THE WAIKATO TIMES With which is Incorporated The Waikato Argus, MONDAY, MARCH 24, 1930. MARCH OF CIVILISATION.

Waikato Times, Volume 107, Issue 17977, 24 March 1930, Page 6

THE WAIKATO TIMES With which is Incorporated The Waikato Argus, MONDAY, MARCH 24, 1930. MARCH OF CIVILISATION.

There is a section of people that adopts the pose of despising the degree of civilisation, the growth of knowledge, and the ever-widening social organisation that have, so far, been attained. And there arc those, also, of honest opinion who so despair of civilisation that they openly advocate a policy of allowing the human race to die out. But pessimism concerning the past and the future of mankind is not common, because consideration of the subject inspires feelings of wonder at man’s evolution from his primitive state. How gradual that process has been, and how momentum appears to be gathered with the growth of knowledge, arc facts not widely appreciated, and as arresting illustration by a distinguished scientist concentrates human development into a space that enables the mind to grasp the slow progress of man’s long past. Picture, he says, the five hundred thousand years of man’s developing culture into a single lifetime, and, by this scale, mankind needed forty-nine of the years to learn to desert his primitive hunting habits and to settle in village communities. Half through the 50th year some of the villagers began to practice the art of writing; the printing process, on this same scale, was invented a fortnight ago; we have been using steam for less than a week, motor-cars for a day, wireless for a few hours. The questions that arise in thoughtful minds are the direction of further development, the methods of advance, and whether the methods can be influenced by man’s conscious adjustment. In the last Paget Memorial lecture, Professor A. V. llill discussed these questions, and his scientific standing compels attention. After reviewing in everyday lends tiie history of man’s development and the part that scientific research had played in it, especially in comparatively modern times, lie dealt with the idea of those who would have us compel science to take a holiday, or even lo abandon its efforts completely, on the ground that scientific research and engineering development are things unworthy of man's high spiritual state. While the advantage of knowledge, he

said, is a real and living thing, something worth working for, worth fighting for, “progress" should not be exalted into a false god. The achievements of mankind won by failure and success, in sorrow as well as in joy, ■by courage as well as skill, are, however, something to be treated with respect and reverence, and while we are a long distance from any mental, moral or material Utopia, it must be admitted that the general progress of knowledge has ministered to man’s condition and character. It is knowledge, said Professor Hill, tempered by reasonable sentiment and controlled by decent emotion, that makes civilisation. It is knowledge that makes the difference between man and animal and that has lifted man from his nearanimal state. The capacity for knowledge and the understanding of the power it gives him over his environment is man’s essential characteristic, and to deny him the exorcise of this fundamental gift woulld be to deny him his inalienable birthright. Too often, however, it is the fate of the scientific investigator to come into conflict with opposing interests, with traditional prejudices, and often with natural stupidity. New' theories upset the conservative tendencies inherent in human nature, and it is often in spite of such prejudices that scientific advance is made. But science is not altogether blameless for it is apt to assume an attitude of dogmatism and intolerance that provokes opposition. It is surely possible to hold strong opinions, to cherish: new theories, and still be tolerant, and the contempt of the scientist for those who perhaps accept his facts but disbelieve his theories, is to hinder progress from within as effectively as others can hinder it from without. Honest scepticism is needed if real progress is to be made, however slowly. Professor Hill protested against the calumnies and persecution of the scientist, a reference probably to a recent statement that the results of medical research arc a “pack of lies.” We owe much to those engaged in the greatest of all human quests —the relief of human suffering—and even if, as is sometimes contended, civilisation is itself responsible for the physical ills that flesh is heir to, there can be no general diminution of suffering, without the researches of the investigator. The bare economic value of the, knowledge which would give us the power of preventing disease is beyond calculation; indeed, no figures can express the value to mankind of such a diminution in suffering and bereavement as would come from the conquest of but one of the prevalent dangerous diseases.