DEBATING CONTEST.

Waipukurau Press, Issue 301, 27 August 1908, Page 5

DEBATING CONTEST.

0 HEREDITY v. ENVIRONMENT The debate between the Waipukurau Debating Society and the Kaikora Society on the subject of “ Heredity v. Environment ” took place last night in St. Mary’s Hall. The Rev. -J. Pattison occupied the chair and after briefly opening the proceedings, called upon Mr Garry, leader of the visitors’ team, to open in favour of environment. Mr Garry, after expressing his pleasure at once more bringing over a team of debaters, said his side would deal with the influence of environment as a factor in determining the development of life, more particularly human life. Man was in part a child of Nature, and in part the creature of education. The two overlapped. While admitting that heredity played a great part in the physical development of a man, in the effect of education upon him they had a splendid instance of the power of environment. His side would not attempt to deny that heredity played a part in the development of the body, and would base their arguments on, firstly, the psychological aspect, secondly the social aspect; and thirdly on the criminal aspect. He hoped to show that even in the lower animal world and in plant life heredity had not everything to do in development and intended to treat principally of the British race and the part environment had played in the formation of our nation. The race had sprung from a variety of other races of low origin, and it was purely on account. of external influences that its prestige had been determined. We became a seafaring race because our environment compelled us to be. The Briton was, likewise, surrounded by coal and iron, and this had tended to make the nation a great manufacturing one, Another in-

stance of environment was that of the Flemings coming over from Flanders and the commencement of the ■woollen trade. Art was essentially a matter of temperament and artists of a sunny clime were tbe best. Thus it happened that British artists could not compete with those of Italy, Spain, etc. In morals the same thing ■was seen. The Britisher was staid and temperate in his religion. Pluck, the great British characteristic, was directly due to our environment as a seafaring nation. Our development and the characteristic of our race were almost entirely due to environment. Mr Carroll, leader of the local representatives, said he admitted heredity did influence life ; but it was a question of degree as to whether it or environment had the greater influence, and he maintained that heredity had. They saw different characteristics exhibited in animals, and phrenology showed that in human beings similar characteristics were inherited to those possessed by parents. In the case of twins these had the same environment, and if environment were the determining factor they should be exactly alike, yet wide differences -were found. He instanced Aristotle and Euclid and their great contemporaries as cases in point. At that time learning ■was at its height in Greece, and only the brightest intellects could enter the social circle. These men were in many cases sons of great fathers from whom they inherited their talents. Fie also gave a number of .other instances of the transmission of hereditary intellectual ability.

Miss Howard said man’s intellectual growth was due io the influence of his surroundings, fiirst in the home and secondly in the the school, and later what he might glean through the five senses. His surroundings determined the bent of his mental leanings. During the French Revolution men and women who were shut up in the Bastile for a long time lost power of speech, showing the influence of environment. If a number of boys were taken and put in vile surroundings they could go down into hell itself, but in good surroundings, good environment, they could be led unto the gates of Heaven. The speaker concluded that our social plan went to show that environment was the determining cause of development. Mr Cooke said Herbert Spencer

stated that inherited constitution was one. of the most important factors in .determining character. There could not be organism or. life without heredity. As a case showing how germs live persistently, he told of how a little girl died of scarlet fever. Fours years later a child called at the house and was given her doll, which had been previously kept away, to play with, and contracted the disease. The grains of wheat in Egyptian mummies were also found to possess life and grew when planted ; this dispite the most unsuitable environment, retaining the hereditary germ. In every- case, too, like produced like, which -was a strong argument in favour of heredity. Mr Clark pointed out, as an argument against heredity, that the son of Paderewsky the greatpianist, had no musical leanings. The training of the parents had the chief influence on character, the strongest impressions being those made earliest in life. He quoted Dr Barnardo’s Homes as showing the good influence of environment.

Mr Chambers, in showing the effect of heredity on the physical character of the race, alluded to the fact that mummies buried thousands of years ago showed the Egyptians to have been the same then as now in appearance. Environment had not changed the colour of the negro, for we found regroes living in Scotland, but they had not turned white. Man himself in many cases formed his environment and always left his impress upon his surroundings. 1 mmunity from disease was transmitted. For instance, if a country were used to having say, scarlet fever, the disease became less dangerous, but it would sweep off the inhabitants of a country not immune to it. The love of freedom, he concluded, was inherited throughout the British speaking race all over the world and no amount of environment would aloer it —it was inbred.

Mr White took the phases of crime, lunacy and physical deterioration, and set out to show the part environment played in these. He quoted an eminent criminologist, Dr Travers, in support of his argument that only a very small percentage of criminals were entirely the victims of heredity. The great majority had not much education, which was a powerful factor of environment in determining character. Mr Cox quoted Darwin’s policy of natural selection, which, he said, was now being generally followed by breeders of cattle in securing the best varieties, showing that heredity was reckoned the principal force. Burbank, the Californian fruit grower, was also cited in this behalf, and Mendel, in his exp er raiments upon peas. Mr Todd gave an example of the effect of environment in the case of the hogs raised in America. Here it was found that pigs put on the corn or maize belt in course of time took on one general type, although of several different breeds. The same thing occurred to those put on the wheat belt. The Lincoln sheep, bred in marshy country, could not thrive upon downs, as had been demonstrated in New Zealand. Scientific men, also, had proved by experiments that environment played the greater part in producing colour in animals.

Mr Coldwell said heredity determined individual life every time and to this rule there was absolutely no exception. Environment worked on the material provided by heredity, and no amount of environment would make a fool other than a fool, a knave other than a knave. In proof of this he said many men and women brought up in the very best environment turned out utterly bad. No amount of environment would alter the tiger’s character. Education would not create, it only improved a character. Food, climate, housing, all played their part, certainly, but heredity was the greatest factor. The speaker also quoted several authorities in support of his arguments’ Messrs Carroll and Garry replied for their respective sides, and then Mr Pattison (chairman), before the judge’s verdict, invited those present to stay for supper. Mr Watson, after an able summing up, gave his decision in favour of Kaikora for producing the best argument.