3)\nprovision for employing some women on half-time and (4) increase of the\nnumber of male teachers in high schools.\n\nIt is, perhaps, unnecessary to mention a fifth change necessary: that\nschool boards must be brought to see the undesirability of employing\nonly unmarried women, and of discharging them, no matter how efficient,\nif they marry or have children. The courts must be enabled to uphold\nwoman's right of marriage and motherhood, instead of, as in some cases\nat present, upholding school boards in their denial of this right.\nContracts which prevent women teachers from marrying or discontinuing\ntheir work for marriage should be illegal, and talk about the \"moral\nobligation\" of normal school graduates to teach should be\ndiscountenanced.\n\nAgainst the proposal to employ married school teachers, two objections\nare urged. It is said (1) that for most women school teaching is merely\na temporary occupation, which they take up to pass the few years until\nthey shall have married. To this it may be replied that the hope of\nmarriage too often proves illusory to the young woman who enters on the\npedagogical career, because of the lack of opportunities to meet men,\nand because the nature of her work is not such as to increase her\nattractiveness to men, nor her fitness for home-making. Pedagogy is too\noften a sterilizing institution, which takes young women who desire to\nmarry and impairs their chance of marriage.\n\nAgain it will be said (2) that married teachers would lose too much\ntime from their work; that their primary interests would be in their own\nhomes instead of in the school; that they could not teach school without\nneglecting their own children. These objections fall in the realm of\neducation, not eugenics, and it can only be said here that the reasons\nmust be extraordinarily cogent, which will justify the enforcement of\ncelibacy on so large a body of superior young women as is now engaged in\nschool teaching.\n\nThe magnitude of the problem is not always realized. In 1914 the\nCommissioner of education reported that there were, in the United\nStates, 169,929 men and 537,123 women engaged in teaching. Not less than\nhalf a million women, therefore, are potentially affected by the\ninstitution of pedagogical celibacy.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX\n\nRELIGION AND EUGENICS\n\n\nMan is the only animal with a religion. The conduct of the lower animals\nis guided by instinct,[186] and instinct normally works for the benefit\nof the species. Any action which is dictated by instinct is likely to\nresult in the preservation of the species, even at the expense of the\nindividual which acts, provided there has not been a recent change in\nthe environment.\n\nBut in the human species reason appears, and conduct is no longer\ngoverned by instinct alone. A young man is impelled by instinct, for\ninstance, to marry. It is to the interests of the species that he marry,\nand instinct therefore causes him to desire to marry and to act as he\ndesires. A lower animal would obey the impulse of instinct without a\nmoment's hesitation. Not so the man. Reason intervenes and asks, \"Is\nthis really the best thing for you to do now? Would you not better wait\nawhile and get a start in your business? Of course marriage would be\nagreeable, but you must not be short-sighted. You don't want to assume a\nhandicap just now.\" There is a corresponding reaction among the married\nin respect to bearing additional children. The interests of self are\nimmediate and easily seen, the interests of the species are not so\npressing. In any such conflict between instinct and reason, one must\nwin; and if reason wins it is in some cases for the immediate benefit of\nthe individual but at the expense of the species' interests.\n\nNow with reason dominant over instinct in man, there is a grave danger\nthat with each man consulting his own interests instead of those of the\nspecies, some groups and even races will become exterminated. Along\nwith reason, therefore, it is necessary that some other forces shall\nappear to control reason and give the interests of the species a chance\nto be heard along with the interests of the individual.\n\nOne such force is religion. Without insisting that this is the only view\nwhich may be taken of the origin of religion, or that this is the only\nfunction of religion, we may yet assert that one of the useful purposes\nserved by religion is to cause men to adopt lines of conduct that will\nbe for the good of the race, although it may sacrifice the immediate\ngood of the individual.[187] Thus if a young Mohammedan be put in the\nsituation just described, he may decide that it is to his material\ninterest to postpone marriage. His religion then obtrudes itself, with\nquotations from the Prophet to the effect that Hell is peopled with\nbachelors. The young man is thereupon moved to marry, even if it does\ncause some inconvenience to his business plans. Religion, reinforcing\ninstinct, has triumphed over reason and gained a victory for the larger\ninterests of the species, when they conflict with the immediate\ninterests of the individual.\n\nFrom this point of view we may, paraphrasing Matthew Arnold, define\nreligion as _motivated ethics_. Ethics is a knowledge of right conduct,\nreligion is an agency to produce right conduct. And its working is more\nlike that of instinct than it is like that of reason. The irreligious\nman, testing a proposition by reason alone, may decide that it is to the\ninterests of all concerned that he should not utter blasphemy. The\northodox Christian never considers the pros and cons of the question; he\nhas the Ten Commandments and the teachings of his youth in his mind, and\nhe refrains from blasphemy in almost the instinctive way that he\nrefrains from putting his hand on a hot stove.\n\nThis chapter proposes primarily to consider how eugenics can be linked\nwith religion, and specifically the Christian religion; but the problem\nis not a simple one, because Christianity is made of diverse elements.\nNot only has it undergone some change during the last 1900 years, but it\nwas founded upon Judaism, which itself involved diverse elements. We\nshall undertake to show that eugenics fits in well with Christianity;\nbut it must fit in with different elements in different ways.\n\nWe can distinguish four phases of religion:\n\n1. Charm and taboo, or reward and punishment in the present life. The\nbeliever in these processes thinks that certain acts possess particular\nefficacies beyond those evident to his observation and reason; and that\npeculiar malignities are to be expected as the consequence of certain\nother acts. Perhaps no one in the memory of the tribe has ever tested\none of these acts to find whether the expected result would appear; it\nis held as a matter of religious belief that the result would appear,\nand the act is therefore avoided.\n\n2. Reward and punishment in a future life after death. Whereas the first\nsystem was supposed to bring immediate reward and punishment as the\nresult of certain acts, this second system postpones the result to an\nafter-life. There is in nature a system of reward and punishment which\neveryone must have observed because it is part of the universal sequence\nof cause and effect; but these two phases of religion carry the idea\nstill farther; they postulate rewards and punishments of a supernatural\ncharacter, over and above those which naturally occur. It is important\nto note that in neither of these systems is God essentially involved.\nThey are in reality independent of the idea of God, since that is called\n\"luck\" in some cases which in others is called the favor or wrath of\nGod. And again in some cases, one may be damned by a human curse,\nalthough in others this curse of damnation is reserved for divine power.\n\n3. Theistic religion. In essence this consists of the satisfaction\nderived from doing that which pleases God, or \"getting into harmony with\nthe underlying plan of the universe,\" as some put it. It is idealistic\nand somewhat mystic. It should be distinguished from the idea of doing\nor believing certain things to insure salvation, which is not\nessentially theistic but belongs under (2). The true theist desires to\nconform to the will of God, wholly apart from whether he will be\nrewarded or punished for so doing.\n\n4. Humanistic religion. This is a willingness to make the end of ethics\nthe totality of happiness of all men, or some large group of men, rather\nthan to judge conduct solely by its effects on some one individual. At\nits highest, it is a sort of loyalty to the species.\n\nIt must be noted that most cults include more than one of these\nelements--usually all of them at various stages. As a race rises in\nintelligence, it tends to progress from the first two toward the last\ntwo, but usually keeping parts of the earlier attitude, more or less\nclearly expressed. And individual adherents of a religion usually have\ndifferent ideas of its scope; thus the religious ideas of many\nChristians embrace all four of the above elements; others who equally\nconsider themselves Christians may be influenced by little more than (4)\nalone, or (3) alone, or even (2) alone.\n\nThere is no reason to believe that any one of these types of religion is\nthe only one adapted to promoting sound ethics in all individuals, nor\nthat a similar culture can bring about uniformity in the near future,\nsince the religion of a race corresponds to some extent to the inherent\nnature of the mind of its individuals. Up to a certain point, each type\nof religion has a distinct appeal to a certain temperament or type of\nmind. With increasing intelligence, it is probable that a religion tends\nto emphasize the interests of all rather than the benefits to be derived\nby one; such has been clearly the case in the history of the Christian\nreligion. The diverse elements of retribution, damnation, \"communion\nwith God\" and social service still exist, but in America the last-named\none is yearly being more emphasized. Emphasis upon it is the marked\ncharacteristic of Jesus' teaching.\n\nWith this rough sketch of religious ideas in mind, the part religion can\nplay at the present day in advancing the eugenic interests of the race\nor species may be considered. Each religion can serve eugenics just as\nwell as it can serve any other field of ethics, and by the very same\ndevices. We shall run over our four types again and note what appeals\neugenics can make to each one.\n\n1. Reward and punishment in this life. Here the value of children,\nemotionally and economically, to their parents in their later life can\nbe shown, and the dissatisfaction that is felt by the childless. The\nemotions may be reached (as they have been reached in past centuries) by\nthe painting of Madonnas, the singing of lullabies, by the care of the\nbaby sister, by the laurel wreath of the victorious son, by the great\nchoruses of white-robed girls, by the happiness of the bride, and by the\nsentiment of the home. Here are some of the noblest subjects for the\narts, which in the past have unconsciously served eugenics well. In a\nless emotional way, a deep desire for that \"terrestrial immortality\"\ninvolved in posterity should be fostered. The doctrine of the continuity\nof germ-plasm might play a large part in religion. It should at least be\nbrought home to everyone at some point in his education. Man should have\na much stronger feeling of identity with his forebears and his progeny.\nIs it not a loss to Christians that they have so much less of this\nfeeling than the Chinese?\n\nIt may be urged in opposition that such conceptions are dangerously\nstatic and have thereby harmed China. But that can be avoided by\nshifting the balance a little from progenitors to posterity. If people\nshould live more in their children than they now do, they would be not\nonly anxious to give them a sound heredity, but all the more eager to\nimprove the conditions of their children's environment by modifying\ntheir own.\n\nIt may be objected that this sort of propaganda is indiscriminate,--that\nit may further the reproduction of the inferior just as much as the\nsuperior. We think not. Such steps appeal more to the superior type of\nmind and will be little heeded by the inferior. They will be ultimately,\nif not directly, discriminative.\n\nIn so far as the foregoing appeals to reason alone it is not religion.\nThe appeal to reason must either be emotionalized or colored with the\nsupernatural to be religion.\n\n2. Reward and punishment in a future life. Here the belief in the\nabsolute, verbal inspiration of sacred writings and the doctrine of\nsalvation by faith alone are rapidly passing, and it is therefore the\neasier to bring eugenics into this type of religion. Even where\nsalvation by faith is still held as an article of creed, it is\naccompanied by the concession that he who truly believes will manifest\nhis belief by works. Altruism can be found in the sacred writings of\nprobably all religions, and the modern tendency is to make much of such\npassages, in which it is easy for the eugenist to find a warrant. What\nis needed here, then, is to impress upon the leaders in this field that\neugenic conduct is a \"good work\" and as such they may properly include\nit along with other modern virtues, such as honest voting and abstinence\nfrom graft as a key to heaven. Dysgenic conduct should equally be taught\nto be an obstacle to salvation.\n\n3. Theism. The man who is most influenced by the desire to be at one\nwith God naturally wants to act in accordance with God's plan. But God\nbeing omnibeneficent, he necessarily believes that God's plan is that\nwhich is for the best interests of His children--unless he is one of\nthose happily rare individuals who still believe that the end of man is\nto glorify God by voice, not by means of human betterment.\n\nThis type of religion (and the other types in different degrees) is a\ngreat motive power. It both creates energy in its adherents, and directs\nthat energy into definite outlets. It need only be made convincingly\nevident that eugenics is truly a work of human betterment,--really the\ngreatest work of human betterment, and a partnership with God--to have\nit taken up by this type of religion with all the enthusiasm which it\nbrings to its work.\n\n4. The task of enlisting the humanist appears to be even simpler. It is\nmerely necessary to show him that eugenics increases the totality of\nhappiness of the human species. Since the keynote of his devotion is\nloyalty, we might make this plea: \"Can we not make every superior man or\nwoman ashamed to accept existence as a gift from his or her ancestors,\nonly to extinguish this torch instead of handing it on?\"\n\nEugenics is in some ways akin to the movement for the conservation of\nnatural resources. In pioneer days a race uses up its resources without\nhesitation. They seem inexhaustible. Some day it is recognized that they\nare not inexhaustible, and then such members of the race as are guided\nby good ethics begin to consider the interests of the future.\n\nNo system of ethics is worth the name which does not make provision for\nthe future. It is right here that the ethics of present-day America is\ntoo often found wanting. As this fault is corrected, eugenics will be\nmore clearly seen as an integral part of ethics.\n\nProvision for the future of the individual leads, in a very low state of\ncivilization, to the accumulation of wealth. Even the ants and squirrels\nhave so much ethics! Higher in the evolutionary scale comes provision\nfor the future of children; their interests lead to the foundation of\nthe family and, at a much later date, a man looks not only to his\nimmediate children but to future generations of heirs, when he entails\nhis estates and tries to establish a notable family line. Provision for\nthe future is the essence of his actions. But so far only the individual\nor those related closely to him have been taken into consideration. With\na growth of altruism, man begins to recognize that he must make\nprovision for the future of the race; that he should apply to all\nsuperior families the same anxiety which he feels that his children\nshall not tarnish the family name by foolish marriages; that they shall\ngrow up strong and intelligent. This feeling interpreted by science is\neugenics, an important element of which is religion: for religion more\nthan any other influence leads one to look ahead, and to realize that\nimmediate benefits are not the greatest values that man can secure in\nlife,--that there is something beyond and superior to eating, drinking\nand being merry.\n\nIf the criterion of ethical action is the provision it makes for the\nfuture, then the ethics of the eugenist must rank high, for he not only\nlooks far to the future, but takes direct and effective steps to\nsafeguard the future.\n\nTheoretically, then, there is a place for eugenics in every type of\nreligion. In practice, it will probably make an impression only on the\ndynamic religions,--those that are actually accomplishing something.\nBuddhism, for example, is perhaps too contemplative to do anything. But\nChristianity, above any other, would seem to be the natural ally of the\neugenist. Christianity itself is undergoing a rapid change in ideals at\npresent, and it seems impossible that this evolution should leave its\nadherents as ignorant of and indifferent to eugenics as they have been\nin the past--even during the last generation.\n\nFollowers of other religions, as this chapter has attempted to show, can\nalso make eugenics a part of their respective religions. If they do not,\nthen it bodes ill for the future of their religion and of their race.\n\nIt is not difficult to get people to see the value of eugenics,--to give\nan intellectual adhesion to it. But as eugenics sometimes calls for\nseeming sacrifices, it is much more difficult to get people to _act_\neugenically. We have at numerous points in this book emphasized the\nnecessity of making the eugenic appeal emotional, though it is based\nfundamentally on sound reasoning from facts of biology.\n\nThe great value of religion in this connection is that it provides a\ndriving power,[188] a source of action, which the intellect alone can\nrarely furnish. Reason itself is usually an inhibitor of action. It is\nthe emotions that impel one to do things. The utilization of the\nemotions in affecting conduct is by no means always a part of religion,\nyet it is the essence of religion. Without abandoning the appeal to\nreason, eugenists must make every effort to enlist potent emotional\nforces on their side. There is none so strong and available as religion,\nand the eugenist may turn to it with confidence of finding an effective\nally, if he can once gain its sanction.\n\nThe task, as this chapter was intended to show, is a complex one, yet we\nsee no insuperable obstacles to it. Eugenics may not become a part of\nthe Christian religion, as a whole, until scientific education is much\nmore widespread than at present, but it is not too soon to make a start,\nby identifying the interests of the two wherever such identification is\njustified and profitable.\n\nWe have endeavored to point out that as a race rises, and instinct\nbecomes less important in guiding the conduct of its members, religion\nhas often put a restraint on reason, guiding the individual in racially\nprofitable paths. What is to happen when religion gives way? Unbridled\nselfishness too often takes the reins, and the interests of the species\nare disregarded. Religion, therefore, appears to be a necessity for the\nperpetuation of any race. It is essential to racial welfare that the\nnational religion should be of such a character as to appeal to the\nemotions effectively and yet conciliate the reason. We believe that the\nreligion of the future is likely to acquire this character, in\nproportion as it adheres to eugenics. There is no room in the civilized\nworld now for a dysgenic religion. Science will progress. The idea of\nevolution will be more firmly grasped. Religion itself evolves, and any\nreligion which does not embrace eugenics will embrace death.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX\n\nEUGENICS AND EUTHENICS\n\n\nEmphasis has been given, in several of the foregoing chapters, to the\ndesirability of inheriting a good constitution and a high degree of\nvigor and disease-resistance. It has been asserted that no measures of\nhygiene and sanitation can take the place of such inheritance. It is now\ndesirable to ascertain the limits within which good inheritance is\neffective, and this may be conveniently done by a study of the lives of\na group of people who inherited exceptionally strong physical\nconstitutions.\n\nThe people referred to are taken from a collection of histories of long\nlife made by the Genealogical Record Office of Washington.[189] One\nhundred individuals were picked out at random, each of whom had died at\nthe age of 90 or more, and with the record of each individual were\nplaced those of all his brothers and sisters. Any family was rejected in\nwhich there was a record of wholly accidental death (e.g., families of\nwhich a member had been killed in the Civil War). The 100 families, or\nmore correctly fraternities or sibships, were classified by the number\nof children per fraternity, as follows:\n\n Number of Total number\n Number of children per of children\n fraternities fraternity in group\n\n 1 2 2\n 11 3 33\n 8 4 32\n 17 5 85\n 13 6 78\n 14 7 98\n 9 8 72\n 11 9 99\n 10 10 100\n 3 11 33\n 2 12 24\n 1 13 13\n --- ---\n 100 669\n\nThe average at death of these 669 persons was 64.7 years. The child\nmortality (first 4 years of life) was 7.5% of the total mortality, 69\nfamilies showing no deaths of that kind. The group is as a whole,\ntherefore, long-lived.\n\nThe problem was to measure the resemblance between brothers and sisters\nin respect of longevity,--to find whether knowledge of the age at which\none died would justify a prediction as to the age at death of the\nothers,--or technically, it was to measure the fraternal correlation of\nlongevity. A zero coefficient here would show that there is no\nassociation; that from the age at which one dies, nothing whatever can\nbe predicted as to the age at which the others will die. Since it is\nknown that heredity is a large factor in longevity, such a finding would\nmean that all deaths were due to some accident which made the\ninheritance of no account.\n\nIn an ordinary population it has been found that the age at death of\nbrothers and sisters furnishes a coefficient of correlation of the order\nof .3, which shows that heredity does determine the age at which one\nshall die to considerable extent, but not absolutely.[190]\n\nThe index of correlation[191] between the lengths of life within the\nfraternity in these 100 selected families, furnished a coefficient\nof-.0163+-.0672, practically zero. In other words, if the age is known at\nwhich a member of one of these families died, whether it be one month or\n100 years, nothing whatever can be predicted about the age at which his\nbrothers and sisters died.\n\nRemembering that longevity is in general inherited, and that it is found\nin the families of all the people of this study (since one in each\nfraternity lived to be 90 or over) how is one to interpret this zero\ncoefficient? Evidently it means that although these people had inherited\na high degree of longevity, their deaths were brought about by causes\nwhich prevented the heredity from getting full expression. As far as\nhereditary potentialities are concerned, it can be said that all their\ndeaths were due to accident, using that word in a broad sense to include\nall non-selective deaths by disease. If they had all been able to get\nthe full benefit of their heredity, it would appear that each of these\npersons might have lived to 90 or more, as did the one in each family\nwho was recorded by the Genealogical Record Office. Genetically, these\nother deaths may be spoken of as premature.\n\nIn an ordinary population, the age of death is determined to the extent\nof probably 50% by heredity. In this selected long-lived population,\nheredity appears not to be responsible in any measurable degree\nwhatsoever for the differences in age at death.\n\nThe result may be expressed in another, and perhaps more striking, way.\nOf the 669 individuals studied, a hundred--namely, one child in each\nfamily--lived beyond 90; and there were a few others who did. But some\n550 of the group, though they had inherited the potentiality of reaching\nthe average age of 90, actually died somewhere around 60; they failed by\nat least one-third to live up to the promise of their inheritance. If we\nwere to generalize from this single case, we would have to say that\nfive-sixths of the population does not make the most of its physical\ninheritance.\n\nThis is certainly a fact that discourages fatalistic optimism. The man\nwho tells himself that, because of his magnificent inherited\nconstitution, he can safely take any risk, is pretty sure to take too\nmany risks and meet with a non-selective--i.e., genetically, a\npremature--death, when he might in the nature of things have lived\nalmost a generation longer.\n\nIt should be remarked that most of the members of this group seem to\nhave lived in a hard environment. They appear to belong predominantly to\nthe lower strata of society; many of them are immigrants and only a very\nfew of them, to judge by a cursory inspection of the records, possessed\nmore than moderate means. This necessitated a frugal and industrious\nlife which in many ways was doubtless favorable to longevity but which\nmay often have led to overexposure, overwork, lack of proper medical\ntreatment, or other causes of a non-selective death. We would not push\nthe conclusion too far, but we can not doubt that this investigation\nshows the folly of ignoring the environment,--shows that the best\ninherited constitution must have a fair chance. And what has here been\nfound for a physical character, would probably hold good in even greater\ndegree for a mental character. All that man inherits is the capacity to\ndevelop along a certain line under the influence of proper\nstimuli,--food and exercise. The object of eugenics is to see that the\ninherent capacity is there. Given that, the educational system is next\nneeded to furnish the stimuli. The consistent eugenist is therefore an\nardent euthenist. He not only works for a better human stock but,\nbecause he does not want to see his efforts wasted, he always works to\nprovide the best possible environment for this better stock.\n\nIn so far, then, as euthenics is actually providing man with more\nfavorable surroundings,--not with ostensibly more favorable surroundings\nwhich, in reality, are unfavorable--there can be no antagonism between\nit and eugenics. Eugenics is, in fact, a prerequisite of euthenics, for\nit is only the capable and altruistic man who can contribute to social\nprogress; and such a man can only be produced through eugenics.\n\nEugenic fatalism, a blind faith in the omnipotence of heredity\nregardless of the surroundings in which it is placed, has been shown by\nthe study of long-lived families to be unjustified. It was found that\neven those who inherited exceptional longevity usually did not live as\nlong as their inheritance gave them the right to expect. If they had had\nmore euthenics, they should have lived longer.\n\nBut this illustration certainly gives no ground for a belief that\neuthenics is sufficient to prolong one's life _beyond_ the inherited\nlimit. A study of these long-lived families from another point of view\nwill reveal that heredity is the primary factor and that good\nenvironment, euthenics, is the secondary one.\n\nFor this purpose we augment the 100 families of the preceding section by\nthe addition of 240 more families like them, and we examine each family\nhistory to find how many of the children died before completing the\nfourth year of life. The data are summarized in the following table:\n\nCHILD MORTALITY IN FAMILIES OF LONG-LIVED STOCK, GENEALOGICAL RECORD\nOFFICE DATA\n\n Size of No. of families No. of families Total no.\n family investigated showing deaths of deaths\n under 5 years\n\n 1 child 6 0 0\n 2 children 6 0 0\n 3 \" 38 4 5\n 4 \" 40 6 7\n 5 \" 38 4 4\n 6 \" 44 12 13\n 7 \" 34 8 11\n 8 \" 46 13 18\n 9 \" 31 14 20\n 10 \" 27 14 14\n 11 \" 13 6 9\n 12 \" 13 9 16\n 13 \" 1 0 0\n 14 \" 2 0 0\n 17 \" 1 1 2\n --- --- ---\n 340 91 119\n\nThe addition of the new families (which were not subjected to any\ndifferent selection than the first 100) has brought down the child\nmortality rate. For the first 100, it was found to be 7.5%. If in the\nabove table the number of child deaths, 119, be divided by the total\nnumber of children represented, 2,259, the child mortality rate for this\npopulation is found to be 5.27%, or 53 per thousand.\n\nThe smallness of this figure may be seen by comparison with the\nstatistics of the registration area, U. S. Census of 1880, when the child\nmortality (0-4 years) was 400 per thousand, as calculated by Alexander\nGraham Bell. A mortality of 53 for the first four years of life is\nsmaller than any district known in the United States, even to-day, can\nshow for the _first_ year of life _alone_. If any city could bring the\ndeaths of babies during their first twelve months down to 53 per 1,000,\nit would think it had achieved the impossible; but here is a population\nin which 53 per 1,000 covers the deaths, not only of the fatal first 12\nmonths, but of the following three years in addition.\n\nNow this population with an unprecedentedly low rate of child mortality\nis not one which had had the benefit of any Baby Saving Campaign, nor\neven the knowledge of modern science. Its mothers were mostly poor, many\nof them ignorant; they lived frequently under conditions of hardship;\nthey were peasants and pioneers. Their babies grew up without doctors,\nwithout pasteurized milk, without ice, without many sanitary\nprecautions, usually on rough food. But they had one advantage which no\namount of applied science can give after birth--namely, good heredity.\nThey had inherited exceptionally good constitutions.\n\nIt is not by accident that inherited longevity in a family is associated\nwith low mortality of its children. The connection between the two facts\nwas first discovered by Mary Beeton and Karl Pearson in their pioneer\nwork on the inheritance of duration of life. They found that high infant\nmortality was associated with early death of parents, while the\noffspring of long-lived parents showed few deaths in childhood. The\ncorrelation of the two facts was quite regular, as will be evident from\na glance at the following tables prepared by A. Ploetz:\n\nLENGTH OF LIFE OF MOTHERS AND CHILD-MORTALITY OF THEIR DAUGHTERS.\nENGLISH QUAKER FAMILIES, DATA OF BEETON AND PEARSON, ARRANGED BY\nPLOETZ\n\n\n Year of life in which mothers died At\n all\n 0-38 39-53 54-68 69-83 84 up ages\n\n No. of daughters 234 304 305 666 247 1846\n\n No. of them who died in\n first 5 years 122 114 118 131 26 511\n\n Per cent. of daughters\n who died 52.1 37.5 29.9 19.7 10.5 27.7\n\n\nLENGTH OF LIFE OF FATHERS AND CHILD-MORTALITY OF THEIR\nDAUGHTERS\n\n Year of life in which fathers died At\n 0-38 39-53 54-68 69-83 84 up all\n ages\n\n No. of daughters 105 284 585 797 236 2009\n\n No. of them who died in\n first 5 years 51 98 156 177 40 522\n\n Per cent. of daughters\n who died 48.6 34.5 26.7 22.2 17.0 26.0\n\nTo save space, we do not show the relation between parent and son; it is\nsimilar to that of parent and daughter which is shown in the preceding\ntables. In making comparison with the 340 families from the Genealogical\nRecord Office, above studied, it must be noted that Dr. Ploetz' tables\ninclude one year longer in the period of child mortality, being computed\nfor the first five years of life instead of the first four. His\npercentages would therefore be somewhat lower if computed on the basis\nused in the American work.\n\nThese various data demonstrate the existence of a considerable\ncorrelation between short life (_brachybioty_, Karl Pearson calls it) in\nparent and short life in offspring. Not only is the tendency to live\nlong inherited, but the tendency _not_ to live long is likewise\ninherited.\n\nBut perhaps the reader may think they show nothing of the sort. He may\nfancy that the early death of a parent left the child without sufficient\ncare, and that neglect, poverty, or some other factor of euthenics\nbrought about the child's death. Perhaps it lacked a mother's loving\nattention, or perhaps the father's death removed the wage-earner of the\nfamily and the child thenceforth lacked the necessities of life.\n\nDr. Ploetz has pointed out[192] that this objection is not valid,\nbecause the influence of the parent's death is seen to hold good even to\nthe point where the child was too old to require any assistance. If the\nfacts applied only to cases of early death, the supposed objection might\nbe weighty, but the correlation exists from one end of the age-scale to\nthe other. It is not credible that a child is going to be deprived of\nany necessary maternal care when its mother dies at the age of 69; the\nchild herself was probably married long before the death of the mother.\nNor is it credible that the death of the father takes bread from the\nchild's mouth, leaving it to starve to death in the absence of a pension\nfor widowed mothers, if the father died at 83, when the \"child\" herself\nwas getting to be an old woman. The early death of a parent may\noccasionally bring about the child's death for a reason wholly\nunconnected with heredity, but the facts just pointed out show that such\ncases are exceptional. The steady association of the child death-rate\nand parent death-rate _at all ages_ demonstrates that heredity is a\ncommon cause.\n\nBut the reader may suspect another fallacy. The cause of this\nassociation is really environmental, he may think, and the same poverty\nor squalor which causes the child to die early may cause the parent to\ndie early. They may both be of healthy, long-lived stock, but forced to\nlive in a pestiferous slum which cuts both of them off prematurely and\nthereby creates a spurious correlation in the statistics.\n\nWe can dispose of this objection most effectively by bringing in new\nevidence. It will probably be admitted that in the royal families of\nEurope, the environment is as good as knowledge and wealth can make it.\nNo child dies for lack of plenty of food and the best medical care, even\nif his father or mother died young. And the members of this caste are\nnot exposed to any such unsanitary conditions, or such economic pressure\nas could possibly cause both parent and child to die prematurely. If the\nassociation between longevity of parent and child mortality holds for\nthe royal families of Europe and their princely relatives, it can hardly\nbe regarded as anything but the effect of heredity,--of the inheritance\nof a certain type of constitution.\n\nDr. Ploetz studied the deaths of 3,210 children in European royalty,\nfrom this viewpoint. The following table shows the relation between\nfather and child:\n\nLENGTH OF LIFE OF FATHERS AND CHILD-MORTALITY OF THEIR CHILDREN IN\nROYAL AND PRINCELY FAMILIES, PLOETZ' DATA\n\n At\n Year of life in which fathers died Years all\n ages\n 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76-85 86 up\n\n No. of children. 23 90 367 545 725 983 444 33 3210\n\n No. who died in\n first 5 years 12 29 115 171 200 254 105 1 887\n\n Per cent. who\n died 52.2 32.2 31.3 31.4 27.6 25.8 23.6 3.0 27.6\n\nAllowing for the smallness of some of the groups, it is evident that\nthe amount of correlation is about the same here as among the English\nQuakers of the Beeton-Pearson investigation, whose mortality was shown\nin the two preceding tables. In the healthiest group from the royal\nfamilies--the cases in which the father lived to old age--the amount of\nchild mortality is about the same as that of the Hyde family in America,\nwhich Alexander Graham Bell has studied--namely, somewhere around 250\nper 1,000. One may infer that the royal families are rather below par in\nsoundness of constitution.[193]\n\nAll these studies agree perfectly in showing that the amount of child\nmortality is determined primarily by the physical constitution of the\nparents, as measured by their longevity. In the light of these facts,\nthe nature of the extraordinarily low child mortality shown in the 340\nfamilies from the Genealogical Record Office, with which we began the\nstudy of this point, can hardly be misunderstood. These families have\nthe best inherited constitution possible and the other studies cited\nwould make us certain of finding a low child mortality among them, even\nif we had not directly investigated the facts.\n\nIf the interpretation which we have given is correct, the conclusion is\ninevitable that child mortality is primarily a problem of eugenics, and\nthat all other factors are secondary. There is found to be no warrant\nfor the statement so often repeated in one form or another, that \"the\nfundamental cause of the excessive rate of infant mortality in\nindustrial communities is poverty, inadequate incomes, and low standards\nof living.\"[194] Royalty and its princely relatives are not\ncharacterized by a low standard of living, and yet the child mortality\namong them is very high--somewhere around 400 per 1,000, in cases where\na parent died young. If poverty is responsible in the one case, it must\nbe in the other--which is absurd. Or else the logical absurdity is\ninvolved of inventing one cause to explain an effect to-day and a wholly\ndifferent cause to explain the same effect to-morrow. This is\nunjustifiable in any case, and it is particularly so when the single\ncause that explains both cases is so evident. If weak heredity causes\nhigh mortality in the royal families, why, similarly, can not weak\nheredity cause high infant mortality in the industrial communities? We\nbelieve it does account for much of it, and that the inadequate income\nand low standard of living are largely the consequences of inferior\nheredity, mental as well as physical. The parents in the Genealogical\nRecord Office files had, many of them, inadequate incomes and low\nstandards of living under frontier conditions, but their children grew\nup while those of the royal families were dying in spite of every\nattention that wealth could command and science could furnish.\n\nIf the infant mortality problem is to be solved on the basis of\nknowledge and reason, it must be recognized that sanitation and hygiene\ncan not take the place of eugenics any more than eugenics can dispense\nwith sanitation and hygiene. It must be recognized that the death-rate\nin childhood is largely selective, and that the most effective way to\ncut it down is to endow the children with better constitutions. This can\nnot be done solely by any euthenic campaign; it can not be done by\nswatting the fly, abolishing the midwife, sterilizing the milk, nor by\nany of the other panaceas sometimes proposed.\n\nBut, it may be objected, this discussion ignores the actual facts.\nStatistics show that infant mortality campaigns _have_ consistently\nproduced reductions in the death-rate. The figures for New York, which\ncould be matched in dozens of other cities, show that the number of\ndeaths per 1,000 births, in the first year of life, has steadily\ndeclined since a determined campaign to \"Save the Babies\" was started:\n\n 1902 181\n 1903 152\n 1904 162\n 1905 159\n 1906 153\n 1907 144\n 1908 128\n 1909 129\n 1910 125\n 1911 112\n 1912 105\n 1913 102\n 1914 95\n\nTo one who can not see beyond the immediate consequences of an action,\nsuch figures as the above indeed give quite a different idea of the\neffects of an infant mortality campaign, than that which we have just\ntried to create. And it is a great misfortune that euthenics so often\nfails to look beyond the immediate effect, fails to see what may happen\nnext year, or 10 years from now, or in the next generation.\n\nWe admit that it is possible to keep a lot of children alive who would\notherwise have died in the first few months of life. It is being done,\nas the New York figures, and pages of others that could be cited, prove.\nThe ultimate result is twofold:\n\n1. Some of those who are doomed by heredity to a selective death, but\nare kept alive through the first year, die in the second or third or\nfourth year. They must die sooner or later; they have not inherited\nsufficient resistance to survive more than a limited time. If they are\nby a great effort carried through the first year, it is only to die in\nthe next. This is a statement which we have nowhere observed in the\npropaganda of the infant mortality movement; and it is perhaps a\ndisconcerting one. It can only be proved by refined statistical methods,\nbut several independent determinations by the English biometricians\nleave no doubt as to the fact. This work of Karl Pearson, E. C. Snow, and\nEthel M. Elderton, was cited in our chapter on natural selection; the\nreader will recall how they showed that nature is weeding out the\nweaklings, and in proportion to the stringency with which she weeds them\nout at the start, there are fewer weaklings left to die in succeeding\nyears.\n\nTo put the facts in the form of a truism, part of the children born in\nany district in a given year are doomed by heredity to an early death;\nand if they die in one year they will not be alive to die in the\nsucceeding year, and vice versa. Of course there are in addition infant\ndeaths which are not selective and which if prevented would leave the\ninfant with as good a chance as any to live.\n\nIn the light of these researches, we are forced to conclude that\nbaby-saving campaigns accomplish less than is thought; that the supposed\ngain is to some extent temporary and illusory.\n\n2. There is still another consequence. If the gain is by great exertions\nmade more than temporary; if the baby who would otherwise have died in\nthe first months is brought to adult life and reproduction, it means in\nmany cases the dissemination of another strain of weak heredity, which\nnatural selection would have cut off ruthlessly in the interests of race\nbetterment. In so far, then, as the infant mortality movement is not\nfutile it is, from a strict biological viewpoint, often detrimental to\nthe future of the race.\n\nDo we then discourage all attempts to save the babies? Do we leave them\nall to natural selection? Do we adopt the \"better dead\" gospel?\n\nUnqualifiedly, no! The sacrifice of the finer human feelings, which\nwould accompany any such course, would be a greater loss to the race\nthan is the eugenic loss from the perpetuation of weak strains of\nheredity. The abolition of altruistic and humanitarian sentiment for the\npurpose of race betterment would ultimately defeat its own end by making\nrace betterment impossible.\n\nBut race betterment will also be impossible unless a clear distinction\nis made between measures that really mean race betterment of a\nfundamental and permanent nature, and measures which do not.\n\nWe have chosen the Infant Mortality Movement for analysis in this\nchapter because it is an excellent example of the kind of social\nbetterment which is taken for granted, by most of its proponents, to be\na fundamental piece of race betterment; but which, as a fact, often\nmeans race impairment. No matter how abundant and urgent are the reasons\nfor continuing to reduce infant mortality wherever possible, it is\ndangerous to close the eyes to the fact that the gain from it is of a\nkind that must be paid for in other ways; that to carry on the movement\nwithout adding eugenics to it will be a short-sighted policy, which\nincreases the present happiness of the world at the cost of diminishing\nthe happiness of posterity through the perpetuation of inferior strains.\n\nWhile some euthenic measures are eugenically evils, even if necessary\nones, it must not be inferred that all euthenic measures are dysgenic.\nMany of them, such as the economic and social changes we have suggested\nin earlier chapters, are an important part of eugenics. Every euthenic\nmeasure should be scrutinized from the evolutionary standpoint; if it is\neugenic as well as euthenic, it should be whole-heartedly favored; if it\nis dysgenic but euthenic it should be condemned or adopted, according to\nwhether or not the gain in all ways from its operation will exceed the\ndamage.\n\nIn general, euthenics, when not accompanied by some form of selection\n(i. e., eugenics) ultimately defeats its own end. If it is accompanied\nby rational selection, it can usually be indorsed. Eugenics, on the\nother hand, is likewise inadequate unless accompanied by constant\nimprovement in the surroundings; and its advocates must demand euthenics\nas an accompaniment of selection, in order that the opportunity for\ngetting a fair selection may be as free as possible. If the euthenist\nlikewise takes pains not to ignore the existence of the racial factor,\nthen the two schools are standing on the same ground, and it is merely a\nmatter of taste or opportunity, whether one emphasizes one side or the\nother. Each of the two factions, sometimes thought to be opposing, will\nbe seen to be getting the same end result, namely, human progress.\n\nNot only are the two schools working for the same end, but each must\ndepend in still another way upon the other, in order to make headway.\nThe eugenist can not see his measures put into effect except through\nchanges in law and custom--i. e., euthenic changes. He must and does\nappeal to euthenics to secure action. The social reformer, on the other\nhand, can not see any improvements made in civilization except through\nthe discoveries and inventions of some citizens who are inherently\nsuperior in ability. He in turn must depend on eugenics for every\nadvance that is made.\n\nIt may make the situation clearer to state it in the customary terms of\nbiological philosophy. Selection does not necessarily result in\nprogressive evolution. It merely brings about the adaptation of a\nspecies or a group to a given environment. The tapeworm is the stock\nexample. In human evolution, the nature of this environment will\ndetermine whether adaptation to it means progress or retrogression,\nwhether it leaves a race happier and more productive, or the reverse.\nAll racial progress, or eugenics, therefore, depends on the creation of\na good environment, and the fitting of the race to that environment.\nEvery improvement in the environment should bring about a corresponding\nbiological adaptation. The two factors in evolution must go side by\nside, if the race is to progress in what the human mind considers the\ndirection of advancement. In this sense, euthenics and eugenics bear the\nsame relation to human progress as a man's two legs do to his\nlocomotion.\n\nSocial workers in purely euthenic fields have frequently failed to\nremember this process of adaptation, in their efforts to change the\nenvironment. Eugenists, in centering their attention on adaptation, have\nsometimes paid too little attention to the kind of environment to which\nthe race was being adapted. The present book holds that the second\nfactor is just as important as the first, for racial progress; that one\nleg is just as important as the other, to a pedestrian. Its only\nconflict with euthenics appertains to such euthenic measures as impair\nthe adaptability of the race to the better environment they are trying\nto make.\n\nSome supposedly euthenic measures opposed by eugenics are not truly\neuthenic, as for instance the limitation of a superior family in order\nthat all may get a college education. For these spurious euthenic\nmeasures, something truly euthenic should be substituted.\n\nMeasures which show a real conflict may be typified by the infant\nmortality movement. There can be no doubt but that sanitation and\nhygiene, prenatal care and intelligent treatment of mothers and babies,\nare truly euthenic and desirable. At the same time, as has been shown,\nthese euthenic measures result in the survival of inferior children, who\ndirectly or through their posterity will be a drag on the race. Euthenic\nmeasures of this type should be accompanied by counterbalancing measures\nof a more eugenic character.\n\nBarring these two types, euthenics forms a necessary concomitant of the\neugenic program; and, as we have tried to emphasize, eugenics is\nlikewise necessary to the complete success of every euthenic program.\nHow foolish, then, is antagonism between the two forces! Both are\nworking toward the same end of human betterment, and neither can succeed\nwithout the other. When either attempts to eliminate the other from its\nwork, it ceases to advance toward its goal. In which camp one works is\nlargely a matter of taste. If on a road there is a gradient to be\nleveled, it will be brought down most quickly by two parties of workmen,\none cutting away at the top, the other filling in the bottom. For the\ntwo parties to indulge in mutual scorn and recrimination would be no\nmore absurd than for eugenics and euthenics to be put in opposition to\neach other. The only reason they have been in opposition is because some\nof the workers did not clearly understand the nature of their work. With\nthe dissemination of a knowledge of biology, this ground of antagonism\nwill disappear.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX A\n\nOVARIAN TRANSPLANTATION\n\n\nIn 1890, W. Heape published an account of some experiments with rabbits.\nTaking the fertilized egg of an angora rabbit (i. e., a long-haired,\nwhite one) from the oviduct of its mother previous to its attachment to\nthe wall of the uterus, he transferred it to the uterus of a Belgian\nhare, a rabbit which is short-haired and gray. The egg developed\nnormally in the new body and produced an animal with all the\ncharacteristics, as far as could be seen, of the real mother, rather\nthan the foster-mother. Its coat was long and white, and there was not\nthe slightest trace of influence of the short, gray-haired doe in whose\nbody it had grown.\n\nHere was a case in which environment certainly failed to show any\nmodifying influence. But it was objected that the transplanted egg was\nalready full-grown and fertilized when the transfer was made, and that\ntherefore no modification need be expected. If the egg were transferred\nat an earlier stage, it was thought, the result might be different.\n\nW. E. Castle and J. C. Phillips therefore undertook an experiment to\nwhich this objection should not be possible.[195]\n\n\"A female albino guinea-pig just attaining sexual maturity was by an\noperation deprived of its ovaries, and instead of the removed ovaries\nthere were introduced into her body the ovaries of a young black female\nguinea-pig, not yet sexually mature, aged about three weeks. The grafted\nanimal was now mated with a male albino guinea-pig. From numerous\nexperiments with albino guinea-pigs it may be stated emphatically that\nnormal albinos mated together, without exception, produce only albino\nyoung, and the presumption is strong, therefore, that had this female\nnot been operated on she would have done the same. She produced,\nhowever, by the albino male three litters of young, which together\nconsisted of six individuals, all black. The first litter of young was\nproduced about six months after the operation, the last about one year.\nThe transplanted ovarian tissue must have remained in its new\nenvironment therefore from four to ten months before the eggs attained\nfull growth and were discharged; ample time, it would seem, for the\ninfluence of a foreign body upon the inheritance to show itself were\nsuch influence possible.\"\n\nWhile such experiments must not be stretched too far, in application to\nthe human species, they certainly offer striking evidence of the fact\nthat the characters of any individual are mainly due to something in the\ngerm-plasm, and that this germ-plasm is to a surprising degree\nindependent of any outside influence, even such an intimate influence as\nthat of the body of the mother in which it reaches maturity.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX B\n\n\"DYNAMIC EVOLUTION\"\n\n\nAs C. L. Redfield has secured considerable publicity for his attempt to\nbolster up the Lamarckian theory, it deserves a few words of comment.\nHis contention is that \"the energy in animals, known as intelligence and\nphysical strength, is identical with the energy known in mechanics, and\nis governed by the same laws.\" He therefore concludes that (1) an animal\nstores up energy in its body, in some undescribed and mystical way, and\n(2) that in some equally undescribed and mystical way it transmits this\nstored-up energy to its offspring. It follows that he thinks superior\noffspring are produced by parents of advanced age, because the latter\nhave had more time to do work and store up energy for transmission. In\nhis own words:\n\n \"Educating the grandfather helps to make the grandson a superior\n person.... We are, in our inheritance, exactly what our ancestors\n made us by the work they performed before reproducing. Whether our\n descendants are to be better or worse than we are will depend upon\n the amount and kind of work we do before we produce them.\"\n\nThe question of the influence of parental age on the characters of the\noffspring is one of great importance, for the solution of which the\nnecessary facts have not yet been gathered together. The data compiled\nby Mr. Redfield are of value, but his interpretation of them can not be\naccepted for the following reasons.\n\n1. In the light of modern psychology, it is absurd to lump all sorts of\nmental ability under one head, and to suppose that the father's exercise\nof reasoning power, for example, will store up \"energy\" to be manifested\nin the offspring in the shape of executive or artistic ability. Mental\nabilities are much subdivided and are inherited separately. Mr.\nRedfield's idea of the process is much too crude.\n\nMoreover, Mr. Redfield's whole conception of the increase of\nintelligence with increase of age in a parent shows a disregard of the\nfacts of psychology. As E. A. Doll has pointed out,[196] in criticising\nMr. Redfield's recent and extreme claim that feeble-mindedness is the\nproduct of early marriage, it is incorrect to speak of 20-, 30-, or\n40-year standards of intelligence; for recent researches in measurement\nof mental development indicate that the heritable standard of\nintelligence of adults increases very little beyond the age of\napproximately 16 years. A person 40 years old has an additional\n_experience_ of a quarter of a century, and so has a larger mental\ncontent, but his intelligence is still nearly at the 16-year level.\nMental activity is the effect, not the cause, of mental growth or\ndevelopment. Education merely turns inherent mental powers to good\naccount; it makes very little change in those powers themselves. To\nsuppose that a father can, by study, raise his innate level of\nintelligence and transmit it at the new level to his son, is a naive\nidea which finds no warrant in the known facts of mental development.\n\n2. In his entire conception of the storing-up and transmission of\nenergy, Mr. Redfield has fallen victim to a confusion of ideas due to\nthe use of the same word to mean two different things. He thinks of\nenergy as an engineer; he declares the body-cell is a storage battery;\nhe believes that the athlete by performing work stores up energy in his\nbody (in some mysterious and unascertainable way) just as the clock\nstores up energy when it is wound. The incorrectness of supposing that\nthe so-called energy of a man is of that nature, is remarkable. If,\nhearing Bismarck called a man of iron, one should analyze his remains to\nfind out how much more iron he contained than ordinary men, it would be\na performance exactly comparable to Mr. Redfield's, when he thinks of a\nman's \"energy\" as something stored up by work.\n\nAs a fact, a man contains less energy, after the performance of work,\nthan he did at the start. All of his \"energy\" comes from the metabolism\nof food that he has previously eaten. His potential energy is the food\nstored up in his body, particularly the glycogen in the liver and\nmuscles.[197]\n\nWhy, then, can one man run faster than another? Mr. Redfield thinks it\nis because the sprinter has, by previous work, stored up energy in his\nbody, which carries him over the course more rapidly than the sluggard\nwho has not been subjected to systematic training. But the differences\nin men's ability are not due to the amount of energy they have stored\nup. It is due rather to differences in their structure (using this word\nin a very broad sense), which produce differences in the efficiency\nwith which they can use the stored-up energy (i.e., food) in their\nbodies. A fat Shorthorn bull contains much more stored-up energy than\ndoes a race horse, but the latter has the better structure--cooerdination\nof muscles with nervous system, in particular--and there is never any\ndoubt about how a race between the two will end. The difference between\nthe results achieved by a highly educated thinker and a low-grade moron\nare similarly differences in structural efficiency: the moron may eat\nmuch more, and thereby have more potential energy, than the scholar; but\nthe machine, the brain, can not utilize it.\n\nThe effects of training are not to store up energy in the body, for it\nhas been proved that work decreases rather than increases the amount of\nenergy in the body. How is it, then, that training increases a man's\nefficiency? It is obviously by improving his \"structure,\" and probably\nthe most important part of this improvement is in bringing about better\nrelations between the muscles and the nerves. To pursue the analogy\nwhich Mr. Redfield so often misuses, the effect of training on the human\nmachine is merely to oil the bearings and straighten out bent parts, to\nmake it a more efficient transformer of the energy that is supplied to\nit.\n\nThe foundation stone of Mr. Redfield's hypothesis is his idea that the\nanimal by working stores up energy. This idea is the exact reverse of\nthe truth. While the facts which Mr. Redfield has gathered deserve much\nstudy, his idea of \"Dynamic Evolution\" need not be taken\nseriously.[198]\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX C\n\nTHE \"MELTING POT\"\n\n\nAmerica as the \"Melting Pot\" of peoples is a picture often drawn by\nwriters who do not trouble themselves as to the precision of their\nfigures of speech. It has been supposed by many that all the racial\nstocks in the United States were tending toward a uniform type. There\nhas never been any real evidence on which to base such a view, and the\nstudy completed in 1917 by Dr. Ales Hrdlicka, curator of the\ndivision of physical anthropology of the U. S. National Museum, furnishes\nevidence against it. He examined 400 individuals of the Old White\nAmerican stock, that is, persons all of whose ancestors had been in the\nUnited States as far as the fourth ascending generation. He found little\nor no evidence that hereditary traits had been altered. Even the\ndescendants of the Pilgrim Fathers, the Virginia cavaliers, the\nPennsylvania Dutch and the Huguenots, while possibly not as much unlike\nas their ancestors were, are in no sense a blend.\n\nThe \"Melting Pot,\" it must be concluded, is a figure of speech; and as\nfar as physical anthropology is concerned, it will not be anything more\nin this country, at least for many centuries.\n\nAnnouncing the results of study of the first 100 males and 100 females\nof his series,[199] Dr. Hrdlicka said, \"The most striking result of\nthe examinations is the great range of variation among Old Americans in\nnearly all the important measurements. The range of variation is such\nthat in some of the most significant determinations it equals not only\nthe variation of any one group, but the combined variations of all the\ngroups that enter into the composition of the Americans.\" This fact\nwould be interpreted by the geneticist as an evidence of hybridity. It\nis clear that, at the very beginning, a number of diverse, although not\nwidely differing, stocks must have made up the colonial population; and\nintermarriage and the influence of the environment have not welded these\nstocks into one blend, but have merely produced a mosaic-like mixture.\nThis is good evidence of the permanence of inherited traits, although\nit must be qualified by the statement that it does not apply equally to\nall features of the body, the face, hands and feet having been found\nless variable, for instance, than stature and form of head.\n\n[Illustration: THE \"MEAN MAN\" OF THE OLD WHITE AMERICAN STOCK\n\nFIG. 45.--Anthropologists have an ideal \"mean man,\" whose every\nfeature measures the arithmetic mean or average of that feature in all\nthe individuals of his race. The above diagram drawn to scale from Dr.\nHrdli[vc]ka's measurements represents the mean man of Colonial ancestry.\nThe outline of the face is almost oblong; the head is high and\nwell-developed, particularly in the regions which are popularly supposed\nto denote superior intelligence. In general, it is a highly specialized\ntype, denoting an advanced evolution.]\n\nThe stature of both American men and women is high, higher than the\naverage of any European nation except the Scotch. The individual\nvariation is, however, enormous, amounting to 16.4% of the average in\nmales and nearly 16% in females. For males, 174 cm. is the average\nheight, for females 162. The arm spread in males is greater than their\nstature, in females it is less.\n\nThe average weight of the males is 154 lbs.[typo: missing comma?] of the\nfemales 130. Taking into consideration the tall stature, these weights\nare about equal to those among Europeans.\n\nThe general proportions of the body must be classed as medium, but great\nfluctuations are shown.\n\nThe face is, in general, high and oval; in females it occasionally gives\nthe impression of narrowness. The forehead is well developed in both\nsexes. The nose is prevalently long and of medium breadth, its\nproportions being practically identical with those of the modern\nEnglish. The ears are longer than those of any modern immigrants except\nthe English. The mouth shows medium breadth in both sexes, and its\naverages exactly equal those obtained for modern French.\n\nOne of the most interesting results is that there were obtained among\nthese first 200 individuals studied no pronounced blonds, although the\nancestry is North European, where blondness is more or less\nprevalent.[200] The exact distribution is:\n\n Male Female\n\n Light-brown 12% 16%\n Medium-brown to dark 77 68\n Very dark 11 6\n Golden-red and red 0 10\n\nDr. Hrdlicka's classification of the eye is as follows:\n\n Male Female\n Gray 2% 4%\n Greenish 7 10\n Blues 54 50\n Browns 37 36\n\nThe head among Old Americans is in many cases notable for its good\ndevelopment, particularly in males. Among 12 groups of male\nimmigrants[201] measured at Ellis Island under Dr. Hrdlicka's\ndirection in recent years, not one group quite equals in this respect\nthe Americans, the nearest approach being noted in the Irish, Bohemians,\nEnglish, Poles, and North Italians. The type of head, however, differs\namong the Americans very widely, as is the case with most civilized\nraces at the present day.\n\nHead form is most conveniently expressed by means of the cephalic index,\nthat is, the ratio of breadth to length. Anthropologists generally speak\nof any one with an index of 75 (or where the breadth is 75% of the\nlength) and below this as dolichocephalic, or long-headed; from 75 to 80\nis the class of the mesocephalic, intermediates; while above 80 is that\nof the subbrachycephalic and brachycephalic, or round-headed. For the\nmost part, the Old Americans fall into the intermediate class, the\naverage index of males being 78.3 and that of females 79.5.\n\nBarring a few French Huguenots, the Old Americans considered here are\nmostly of British ancestry, and their head form corresponds rather\nclosely to that of the English of the present day. In England, as is\nwell known, the round-headed type of Central and Eastern Europe, the\nAlpine or Celto-Slav type, has few representatives. The population is\ncomposed principally of long-headed peoples, deriving from the two great\nEuropean stocks, the Nordic and the Mediterranean. To the latter the\nfrequency of dark hair and brown eyes is probably due, both in England\nand America.\n\nWhile the average of the Old Americans corresponds closely to the\naverage of the English, there is a great deal of variation in both\ncountries. Unfortunately, it is impossible to compare the present\nAmericans with their ancestors, because measurements of the latter are\nlacking. But to assume that the early colonists did not differ greatly\nfrom the modern English is probably justifiable. A comparison of modern\nAmericans (of the old white stock) with modern English should give basis\nfor an opinion as to whether the English stock underwent any marked\nmodifications, on coming to a new environment.\n\nIt has already been noted that the average cephalic index is practically\nthe same; the only possibility of a change then lies in the amount of\nvariability. Is the American stock more or less variable? Can a\n\"melting pot\" influence be seen, tending to produce homogeneity, or has\nchange of environment rather produced greater variability, as is\nsometimes said to be the case?\n\nThe amount of variability is most conveniently measured by a coefficient\nknown as the standard deviation ([Greek: s]), which is small when the\nrange of variation is small, but large when diversity of material is\ngreat. The following comparisons of the point at issue may be made.[202]\n\n Avg. [Greek: s]\n\n 100 American men 78.3 3.1\n 1011 Cambridge graduates (English males) 79.85 2.95\n\nFor the men, little difference is discernible. The Old Americans are\nslightly more long-headed than the English, but the amount of variation\nin this trait is nearly the same on the two sides of the ocean.\n\nThe average of the American women is 79.5 with [Greek: s] = 2.6. No\nsuitable series of English women has been found for comparison.(203) It\nwill be noted that the American women are slightly more round-headed\nthan the men; this is found regularly to be the case, when comparisons\nof the head form of the two sexes are made in any race.\n\nIn addition to establishing norms or standards for anthropological\ncomparison, the main object of Dr. Hrdlicka's study was to determine\nwhether the descendants of the early American settlers, living in a new\nenvironment and more or less constantly intermarrying, were being\namalgamated into a distinct sub-type of the white race. It has been\nfound that such amalgamation has not taken place to any important\ndegree. The persistence in heredity of certain features, which run down\neven through six or eight generations, is one of the remarkable results\nbrought out by the study.\n\nIf the process could continue for a few hundred years more, Dr.\nHrdlicka thinks, it might reach a point where one could speak of the\nmembers of old American families as of a distinct stock. But so far this\npoint has not been reached; the Americans are almost as diverse and\nvariable, it appears, as were their first ancestors in this country.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX D\n\nTHE ESSENCE OF MENDELISM\n\n\nIt is half a century since the Austrian monk, Gregor Mendel, published\nin a provincial journal the results of his now famous breeding\nexperiments with garden peas. They lay unnoticed until 1900, when three\nother breeders whose work had led them to similar conclusions, almost\nsimultaneously discovered the work of Mendel and gave it to the world.\n\nBreeding along the lines marked out by Mendel at once became the most\npopular method of attack, among those who were studying heredity. It\nbecame an extremely complicated subject, which can not be grasped\nwithout extended study, but its fundamentals can be briefly summarized.\n\nInherited differences in individuals, it will be admitted, are due to\ndifferences in their germ-plasms. It is convenient to think of these\ndifferences in germ-plasms (that is, differences in heredity) as being\ndue to the presence in the germ-plasm of certain hypothetical units,\nwhich are usually referred to as factors. The factor, nowadays, is the\nultimate unit of Mendelian research. Each of these factors is considered\nto be nearly or quite constant,--that is, it undergoes little, or no\nchange from generation to generation. It is ordinarily resistant to\n\"contamination\" by other factors with which it may come in contact in\nthe cell. The first fundamental principle of Mendelism, then, is the\nexistence of relatively constant units, the Mendelian factors, as the\nbasis for transmission of all the traits that go to make up an animal or\nplant.\n\nExperimental breeding gives reason to believe that each factor has one\nor more alternatives, which may take its place in the mechanism of\nheredity, thereby changing the visible character of the individual plant\nor animal in which it occurs. To put the matter a little differently,\none germ-cell differs from another in having alternatives present in\nplace of some of the factors of the latter. A given germ-cell can never\nhave more than one of the possible alternatives of each factor. These\nalternatives of a factor are called its allelomorphs.\n\nNow a mature germ-cell has a single system of these factors: but when\ntwo germ-cells unite, there result from that union two kinds of\ncells--namely, immature germ-cells and body-cells; and both these kinds\nof cells contain a double system of factors, because of course they have\nreceived a single entire system from each parent. This is the second of\nthe fundamental principles of Mendelism: that the factors are single in\nthe mature germ-cell, but in duplicate in the body-cell (and also in the\nimmature germ-cell).\n\nIn every cell with a double system of factors, there are necessarily\npresent two representatives from each set of allelomorphs, but these may\nor may not be alike--or in technical language the individual may be\nhomozygous, or heterozygous, as regards the given set of alternative\nfactors. Looking at it from another angle, there is a single visible\ncharacter in the plant or animal, but it is produced by a double factor,\nin the germ-plasm.\n\nWhen the immature germ-cell, with its double system of factors, matures,\nit throws out half the factors, retaining only a single system: and the\nallelomorphic factors which then segregate into different cells are, as\nhas been said above, ordinarily uninfluenced by their stay together.\n\nBut the allelomorphic factors are not the only ones which are segregated\ninto different germ-cells, at the maturation of the cell; for the\nfactors which are not alternative are likewise distributed, more or less\nindependently of each other, so that it is largely a matter of chance\nwhether factors which enter a cross in the same germ-cell, segregate\ninto the same germ-cell or different ones, in the next generation. This\nis the next fundamental principle of Mendelism, usually comprehended\nunder the term \"segregation,\" although, as has been pointed out, it is\nreally a double process, the segregation of alternative factors being a\ndifferent thing from the segregation of non-alternative factors.\n\nFrom this fact of segregation, it follows that as many kinds of\ngerm-cells can be formed by an individual, as there are possible\ncombinations of factors, on taking one alternative from each pair of\nallelomorphs present. In practice, this means that the possible number\nof different germ-cells is almost infinitely great, as would perhaps be\nsuspected by anyone who has tried to find two living things that are\njust alike.\n\n[Illustration: THE CARRIERS OF HEREDITY\n\nFIG. 46.--Many different lines of study have made it seem\nprobable that much, although not all, of the heredity of an animal or\nplant is carried in the nucleus of the germ-cell and that in this\nnucleus it is further located in little rods or threads which can be\neasily stained so as to become visible, and which have the name of\nchromosomes. In the above illustration four different views of the\nnucleus of the germ-cell of an earthworm are shown, with the chromosomes\nin different stages; in section 19 each chromosome is doubled up like a\nhairpin. Study of the fruit-fly Drosophila has made it seem probable not\nonly that the hypothetical factors of heredity are located in the\nchromosomes, but that each factor has a perfectly definite location in\nits chromosome; and T. H. Morgan and his associates have worked out an\ningenious method of measuring the distance from either end, at which the\nfactor lies. Photomicrograph after Foot and Strobell.]\n\nSuch is the essence of Mendelism; and the reader is probably ready to\nadmit that it is not a simple matter, even when reduced to the\nsimplest terms. To sum up, the principal features at the base of the\nhypothetical structure are these:\n\n1. There exist relatively constant units in the germ-plasm.\n\n2. There are two very distinct relationships which these units may show\nto each other. Two (or more) unit factors may be alternatives in the\nmechanism of inheritance, indicating that one is a variation (or loss)\nof the other; or they may be independent of each other in the mechanism\nof inheritance.\n\n3. The mature germ-cell contains a single system of independent factors\n(one representative from each set of alternates).\n\nThe immature germ-cells, and body-cells, have double systems of\nindependent factors (two from each set of alternatives).\n\n4. The double system arises simply from the union of two single systems\n(i. e., two germ-cells), without union or even contamination of the\nfactors involved.\n\nIn the formation of a single system (mature germ-cells) from a double\n(immature germ-cells), pairs of alternates separate, passing into\ndifferent germ-cells. Factors not alternates may or may not\nseparate--the distribution is largely a matter of chance.\n\nSuch are the fundamental principles of Mendelism; but on them was early\ngrafted a theoretical structure due mainly to the German zooelogist,\nAugust Weismann. To understand his part in the story, we must advert to\nthat much mooted and too often misunderstood problem furnished by the\nchromosomes. (See Fig. 46.) These little rods of easily stained\nmaterial, which are found in every cell of the body, were picked out by\nProfessor Weismann as the probable carriers of heredity. With remarkable\nacuteness, he predicted their behavior at cell-division, the intricate\nnature of which is usually the despair of every beginner in biology.\nWhen Mendelian breeding, in the early years of this century, showed\ntemporary pairing and subsequent separation of units in the\ngerm-cell, it was soon realized that the observed facts of breeding\nfitted to a nicety the observed facts (predicted by Weismann) of\nchromosome-behavior; for at each cell-division the chromosomes, too,\npair and separate again. The observed behavior of transmitted characters\nin animals and plants followed, in so many cases, the observed behavior\nof the chromosomes, that many students found it almost impossible to\nbelieve that there was no connection between the two, and Dr. Weismann's\nprediction, that the chromosomes are the carriers of heredity, came to\nbe looked on as a fact, by many biologists.\n\nBut when so much of Professor Weismann's system was accepted, other\nparts of it went along, including a hypothetical system of \"determiners\"\nin the chromosome, which were believed to determine the development of\ncharacters in the organism. Every trait of an animal or plant, it was\nsupposed, must be represented in the germ-plasm by its own determiner;\none trait, one determiner. Did a notch in the ear run through a\npedigree? Then it must be due to a determiner for a notch in the ear in\nthe germ-plasm. Was mathematical ability hereditary? Then there must be\na determiner, the expression of which was mathematical ability.\n\nFor a while, this hypothesis was of service in the development of\ngenetics; some students even began to forget that it was a hypothesis,\nand to talk as if it were a fact. But the exhaustive tests of\nexperimental breeding of plants and animals have long caused most of the\nadvanced students of genetics to drop this simple hypothesis.\n\nIn its place stands the factorial hypothesis, evolved by workers in\nAmerica, England, and France at about the same time. As explained in\nChapter V, this hypothesis carries the assumption that every visible\ncharacter is due to the effects of not one but many factors in the\ngerm-cell.\n\nIn addition to these fundamentals, there are numerous extensions and\ncorollaries, some of them of a highly speculative nature. The reader who\nis interested in pursuing the subject farther must turn to one of the\ntext-books on Mendelism.\n\nIn plant-breeding a good deal of progress has been made in the exact\nstudy of Mendelian heredity; in animal breeding, somewhat less; in human\nheredity, very little. The reason is obvious: that experiments can not\nbe made in man, and students must depend on the results of such matings\nas they can find; that only a very few offspring result from each\nmating; and that generations are so long that no one observer can have\nmore than a few under his eyes. These difficulties make Mendelian\nresearch in man a very slow and uncertain matter.\n\nAltogether, it is probable that something like a hundred characters in\nman have been pointed out as inherited in Mendelian fashion. A large\npart of these are pathological conditions or rare abnormalities.\n\nBut the present writers can not accept most of these cases. It has been\npointed out in Chapter V that there are good reasons for doubting that\nfeeble-mindedness is inherited in a simple Mendelian fashion, although\nit is widely accepted as such. We can not help feeling that in most\ncases heredity in man is being made to appear much simpler than it\nreally is; and that particularly in mental characters, analysis of\ntraits has by no means reached the bottom.\n\nIf we were asked to make out a list of characters, as to the Mendelian\ninheritance of which there could be little doubt, we would hardly be\nable to go farther than the following:\n\nThe sex-linked characters (one kind of color-blindness, hemophilia, one\nkind of night-blindness, atrophy of the optic nerve, and a few other\nrare abnormalities).\n\nAlbinism. This appears to be a recessive, but probably involves multiple\nallelomorphs in man, as in other animals.\n\nBrachydactyly, apparently a dominant. This is so much cited in\ntext-books on Mendelism that the student might think it is a common\ncharacter. As a fact, it is extremely rare, being found in only a few\nfamilies. The similar trait of orthodactyly or symphalangism, which\nlikewise appears to be a good Mendelian dominant, seems to exist in only\none family. Traits like these, which are easily defined and occur very\nrarely, make up a large part of the cases of probably Mendelian\nheredity. They are little more than curiosities, their rarity and\nabnormal nature depriving them of evolutionary significance other than\nto demonstrate that Mendelian heredity does operate in man.\n\nWhite blaze in the hair or, as it might better be called to show its\nresemblance to the trait found in other mammals, piebaldism. A rather\nrare dominant.[204]\n\nHuntington's Chorea, which usually appears to be a good dominant,\nalthough the last investigators (Muncey and Davenport) found some\nunconformable cases.\n\nA few abnormalities, such as a premature graying of the hair (one family\ncited by K. Pearson) are well enough attested to be admitted. Many\nothers, such as baldness, are probably Mendelian but not yet\nsufficiently supported by evidence.\n\nNone of these characters, it will be observed, is of much significance\neugenically. If the exact manner of inheritance of some of the more\nimportant mental and physical traits were known, it would be of value.\nBut it is not a prerequisite for eugenic action. Enough is known for a\nworking program.\n\nTo sum up: the features in the modern view of heredity, which the reader\nmust keep in mind, are the following:\n\n1. That the various characters which make up the physical constitution\nof any individual plant or animal are due to the action (concurrently\nwith the environment, of course) of what are called, for convenience,\nfactors, separable hypothetical units in the germ-plasm, capable of\nindependent transmission.\n\n2. That each visible character is due to the cooeperative action of an\nindefinitely large number of factors; conversely, that each of these\nfactors affects an indefinitely large number of characters.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX E\n\nUSEFUL WORKS OF REFERENCE\n\n\nThe most complete bibliography is that published by the State Board of\nCharities of the State of New York (_Eugenics and Social Welfare\nBulletin_ No. III, pp. 130, Albany, 1913).\n\nAn interesting historical review of eugenics, with critical comments on\nthe literature and a bibliography of 100 titles, was published by A. E.\nHamilton in the _Pedagogical Seminary_, Vol. XXI, pp. 28-61, March,\n1914.\n\nMuch of the important literature of eugenics has been mentioned in\nfootnotes. For convenience, a few of the books which are likely to be\nmost useful to the student are here listed:\n\nGENETICS AND EUGENICS, by W. E. Castle. Harvard University\nPress, Cambridge, 1916.\n\nHEREDITY AND ENVIRONMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF MEN, by Edwin G.\nConklin. Princeton University Press, 1915.\n\nHEREDITY IN RELATION TO EUGENICS, by C. B. Davenport, Henry\nHolt and Co., New York, 1911.\n\nESSAYS IN EUGENICS, by Francis Galton. Eugenics Education\nSociety, London, 1909.\n\nBEING WELL-BORN, by Michael F. Guyer. Indianapolis,\nBobbs-Merrill Co., 1916.\n\nTHE SOCIAL DIRECTION OF HUMAN EVOLUTION, by W. E. Kellicott.\nNew York, 1911.\n\nTHE PHYSICAL BASIS OF SOCIETY, by Carl Kelsey. New York, D.\nAppleton & Co., 1916.\n\nEUGENICS, by Edward Schuster. Collins' Clear Type Press, London\nand Glasgow, 1913.\n\nHEREDITY, by J. Arthur Thompson. Edinburgh, 1908.\n\nGENETICS, by Herbert E. Walter. The Macmillan Co., New York,\n1913.\n\nAN INTRODUCTION TO EUGENICS, by W. C. D. Whetham and C. D.\nWhetham. Macmillan and Co., London, 1912.\n\nHEREDITY AND SOCIETY, by W. C. D. Whetham and C. D. Whetham.\nLongmans, Green & Co., London, 1912.\n\nTHE FAMILY AND THE NATION, by W. C. D. Whetham and C. D.\nWhetham. Longmans, Green & Co., London, 1909.\n\nThe publications of the Galton Laboratory of National Eugenics,\nUniversity of London, directed by Karl Pearson, and of the Eugenics\nRecord Office, Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, N. Y., directed by C. B.\nDavenport, furnish a constantly increasing amount of original material\non heredity.\n\nThe principal periodicals are the _Journal of Heredity_ (organ of the\nAmerican Genetic Association), 511 Eleventh St., N. W., Washington, D.\nC. (monthly); and the _Eugenics Review_ (organ of the Eugenics Education\nSociety), Kingsway House, Kingsway, W. C., London (quarterly). These\nperiodicals are sent free to members of the respective societies.\nMembership in the American organization is $2 a year, in the English 1\nguinea a year, associate membership 5 shillings a year.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX F\n\nGLOSSARY\n\n\nACQUIRED CHARACTER, a modification of a germinal trait after\ncell fusion. It is difficult to draw a line between characters that are\nacquired and those that are inborn. The idea involved is as follows: in\na standard environment, a given factor in the germ-plasm will develop\ninto a trait which varies not very widely about a certain mean. The mean\nof this trait is taken as representing the germinal trait in its typical\ncondition. But if the environment be not standard, if it be considerably\nchanged, the trait will develop a variation far from the mean of that\ntrait in the species. Thus an American, whose skin in the standard\nenvironment of the United States would be blonde, may under the\nenvironment of Cuba develop into a brunette. Such a wide variation from\nthe mean thus caused is called an acquired character; it is usually\nimpressed on the organism after the germinal trait has reached a full,\ntypical development.\n\nALLELOMORPH (one another form), one of a pair of factors which\nare alternative to each other in Mendelian inheritance. Instead of a\nsingle pair, there may be a group of \"multiple allelomorphs,\" each\nmember being alternative to every other member of the group.\n\nALLELOMORPHISM, a relation between two or more factors, such\nthat two which are present in one zygote do not both enter into the same\ngamete, but are separated into sister gametes.\n\nBIOMETRY (life measure), the study of biology by statistical\nmethods.\n\nBRACHYDACTYLY (short-finger), a condition in which the bones,\nparticularly of the fingers and toes, fail to grow to their normal\nlength. In well-marked cases one of these is a reduction from three\nphalanges or joints to two.\n\nCHARACTER (a contraction of \"characteristic\"), a term which is\nused, often rather vaguely, to designate any function, feature, or organ\nof the body or mind.\n\nCHROMOSOME (color body, so called from its affinity for certain\nstains), a body of peculiar protoplasm, in the nucleus of the cell. Each\nspecies has its own characteristic number; the cells of the human body\ncontain 24 chromosomes each.\n\nCONGENITAL (with birth), present at birth. The term fails to\ndistinguish between traits which are actually inherited, and\nmodifications acquired during prenatal life. In the interest of clear\nthinking its use should be avoided so far as possible.\n\nCORRELATION (together relation), a relation between two\nvariables in a certain population, such that for every variation of one,\nthere is a corresponding variation of the other. Mathematically, two\ncorrelated variables are thus mutually dependent. But a correlation is\nmerely a statistical description of a particular case, and in some other\npopulation the same two variables might be correlated in a different\nway, other influences being at work on them.\n\nCYTOLOGY (cell word), the study of the cell, the constituent\nunit of organisms.\n\nDETERMINER (completely end), an element or condition in a\ngerm-cell, supposed to be essential to the development of a particular\nquality, feature, or manner of reaction of the organism which arises\nfrom that germ-cell. The word is gradually falling into disuse, and\n\"factor\" taking its place.\n\nDOMINANCE (mastery), in Mendelian hybrids the capacity of a\ncharacter which is derived from only one of two generating gametes to\ndevelop to an extent nearly or quite equal to that exhibited by an\nindividual which has derived the same character from both of the\ngenerating gametes. In the absence of dominance the given character of\nthe hybrid usually presents a \"blend\" or intermediate condition between\nthe two parents.\n\nDYSGENIC (bad origin), tending to impair the racial qualities\nof future generations; the opposite of eugenic.\n\nENDOGAMY (within mating), a custom of some primitive peoples,\nin compliance with which a man must choose his wife from his own group\n(clan, gens, tribe, etc.).\n\nEUGENIC (good origin), tending to improve the racial qualities\nof future generations, either physical or mental.\n\nEUTHENIC (good thriving), tending to produce beneficial\nacquired characters or better conditions for people to live in, but not\ntending (except incidentally and indirectly) to produce people who can\nhand on the improvement by heredity.\n\nEVOLUTION (unroll), ORGANIC, the progressive change of\nliving forms, usually associated with the development of complex from\nsimple forms.\n\nEXOGAMY (out mating), a custom of primitive peoples which\nrequires a man to choose a wife from some other group (clan, gens,\ntribe, etc.) than his own.\n\nFACTOR (maker), a name given to the hypothetical _something_,\nthe independently inheritable element in the germ-cell, whose presence\nis necessary to the development of a certain inherited character or\ncharacters or contributes with other factors to the development of a\ncharacter. \"Gene\" and \"determiner\" are sometimes used as synonyms of\nfactor.\n\nFEEBLE-MINDEDNESS, a condition in which mental development is\nretarded or incomplete. It is a relative term, since an individual who\nwould be feeble-minded in one society might be normal or even bright in\nanother. The customary criterion is the inability of the individual,\nbecause of mental defect existing from an early age, to compete on equal\nterms with his normal fellows, or to manage himself or his affairs with\nordinary prudence. American students usually distinguish three grades of\nmental defect: Idiots are those who are unable to take care of\nthemselves, even to the extent of guarding against common physical\ndangers or satisfying physical needs. Their mentality does not progress\nbeyond that of a normal two-year-old child. Imbeciles can care for\nthemselves after a fashion, but are unable to earn their living. Their\nmental ages range from three to seven years, inclusive. Morons, who\ncorrespond to the common acceptation of the term feeble-minded, \"can\nunder proper direction become more or less self-supporting but they are\nas a rule incapable of undertaking affairs which demand judgment or\ninvolve unrestricted competition with normal individuals. Their\nintelligence ranges with that of normal children from seven to twelve\nyears of age.\" There is necessarily a considerable borderline, but any\nadult whose intelligence is beyond that of the normal twelve-year-old\nchild is usually considered to be not feeble-minded.\n\nGAMETE (mate), a mature germ-cell; in animals an ovum or\nspermatozooen.\n\nGENETICS (origins), for a long time meant the study of\nevolution by experimental breeding and was often synonomous with\nMendelism. It is gradually returning to its broader, original meaning of\nthe study of variation and heredity, that is, the origin of the\nindividual's traits. This broader meaning is preferable.\n\nGERMINAL (sprig), due to something present in the germ-cell. A\ntrait is germinal when its basis is inherited,--as eye color,--and when\nit develops with nothing more than the standard environment; remaining\nrelatively constant from one generation to another, except as influenced\nby reproduction.\n\nGERM-PLASM (sprig form), mature germ-cells and the living\nmaterial from which they are produced.\n\nHAEMOPHILIA (blood love), an inability of the blood to clot. It\nthus becomes impossible to stop the flow of blood from a cut, and one\nwho has inherited haemophilia usually dies sooner or later from\nhaemorrhage.\n\nHEREDITY (heirship), is usually considered from the outside,\nwhen it may properly be defined as organic resemblance based on descent,\nor the correlation between relatives. But a better definition, based on\nthe results of genetics, looks at it as a mechanism, not as an external\nappearance. From this point of view, heredity may be said to be \"the\npersistence of certain cell-constituents (in the germ-cells) through an\nunending number of cell-divisions.\"\n\nHETEROZYGOTE (different yolk), a zygotic individual which\ncontains both members of an allelomorphic pair.\n\nHOMOZYGOTE (same yolk), an individual which contains only one\nmember of an allelomorphic pair, but contains that in duplicate, having\nreceived it from both parents. A homozygous individual, having been\nformed by the union of like gametes, in turn regularly produces gametes\nof only one kind with respect to any given factor, thus giving rise to\noffspring which are, in this regard, like the parents; in other words,\nhomozygotes regularly \"breed true.\" An individual may be a homozygote\nwith respect to one factor and a heterozygote with respect to another.\n\nHORMONES (chain), the secretions of various internal glands,\nwhich are carried in the blood and have an important specific influence\non the growth and functioning of various parts of the body. Their exact\nnature is not yet understood.\n\nINBORN usually means germinal, as applied to a trait, and it is\nso used in this book. Strictly speaking, however, any trait which\nappears in a child at birth might be called inborn, and some writers,\nparticularly medical men, thus refer to traits acquired in prenatal\nlife. Because of this ambiguity the word should be carefully defined\nwhen used, or avoided.\n\nINHERENT (in stick), as used in this book, is synonymous with\ngerminal.\n\nINDUCTION (in lead), a change brought about in the germ-plasm\nwith the effect of temporarily modifying the characters of an\nindividual produced from that germ-plasm; but not of changing in a\ndefinite and permanent way any such germ-plasm and therefore any\nindividual inherited traits.\n\nINNATE (inborn), synonymous with inborn.\n\nLATENT (lie hidden), a term applied to traits or characters\nwhose factors exist in the germ-plasm of an individual, but which are\nnot visible in his body.\n\nLAW, in natural science means a concise and comprehensive\ndescription of an observed uniform sequence of events. It is thus quite\ndifferent from the law of jurists, who mean a rule laid down for the\nguidance of an intelligent being, by an intelligent being having power\nover him.\n\nMENDELISM, a collection of laws of heredity (see Appendix D)\nso-called after the discoverer of the first of them to become known;\nalso the analytical study of heredity with a view to learning the\nconstitution of the germ-cells of animals and plants.\n\nMENDELIZE, to follow Mendel's laws of inheritance.\n\nMORES (customs), the approved customs or unwritten laws of a\npeople; the conventions of society; popular usage or folk-ways which are\nreputable.\n\nMUTATION (change), has now two accepted meanings: (1) a\nprofound change in the germ-plasm of an organism such as will produce\nnumerous changes in its progeny; and (2) a discontinuous heritable\nchange in a Mendelian factor. It is used in the first sense by De Vries\nand other \"mutationists\" and in the second sense by Morgan and other\nMendelists; confusion has arisen from failure to note the difference in\nusage.\n\nNORMAL CURVE, the curve of distribution of variations of\nsomething whose variations are due to a multiplicity of causes acting\nnearly equally in both directions. It is characterized by having more\nindividuals of a mediocre degree and progressively fewer above and below\nthis mode.\n\nNUCLEUS (little nut), a central, highly-organized part of every\nliving cell, which seems to play a directive role in cell-development\nand contains, among other things, the chromosomes.\n\nPATENT (lie open), a term applied to traits which are\nmanifestly represented in the body as well as the germ-plasm of an\nindividual. The converse of \"latent.\"\n\nPROBABILITY CURVE, the same as normal curve. Also called a\nGaussian curve.\n\nPROTOPLASM (first form), \"the physical basis of life\"; a\nchemical compound or probably an emulsion of numerous compounds. It\ncontains proteins which differ slightly in many species of organism. It\ncontains carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur, and various salts,\nbut is so complex as to defy exhaustive analysis.\n\nPSYCHIATRY (soul healing), the study of diseases of the mind.\n\nRECESSIVE (draw back), the converse of dominant; applied to one\nof a pair of contrasted Mendelian characters which can not appear in the\npresence of the other.\n\nREGRESSION (back go), the average variation of one variable for\na unit variation of a correlated variable.\n\nSEGREGATION (aside flock), (1) as used in eugenics means the\npolicy of isolating feeble-minded and other anti-social individuals from\nthe normal population into institutions, colonies, etc., where the two\nsexes are kept apart. (2) The term is also used technically in genetics,\nto refer to the discontinuity of the variation of characteristics\nresulting from the independent distribution of factors before or at the\ntime of formation of the gametes.\n\nSELECTION (apart pick), the choice (for perpetuation by\nreproduction) from a mixed population, of the individuals possessing in\ncommon a certain character or a certain degree of some character. Two\nkinds of selection may be distinguished: (1) natural selection, in which\nchoice is made automatically by the failure to reproduce (through death\nor some other cause) of the individuals who are not \"fit\" to pass the\ntests of the environment (vitality, disease resistance, speed, success\nin mating, or what not); and (2) artificial selection, in which the\nchoice is made consciously by man, as a livestock breeder.\n\nSEX-LIMITED, a term applied to traits which differ in the two\nsexes, because influenced by the hormones of the reproductive glands.\nExample, the beard.\n\nSEX-LINKED, a term applied to traits which are connected with\nsex _accidentally_ and not physiologically in development. The current\nexplanation is that such traits happen to be in the same chromosome as\nthe determiner of maleness or femaleness, as the case may be.\nColor-blindness is the classical example in man.\n\nSEXUAL SELECTION, the conscious or unconscious preference by\nindividuals of one sex, or by that sex as a whole, for individuals of\nthe other sex who possess some particular attribute or attributes in a\ndegree above or below the average of their sex. If the deviation of the\nchosen character is in the same direction (plus or minus) as in the\nchooser, the mating is called assortative; if in one direction\nindependent of the characteristic of the chooser, it is called\npreferential.\n\nSOMA (body), the body as distinguished from the germ-plasm.\nFrom this point of view every individual consists of only two\nparts,--germ-plasm and soma or somatoplasm.\n\nTRAIT, a term used by geneticists as a synonym of \"character.\"\n\nUNIT-CHARACTER, in Mendelian heredity a character or\nalternative difference of any kind, which is apparently not capable of\nsubdivision in heredity, but is inherited as a whole, and which is\ncapable of becoming associated in new combinations with other\ncharacters. The term is now going out of use, as it makes for clearer\nthinking about heredity to fix the attention on the factors of the\ngerm-cells instead of on the characters of the adult.\n\nVARIATION, a deviation in the size, shape, or other feature of\na character or trait, from the mean or average of that character in the\nspecies.\n\nVESTIGIAL (footstep), a term applied to a character which at\nsome time in the evolutionary history of the species possessed\nimportance, or functioned fully, but which has now lost its importance\nor its original use, so that it remains a mere souvenir of the past, in\na degenerated condition. Example, the muscles which move a man's ears.\n\nZYGOTE (yolk), the fertilized egg-cell; the united cell formed\nby the union of the ovum and spermatozooen after fertilization.\n\nZYMOTIC, caused by a microoerganism,--a term applied to\ndiseases. Example, tuberculosis.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\n A\n\n Abderholden, E., 422\n\n Acquired character, 437\n\n Administrative aspects, 194\n\n Adult mortality, 345\n\n Afghans, 321\n\n Africa, 290, 291\n\n Agriculture, 307\n\n Aguinaldo, E., 314\n\n Aims of eugenics, 152\n\n Alabama, 187, 202, 296\n\n Alaska, 187\n\n Albinism, 433\n\n Alcohol, 44, 48, 49, 130\n\n Alcoholism, 213, 302\n\n Aleurone, 104\n\n Allelomorphism, 437\n\n Allelomorphs, 108, 427, 437\n\n Alpine Type, 427\n\n America, 432\n\n American Breeders Assn., 154, 194\n\n American Breeders Magazine, 154\n\n American Prison Assn., 182\n\n American Genetic Assn., 154, 277\n\n American stock, 258, 424\n\n Americans, 427, 428\n\n American-Chinese Marriages, 313\n\n Amherst College, 255, 266\n\n Amoy, 315\n\n Ancestral Inheritance Law, 112\n\n Anglian, 426\n\n Anglo-Saxon, 426\n\n Anthropological Soc. of Denmark, 155\n\n Apartment houses, 377\n\n Appearance, 219, 221\n\n Appropriate opportunity, 366\n\n Arabs, 230, 280\n\n Argentina, 326\n\n Aristocracy, 362\n\n Aristodemocracy, 362\n\n Aristotle, 32\n\n Arizona, 187\n\n Arkansas, 241\n\n Armenians, 299, 302, 427\n\n Army, American, 83\n\n Arnold, M., 394\n\n Arsenic, 63\n\n Art, 96\n\n Asiatic immigration, 311\n\n Asiatic Turkey, 299\n\n Assortative mating, 126, 211\n\n Athenians, 133\n\n Atrophy of optic nerve, 433\n\n Atwater, W. O., 422\n\n Austria, 137, 155\n\n Australian, 129\n\n Australian marriages, 222\n\n Automobile, effect of 377\n\n\n B\n\n Baby saving campaign, 408\n\n Bachelors, tax on, 353\n\n Back to the farm movement, 355\n\n Backward children, 188\n\n Bahama Islands, 203\n\n Baker, O. E., 6\n\n Baltzly, A., 327\n\n Banker, H. J., 267, 245\n\n Banns, 197\n\n Barrington, A., 13\n\n Batz, 207\n\n Baur, E., 104\n\n Bean and Mall, 285\n\n Beans, Fig. 13.\n\n Beeton, M., 144, 404, 408, 411\n\n Beggars, 302\n\n Belgium, 138, 155, 324\n\n Bell, A. G., 144, 183, 226, 345, 347, 350, 402, 407, 411\n\n Bentham, J., 165\n\n Berlin, 140\n\n Bermuda, 205\n\n Bertholet, E., 57\n\n Bertillon, J., 140\n\n Besant, A., 269\n\n Better babies movement, 155\n\n Bezzola, D., 56\n\n Billings, W. C., 313\n\n Binet tests, 287\n\n Biometric method, 31\n\n Biometry, 437\n\n Birth control, 269\n\n Bisexual societies, 234\n\n Bismarck, von, O. E. L., 422\n\n Blakeslee, A. F., Figs. 2, 3, 13, 14\n\n Blascoe, F., 282\n\n Bleeders, 38\n\n Blind, 156\n\n Blindness, 32\n\n Bluecher, von G. L., 321\n\n Blumer, J. C., 244\n\n Boas, F., 41, 282, 283\n\n Boer War, 321\n\n Boer-Hottentot mulattoes, 300\n\n Body-plasm, 27\n\n Bohemians, 311, 427\n\n Boston, Mass., 261, 182\n\n Boveri, T., 27\n\n Brachybioty, 409\n\n Brachycephalic heads, 427\n\n Brachydactyly, 433, 437, Fig. 17\n\n Bradlaugh, C., 269\n\n Brazil, 325\n\n Breton race, 273\n\n Bridges, C. B., 101\n\n Brigham Young College, 219\n\n British, 427\n\n British Columbia, 305\n\n British Indian immigration, 312\n\n Bruce, H. A., 23\n\n Bryn Mawr College, 240, 263\n\n Burris, W. P., 97\n\n\n C\n\n Caesar, J., 179, 207\n\n Caffeine, 45\n\n California, 172, 192\n\n California University, 100\n\n Cambridge graduates, 428\n\n Cambridge, Mass., 261\n\n Cape Cod, 206\n\n Carnegie Institution of Washington, 154\n\n Carnegie, Margaret Morrison, School, 278\n\n Carpenter, E., 379\n\n Carver, T. N., 305, 367\n\n Castle, C. S., 243\n\n Castle, W. E., 87, 100, 105, 108, 300, 419, 435, Fig. 20\n\n Catlin, G., 130\n\n Cattell, J. McK., 20, 21, 268, 269\n\n Cavour, C. B., 19\n\n Celibacy, 173\n\n Celtic, 41\n\n Celto-Slav Type, 427\n\n Central Europe, 427\n\n Ceylon, 129\n\n Character, 219, 221, 437\n\n Charm and taboo, 395\n\n Chastity, 251, 386\n\n Chicago, Ill., 182, 261\n\n Chicks, 47\n\n Child bearing, Effect of, 346\n\n Child Labor, 368\n\n Childless wives, 268\n\n Child mortality, 403, 407\n\n Children surviving per capita, 267\n\n China, 20, 137, 274\n\n Chinese, 315, 397, Fig. 5\n\n Chinese immigration, 321\n\n Chorea, Huntingdon's, 109, 433\n\n Christianity, 171, 394\n\n Chromosomes, 87, 431, 437\n\n Church acquaintances, 234\n\n Civic Club (Pittsburgh, Penn.), 371\n\n Civil War, 268, 301, 321, 326, 402\n\n Cleopatra, 207\n\n Climate, 42\n\n Cobb, M. V., 96\n\n Co-education, 267, 383\n\n Coefficient of correlation, 212\n\n Coercive means, 184\n\n Cold Spring Harbor, 100\n\n Coldness, 251\n\n Cole, L. J., 45, 51, 63, Fig. 7\n\n Collateral inheritance, 404\n\n College women, 241\n\n Collins, G. N., 104\n\n Colonial ancestry, 426\n\n Colony plan, 188\n\n Color line, 280\n\n Color-blindness, 109, 433\n\n Columbus, C., 132\n\n Columbia, District of, 187\n\n Columbus, Ohio, 261\n\n Columbia University, 10, 41, 100, 278\n\n Combemale, 44\n\n Compulsory education, 369\n\n Confederate Army, 323\n\n Congenital, 438\n\n Conklin, E. G., 435\n\n Connecticut, 76, 128, 192, 261, 326\n\n Connecticut Agricultural College, 82, Fig. 14\n\n Consanguinity, 207\n\n Conscription, 319\n\n Continuity of germ-plasm, 29\n\n Controlled association tests, 288\n\n Cook, O. F., 356\n\n Corn, Fig. 2\n\n Cornell Medical College, 45\n\n Correlation, 13, 212, 438\n\n Cost of clothing, 274\n\n Cost of domestic labor, 275\n\n Cost of food, 274\n\n Cost of medical attention, 275\n\n Courtis, S. A., 77\n\n Cousins, 202\n\n Criminals, 158, 182, 192\n\n Croatians, 427\n\n Crum, Frederick S., 259\n\n Cushing, H., 102\n\n Cynical attitude, 249\n\n Cytology, 438\n\n\n D\n\n Danes, 426\n\n Dalmatians, 311\n\n Dance acquaintances, 234\n\n Dark family, 168\n\n Darwin, C., 20, 21, 25, 68, 69, 117, 134, 147, 151, 174, 208, 214, 334\n\n Darwinism, 214\n\n Davenport, C. B., 66, 154, 159, 182, 202, 205, 208, 246, 338, 341, 342,\n 348, 349, 433, 435\n\n Davies, Maria Thompson, 235\n\n Deaf, 157\n\n Deafness, 32, 154\n\n Declaration of Independence, 75\n\n Declining birth rate, 237, 256, 268, 400\n\n Defective germ-plasm, 194\n\n Defectives, 302\n\n Definition of eugenics, 147, 152\n\n Degenerate persons, 193\n\n Delaware, 187\n\n Delayed marriage, 217\n\n Delinquents, 302\n\n Demme, R., 56\n\n Democracy, 360\n\n Denmark, 137\n\n Dependents, 302\n\n Desirability of Restrictive Eugenics, 167\n\n Destitute classes, 214\n\n Determiners, 432, 438\n\n Differences among men, 75\n\n Diffloth, P., 222\n\n Diseases, 38\n\n Disease resistance, 402\n\n Disposition, 219, 221\n\n Distribution, 307\n\n District of Columbia, 187\n\n Divorce, 201\n\n Dolichocephalic heads, 427\n\n Doll, E. A., 421\n\n Dominance, 438\n\n Dominant, 433\n\n Dress, 219, 221\n\n Drinkwater, 342\n\n Drosophila, 101\n\n Drug fiends, 193\n\n Drunkenness, 389\n\n Dublin, L. I., 400\n\n Dubois, P., 23, 24\n\n DuBois, W. E. B., 295\n\n Duncan, J. M., 247\n\n Duncan, F. N., 102, Fig. 17\n\n Dugdale, R. L., 159\n\n Durant scholarship, 262\n\n Dyer family, 206\n\n Dynamic evolution, 421\n\n Dynamic of manhood, 223\n\n Dysgenic, definition of, 438\n\n Dysgenic types, 176\n\n\n E\n\n Earle, E. L., 94\n\n Early marriages, 247\n\n Eastern Europe, 427\n\n East, E. M., 104\n\n East north central states, 358\n\n East south central states, 358\n\n Ebbinghaus tests, 288\n\n Economic determinism, 365\n\n Economic equality of sexes, 380\n\n Economic status, 250\n\n Economic standing of parents, 370\n\n Edinburgh, 57\n\n Education, 219, 221\n\n Education, compulsory, 368\n\n Education and race suicide, 253\n\n Edwards, J., 161\n\n Egypt, 206\n\n Egyptian, 285, Fig. 6\n\n Elderton, E. M., 10, 55, 57, 60, 122, 153, 413\n\n Elderton, W. P., 124\n\n Elevation of standards, 277\n\n Ellis, H., 96, 224, 379\n\n Ellis Island, 302, 303, 427\n\n Emancipation of women, 364\n\n Emerson, R. A., 104\n\n Endogamy, 222, 438\n\n England, 15, 16, 121, 122, 138, 237, 381, 427, 432\n\n English, 259, 311, 321, 426, 427, 428\n\n Epilepsy, 58, 79\n\n Epileptics, 193, 302\n\n Eskimo, 49, 127\n\n Estabrook, A. H., 143, 159, 168\n\n Equalitarianism, 362\n\n Equality, 229\n\n Equality of opportunity, 366\n\n Equal pay for equal work, 380\n\n Essence of Mendelism, 429\n\n Eugenic aspect of specific reforms, 352\n\n Eugenic laws, 191\n\n Eugenic marriages, 352\n\n Eugenics and euthenics, 438\n\n Eugenics Education Society, 153\n\n Eugenics movement, 147\n\n Eugenics registry, 350\n\n Eugenics Record Office, 153, 194, 202, 348, 349, 436\n\n Eugenics Review, 436\n\n Eugenics and social welfare, Bulletin, 435\n\n Euthenics, 155, 415, 416, 417, 438\n\n Euthenics, eugenics and, 402\n\n Eye, 59\n\n Evolution, 438\n\n Exogamy, 22, 438\n\n\n F\n\n Facial attractiveness, 215\n\n Fairchild, H. P., 308\n\n Family alignment, 229\n\n Faraday, M., 334\n\n Farrabee, W. C., 132\n\n Fecundal selection, 137\n\n Feebly inhibited, 182\n\n Feeble minded, 157, 172, 302\n\n Feeble-mindedness, 71, 176\n\n Fere, C. S., 44\n\n Fernandez brothers, 314\n\n Ferguson, G. O., Jr., 287, 288\n\n Fertility, relative, 247\n\n Filipinos, 315\n\n Financial aspect, 173\n\n Financial success, 219\n\n Finger prints, Fig. 25\n\n Finger tip, Figs. 21, 22\n\n Finns, 299, 302, 311\n\n Fishberg, M., 126\n\n Florida, 187\n\n Foot, Egyptian, Fig. 6\n\n Foreign-born, 238\n\n Formal social functions, 236\n\n Foster, M., 29\n\n France, 138, 155, 206, 237\n\n Franco-Prussian war, 321\n\n Franklin, B., 230\n\n Frederick the Great, 19\n\n Fredericksburg, Va., 288\n\n Freiburg, University, of, 125\n\n French-Canadians, 259\n\n French revolution, 18\n\n Freud, S., 213\n\n\n G\n\n Gallichan, W., 252\n\n Galton, Eugenics Laboratory, 153, 349\n\n Galton, F., V, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 89, 90, 95, 99, 110, 111,\n 112, 113, 147, 148, 151, 152, 162, 222, 228, 230, 247, 342, 435\n\n Galton Laboratory of National Eugenics, 269, 436\n\n Galton-Pearson law, 113, 114\n\n Gamete, 439\n\n Garibaldi, G., 19\n\n Garrison, W. L., 295, 296\n\n Genealogical Record Office, 402, 405, 407, 409, 411, 412\n\n Genealogy and eugenics, 329, 439\n\n Genesis, 64\n\n Genetics, 340, 439\n\n Genius, hereditary, 151\n\n George, F. O., 234\n\n Georgia, 187\n\n Geographical distribution, 261\n\n German, 35, 259, 280, 311\n\n German society for race hygiene, 163\n\n Germany, 20, 137, 155, 299, 360\n\n Germinal, 439\n\n Germ-plasm, 25, 429, 440\n\n Ghetto, 305\n\n Gifted families, 213\n\n Gillette, J. M., 356, 358, 359\n\n Gilman, C. P., 378\n\n Gilmore, C. F., 136, 216, 227\n\n Gini, C., 344, 346\n\n Giotto, 342\n\n Gochuico, Ricardo, 315\n\n Goddard, H. H., 71, 105, 108, 160, 176, 188\n\n Gonorrhea, 63\n\n Goodrich, M. T., 333\n\n Goring, C., 124, 214\n\n Grant, Madison, 301, 420\n\n Grant, U. S., 374\n\n Great Britain, 130, 232\n\n Great race, 426\n\n Great war, ix, 298, 327\n\n Greek idea of eugenics, 150\n\n Greek slaves, 284\n\n Greeks, 299, 302, 321, 427\n\n Greenwood lake, 233\n\n Growth of eugenics, 147\n\n Gruber von, and Rubin, 204\n\n Guatemala Indians, 356\n\n Guinea pigs, 45, 419\n\n Gulick, J. T., 134\n\n Gulick, L. H., 223\n\n Gulick, S. L., 311, 313\n\n Gustavus Adolphus, 19\n\n Guyer, M. F., 194, 435\n\n\n H\n\n Habitual criminal, 194\n\n Hair, white blaze in, 433\n\n Haiti, 284, 289\n\n Hall, G. S., 225\n\n Hall of Fame, 17, 19\n\n Hamilton, A. E., 278, 433, 435\n\n Hankins, F. H., 237\n\n Hanks Family, 333\n\n Hap, L., 314\n\n Hapaa, 131\n\n Harrison, Mrs. E. H., 154\n\n Harris, J. A., 100, 211, 404\n\n Hart, H. H., 186\n\n Hartford, Conn., 261\n\n Harvard University, 87, 245, 246, 266\n\n Health, 219, 221\n\n Heape, W., 419\n\n Hebrews, 41, 302\n\n Hebrews, East European, 299\n\n Hebrews, Russian, 302\n\n Heller, L. L. 64\n\n Helsingfors, 54\n\n Hemophilia, 38, 40, 433\n\n Hereditary genius, 16, 151\n\n Hereditary, 440\n\n Heredity, laws of, 99\n\n Heredity, talent and genius, 151\n\n Heron, D., 14, 15, 140, 153\n\n Herzegovinians, 311\n\n Heterozygote, 440\n\n Heterozygous, 427, 433\n\n Hewes, A., 240\n\n Hibbs, H. H., Jr., 411\n\n Hickory Family, 168\n\n Higher education, 276\n\n Hill folk, 168\n\n Hill, J. A., 268\n\n Hindus, 305\n\n Hitchcock, C. H., 333\n\n Hodge, 44\n\n Hoffman, F. L., 128, 259\n\n Holland, 137, 143, 155\n\n Hollingworth, H. L., 342\n\n Home acquaintances, 234\n\n Homo sapiens, 300\n\n Homozygote, 440\n\n Homozygous, 427\n\n Hooker, J., 68\n\n Hopetown, 203\n\n Hormones, 440\n\n Horsley, V., 55\n\n Housekeeping, 219, 221\n\n Housing, 376\n\n Howard, A., 104\n\n Howard, G., 104\n\n Howard University, 388\n\n Hrdlicka, A., 285, 424, 426, 427, 428\n\n Huguenots, 424, 427\n\n Humanistic religion, 396\n\n Humanitarian aspect, 171\n\n Hungary, 155, 302\n\n Hunter, W., 69\n\n Huntington, E., 42\n\n Huntington's Chorea, 180\n\n Huxley, J. L., 3\n\n Hyde Family, 346, 411\n\n I\n\n Idiots, 188, 302\n\n Illegitimacy, 325\n\n Illegitimate children, 208, 386\n\n Illinois, 172, 208\n\n Illinois, University of, 244\n\n Ilocano, 315\n\n Imbeciles, 188\n\n Immigration, 298\n\n Immigration Commission, 304, 310\n\n Immortality, 29\n\n Improvement of sexual selection, 211\n\n Inborn, definition of, 440\n\n Inborn characters, 32\n\n Income Tax, 353\n\n Increasing the marriage rate of the superior, 237\n\n Indiana, 172, 179, 208\n\n Indian, American, 49, 130\n\n Individualism, 253\n\n Induction, 440\n\n Infant mortality, 121, 413\n\n Infant mortality movement, 414\n\n Infusorian, 26\n\n Inherent, 440\n\n Inheritance of mental capacities, 84\n\n Inheritance Tax, 353\n\n Innate, 441\n\n Inkowa Camp, 233\n\n Inquiries into human faculty, 5, 152\n\n Insane, 15, 302\n\n Insanity, 178\n\n Institut Solvay, 155\n\n Intelligence, 106\n\n Intermarriage, 206\n\n International Eugenics Congress, 155\n\n International Eugenics Society, 155\n\n Iowa, 208\n\n Isabella, Queen of Spain, 19\n\n Ishmael Family, 168\n\n Islam, 284\n\n Italian, 41, 259, 299, 302, 308, 311\n\n Italians, Southern, 304\n\n Italy, 19, 137\n\n Ireland, 299\n\n Irish, 41, 259, 311, 427\n\n\n J\n\n Jacob, 64\n\n Jamaica, 289\n\n James, W., 51, 327\n\n Japan, 137\n\n Japanese, 127\n\n Japanese immigration, 312\n\n Jefferson, T., 75\n\n Jefferson Reformatory, 191\n\n Jena, Battle of, 321\n\n Jenks, A. E., 295, 314\n\n Jenks, J. W., 308\n\n Jennings, H. S., 105\n\n Jesus, 396\n\n Jews, 52, 133, 284, 304\n\n Jewish eugenics, 394\n\n Jewish race, 358\n\n Johnson, E. H., 282\n\n Johnson, R. H., vi, 117\n\n Johnstone, E. R., 188\n\n Jones, E., 213\n\n Jordan, D. S., 323, 326\n\n Jordan, H. E., 323\n\n Journal of Heredity, 154, 436\n\n Judaism, 394\n\n Juke family, 143, 159, 168, 169\n\n\n K\n\n Kafirs, 285\n\n Kaiser of Germany, 204\n\n Kallikak Family, 160\n\n Kansas, 172, 194, 208\n\n Kansas City, Mo., 261\n\n Kansas State Agrigultural College, 244\n\n Kechuka Camp, 435\n\n Kellogg, V., 215, 321, 318\n\n Kelsey, C., 435\n\n Kentucky, 172\n\n Keys, F. M., Fig. 1\n\n Key, W. E., 168\n\n Knopf, S. A., 127\n\n Kornhauser, A. W., 370\n\n Kuczynski, R. R., 260\n\n\n L\n\n Laban, 64\n\n Laitinen, T., 54, 55\n\n Lamarck, J. B., 37\n\n Lamarckian, 35\n\n Lamarckian Theory, 421\n\n Lamarckism, 37\n\n Late marriages, 218\n\n Latent, 441\n\n Lauck, W. J., 308\n\n Laughlin, H. H., 341\n\n Law, 441\n\n Laws, eugenic, 196\n\n Laws of heredity, 99\n\n Lead, 57, 63, Fig. 7\n\n League to enforce peace, 328\n\n Lechoco, F., 314\n\n Legal aspects, 194\n\n Legislative aspects, 194\n\n Leipzig, 321\n\n Lethal chamber, 184\n\n Lethal selection, 145\n\n Levantines, 299\n\n Lewin, G. R. L., 62\n\n Lim, B., 314\n\n Lincoln, A., 20, 333\n\n Lincoln, T., 333\n\n Lithuanians, 311\n\n Living wage, 375\n\n Loeb, J., 379\n\n Lombroso, C., 179, 182\n\n London, 140, 141\n\n Longevity, 403\n\n Longfellow, H. E., 153\n\n Lorenz, O., 330\n\n Loscin and Lascin, 314\n\n Louisiana, 187, 296\n\n Lunatics, 193\n\n Lutz, F. E., Fig. 16\n\n Luzon, 315\n\n Lynn, Mass., 261\n\n\n M\n\n Macedonia, 326\n\n MacNicholl, T. A., 55, 56\n\n Madonnas, 397\n\n Magyars, 299, 302, 427\n\n Maine, 172\n\n Maine, University of, 47\n\n Mairet, 44\n\n Maize, 104\n\n Malaria, 63\n\n Malayans, 315\n\n Mall, Bean &, 285\n\n Malone, Widow, 204\n\n Malthus, 117, 134, 145, 151\n\n Mamelukes, 284\n\n Management, 221\n\n Manchester, 57\n\n Mann, Mrs. Horace, 153\n\n Marks, school, 216\n\n Marriage laws, 196\n\n Marriage rate, 237\n\n Marshall, Gov. Thomas R., 191\n\n Martha's Vineyard, 154\n\n Maryland, 206\n\n Massachusetts, 123, 241, 255, 259, 260, 261, 295, 326\n\n Mass. Agricultural College, 255\n\n Mass. State Prison, 182\n\n Maternal impression, 64\n\n Maternity, 221\n\n Mayo, M. J., 286\n\n Mean American man, 425\n\n Mechanism of inheritance, 431\n\n Mecklin, J. M., 280, 281, 283\n\n Medical colleges, 246\n\n Mediterranean, 49, 52\n\n Mediterranean race, 280, 357\n\n Melting pot, 424, 428\n\n Mendel, G., 427\n\n Mendelian units, 105\n\n Mendelism, 430, 441\n\n Mendelism, essence of, 427\n\n Mendelssohn, F. B., 96\n\n Mental capacities, inheritance of, 84\n\n Mental measurements, 75\n\n Mesocephalic heads, 427\n\n Mestizos, 314\n\n Methodist clergymen, 270\n\n Methods of restriction, 184\n\n Metis, Spanish, 314\n\n Meyerbeer, G., 96\n\n Mice, 45\n\n Michigan, 172, 194\n\n Middle Atlantic states, 358\n\n Middletown, Conn., 192\n\n Military celibacy, 320\n\n Miller, K., 388\n\n Mill, J. S., 165, 174\n\n Milton, J., 21\n\n Minimum wage, 374\n\n Minnesota, 172, 202\n\n Miscegenation, 209, 291\n\n Missouri, 208, 288\n\n Modesty, 251\n\n Modification of the germ-plasm, 25\n\n Mohammed, 179\n\n Money, 229\n\n Monogamy, 222, 387\n\n Moody, L., 153\n\n Moral equivalent of war, 27\n\n Moral perverts, 193\n\n Moravians, 311\n\n Mores, 222, 441\n\n Morgan, A., 233\n\n Morgan, T. H., 4, 100, 101\n\n Mormon Church, 273\n\n Moron, 188\n\n Mothers' pensions, 375, 376\n\n Mother's age, influence of, 347\n\n Motivated ethics, 394\n\n Mountain states, 358\n\n Mount Holyoke College, 240, 263\n\n Movement, eugenic, 147\n\n Mozambique, 129\n\n Mulatto, 288\n\n Muller, H. J., 101, Fig. 19\n\n Multiple factors, 104\n\n Muncey, E. B., 433\n\n Murphey, H. D., 242\n\n Music, 96\n\n Mutation, 441\n\n Mutilations, 38\n\n Myopia, 13, 59\n\n McDonald, A., 286\n\n\n N\n\n Nam Family, 143, 168\n\n Naples, 303\n\n Napoleon, 18, 179, 321\n\n Nashville, Tenn., 261\n\n Nasmyth, G., 322\n\n National army, 319\n\n National association for the advancement of colored people, 294, 295\n\n National committee for mental hygiene, 172\n\n Native whites, 238\n\n Natural inheritance, 152\n\n Natural selection, 148\n\n Nature, 1\n\n Nearing, S., 261\n\n Nebraska, 208\n\n Negroes, 238, 280\n\n Negro women, 387\n\n Nevada, 187, 192, 296\n\n New England, 260, 265, 274, 291, 358, 426\n\n New Hampshire, 208\n\n New Haven, Conn., 261\n\n New Jersey, 179, 193, 202\n\n New Mexico, 187\n\n Newport News, Va., 288\n\n Newsholme A., 140, 141\n\n New York, 11, 77, 172, 182, 186, 193, 233, 282, 286\n\n New world, 324\n\n Nice, 45, 47\n\n Nicolin, 45\n\n Night-blindness, 109, 433\n\n Nilsson-Ehle, H., 104\n\n Nobility, 118\n\n Nordic, 426\n\n Nordic race, 280, 301, 357\n\n Normal curve, 441\n\n Normal school girls, 262\n\n Norman conquest, 338\n\n Normandy, 338\n\n North Carolina, 326\n\n North Dakota, 193\n\n North European, 426\n\n North Italians, 427\n\n Northern United States, 326\n\n Norway, 137\n\n Norwich, Conn., 192\n\n Novikov, J., 322\n\n Nucleus, 441\n\n Nurture, 1\n\n\n O\n\n Oberlin college, 244\n\n Occupation, diseases of, 62\n\n Odin, A., 258\n\n Ohio, 172\n\n Ohio State University, 244\n\n Oklahoma, 202, 208\n\n Oliver, T., 62\n\n Oregon, 208\n\n Organization of industry, 307\n\n Oriental immigration, 313\n\n Origin of eugenics, 147\n\n Orthodactyly, 101, 102, 384, 433\n\n Ovarian transplantation, 419\n\n Ovize, 44\n\n\n P\n\n Pacific, 358\n\n Paget parish, Bermuda, 205\n\n Paine, J. H., Figs. 16, 21\n\n Paraguay, 325\n\n Parents of great men, 423\n\n Paris, 140, 155\n\n Parker, G., 233\n\n Parole, 209\n\n Partial segregation, 250\n\n Past performance, 342\n\n Passing of the great race, 426\n\n Pasteur, L., 333, 334\n\n Patent, definition of, 441\n\n Paternity, 219\n\n Paul, C., 63\n\n Paupers, 157, 302\n\n Pearl, R., 47, 48, 99, 423\n\n Pearson, K., 10, 12, 55, 56, 57, 60, 85, 93, 99, 118, 119, 120,\n 121, 122, 124, 125, 126, 127, 134, 143, 144, 153, 212, 215,\n 224, 227, 231, 232, 344, 348, 349, 368, 404, 408, 409, 411,\n 413, 428, 433\n\n Pedagogical celibacy, 390\n\n Peerage, 232\n\n Pennsylvania, 167, 187, 202, 208\n\n Pennsylvania Dutch, 424\n\n Pennsylvania, feeble-minded citizens of, 168\n\n Pennsylvania, University of, 132\n\n Penrose, C. A., 203\n\n Perrin, 372\n\n Percy, H., Fig. 19\n\n Perry, S. J., 124\n\n Persians, 321\n\n Perversion, 248\n\n Pessimism, 247\n\n Peters, I. L., 226\n\n Phi Beta Kappa, 241, 262\n\n Philanthropy, 33\n\n Philippine islands, 313\n\n Philippines, 324\n\n Phillips, B. A., 287\n\n Phillips, J. C., 245, 267, 419\n\n Phthisis, 126\n\n Physical care of the infant, 278\n\n Physical culture, 219\n\n Physico-chemical effects, 38\n\n Piang, Datto, 314\n\n Piebaldism, 103, 433, Fig. 20\n\n Pike, F. H., 3\n\n Pikipitanges, 132\n\n Pilgrim fathers, 424\n\n Piney folk, 168\n\n Pitcairn islanders, 300\n\n Pittsburgh, 138\n\n Pittsburgh, University of, 234\n\n Pituitary gland, 103\n\n Plato, 150\n\n Ploetz, A., 118, 119, 408, 409, 410\n\n Plymouth, England, 118\n\n Poisons, racial, 48, 61, 63, Fig. 7\n\n Poles, 259, 299, 427\n\n Polygamy, 387\n\n Polynesians, 127, 129\n\n Pope, E. G., 124\n\n Popenoe, C. H., 78\n\n Popenoe, P., vi, 244, 245, 270, 402, 423\n\n Population, Malthusian, 151\n\n Portland, Ore., 261\n\n Portuguese, 299, 302\n\n Possible improvement of the human breed, etc., 152\n\n Poulton, E. B., 43\n\n Powys, A. O., 272, 346\n\n Pragmatic school, 352\n\n Preferential mating, 214\n\n Pre-natal care, 70\n\n Pre-natal culture, 70\n\n Pre-natal influence, 64\n\n Pre-natal life, 155\n\n Princeton college, 249\n\n Probability curve, 78, 80, 441\n\n Proctor fellowship, 249\n\n Production, 307\n\n Professional classes, 232\n\n Professor's families, 228\n\n Progressive changes, 39\n\n Prohibited degrees of marriage, 222\n\n Prohibition, 389\n\n Propaganda, eugenic, 195\n\n Prophylaxis, 252\n\n Prostitution, 251\n\n Protestant Christianity, 274\n\n Protoplasm, 442\n\n Prussia, 121, 321\n\n Pseudo-celibacy, 248\n\n Psychiatry, 442\n\n Psychopathic inferiority, 302\n\n Ptolemies, 206\n\n Public charities association, 168\n\n Punishment, 192\n\n Punitive purpose, 192\n\n Puritan, 298\n\n Pyle, W. H., 287\n\n\n Q\n\n Quadruplets, Fig. I\n\n Quaker families, 118, 144\n\n Quakers, English, 411\n\n\n R\n\n Rabaud, E., 73\n\n Rabbits, 45\n\n Race betterment conference, first, 1\n\n Race suicide, 257\n\n Racial poisons, 48, 61, 63, 338, Fig. 7\n\n Radot, R. V., 333\n\n Rapists, 193\n\n Recessive, 433, 442\n\n Reconstruction period, 325\n\n Redfield, C. L., 40, 421, 422, 423\n\n Refraction, 59\n\n Regression, 112, 442\n\n Reid, G. A., 50, 125, 129\n\n Religion and eugenics, 393\n\n Remote ancestors, 338\n\n Research fellowship, 153\n\n Reserve, 251\n\n Restriction, methods of, 184\n\n Restrictive eugenics, 175, 184\n\n Retrogression, 42\n\n Revolutionary war, 426\n\n Reward and punishment, 395\n\n Rhode Island, 261\n\n Rice, J. M., 95\n\n Richmond, Va., 288\n\n Riis, J., 1\n\n Roman catholic church, 273\n\n Roman republic, 284\n\n Rome custodial asylum, 186\n\n Roosevelt, T., 308\n\n Ross, E. A., X, 301\n\n Roumanians, 299, 311, 427\n\n Round-headed type, 427\n\n Rousseau, J. J., 75\n\n Royal families, 17, 20, 118, 410\n\n Rubin, von Gruber and, 204\n\n Ruskin, 342\n\n Russell Sage Foundation, 186\n\n Russia, 137, 302, 325\n\n Russian Jews, 427\n\n Russians, 259, 302, 311, 427\n\n Russo-Hebrew, 302\n\n Russo-Japanese war, 321\n\n Ruthenians, 311\n\n\n S\n\n Sacerdotal celibacy, 222\n\n St. Louis, 154\n\n St. Paul, public schools of, 372\n\n Salpingectomy, 185\n\n San Domingo, 289\n\n Save the babies propaganda, 273, 412\n\n Saxon, 426\n\n Scandinavia, 299\n\n Scandinavian, 311\n\n Schoenberg, Berlin, 382\n\n School acquaintance, 234\n\n Schuster, E., 93, 153, 435\n\n Scope of eugenics, 152\n\n Scotch, 259, 311\n\n Scotland, 237\n\n Scrub, 229\n\n Seashore, C. E., 343\n\n Segregation, 88, 185, 430, 442\n\n Selection, 442\n\n Selection, natural, 148\n\n Selective conscription, 320\n\n Self-repression, 251\n\n Sewall, S. E., 153\n\n Sex determination, 347\n\n Sex equality, 379\n\n Sex ethics, 252\n\n Sex histories, 252\n\n Sex hygiene movement, 385\n\n Sex hygienists, 154\n\n Sex-limited, 442\n\n Sex-linked, 442\n\n Sex-linked characters, 433\n\n Sexual perverts, 193\n\n Sexual selection, 136, 215, 262, 325, 442\n\n Sexual variety, 247\n\n Shepherd's purse, 104\n\n Shinn, M. W., 243\n\n Short-fingerness, 102\n\n Shorthorn cattle, 423\n\n Short-sightedness, 12\n\n Shull, G. H., 104\n\n Sibs, 202\n\n Sidis, B., 86\n\n Simpson, Q. V., Fig. 20\n\n Single tax, 353\n\n Sing Sing, 182\n\n Sixty family, 168\n\n Slavs, 299, 304\n\n Smith's island, 206\n\n Smith, M. R., 241, 265\n\n Snow, E. C., 121, 413\n\n Social status, 229\n\n Socialism, 362\n\n Solvay Institut, 155\n\n Soma, 443\n\n Somerset parish, Bermuda, 205\n\n South Atlantic, 358\n\n South Carolina, 187\n\n South Dakota, 208, 296\n\n South Italians, 427\n\n South Slavs, 302\n\n Southern United States, 291, 325\n\n Southwestern state normal school, 217\n\n Spain, 19, 137\n\n Spanish, 324\n\n Spanish conquest, 131\n\n Spanish wells, 203\n\n Spartans, 171\n\n Spencer, H., 33, 34, 35, 41, 136, 165, 348\n\n Spermatozoa, 45\n\n Spirochaete, 62\n\n Sprague, R. J., 240, 253, 255, 262\n\n Standards of education, 275\n\n Stanford University, 245\n\n Starch, D., 21\n\n State Board of Charities of New York, 435\n\n Station for Experimental Evolution, 100\n\n Sterilization, 185\n\n Stetson, G. R., 286\n\n Stevenson, R. L., 131, 301\n\n Stiles, C. W., 291\n\n Stockard, C. R., 44, 45, 47\n\n Strong, A. C., 287\n\n Stuart line, 19\n\n Sturge, M. D., 55\n\n Sturtevant, A. H., 101\n\n Subordination of women, 362\n\n Substitution tests, 288\n\n Superficial characteristics, 227\n\n Superior, marriage rate of, 237\n\n Superiority of eldest, 344\n\n Sweden, 138, 155\n\n Swedes, 259\n\n Switzerland, 56, 138, 155\n\n Symphalangism, 433, Fig. 17\n\n Syphilis, 63\n\n Syphilitics, 193\n\n Syracuse University, 245\n\n Syrians, 299, 302\n\n\n T\n\n Taboo, 222, 297\n\n Tail-male line, 331\n\n Talent, hereditary, 151\n\n Tarbell, I. M., 333\n\n Tasmania, 131, 132\n\n Taxation, 352\n\n Taylor, J. H., Figs. 22, 25\n\n Telegony, 73\n\n Ten commandments, 394\n\n Tennessee, 187\n\n Terman, L. M., 106\n\n Teutonic, 426\n\n Teutonic nations, 52\n\n Texas, 202\n\n Theism, 398\n\n Theistic religion, 395\n\n Theognis of Megara, 150\n\n Therapeutic, 192\n\n Thirty Years' war, 326\n\n Thompson, J. A., 29, 34, 435\n\n Thorndike, E. L., 10, 11, 21, 76, 79, 90, 91, 373\n\n Threadworn, 7\n\n Tobacco, 45, 63\n\n Todde, C., 45\n\n Trades unionism, 388\n\n Training school of Vineland, N. J., 188\n\n Trait, 443\n\n Transmissibility, 38\n\n Tropical fevers, 133\n\n Tropics, 35\n\n Truro, 206\n\n Tuberculosis, 57, 124, 199, 302\n\n Turkey, 137\n\n Turkish, 311\n\n Turner, J. M. W., 68, 342\n\n Turpitude, moral, 194\n\n Twins, 90, Figs. 24, 25\n\n\n U\n\n Unfitness, 121\n\n Unit-character, 443\n\n United States, 16, 24, 137, 155, 289, 291, 407\n\n U. S. public health service, 303\n\n University of London, 153\n\n University of Pittsburgh, 216\n\n Unlike, marriage of, 212\n\n Uruguay, 325\n\n Use and disuse, 38\n\n Useful works of reference, 435\n\n Utah, 187, 208\n\n Uterine infection, 38\n\n\n V\n\n Vagrants, 302\n\n Variation, 443\n\n Variate difference correlation, 121\n\n Vasectomy, 184\n\n Vassar College, 240\n\n Vedder, E. B., 387\n\n Veblen, T., 228\n\n Venereal diseases, 248, 251\n\n Venereal infection, 386\n\n Vermont, 326\n\n Vestigial, 443\n\n Victor Emmanuel, 19\n\n Villard, O. G., 294\n\n Vineland, N. J., 71\n\n Vineyard, Martha's, 154\n\n Virginia, 326\n\n Vision, 59\n\n Vocational guidance, 371\n\n Vocational training, 371\n\n Voisin, 206\n\n Volta bureau, 154\n\n\n W\n\n Wales, 122, 138\n\n Wallin, J. E. W., 188\n\n Walter, H. E., 435\n\n War, 318\n\n Warne, F. J., 304\n\n Washington, 192, 208\n\n Washington, D. C., 154, 233, 261, 286\n\n Washington, G., 337\n\n Washington Seminary, 242\n\n Weakness, matings involving, 200\n\n Webb, S., 269\n\n Wedgewood, E., 208\n\n Weismann, A., 25, 26, 44, 431\n\n Weldon, W. F. R., 99, 118\n\n Wellesley College, 235, 239, 242, 262, 263\n\n Wellesley scholarships, 262\n\n Welsh, 259, 311\n\n West, B., 342\n\n West, J., 132\n\n West north central states, 358\n\n West south central states, 358\n\n West Virginia, 187\n\n Westergaard, H., 57\n\n Wheat, 104\n\n Whetham, W. C. D., 435, 436\n\n White slavery, 193\n\n Whitman, C. O., 348\n\n Who's Who, 246\n\n Willcox, W. F., 269\n\n Williams, W., 303\n\n William the Conqueror, 338\n\n William of Occam, 93\n\n William of Orange, 19\n\n William the Silent, 19\n\n Wilson, J. A., 13\n\n Wilson, W., 310\n\n Wisconsin, 172, 194\n\n Wisconsin, University of, 45, 63, 244\n\n Woman suffrage, 380\n\n Woman's colleges, 383\n\n Woods, A. W., 334\n\n Woods, E. B., 372, 373\n\n Woods, F. A., 3, 17, 18, 19, 89, 144, 260, 327, 341, 373\n\n Wright, L. E., 314\n\n Wright, S., vi., 433\n\n\n Y\n\n Yale College, 245, 265, 266\n\n Yerkes, R. M., 87, 88\n\n Young Men's Christian Association, 155, 235, 336\n\n Young Peoples Society of Christian Endeavor, 234\n\n Young Women's Christian Association, 235\n\n Yule, G. U., 144\n\n\n Z\n\n Zero Family, 168\n\n Zygote, 26, 443\n\n Zymotic, 443\n\n Zulus, 284\n\n\n * * * * *\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1] See Woods, Frederick Adams, \"Laws of Diminishing Environmental\nInfluences,\" _Popular Science Monthly_, April, 1910, pp. 313-336;\nHuxley, J. S., _The Individual in the Animal Kingdom_, Cambridge and New\nYork, 1912. Pike, F. H., and Scott, E. L., \"The Significance of Certain\nInternal Conditions of the Organism in Organic Evolution,\" _American\nNaturalist_, Vol. XLIX, pp. 321-359, June, 1915.\n\n[2] There is one line of experiment which is simple and striking enough\nto deserve mention--namely, ovarian transplantation. A description of\nthis is given in Appendix A.\n\n[3] Galton, Francis, _Inquiries into Human Faculty_, 1907 edition, pp.\n153-173. This volume of Galton's, which was first published in 1883, has\nbeen reissued in Everyman's Library, and should be read by all\neugenists.\n\n[4] What is said here refers to positive correlations, which are the\nonly kind involved in this problem. Correlations may also be negative,\nlying between 0 and -1; for instance, if we measured the correlation\nbetween a man's lack of appetite and the time that had elapsed since his\nlast meal, we would have to express it by a negative fraction, the minus\nsign showing that the greater his satiety, the less would be the time\nsince his repast. The best introduction to correlations is Elderton's\n_Primer of Statistics_ (London, 1912).\n\n[5] Dr. Thorndike's careful measurements showed that it is impossible to\ndraw a hard and fast line between identical twins and ordinary twins.\nThere is no question as to the existence of the two kinds, but the\nordinary twins may happen to be so nearly alike as to resemble identical\ntwins. Accordingly, mere appearance is not a safe criterion of the\nidentity of twins. His researches were published in the _Archives of\nPhilosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods_, No. 1, New York, 1905.\n\n[6] _A First Study of the Inheritance of Vision and the Relative\nInfluence of Heredity and Environment on Sight._ By Amy Barrington and\nKarl Pearson. Eugenics Laboratory (London), Memoir Series V.\n\n[7] Dr. James Alexander Wilson, assistant surgeon of the Opthalmic\nInstitute, Glasgow, published an analysis of 1,500 cases of myopia in\nthe _British Medical Journal_, p. 395, August 29, 1914. His methods are\nnot above criticism, and too much importance should not be attached to\nhis results, which show that in 58% of the cases heredity can be\ncredited with the myopia of the patient. In 12% of the cases it was due\nto inflammation of the cornea (keratitis) while in the remaining 30% no\nhereditary influence could be proved, but various reasons made him feel\ncertain that in many cases it existed. The distribution of myopia by\ntrades and professions among his patients is suggestive: 65% of the\ncases among school children showed myopic heredity; 63% among housewives\nand domestic servants; 68% among shop and factory works; 60% among\nclerks and typists; 60% among laborers and miners. If environment really\nplayed an active part, one would not expect to find this similarity in\npercentages between laborers and clerks, between housewives and\nschoolteachers, etc.\n\n[8] _The Influence of Unfavourable Home Environment and Defective\nPhysique on the Intelligence of School Children._ By David Heron.\nEugenics Laboratory (London), Memoir Series No. VIII.\n\n[9] _Hereditary Genius; an Inquiry into its Laws and Consequences._\nLondon, 1869.\n\n[10] Woods, Frederick Adams, \"Heredity and the Hall of Fame,\" _Popular\nScience Monthly_, May, 1913.\n\n[11] Woods, Frederick Adams, _Mental and Moral Heredity in Royalty_, New\nYork, 1906. See also \"Sovereigns and the Supposed Influence of\nOpportunity,\" _Science_, n. s., XXXIX, No. 1016, pp. 902-905, June 19,\n1914, where Dr. Woods answers some criticisms of his work.\n\n[12] _Educational Psychology_, Vol. III, p. 306. Starch's results are\nalso quoted from Thorndike.\n\n[13] Jean Baptiste Lamarck, a French naturalist, born in 1744, was one\nof the pioneers in the philosophical study of evolution. The theory\n(published in 1809) for which he is best known is as follows: \"Changes\nin the animal's surroundings are responded to by changes in its habits.\"\n\"Any particular habit involves the regular use of some organs and the\ndisuse of others. Those organs which are used will be developed and\nstrengthened, those not used diminished and weakened, and the changes so\nproduced will be transmitted to the offspring, and thus progressive\ndevelopment of particular organs will go on from generation to\ngeneration.\" His classical example is the neck of the giraffe, which he\nsupposes to be long because, for generation after generation, the\nanimals stretched their necks in order to get the highest leaves from\nthe trees.\n\n[14] Boas, F., _Changes in Body Form of Descendants of Immigrants_,\n1911.\n\n[15] _Civilization and Climate._ By Ellsworth Huntington, Yale\nUniversity Press, 1916.\n\n[16] _American Naturalist_, L., pp. 65-89, 144-178, Feb. and Mar., 1916.\n\n[17] _Proc. Am. Philos. Soc._ LV, pp. 243-259, 1916.\n\n[18] Dr. Reid is the author who has most effectively called attention to\nthis relation between alcohol and natural selection. Those interested\nwill find a full treatment in his books, _The Present Evolution of Man_,\n_The Laws of Heredity_, and _The Principles of Heredity_.\n\n[19] _Principles of Psychology_, ii, p. 543.\n\n[20] Leon J. Cole points out that this may be due in considerable part\nto less voluntary restriction of offspring on the part of those who are\noften under the influence of alcohol.\n\n[21] For a review of the statistical problems involved, see Karl\nPearson. An attempt to correct some of the misstatements made by Sir\nVictor Horsley, F. R. S., F. R. C. S., and Mary D. Sturge, M. D., in\ntheir criticisms of the Galton Laboratory Memoir: _First Study of the\nInfluence of Parental Alcoholism_, etc.; and Professor Pearson's various\npopular lectures, also _A Second Study of the Influence of Parental\nAlcoholism on the Physique and Intelligence of Offspring_. By Karl\nPearson and Ethel M. Elderton. Eugenics Laboratory Memoir Series XIII.\n\n[22] _A First Study of the Influence of Parental Alcoholism on the\nPhysique and Intelligence of Offspring._ By Ethel M. Elderton and Karl\nPearson. Eugenics Laboratory Memoir Series X. Harald Westergaard, who\nreexamined the Elderton-Pearson data, concludes that considerable\nimportance is to be attached to the selective action of alcohol, the\nweaklings in the alcoholic families having been weeded out early in\nlife.\n\n[23] Prohibition would have some _indirect_ eugenic effects, which will\nbe discussed in Chapter XVIII.\n\n[24] Chapter XXX, verses 31-43. A knowledge of the pedigree of Laban's\ncattle would undoubtedly explain where the stripes came from. It is\ninteresting to note how this idea persists: a correspondent has recently\nsent an account of seven striped lambs born after their mothers had seen\na striped skunk. The actual explanation is doubtless that suggested by\nHeller in the _Journal of Heredity_, VI, 480 (October, 1915), that a\nstripe is part of the ancestral coat pattern of the sheep, and appears\nfrom time to time because of reversion.\n\n[25] Such a skin affection, known as icthyosis, xerosis or xeroderma, is\nusually due to heredity. Davenport says it \"is especially apt to be\nfound in families in which consanguineous marriages occur and this fact,\ntogether with the pedigrees [which he studied], suggests that it is due\nto the absence of some factor that controls the process of cornification\nof the skin. On this hypothesis a normal person who belongs to an\naffected family may marry into a normal family with impunity, but cousin\nmarriages are to be avoided.\" See Davenport, C. B., _Heredity in\nRelation to Eugenics_, p. 134. New York, 1911.\n\n[26] Its eugenics is to be effected through the mental exertion of\nmothers. And we have lately been in correspondence with a western\nattorney who is endeavoring to form an association of persons who will\nagree to be the parents of \"willed\" children. By this means, he has\ncalculated (and sends a chart to prove it) that it will require only\nfour generations to produce the Superman.\n\n[27] _Life and Letters of Charles Darwin_, Vol. I, p. 302, New York,\n1897. The letter is dated 1844.\n\n[28] Goddard, H. H., _Feeble-mindedness_, p. 359. New York, the\nMacmillan Company, 1914.\n\n[29] For a review of the evidence consult an article on \"Telegony\" by\nDr. Etienne Rabaud in the _Journal of Heredity_, Vol. V, No. 9, pp.\n389-400; September, 1914.\n\n[30] It will be recalled that the coefficient of correlation measures\nthe resemblance between two variables on a scale between 0 and-1 or +1.\nIf the correlation is zero, there is no constant relation; if it is\nunity, any change in one must result in a determinate change in the\nother; if it is 0.5, it means that when one of the variables deviates\nfrom the mean of its class by a given amount, the other variable will\ndeviate from the mean of its class by 50% of that amount (each deviation\nbeing measured in terms of the variability of its own class, in order\nthat they may be properly comparable.)\n\n[31] Sidis, Boris, M.A., Ph.D., M.D., \"Neurosis and Eugenics,\" _Medical\nReview of_ _Reviews_, Vol. XXI, No. 10, pp. 587-594, New York, October,\n1915. A psychologist who writes of \"some miraculous germ-plasm\n(chromatin) with wonderful dominant 'units' (Chromosomes)\" is hardly a\ncompetent critic of the facts of heredity.\n\n[32] In a letter to the _Journal of Heredity_, under date of August 4,\n1916.\n\n[33] Galton, Francis, _Inquiries into Human Faculty_, p. 167, London,\n1907.\n\n[34] Woods, Frederick Adams, _Heredity in Royalty_, New York, 1906.\n\n[35] _Op. cit._, pp. 170-171.\n\n[36] Thorndike, E. L., \"Measurements of Twins,\" _Arch. of Philos.,\nPsych. and Sci. Methods_, No. 1, New York, 1905; summarized in his\n_Educational Psychology_, Vol. III, pp. 247-251, New York, 1914.\nMeasured on a scale where 1 = identity, he found that twins showed a\nresemblance to each other of about .75, while ordinary brothers of about\nthe same age resembled each other to the extent of about .50 only. The\nresemblance was approximately the same in both physical and mental\ntraits.\n\n[37] The quotations in this and the following paragraph are from\n_Thorndike's Educational Psychology_, pp. 304-305, Vol. III.\n\n[38] _Biometrika_, Vol. III, p. 156.\n\n[39] \"William of Occam's Razor\" is the canon of logic which declares\nthat it is unwise to seek for several causes of an effect, if a single\ncause is adequate to account for it.\n\n[40] Schuster, Edgar, _Eugenics_, pp. 150-163, London, 1913.\n\n[41] _Educational Psychology_ (1914), Vol. III, p. 235.\n\n[42] Cobb, Margaret V., _Journal of Educational Psychology_, viii, pp.\n1-20, Jan., 1917.\n\n[43] This is not true of the small English school of biometrists,\nfounded by Sir Francis Galton, W. F. R. Weldon and Karl Pearson, and now\nled by the latter. It has throughout denied or minified Mendelian\nresults, and depended on the treatment of inheritance by a study of\ncorrelations. With the progress of Mendelian research, biometric methods\nmust be supplemented with pedigree studies. In human heredity, on the\nother hand, because of the great difficulties attendant upon an\napplication of Mendelian methods, the biometric mode of attack is still\nthe most useful, and has been largely used in the present book. It has\nbeen often supposed that the methods of the two schools (biometry and\nMendelism) are antagonistic. They are rather supplementary, each being\nvaluable in cases where the other is less applicable. See Pearl,\nRaymond, _Modes of Research in Genetics_, p. 182, New York, 1915\n\n[44] Few people realize what large numbers of plants and animals have\nbeen bred for experimental purposes during the last decade; W. E. Castle\nof Bussey Institution, Forest Hills, Mass., has bred not less than\n45,000 rats. In the study of a single character, the endosperm of maize,\nnearly 100,000 pedigreed seeds have been examined by different students.\nWorkers at the University of California have tabulated more than 10,000\nmeasurements on flower size alone, in tobacco hybrids. T. H. Morgan and\nhis associates at Columbia University have bred and studied more than\nhalf a million fruit flies, and J. Arthur Harris has handled more than\n600,000 bean-plants at the Carnegie Institution's Station for\nExperimental Evolution, Cold Spring Harbor, L. I. While facts of human\nheredity, and of inheritance in large mammals generally, are often\ngrounded on scanty evidence, it must not be thought that the fundamental\ngeneralizations of heredity are based on insufficient data.\n\n[45] For a brief account of Mendelism, see Appendix D.\n\n[46] Of course these factors are not of equal importance; some of them\nproduce large changes and some, as far as can be told, are of minor\nsignificance. The factors, moreover, undergo large changes from time to\ntime, thus producing mutations; and it is probable small changes as\nwell, the evidence for which requires greater refinements of method than\nis usual among those using the pedigree method.\n\n[47] _A Critique of the Theory of Evolution_, by Thomas Hunt Morgan,\nprofessor of experimental zooelogy in Columbia University. Princeton\nUniversity Press, 1916. This book gives the best popular account of the\nstudies of heredity in Drosophila. The advanced student will find _The\nMechanism of Mendelian Heredity_ (New York, 1915), by Morgan,\nSturtevant, Mueller, and Bridges, indispensable, but it is beyond the\ncomprehension of most beginners.\n\n[48] \"On the Inheritance of Some Characters in Wheat,\" A. and G. Howard,\n_Mem. Dep. of Agr. India_, V: 1-46, 1912. This careful and important\nwork has never received the recognition it deserves, apparently because\nfew geneticists have seen it. While the multiple factors in wheat seem\nto be different, those reported by East and Shull appear to be merely\nduplicates.\n\n[49] \"The Nature of Mendelian Units.\" By G. N. Collins, _Journal of\nHeredity_, V: 425 ff., Oct., 1914.\n\n[50] Dr. Castle, reviewing Dr. Goddard's work (_Journal of Abnormal\nPsychology_, Aug.-Sept., 1915) concludes that feeble-mindedness is to be\nexplained as a case of multiple allelomorphs. The evidence is inadequate\nto prove this, and proof would be, in fact, almost impossible, because\nof the difficulty of determining just what the segregation ratios are.\n\n[51] In strict accuracy, the law of ancestral inheritance must be\ndescribed as giving means of determining the probable deviation of any\nindividual from the mean of his own generation, when the deviations of\nsome or all of his ancestry from the types of their respective\ngenerations are known. It presupposes (1) no assortative mating, (2) no\ninbreeding and (3) no selection. Galton's own formula, which supposed\nthat the parents contributed 1/2, the grandparents 1/4, the\ngreat-grandparents 1/8, the next generation 1/16, and so on, is of value\nnow only historically, or to illustrate to a layman the fact that he\ninherits from his whole ancestry, not from his parents alone.\n\n[52] Johnson, Roswell H., \"The Malthusian Principle and Natural\nSelection,\" _American Naturalist_, XLVI (1912), pp. 372-376.\n\n[53] Karl Pearson, _The Groundwork of Eugenics_, p. 25, London, 1912.\n\n[54] \"Let _p_ be the chance of death from a random, not a constitutional\nsource, then 1-_p_ is the chance of a selective death in a parent and\n1-_p_ again of a selective death in the case of an offspring, then\n\n(1-_p_)^2 must equal about 1/3, = .36, more exactly 'therefore' 1-_p_ =\n.6 and _p_ = .40. In other words, 60% of the deaths _are selective_.\"\n\n[55] _Archiv f. Rassen-u. Gesellschafts Biologie_, VI (1909), pp. 33-43.\n\n[56] Snow, E. C., _On the Intensity of Natural Selection in Man_,\nLondon, 1911.\n\n[57] _Biometrika_, Vol. X, pp. 488-506, London, May, 1915.\n\n[58] Pearson, Karl, _Tuberculosis, Heredity and Environment_, London,\n1912. Among the most careful contributions to the problem of\ntuberculosis are those of Charles Goring (_On the Inheritance of the\nDiathesis of Phthisis and Insanity_, London, 1910), Ernest G. Pope (_A\nSecond Study of the Statistics of Pulmonary Tuberculosis_, London, Dulau\n& Co.), and W. P. Elderton and S. J. Perry (_A Third Study of the\nStatistics of Pulmonary Tuberculosis. The Mortality of the Tuberculous\nand Sanatorium Treatment_), London, 1909. See also our discussion in\nChapter I.\n\n[59] While most physicians lay too great stress on the factor of\ninfection, this mistake is by no means universal. Maurice Fishberg, for\nexample (quoted in the _Medical Review of Reviews_, XXII, 8, August,\n1916) states: \"For many years the writer was physician to a charitable\nsociety, having under his care annually 800 to 1,000 consumptives who\nlived in poverty and want, in overcrowded tenements, having all\nopportunities to infect their consorts; in fact most of the consumptives\nshared their bed with their healthy consorts. Still, very few cases were\nmet with in which tuberculosis was found in both the husband and wife.\nWidows, whose husbands died from phthisis, were only rarely seen to\ndevelop the disease.\"\n\n[60] In 9th Trans. of _American Association for the Study and Prevention\nof Tuberculosis_, p. 117.\n\n[61] _Geographical and Historical Pathology_ (New Sydenham Society,\n1883), Vol. III, p. 266.\n\n[62] Reid, G. Archdall, _The Present Evolution of Man_, and _The Laws of\nHeredity_.\n\n[63] _In the South Seas,_ p. 27; quoted by G. Archdall Reid, _The\nPrinciples of Heredity_ (New York, 1905), p. 183. Dr. Reid has discussed\nthe role of disease and alcohol on the modern evolution of man more\nfully than any other writer.\n\n[64] See, for example, John West's _History of Tasmania_, Vol. II,\nLaunceston, Tasmania, 1852.\n\n[65] See Hollingworth, H. L., _Vocational Psychology_, p. 170, New York,\n1916.\n\n[66] Net increase here refers only to the first year of life, and was\ncomputed by deducting the deaths under one year, in a ward, from the\nnumber of births in the same ward for the same year. For details of this\nstudy of the Pittsburgh vital statistics, see the _Journal of Heredity_,\nVol. VIII, pp. 178-183 (April, 1917).\n\n[67] Quoted from Newsholme and Stevenson, _The Decline of Human\nFertility_, London, 1906.\n\n[68] Heron, David, _On the Relation of Fertility in Man to Social\nStatus_, London, 1906. The account is quoted from Schuster, Edgar,\n_Eugenics_, pp. 220-221, London, 1913.\n\n[69] _Ztschft. f. Sozialwissenschaft,_ VII (1904), pp. 1 ff.\n\n[70] Two of the best known of these tribes are the \"Jukes\" and \"Nams.\"\n\"An analysis of the figures of the Jukes in regard to the birth-rate\nshows that of a total of 403 married Juke women, 330 reproduced one or\nmore children and 73 were barren. The average fecundity, counting those\nwho are barren, is 3.526 children per female. The 330 women having\nchildren have an average fecundity of 4.306 as compared with that of\n4.025, based on 120 reproducing women in the Nam family.\"--Estabrook, A.\nH., _The Jukes in 1915_, p. 51, Washington, Carnegie Institution, 1916.\n\n[71] Woods, Frederick Adams, _Heredity in Royalty_, New York, 1906.\n\n[72] Beeton, Miss M., Yule, G.U., and Pearson, Karl, _On the Correlation\nbetween Duration of Life and the Number of Offspring_, Proc. R. S.\nLondon, 67 (1900), pp. 159-171. The material consisted of English and\nAmerican Quaker families. Dr. Bell's work is based on old American\nfamilies, and has not yet been published.\n\n[73] The entire field of race betterment and social improvement is\ndivided between _eugenics_, which considers only germinal or heritable\nchanges in the race; and _euthenics_, which deals with improvement in\nthe individual, and in his environment. Of course, no sharp line can be\ndrawn between the two spheres, each one having many indirect effects on\nthe other. It is important to note, however, that any change in the\nindividual during his prenatal life is euthenic, not eugenic. Therefore,\ncontrary to the popular idea of the case, the \"Better Babies\" movement,\nthe agitation for proper care of expectant mothers, and the like, are\nnot _directly_ a part of eugenics. The moment of conception is the point\nat which eugenics gives place to euthenics. Eugenics is therefore the\n_fundamental_ method of human progress, euthenics the _secondary_ one;\ntheir relations will be further considered in the last chapter of this\nbook.\n\n[74] The clan has now reached its ninth generation and its present\nstatus has been exhaustively studied by A. H. Estabrook (_The Jukes in\n1915_: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1916). He enumerates 2,820\nindividuals, of whom half are still living. In the early 80's they left\ntheir original home and are now scattered all over the country. The\nchange in environment has enabled some of them to rise to a higher\nlevel, but on the whole, says C. B. Davenport in a preface to\nEstabrook's book, they \"still show the same feeble-mindedness,\nindolence, licentiousness and dishonesty, even when not handicapped by\nthe associations of their bad family name and despite the fact of being\nsurrounded by better social conditions.\" Estabrook says the clan might\nhave been exterminated by preventing the reproduction of its members,\nand that the nation would thereby have saved about $2,500,000. It is\ninteresting to note that \"out of approximately 600 living feeble-minded\nand epileptic Jukes, there are only three now in custodial care.\"\n\n[75] Key, Dr. Wilhelmina E., _Feeble-minded Citizens in Pennsylvania_,\npp. 11, 12, Philadelphia, Public Charities Assn., 1915.\n\n[76] The most recent extensive study of this point is A. H. Estabrook's\n_The Jukes in 1915_ (Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1916). The\nJukes migrated from their original home, in the mountains of New York, a\ngeneration ago, and are now scattered all over the country. Estabrook\ntried to learn, at first hand, whether they had improved as the result\nof new environments, and free from the handicap of their name, which for\ntheir new neighbors had no bad associations. In general, his findings\nseem to warrant the conclusion that a changed environment in itself was\nof little benefit. Such improvement as occurred in the tribe was rather\ndue to marriage with better stock; marriages of this kind were made more\npossible by the new environment, but the tendency to assortative mating\nrestricted them. It is further to be noted that while such marriages may\nbe good for the Juke family, they are bad for the nation as a whole,\nbecause they tend to scatter anti-social traits.\n\n[77] Key, _op. cit._, p. 7.\n\n[78] Figures furnished (September, 1917) by the National Committee for\nMental Hygiene, 50 Union Square, New York City.\n\n[79] This applies even to such an acute thinker as John Stuart Mill,\nwhose ideas were formed in the pre-Darwinian epoch, and whose works must\nnow be accepted with great reserve. Darwin was quite right in saying,\n\"The ignoring of all transmitted mental qualities will, as it seems to\nme, be hereafter judged as a most serious blemish in the works of Mr.\nMill.\" (_Descent of Man_, p. _98_.) A quotation from the _Principles of\nPolitical Economy_ (Vol. 1, p. 389) will give an idea of Mr. Mill's\npoint of view: \"Of all the vulgar methods of escaping from the effects\nof social and moral influences on the mind, the most vulgar is that of\nattributing diversities of conduct and character to inherent natural\ndifferences\"!\n\n[80] _Feeble-mindedness, its Causes and Consequences._ By H. H. Goddard,\ndirector of the Research Laboratory of the Training School at Vineland,\nNew Jersey, for feeble-minded boys and girls. New York, The Macmillan\nCo., 1914.\n\n[81] Probably the word now covers a congeries of defects, some of which\nmay be non-germinal. Epilepsy is so very generally found associated with\nvarious other congenital defects, that action should not be delayed.\n\n[82] Goddard, H. H., _Feeble-Mindedness_, pp. 14-16.\n\n[83] See the recent studies of C. B. Davenport, particularly _The Feebly\nInhibited_, Washington, Carnegie Institution, 1915.\n\n[84] In this connection diagnosis is naturally of the utmost importance.\nThe recent action of Chicago, New York, Boston, and other cities, in\nestablishing psychological clinics for the examination of offenders is a\ngreat step in advance. These clinics should be attached to the police\ndepartment, as in New York, not merely to the courts, and should pass on\noffenders before, not after, trial and commitment.\n\n[85] As a result of psychiatric study of the inmates of Sing Sing in\n1916, it was said that two-thirds of them showed some mental defect.\nExamination of 100 convicts selected at random in the Massachusetts\nState Prison showed that 29% were feeble-minded and 11% borderline\ncases. The highest percentage of mental defectives was found among\ncriminals serving sentence for murder in the second degree,\nmanslaughter, burglary and robbery. (Rossy, C. S., in _State Board of\nInsanity Bull._, Boston, Nov., 1915). Paul M. Bowers told the 1916\nmeeting of the American Prison Association of his study of 100\nrecidivists, each of whom had been convicted not fewer than four times.\nOf these 12 were insane, 23 feeble-minded and 10 epileptic, and in each\ncase Dr. Bowers said the mental defect bore a direct causal relation to\nthe crime committed. Such studies argue for the need of a little\nelementary biology in the administration of justice.\n\n[86] For a sane and cautious discussion of the subject see Wallin, J. E.\nW., \"A Program for the State Care of the Feeble-Minded and Epileptic,\"\n_School and Society_, IV, pp. 724-731, New York, Nov. 11, 1916.\n\n[87] Johnstone, E. R., \"Waste Land Plus Waste Humanity,\" _Training\nSchool Bulletin_, XI, pp. 60-63, Vineland, N. J., June, 1914.\n\n[88] \"Report of the Committee on the Sterilization of Criminals,\"\n_Journal of the Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology_, September,\n1916. Of the operations mentioned, 634 are said to have been performed\non insane persons and one on a criminal.\n\n[89] Guyer, M. F., Wisconsin Eugenics Legislation. Trans. Amer. Asso.\nStudy and Prevention of Infant Mortality, 1917, pp. 92-97.\n\n[90] Eugenics Record Office, Bulletin No. 10 A, _The Scope of the\nCommittee's Work_, Cold Spring Harbor, L. I., Feb., 1914; No. 10 B, _The\nLegal, Legislative and Administrative Aspects of Sterilization_, same\ndate.\n\n[91] Eugenics Record Office Bulletin No. 9: _State Laws Limiting\nMarriage Selection Examined in the Light of Eugenics_. Cold Spring\nHarbor, L. I., June, 1913.\n\n[92] Penrose, Clement A., _Sanitary Conditions in the Bahama Islands_,\nGeographical Society of Baltimore, 1905.\n\n[93] See von. Gruber and Ruedin, _Fortpflanzung, Vererbung,\nRassenhygiene_, p. 169, Muenchen, 1911.\n\n[94] Davenport, Charles B., _Heredity in Relation to Eugenics_, pp. 184\nff., New York, 1911.\n\n[95] Harris, J. Arthur, \"Assortative Mating in Man,\" _Popular Science\nMonthly_, LXXX, pp. 476-493, May, 1912. The most important studies on\nthe subject are cited by Dr. Harris.\n\n[96] An interesting and critical treatment of sexual selection is given\nby Vernon L. Kellogg in _Darwinism To-day_, pp. 106-128 (New York,\n1908). Darwin's own discussion (_The Descent of Man_) is still very well\nworth reading, if the reader is on his guard. The best general treatment\nof the theory of sexual selection, especially as it applies to man, is\nin chapter XI of Karl Pearson's _Grammar of Science_ (2d ed., London,\n1900).\n\n[97] Diffloth, Paul, _Le Fin de L'Enigme_, Paris, 1907.\n\n[98] The best popular yet scientific treatment of the subject we have\nseen is _The Dynamic of Manhood_, a book recently written by Luther H.\nGulick for the Young Men's Christian Association (New York, The\nAssociation Press, 1917).\n\n[99] The sympathy which we mentioned as the beginning of the\nhypothetical love affair does lead to a partial identity of will, it is\ntrue; but there is often too little in common between the man and woman\nto make this identity at all complete. As Karl Pearson points out, it is\nalmost essential to a successful marriage that two people have sympathy\nwith each other's aims and a considerable degree of similarity in\nhabits. If such a bond is lacking, the bond of sympathy aroused by some\ntrivial circumstance will not be sufficient to keep the marriage from\nshipwreck. The occasional altruism of young men who marry inferior girls\nbecause they \"feel sorry for them\" is not praiseworthy.\n\n[100] Ellis, Havelock, _The Task of Social Hygiene_, pp. 208-209,\nBoston, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1912.\n\n[101] G. Stanley Hall (_Adolescence_, II, 113) found the following\npoints, in order, specified as most admired in the other sex by young\nmen and women in their teens: eyes, hair, stature and size, feet,\neyebrows, complexion, cheeks, form of head, throat, ears, chin, hands,\nneck, nose. The voice was highly specialized and much preferred. The\nprincipal dislikes, in order, were: prominent or deep-set eyes, fullness\nof neck, ears that stand out, eyebrows that meet, broad and long feet,\nhigh cheek-bones, light eyes, large nose, small stature, long neck or\nteeth, bushy brows, pimples, red hair. An interesting study of some of\nthe trivial traits of manner which may be handicaps in sexual selection\nis published by Iva Lowther Peters in the _Pedagogical Seminary_, XXIII,\nNo. 4, pp. 550-570, Dec., 1916.\n\n[102] It has been suggested that the same goal would be reached if a\nyoung man before marriage would take out a life insurance policy in the\nname of his bride. The suggestion has many good points.\n\n[103] The correlation between fecundity and longevity which Karl Pearson\nhas demonstrated gives longevity another great advantage as a standard\nin sexual selection. See _Proc. Royal Soc. London_, Vol. 67, p. 159.\n\n[104] It is objected that if the long-lived marry each other, the\nshort-lived will also marry each other and thus the race will gain no\nmore than it loses. The reply to this is that the short-lived will marry\nin fewer numbers, as some of them die prematurely; that they will have\nfewer children; and that these children in turn will tend to die young.\nThus the short-lived strains will gradually run out, while the\nlong-lived strains are disseminated.\n\n[105] Hankins, F. H., \"The Declining Birth-Rate,\" _Journal of Heredity_,\nV, pp. 36-39, August, 1914.\n\n[106] Smith, Mary Roberts, \"Statistics of College and Non-college\nWomen,\" Quarterly Pubs. of the _American Statistical Assn._, VII, p. 1\nff., 1900.\n\n[107] \"Statistics of Eminent Women,\" _Pop. Sci. Mo._, June, 1913.\n\n[108] \"Marriage of College Women,\" _Century Magazine_, Oct., 1895.\n\n[109] Blumer, J. O., in _Journal of Heredity_, VIII, p. 217, May, 1917.\n\n[110] The statistics of this and the following middle west universities\nwere presented by Paul Popenoe in the _Journal of Heredity_, VIII, pp.\n43-45.\n\n[111] _Harvard Graduates' Magazine_, XXV, No. 97, pp. 25-34, September,\n1916.\n\n[112] Popenoe, Paul, \"Stanford's Marriage-Rate,\" _Journal of Heredity_,\nVIII, p. 170-173.\n\n[113] Banker, Howard J., \"Co-education and Eugenics,\" _Journal of\nHeredity_, VIII, pp. 208-214, May, 1917.\n\n[114] _Eugenics: Twelve University Lectures_, p. 9, New York, 1914.\n\n[115] Cf. Gould, Miriam C., \"The Psychological Influence upon Adolescent\nGirls of the Knowledge of Prostitution and Venereal Disease,\" _Social\nHygiene_, Vol. II, pp. 191-207, April, 1916. This interesting and\nimportant study of the reactions of 50 girls reveals that present\nmethods or indifference to the need of reasonable methods of teaching\nsex-hygiene are responsible for \"a large percentage of harmful results,\nsuch as conditions bordering on neurasthenia, melancholia, pessimism and\nsex antagonism.\"\n\n[116] Gallichan, Walter M., _The Great Unmarried_, New York, 1916.\n\n[117] Sprague, Robert J., \"Education and Race Suicide,\" _Journal of\nHeredity_, Vol. VI, pp. 158 ff., April, 1915. Many of the statistics of\nwomen's colleges, cited in the first part of this chapter, are from Dr.\nSprague's paper.\n\n[118] Odin calculated that 16% of the eminent men of France had at least\none relative who was in some way eminent; that 22% of the men of real\ntalent had such relation; and that among the geniuses the percentage\nrose to 40. There are thus two chances out of five that a man of genius\nwill have an eminent relative; for a man picked at random from the\npopulation the chance is one in several thousand. See Odin, A., _La\nGenese des Grands Hommes_, Vol. I, p. 432 and Vol. II, Tableau xii,\nLausanne, 1895.\n\n[119] Crum, Frederick S., \"The Decadence of the Native American Stock,\"\n_Quarterly Pubs. Am. Statistical Assn._, XIV, n. s. 107, pp. 215-223,\nSept., 1914.\n\n[120] Kuczynski, R. R., _Quarterly Journ. of Economics_, Nov. 1901, and\nFeb., 1902.\n\n[121] Nearing, Scott, \"The Younger Generation of American Genius,\" _The\nScientific Monthly_, II, pp. 48-61, Jan., 1916. \"Geographical\nDistribution of American Genius,\" _Popular Science Monthly_, II, August,\n1914.\n\n[122] In the chapter on Sexual Selection it was shown that the Normal\nSchool girls who stood highest in their classes married earliest. This\nmay seem a contradiction of the Wellesley marriage rates in this table.\nThe explanation probably is that while mental superiority is itself\nattractive in a mate, there are interferences built up in the collegiate\nlife.\n\n[123] Banker, Howard J., \"Co-education and Eugenics,\" _Journal of\nHeredity_, VIII, pp. 208-214, May, 1917.\n\n[124] Hill, Joseph A., \"Comparative Fecundity of Women of Native and\nForeign Parentage,\" _Quarterly Pubs. Amer. Statistical Assn._, XIII,\n583-604.\n\n[125] See Willcox, W. F., \"Fewer Births and Deaths: What Do They Mean?\"\n_Journal of Heredity_, VII, pp. 119-128, March, 1916.\n\n[126] The data are published in full by Paul Popenoe in the _Journal of\nHeredity_, October, 1917. It must be noted that, in spite of their small\nsalaries, the Methodist clergymen marry earlier and have more children\nthan do other men of equal education and social status, such as the\nHarvard and Yale graduates. This difference in marriage and birth-rate\nis doubtless to be credited in part to their inherent nature and in part\nto the action of religious idealism. It confirms the belief of eugenists\nthat even under present economic circumstances the birth-rate of the\nsuperior classes might be raised appreciably by a campaign of eugenic\neducation.\n\n[127] For an official statement of the attitude of the birth-rate of the\nMormon church, see _Journal of Heredity_, VII, pp. 450-451, Oct., 1916.\n\n[128] Mecklin, John M., _Democracy and Race Friction, a Study in Social\nEthics_, New York, 1914. p. 147.\n\n[129] It would be more accurate to say the Nordic race. Other white\nraces have not uniformly shown this discrimination. The Mediterranean\nrace in particular has never manifested the same amount of race feeling.\nThe Arabs have tended to receive the Negro almost on terms of equality,\npartly on religious grounds; it seems probable that the decadence of the\nArabs is largely due to their miscegenation.\n\n[130] Mecklin, _op. cit._, p. 147.\n\n[131] Blascoer, Frances, _Colored School Children in New York_, Public\nEducation Association of the City of New York, 1915. The preface, from\nwhich the quotation is taken, is by Eleanor Hope Johnson, chairman of\nthe committee on hygiene of school children.\n\n[132] Mecklin, _op. cit._, p. 32.\n\n[133] The Negro's contribution has perhaps been most noteworthy in\nmusic. This does not necessarily show advanced evolution; August\nWeismann long ago pointed out that music is a primitive accomplishment.\nFor an outline of what the Negro race has achieved, particularly in\nAmerica, see the _Negro Year Book_, Tuskegee Institute, Ala.\n\n[134] _Social Problems; Their Treatment, Past, Present and Future_, p.\n8, London, 1912.\n\n[135] Stetson, G. R., \"Memory Tests on Black and White Children,\"\n_Psych. Rev._, 1897, p. 285. See also MacDonald, A., in _Rep. U. S.\nComm. of Educ.,_ 1897-98.\n\n[136] Mayo, M. J., \"The Mental Capacity of the American Negro,\" _Arch.\nof Psych._, No. 28.\n\n[137] Phillips, B. A., \"Retardation in the Elementary Schools of\nPhiladelphia,\" _Psych. Clinic_, VI, pp. 79-90; \"The Binet Tests Applied\nto Colored Children,\" _ibid._, VIII, pp. 190-196.\n\n[138] Strong, A. C., _Ped. Sem._, XX, pp. 485-515.\n\n[139] Pyle, W. H., \"The Mind of the Negro Child,\" _School and Society_,\nI, pp. 357-360.\n\n[140] Ferguson, G. O., Jr., \"The Psychology of the Negro,\" _Arch. of\nPsych._ No. 36, April, 1916.\n\n[141] Though the Negro is not assimilable, he is here to stay; he should\ntherefore be helped to develop along his own lines. It is desirable not\nto subject him to too severe a competition with whites; yet such\ncompetition, acting as a stimulus, is probably responsible for part of\nhis rapid progress during the last century, a progress which would not\nhave been possible in a country where Negroes competed only with each\nother. The best way to temper competition is by differentiation of\nfunction, but this principle should not be carried to the extent of\npocketing the Negro in blind-alley occupations where development is\nimpossible. As mental tests show him to be less suited to literary\neducation than are the whites, it seems likely that agriculture offers\nthe best field for him.\n\n[142] This letter, and much of the data regarding the legal status of\nNegro-white amalgamation, are from an article by Albert Ernest Jenks in\nthe _Am. Journ. Sociology_, XXI, 5, pp. 666-679, March, 1916.\n\n[143] A recent readable account of the races of the world is Madison\nGrant's _The Passing of the Great Race_ (New York, 1916).\n\n[144] _The Old World in the New._ By E. A. Ross, professor of Sociology\nin the University of Wisconsin, New York, 1914.\n\n[145] Cf. Stevenson, Robert Louis, _The Amateur Emigrant_.\n\n[146] Interview with W. Williams, former commissioner of immigration, in\nthe _New York Herald_, April 13, 1912.\n\n[147] Of the total number of inmates of insane asylums of the entire U.\nS. of Jan. 1, 1910, 28.8% were whites of foreign birth, and of the\npersons admitted to such institutions during the year 1910, 25.5% were\nof this class. Of the total population of the United States in 1910 the\nforeign-born whites constituted 14.5%. Special report on the insane,\nCensus of 1910 (pub. 1914).\n\n[148] _The Tide of Immigration._ By Frank Julian Warne, special expert\non foreign-born population, 13th U. S. Census, New York, 1916.\n\n[149] _Essays in Social Justice._ By Thomas Nixon Carver, professor of\nPolitical Economy in Harvard University, Cambridge, 1915.\n\n[150] Fairchild's and Jenks' opinions are quoted from Warne, Chapter\nXVI.\n\n[151] _America and the Orient: A Constructive Policy_, by Rev. Sidney L.\nGulick, Methodist Book Concern. The _American Japanese Problem: a Study\nof the Racial Relations of the East and West_, New York, Scribner's.\n\n[152] _Oriental Immigration._ By W. C. Billings, surgeon, U. S. Public\nHealth Service; Chief Medical Officer, Immigration Service; Angel Island\n(San Francisco), Calif., _Journal of Heredity_, Vol. VI (1915), pp.\n462-467.\n\n[153] _Assimilation in the Philippines, etc._ By Albert Ernest Jenks,\nprofessor of anthropology in the University of Minnesota. _American\nJournal of Sociology_, Vol. XIX (1914), p. 783.\n\n[154] Students of the inheritance of mental and moral traits may be\ninterested to note that while the ordinary Chinese mestizo in the\nPhilippines is a man of probity, who has the high regard of his European\nbusiness associates, the Ilocanos, supposed descendants of pirates, are\nconsidered rather tricky and dishonest.\n\n[155] An important study of this subject was published by Professor\nVernon L. Kellogg in _Social Hygiene_ (New York), Dec, 1914.\n\n[156] Nasmyth, George, _Social Progress and the Darwinian Theory_, p.\n146, New York, 1916. While his book is too partisan, his Chapter III is\nwell worth reading by those who want to avoid the gross blunders which\nmilitarists and many biologists have made in applying Darwinism to\nsocial progress; it is based on the work of Professor J. Novikov of the\nUniversity of Odessa. See also _Headquarters Nights_ by Vernon Kellogg.\n\n[157] Jordan, D. S., and Jordan, H. E., _War's Aftermath_, Boston, 1915.\n\n[158] Jordan, David Starr, _War and the Breed_, p. 164. Boston, 1915.\nChancellor Jordan has long been the foremost exponent of the dysgenic\nsignificance of war, and this book gives an excellent summary of the\nproblem from his point of view.\n\n[159] See Woods, Frederick Adams, and Baltzly, Alexander, _Is War\nDiminishing_? New York, 1916.\n\n[160] See an interesting series of five articles in _The American\nHebrew_, Jan and Feb., 1917.\n\n[161] _Journal of Heredity_, VIII, pp. 277-283, June, 1917.\n\n[162] _The Early Life of Abraham Lincoln_, New York, 1896. For the\nEmancipator's maternal line see _Nancy Hanks_, by Caroline Hanks\nHitchcock. New York, 1899.\n\n[163] _The Life of Pasteur_ by his son-in-law, Rene Vallery Radot,\nshould be read by every student of biology.\n\n[164] Hollingworth, H. L., _Vocational Psychology_, pp. 212-213, New\nYork, 1916.\n\n[165] Sir Francis Galton and C. B. Davenport have called attention to\nthe probable inheritance of artistic ability and lately H. Drinkwater\n(_Journal of Genetics_, July, 1916), has attempted to prove that it is\ndue to a Mendelian unit. The evidence alleged is inadequate to prove\nthat the trait is inherited in any particular way, but the pedigrees\ncited by these three investigators, and the boyhood histories of such\nartists as Benjamin West, Giotto, Ruskin and Turner, indicate that an\nhereditary basis exists.\n\n[166] The difficulty about accepting such traits as this is that they\nare almost impossible of exact definition. The long teaching experience\nof Mrs. Evelyn Fletcher-Copp (_Journal of Heredity_, VII, 297-305, July,\n1916) suggests that any child of ordinary ability can and will compose\nmusic if properly taught, but of course in different degree.\n\n[167] Seashore, C. E., in _Psychol. Monogs,_ XIII, No. 1, pp. 21-60,\nDec., 1910. See also Fletcher-Copp, _ubi sup._ Mrs. Copp declares that\nthe gift of \"positive pitch\" or \"absolute pitch,\" i. e., the ability to\nname any sound that is heard, \"may be acquired, speaking very\nconservatively, by 80% of normal children,\" if they begin at an early\nage. It may be that this discrepancy with Seashore's careful laboratory\ntests is due to the fact that the pupils and teachers trained by Mrs.\nCopp are a selected lot, to start with.\n\n[168] The contributions on this subject are very widely scattered\nthrough periodical literature. The most important is Karl Pearson's\nmemoir (1914), reviewed in the _Journal of Heredity_, VI, pp. 332-336,\nJuly, 1915. See also Gini, Corrado, \"The Superiority of the Eldest,\"\n_Journal of Heredity_, VI, 37-39, Jan., 1915.\n\n[169] _Journal of Heredity_, VIII, pp. 299-302, July, 1917.\n\n[170] _Biometrika_, IV, pp. 233-286, London, 1905.\n\n[171] See, for example, _Journal of Heredity_, VIII, pp. 394-396,\nSeptember, 1917. A large body of evidence from European sources, bearing\non the relation between various characters of the offspring, and the age\nof the parents, was brought together by Corrado Gini in Vol. II,\n_Problems in Eugenics_ (London, 1913).\n\n[172] Davenport, Charles B., \"The Personality, Heredity and Work of\nCharles Otis Whitman,\" _American Naturalist_, LI, pp. 5-30, Jan., 1917.\n\n[173] Gillette, John M., _Constructive Rural Sociology_, p. 89, New\nYork, 1916.\n\n[174] Cook, O. F., \"Eugenics and Agriculture,\" _Journal of Heredity_,\nVII, pp. 249-254, June, 1916.\n\n[175] Gillette, John M., \"A Study in Social Dynamics: A Statistical\nDetermination of the Rate of Natural Increase and of the Factors\nAccounting for the Increase of Population in the United States,\"\n_Quarterly Publications of the American Statistical Association,_ n. s.\n116, Vol. XV, pp. 345-380, December, 1916.\n\n[176] The popular demand for \"equality of opportunity\" is, if taken\nliterally, absurd, in the light of the provable inequality of abilities.\nWhat is wanted is more correctly defined as an equal consideration of\nall with an _appropriate_ opportunity for each based on his demonstrated\ncapacities.\n\n[177] _Essays in Social Justice._ By Thomas Nixon Carver, Harvard\nUniversity Press, 1915, pp. 168-169.\n\n[178] Answering the question \"How Much is a Man Worth?\" Professor Carver\nstates the following axioms:\n\n\"The value of a man equals his production minus his consumption.\"\n\n\"His economic success equals his acquisition minus his consumption.\"\n\n\"When his acquisition equals his production then his economic success\nequals his value.\"\n\n\"It is the duty of the state to make each man's acquisition equal his\nproduction. That is justice.\"\n\nOf course, \"production\" is here used in a broad sense, to mean the real\nsocial value of the services rendered, and not merely the present\nexchange value of the services, or the goods produced.\n\n[179] Kornhauser, A. W., \"Economic Standing of Parents and the\nIntelligence of their Children,\" _Jour. of Educ. Psychology_, Vol. IX.,\npp. 159-164, March, 1918.\n\n[180] The coefficient of contingency is similar in significance to the\ncoefficient of correlation, with which readers have already become\nfamiliar. Miss Perrin's study is in _Biometrika_, III (1904), pp.\n467-469.\n\n[181] \"The Social Waste of Unguided Personal Ability.\" By Erville B.\nWoods, _American Journal of Sociology_, XIX (1913), pp. 358-369.\n\n[182] See also \"Eugenics: With Special Reference to Intellect and\nCharacter,\" by E. L. Thorndike. In _Eugenics: Twelve University\nLectures_, pp. 319-342, New York, 1914.\n\n[183] See U. S. Department of Labor, Children's Bureau Publication, No.\n7, \"Laws Relating to Mothers' Pensions in the United States, Denmark and\nNew Zealand,\" Washington, 1914.\n\n[184] _American Journal of Sociology_, Vol. XX, No. 1, pp. 96-103, July,\n1914.\n\n[185] According to Captain (now Lt. Col.) E. B. Vedder of the Medical\nCorps, U. S. A., 50% of the Negroes of the class applying for enlistment\nin the army are syphilitic. He believes that the amount of infection\namong Negro women is about the same. (_Therapeutic Gazette_, May 15,\n1916.) Venereal disease must, then, play a much more important part than\nis generally supposed, in cutting down the birth-rate of the Negro race,\nbut it would of course be a mistake to suppose that an abnormally low\nbirth-rate among Negroes is always to be explained on this ground.\nProfessor Kelly Miller points out (_Scientific Monthly_, June, 1917)\nthat the birth-rate among college professors at Howard University, the\nleading Negro institution for higher education, is only 0.7 of a child\nand that the completed families will hardly have more than two children.\nHe attributes this to (1) the long period of education required of Negro\n\"intellectuals\", (2) the high standard of living required of them, and\n(3) the unwillingness of some of them to bring children into the world,\nbecause of the feeling that these children would suffer from race\nprejudice.\n\n[186] One can not draw a hard and fast distinction between reason and\ninstinct in this way, nor deny to animals all ability to reason. We have\nsimplified the case to make it more graphic. The fact that higher\nanimals may have mental processes corresponding to some of those we call\nreason in man does not impair the validity of our generalization, for\nthe present purpose.\n\n[187] See _Jewish Eugenics and Other Essays_, By Rabbi Max Reichler, New\nYork, Bloch Publishing Co., 1916.\n\n[188] Dublin, Louis I., \"Significance of the Declining Birth Rate,\"\n_Congressional Record_, Jan. 11, 1918.\n\n[189] At the request of Alexander Graham Bell, founder and director of\nthe Genealogical Record Office, Paul Popenoe made an examination and\nreport on these records in the fall of 1916. Thanks are due to Dr. Bell\nfor permitting the use in this chapter of two portions of the\ninvestigation.\n\n[190] Beeton, Mary, and Karl Pearson, _Biometrika_ I, p. 60. The actual\ncorrelation varies with the age and sex: the following are the results:\n\n\n COLLATERAL INHERITANCE\n\n Elder adult brother and younger adult brother .2290 +- .0194\n Adult brother and adult brother .2853 +- .0196\n Minor brother and minor brother .1026 +- .0294\n Adult brother and minor brother -.0262 +- .0246\n Elder adult sister and younger adult sister .3464 +- .0183\n Adult sister and adult sister .3322 +- .0185\n Minor sister and minor sister .1748 +- .0307\n Adult sister and minor sister -.0260 +- .0291\n Adult brother and adult sister .2319 +- .0145\n Minor brother and minor sister .1435 +- .0251\n Adult brother and minor sister -.0062 +- .0349\n Adult sister and minor brother -.0274 +- .0238\n\n\n\n[191] The method used is the ingenious one devised by J. Arthur Harris\n(_Biometrika_ IX, p. 461). The probable error is based on n=100.\n\n[192] A. Ploetz, \"Lebensdauer der Eltern und Kindersterblichkeit,\"\n_Archiv fuer Rassen-u Gesellschafts-Biologie_, VI (1909), pp. 33-43.\n\n[193] Or it may be supposed that the environment is so good as to make a\nnon-selective death less likely, and therefore such deaths as do occur\nmust more frequently be selective.\n\n[194] Hibbs, Henry H., Jr., _Infant Mortality: Its Relation to Social\nand Industrial Conditions_, New York, 1916.\n\n[195] See Castle, W. E., _Heredity_, pp. 30-32, New York, 1911.\n\n[196] Doll, E. A., \"Education and Inheritance,\" _Journal of Education_,\nFeb. 1, 1917.\n\n[197] Atwater's celebrated experiments proved that all the energy (food)\nwhich goes into an animal can be accounted for in the output of heat or\nwork. They are conveniently summarized in Abderhalden's _Text-book of\nPhysiological Chemistry_, p. 335.\n\n[198] In this connection see farther Raymond Pearl's review of Mr.\nRedfield's \"Dynamic Evolution\" (_Journal of Heredity_) VI, p. 254, and\nPaul Popenoe's review, \"The Parents of Great Men,\" _Journal of\nHeredity_, VIII, pp. 400-408.\n\n[199] See Dr. Hrdlicka's communication to the XIXth International\nCongress of Americanists, Dec. 28, 1915 (the proceedings were published\nat Washington, in March, 1917); or an account in the _Journal of\nHeredity_, VIII, pp. 98 ff., March, 1917.\n\n[200] Cf. Grant, Madison, _The Passing of the Great Race_p. 74 (New\nYork, 1916): \"One often hears the statement made that native Americans\nof Colonial ancestry are of mixed ethnic origin. This is not true. At\nthe time of the Revolutionary War the settlers in the 13 colonies were\nnot only purely Nordic, but also purely Teutonic, a very large majority\nbeing Anglo-Saxon in the most limited meaning of that term. The New\nEngland settlers in particular came from those counties in England where\nthe blood was almost purely Saxon, Anglian, and Dane.\"\n\n[201] Comprising Armenians, Croatians, English, Greeks, Russian Jews,\nIrish, South Italians, North Italians, Magyars, Poles, Rumanians and\nRussians, 500 individuals in all.\n\n[202] English data from K. Pearson, _Biometrika_ V, p. 124.\n\n[203] Pearson (_ubi supra_) measured 12-year-old English school\nchildren, and found the average cephalic index for 2298 boys to be\n78.88, with [Greek: s] = 3.2, for 2188 girls 78.43, with [Greek: s] =\n3.9. It is not proper to compare adolescents with adults, however.\n\n[204] Sewall Wright has pointed out (_Journal of Heredity_, VIII, p.\n376) that the white blaze in the hair can not be finally classed as\ndominant or recessive until the progeny of _two_ affected persons have\nbeen seen. All matings so far studied have been between an affected\nperson and a normal. It may be that the white blaze (or piebaldism)\nrepresents merely a heterozygous condition, and that the trait is really\na recessive. The same argument applies to brachydactyly.\n\n\n * * * * *\n\n\nThe following pages contain advertisements of a few of the Macmillan\nbooks on kindred subjects.\n\n~Comparative Free Government~\n\n BY JESSE MACY\n Professor Emeritus of Political Science\n\n AND\n\n JOHN W. GANNAWAY\n Professor of Political Science in Grinnell College\n\n_Cloth, 8vo, $2.25_\n\nThe United States is made the basis for this study because it has been\nin fact the pioneer in securing world recognition for free government,\nand it is the originator of the Presidential type. The first part of\n\"Comparative Free Government\" is devoted to a somewhat detailed\ndescription of the organization and processes of government in the\nUnited States, together with a brief comparative study of selected South\nAmerican republics. The second part is devoted chiefly to a study of the\ncabinet type. England is given first place as the originator of the\nsystem. The object of the book is to throw light upon the growth and\nperfection of free government in all states rather than to make a\ngeneral comparison of governmental institutions. It is particularly\nadapted to use as a text in college courses.\n\n * * * * *\n\n~Problems of Child Welfare~\n\n By GEORGE B. MANGOLD, Ph.D.\n Director of the School of Social Economy of Washington University\n\n_Cloth, 8vo, $2.00_\n\nAlthough this book is designed especially for use as a text in college\ncourses on philanthropy, it will also appeal to that growing class of\nmen and women who in a systematic way are endeavoring to acquaint\nthemselves with the various aspects of practical sociology. Much of the\nconstructive philanthropy of to-day must deal directly with the child,\nthe improvement of his conditions being the direct objective. Those\nproblems which affect children in an indirect way, whether in the field\nof remedial or preventive philanthropy, are not treated. Under each\nseparate problem are discussed the causes and conditions, the machinery\nof social betterment, and the plans and programme of improvement.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSOCIAL SCIENCE TEXT-BOOKS\n\nEDITED BY RICHARD T. ELY\n\n * * * * *\n\n~History of Economic Thought~\n\nA Critical Account of the Origin and Development of the Economic\nTheories of the Leading Thinkers and the Leading Nations.\n\nBy LEWIS H. HANEY\n\n_Cloth, xvii + 567 pp., 8vo, $2.00_\n\n\"Dr. Haney's work is both complete and exhaustive without being\ndiscursive. We shall look far before finding anything of its kind so\nsatisfying.\"--_The Argonaut._\n\n\"This valuable precis of the world's economic wisdom serves not only as\na trustworthy text-book, but also as an authoritative denotement of old\neconomic landmarks. In the light it casts on bygone commercial and\npolitical conditions, the rapid progress and impulsive changes in\npresent-day methods of trade and legislation become clearly outlined and\nintelligible.\"--_American, Philadelphia._\n\n\"The present volume is of suitable compass, and the treatment is such as\nto make it satisfactory as a text-book.\"--_The Nation._\n\n\"The book should be of value to English readers and students of\neconomics, for unlike French and German economic writers, who have\nproduced several histories of economic thought, only one has been\nwritten previously in English, and that is now out of date. Dr. Haney\nhas made a distinct contribution to economic literature and one\nreflecting credit on American scholarship.\"--_The Boston Transcript._\n\n * * * * *\n\n~Outlines of Sociology~\n\n BY FRANK W. BLACKMAR\n Professor of Sociology in the University of Kansas\n\n AND\n\n JOHN L. GILLIN\n Associate Professor of Sociology in the University of Wisconsin\n\n_586 pp., crown octavo, $2.25_\n\nIn this volume not only the theoretical phases of sociology are treated\nwith some degree of completeness, but the practical bearings of the\nscience are also brought out in a series of chapters dealing with social\npathology and methods of social investigation. This survey of the whole\nfield, including both the theoretical and the so-called \"practical,\"\nfinds its justification in the unity it gives to sociology in the mind\nof the beginner. It prevents that vicious one-sidedness sometimes\nresulting from a study of one phase of a subject before a general survey\nhas been made. With this purpose in mind the subject-matter has been\ngrouped under the following headings: Part I. The Nature and Import of\nSociology; Part II. Social Evolution; Part III. Socialization and Social\nControl; Part IV. Social Ideals; Part V. Social Pathology; Part VI.\nMethods of Social Investigation; Part VII. The History of Sociology. It\nhas been the endeavor of the authors to bring together in this book the\nresults of the most recent discussions in the various fields of\nsociology, to present the accepted conclusions of sociologists\nrespecting the origin, nature, structure, functions and abnormal\nphenomena of society without controversy, and in a simple, direct way\nsuited to the ordinary college undergraduate.\n\n * * * * *\n\n~Social Problems, A Study of Everyday Social Conditions~\n\n By EZRA THAYER TOWNE, Ph.D.\n Professor of Economics and Political Science, Carleton College\n\n_$1.00_\n\n\"A carefully written record and analysis of the growth in modern society\nof the attempt to deal intelligently with social problems, such, for\ninstance, as immigration, unemployment, divorce, liquor, conservation,\nand so on. Dr. Towne has carried out this task with excellent judgment\nand intelligence. A valuable book for any library.\"--_Outlook._\n\n\"A teacher would find this book admirable for private study; a solitary\nstudent with its aid might go far toward mastering these\nsubjects.\"--_Boston Transcript._\n\n\"Professor Towne of Carleton College has rendered good public service in\nfurnishing the best introduction to the study of present day social\nconditions which has yet appeared for the use of high school and\nundergraduate college students. Up to date, well proportioned,\nprogressive in attitude and spirit, yet conservatively sound in\njudgment, it can scarcely fail to fulfil its purpose to give to all who\nstudy it a 'better understanding of our own times' and proof of 'the\npossibility of wise, sane, constructive social action.'\"--_Survey._\n\n\"Prof. Towne aided by a lucid style and the ability to make statistics\ninteresting has stripped the subjects he deals with to their barest\nnecessities and has packed into the book the kind of information that\nwill stimulate to further study and research those who are at all\ninterested in strengthening civilization where evil conditions sap its\nvitality.\"--_Philadelphia Press._\n\n * * * * *\n\n~Outlines of Economics~\n\nBy RICHARD T. ELY, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of Political Economy\nat the University of Wisconsin; THOMAS S. ADAMS, Ph.D.,\nProfessor of Political Economy at Yale University; MAX O.\nLORENZ, Associate Statistician of the Interstate Commerce\nCommission, and Professor A. A. YOUNG of Cornell.\n\n_Third Revised Edition, Cloth, 8vo, $2.25_\n\n\"It is a sign of the time when such a standard and authoritative book as\nthis requires such revision for its third edition that it was not\npossible to use the old type. The chapters on transportation, insurance,\nsocialism, and agriculture needed expansion to include legislation. The\nFederal Reserve system demanded a chapter to itself, and so did labor\nlegislation. The statistics and references have been brought down to\ndate, and the book in general is more useful to the teacher, and more\nattractive to the reader. The authors are both open-minded and\nconservative, not condemning new ideas for their newness nor yet\naccepting them for the same reason and without challenge. The book is a\nuseful antidote to the economic poisons which command attention through\ntheir promises of the millennium, which they are less able to deliver,\nnevertheless, than writers like these whose imaginations and benevolence\nare corrected by their knowledge.\"--_New York Times._\n\n\"So far as the practical side of the subjects with which this volume\ndeals is concerned, everything has been done by the authors to keep\ntheir work abreast of the times and the latest developments so that the\nreaders and students may find there the important things of contemporary\nrecord as well as the highlights of economic history. The theoretical\nside of economics has not been neglected in this general revision and\nthat chapter has been simplified and made more easily comprehensible to\nthose first entering the study of this subject. This volume maintains\nthe same high standard it held at the time it was first published. It is\none of the best books on this subject.\"--_Philadelphia Press._\n\n\"Anyone who got his foundations in political economy out of the\ntext-books of the last generation cannot fail to be struck with the\nenormous range of subjects covered in such a book as this, compared with\nwhat was then included; and there is always some danger that in the mind\nof the student this wealth of material, important as it is, may yet\ncarry with it the drawback of more or less submerging the central\ntruths. In Professor Ely's book, the distribution of emphasis, as well\nas of space, is such as to reduce this danger.\"--_The Nation._\n\n\nTHE MACMILLAN COMPANY\n\nPublishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York\n\nPrinted in the United States of America","title":"Applied Eugenics","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":162717}