The Dominion. SATURDAY, AUGUST 27, 1910. RACE BETTERMENT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 906, 27 August 1910, Page 4

The Dominion. SATURDAY, AUGUST 27, 1910. RACE BETTERMENT.

The interesting, though debatable, remarks made by the Chief Justice (Sik , ' Robert Stout) at Auckland on Monday last on heredity and crime, the recent formation of eugenics societies in Christchurch and Dunedin, and the attention which the subject of race deterioration is receiving from the Wellington Philosophical Institute, have all assisted to bring the question of national betterment—moral, mental, and i physical—prominently before the public at the present time. That the problem to be faced' is a very difficult and delicate one should not damp the courage pi those publicspirited enough to attack' it, but the subject nevertheless needs to be handled with the greatest care in order to carry the support of public opinion; That something should be done to prevent the propagation of insanity, disease, and crime is hardly disputed; but on the other hand it is equally clear that a false step, caused by hasty and ill-considered action, may, give such a shock to public sentiment that the whole movement would be discredited and all progress checked for another fifty years. The apostles of eugenics must of course give a lead to public opinion, but they must not advance so quickly as to lose touch-with the average sentiment of the community. Extravagant talk of letting natural selection have free play, of showing no mercy "to the sick and the suffering because Nature would show no mercy, of ceasing to support hospitals and charitable institutions, and of allowing weak N children to die does more harm . good. As a matter of fact such a policy lyqulrl probably put an end to civilised society, for almost evory advance in .civilisation means an interference with natural selection, which after all does not involve the survival of tho fittest, mentally or morally, but morely. of the fittest to survive—not the survival of the ideally best, but of those) best adapted to the circumstances and conditions under which they live. It should always bo borne in mind that evolution and natural selection do not necessarily moan progress in tho highest sense.. . Dr. Jevons tells us in his book on evolution tho circumstances and conditions "may or' may not bo favourable to tho survival of tho ethically or aesthetically best; they may be -favourable to the growth of weeds and to the destruction of beautiful flowers, in which case the cosmic process will wipe out tho beautiful flowers, and tho movement of evolution will be aesthetically retrogressive, not progressive." Or, as another writer puts it, "the tapeworm has been ovolvcd as truly as the golden eagle, the ono in a dark by-path, the other on tho mountain

tops, both well adapted to their conditions of life." The dilemma of civilisation is that "it is impossible to return to a natural selection regime, and yet we have not been able to put aii equally effective bo eial selection into operation." To discover the best means of getting out of this dilemma is the problem the students of eugenics are endeavouring to solve. The difficulty and complexity of the question and the most hopeful method of solution ■ have been very ulcarlj and wisely stated by Professor Karl Pearson as follows:— How can the dominant fertility of tho fitter social stocks bo maintained when natural selection has been suspended? I do not think any wise man would, be prepared with a full answer.to this qiies tion to-day. There is no sovereign remedy for degeneracy. Every method is curative which tends to decrease the fertility of the unfit aud lo emphasise that of the fit. We may find it difficult to define tha socially tit, nlthough physique and ability will carry us fur; but when wo turn to the habitual criminal, the professional tramp, tho tuberculous, the insane, the mentally defective, the alcoholic, 'the diseased from birth or from excess, there can be little Simbt of their social unfitness. Here every remedy which tends to separate them from the community, every segregation which reduces their chance of parentage, is worthy of consideration. Professor Pearson's statement of the position must appeal to every thoughtful man and woman. There are some, of course, who do not hesitate to speak of "social surgery"— that is to say "deliberately pruning our stock of its diseased buds"; but, to quote Professor J. A. Thomson, "Who is sufficient for these things t It is one .thing to discourage in every feasible _ waycompatible with rational social sentiment—the breeding of weaklings by weaklings; it is another thing to loc-k- a fellow-creature in the eyes and say, 'You must die.' Remove weaklings, forsooth! read over the roll of them first; might they, not say, 'Yet we are .the movers and. shakers of .the world for ever, itseems.' ". Professor Thomson'goes on to tell us (and who can speak with greater knowledge?) that the biologist distrusts social, surgery because of his ignorance; the sociologist, because the thought of it makes the foundations of society tremble; and the practical man because he knows that it is not in us to practise it. . • However, it would be a great pity if we allowed our efforts in the direction of human, betterment to be. paralysed by ' the difficulties and dangers which beset the path of progress. Surely something can be done to strengthen and increase "those forms 'of selection which make for tho survival of beautiful and healthful surroundings, educative and wholesome occupations, sane and progressive men and •women." There is a tendency at the present day to take a rather too pessimistic view of heredity. We are inclined at times to accept as valid the excuse of the man who, according to an old story, was caught beating his father. "I can't help it," he said. "My father used to boat his fatherj and my. grandfather beat his; and this fellow (pointing to his child) will beat me in my turn when he grows up. It runs in our family." There is no doubt some truth in this, but it is not the whole truth. When one hears of a crime or failing running in a certain pqrson's - family, the' question arises, Which family? Everyone has two parents, and'both lines of descent go back to _ the beginnings of the race. "The individual life," it is said, "is the product of twd. infinities of inherited qualities coming from every.quar-ter, in most cases, of a large portion of the human race," and in any given community many diverse strains and characteristics are inherited- by all in common. The enormous complexity of. the problem makes for optimism. Mental and moral.tendencies do not depend on parents or grandparents alone, and no one cantell what characteristics will be expressed in any particular life-his-tory. The whole question of heredity is surrounded by doubts and difficulties; but, to quote Professor Thomson once more, if we should bo extremely sceptical as to the inheritance of acquired characteristics, or the transnvission of modifications, this scepticism lends greater importance than ever to a good "nature," to secure which is the. business of careful mating; and to a good "nurture," to secure which for our children is an obvious duty. The hopefulness of this task rests "especially on the fact that, unlike the beasts that, perish, .man has a lasting external heritage of ideas and ideals, embodied in prose and verse, in statue and painting, in cathedral and university, 'in tradition and convention, andabovo all in society itself." .