The Daily News SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1926. SOCIAL MATING CONTROL.

Taranaki Daily News, 27 November 1926, Page 12

The Daily News SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1926. SOCIAL MATING CONTROL.

In his recent lecture at the Science Guild, according to a condensed cable message from Lon-, don, Professor Huxley resumed his attacks upon modern efforts which are directed to the preservation of the lives of infants and young people “who in less civilised times were allowed to die off’’ because they were unfit to live. He does not put forward any new argument in support of his primitive advocacy of the law of the survival of the fittest, but presses home the well-worn reasons which he, and those who follow in his train, appear to be never weary of reiterating. The professor is evidently devoid of all trace of humanitarianism, by the exercise of which the highest and best instincts of civilised manhood and womenhood are made to appear as bright lights in the world. Admitting that the ideal of the human race consisting of mental and physical perfects is attractive, there would still remain the question of whether the preponderance should be that of mind over matter or brute force over intellect. In either case the finer feelings and sympathies which distinguish man from beast would cease to exist. In place thereof would be the cold, calculating outcome of specialised ■ reasoning that takes no account of anything but philosophic exactitude on the one hand, and physical excellence on the other, with the inevitable result that the scientists would be compelled to devise means for controlling the physical giants or become extinct in a cruel era ■wherein might would dominate right. Professor Huxley, ■ finds that philanthropy and modern medicine and sanitation form effective barriers to the attainment of his race ideals by preserving the lives of an increasing number of unfit children —a process which he considers may prove a real danger, because of its effect in changing the population for the worse. If his views became general there would be no attempts made to preserve infant life; no field of operations for such humanitarian work as that which has made the name of Sir Trttby King honoured throughout the civilised world; no hospitals for sick or crippled children; no Plunket or other similar societies; no care of mental or bodily defects —merely a survival of those having the most tenacious grip on life. The professor regards the low 7 quality mind as especially serious. It has, however, been laid down by a high medical authority that insanity and mental deficiency are not diseases but symptoms which can be produced in various ways other than hereditarily. Obviously if every child who appears permanently incapable of deriving proper benefit from the instruction in ordinary schools is set down as “feeble minded,” the increase of this section of the population as exhibited in statistics would be a matter for grave anxiety. Much has been written and said on this subject of late years, and considerable progress has been made as to the provision of remedies, it being recognised that the expense of providing institutions for all mentally defective patients must inevitably be considerable, but experience has proved that though segregated in working colonies these defects can be and are as a rule happy to an extent that is almost incredible. To the evolutionist and man of science proceeding to view the future of the human race according to certain fixed deductions resulting from arbitrary postulates which take no account of the sacredness of human life and the manifest obligations of man to his neighbour, it is quite conceivable that he should envisage posterity “becoming a scrub herd of mongrels,” unless drastic steps are taken to facilitate the elimination of the unfit. To those who realise their duty to the weaklings, the imperfects, the maimed, the halt and the blind, the arguments put forward by Professor Huxley and his school will be flung aside so as to give full play to the noble instincts fostered by true Christianity. The professor’s ideas for revolutionising the humanitarian work that is being carried on may find a response in Bolshevik Russia. A people who regard marriage as merely a, temporary matter might be induc’d to accept the principle of sofi.al mating control as advocated by Professor Huxley, but all his spacious arguments will fail to convince people who regard the marriage tie as sacred and inviolable. If ever the time comes when freedom of choice in selecting a wife or husband is over-ridden by legalised and compulsory social mating control, then mankind will have lost the difference that exists between itself and the brute creation.