Looking only at the eugenic consequences, we can not doubt that a considerable and discriminatory selection of immigrants to this country is necessary. Both directly and indirectly, the immigration of recent years appears to be diminishing the eugenic strength of the nation more than it increases it.

The state would be in a stronger position eugenically (and in many other ways) if it would decrease the immigration of unskilled labor, and increase the immigration of creative and directing talent. A selective diminution of the volume of immigration would tend to have that result, because it would necessarily shut out more of the unskilled than the skilled.



CHAPTER XVI

WAR

War always changes the composition of a nation; but this change may be either a loss or a gain. The modification of selection by war is far more manifold than the literature on the biological effects of war would lead the reader to suppose. All wars are partly eugenic and partly dysgenic; some are mainly the one, some are mainly the other. The racial effects of war occur in at least three periods:

1. The period of preparation.

2. The period of actual fighting.

3. The period of readjustment after the war.

The first division involves the effect of a standing army, which withdraws men during a part of the reproductive period and keeps most of them in a celibate career. The officers marry late if at all and show a very low birth-rate. The prolonged celibacy has in many armies led to a higher incidence of venereal diseases which prolongs the celibacy and lowers the birthrate.[155] Without extended discussion, the following considerations may be named as among those which should govern a policy of military preparedness that will safeguard, as far as possible, the eugenic interests:

1. If the army is a standing one, composed of men serving long terms of enlistment, they should be of as advanced an age as is compatible with military efficiency. If a man of 35 has not married, it is probable that he will never marry, and therefore there is less loss to the race in enrolling him for military service, than is the case with a man of 20-25.

2. The army (except in so far as composed of inferior men) should not foster celibacy. Short enlistments are probably the most valuable means of avoiding this evil.

3. Universal conscription is much better than voluntary service, since the latter is highly selective, the former much less so. Those in regular attendance in college should receive their military training in their course as is now done.

4. Officers' families should be given an additional allowance for each child. This would aid in increasing the birth-rate, which appears to be very low among army and navy officers in the United States service, and probably in that of all civilized countries.

5. Every citizen owes service to his nation, in time of need, but fighting service should not be exacted if some one else could perform it better than he where he is expert in some other needed field. The recent action of England in sending to the front as subaltern officers, who were speedily killed, many highly trained technicians and young scientists and medical men who would have been much more valuable at home in connection with war measures, is an example of this mistake. Carrying the idea farther, one sees that in many nations there are certain races which are more valuable on the firing line than in industries at the rear; and it appears that they should play the part for which they are best fitted. From this point of view, the Entente allies were wholly justified in employing their Asiatic and African subjects in war. In the United States are millions of negroes who are of less value than white men in organized industry but almost as valuable as the whites, when properly led, at the front. It would appear to be sound statesmanship to enlist as many Negroes as possible in the active forces, in case of war, thus releasing a corresponding number of more skilled white workers for the industrial machine on whose efficiency success in modern warfare largely rests.

The creation of the National Army in the United States, in 1917, while in most ways admirably conducted, was open to criticism in several respects, from the eugenic point of view:

(a) Too many college men and men in intellectual pursuits were taken as officers, particularly in the aviation corps. There should have been more men employed as officers who had demonstrated the necessary qualifications, as foremen and others accustomed to boss gangs of men.

(b) The burden was thrown too heavily on the old white Americans, by the exemption of aliens, who make up a large part of the population in some states. There were communities in New England which actually could not fill their quotas, even by taking every acceptable native-born resident, so large is their alien population. The quota should have been adjusted if aliens were to be exempt.

(c) The district boards were not as liberal as was desirable, in exempting from the first quota men needed in skilled work at home. The spirit of the selective draft was widely violated, and necessitated a complete change of method before the second quota was called by the much improved questionnaire method.

It is difficult to get such mistakes as these corrected; nevertheless a nation should never lose sight of the fact that war is inevitably damaging, and that the most successful nation is the one which wins its wars with the least possible eugenic loss.

Leaving the period of preparedness, we consider the period of open warfare. The reader will remember that, in an earlier chapter, we divided natural selection into (1) lethal, that which operates through differential mortality; (2) sexual, that which operates through differential mating; and (3) fecundal, that which operates through differential fecundity. Again, selection operates both in an inter-group competition and an intra-group competition. The influence of any agency on natural selection must be examined under each of these six heads. In the case of war, however, fecundal selection may be eliminated, as it is little influenced. Still another division arises from the fact that the action of selection is different during war upon the armed forces themselves and upon the population at home; and after the war, upon the nations with the various modifications that the war has left.

We will consider lethal selection first. To measure the effect of the inter-group selection of the armed forces, one must compare the relative quality of the two races involved. The evidence for believing in substantial differences between races is based (a) upon their relative achievement when each is isolated, (b) upon the relative rank when the two are competing in one society, and (c) upon the relative number of original contributions to civilization each has made. Such comparisons are fatal to the sentimental equalitarianism that denies race differences. While there is, of course, a great deal of overlapping, there are, nevertheless, real average differences. To think otherwise is to discard evolution and revert to the older standpoint of "special creation."

Comparison of the quality of the two sides is sometimes, of course, very difficult. One may feel little hesitation in giving a decision in the classical war of the Greeks and Persians, or the more modern case of the English and Afghans, but when considering the Franco-Prussian war, or the Russo-Japanese war, or the Boer war, or the American civil war, it is largely a matter of mere opinion, and perhaps an advantage can hardly be conceded to either side. Those who, misunderstanding the doctrine of evolution, adhere to the so-called "philosophy of force," would answer without hesitation that the side which won was, ipso facto, the better side. But such a judgment is based on numerous fallacies, and can not be indorsed in the sweeping way it is uttered. Take a concrete example:

"In 1806, Prussia was defeated at the battle of Jena. According to the philosophy of force, this was because Prussia was 'inferior' and France was 'superior.' Suppose we admit for the moment that this was the case. The selection now represents the survival of the fittest, the selection which perfects the human species. But what shall we say of the battle of Leipsic? At Leipsic, in 1813, all the values were reversed; it is now France which is the 'inferior' nation.... Furthermore, a large number of the same generals and soldiers who took part in the battle of Jena also took part in the battle of Leipsic. Napoleon belonged, therefore, to a race which was superior to that of Bluecher in 1806, but to an inferior race in 1813, in spite of the fact that they were the same persons and had not changed their nationality. As soon as we bring these assertions to the touchstone of concrete reality we see at once how untenable and even ridiculous are direct biological comparisons."[156]

Without going into further detail, it is readily seen that, on the world at large, the eugenic effect of a war would be very different according as the sides differ much or little. Yet this difference in quality, however great, will have no significance, unless the superior or inferior side is in general more likely to lose fewer men. Where the difference has been considerable, as between a civilized and savage nation, it has been seldom that the superior has not triumphed with fewer losses. Victory, however, is influenced much less in these later days by the relative military efficiency of two single nations than by their success in making powerful alliances. But such alignments are by no means always associated with better quality, because (a) there is a natural tendency for the weak to unite against a strong nation, (b) to side with a group which is apparently succeeding, and (c) the alliances may be the work of one or a few individuals who happen to be in positions of power at the critical time.

Modern European wars, especially the latest one, have been marked by the high quality of the combatants on both sides relative to the rest of the world. As these same races fight with pertinacity, there is a high mortality rate, so that the dysgenic result of these wars is particularly deplorable.

As for the selection taking place within each of the struggling nations, the combatants and the non-combatants of the same age and sex must first be compared. The difference here depends largely on how the army in question was raised. Where the army is a permanent, paid force, it probably does not represent a quality above the average of the nation, except physically. When it is conscripted, it is superior physically and probably slightly in other respects. If it is a volunteer army, its quality depends largely on whether the cause being fought for is one that appeals merely to the spirit of adventure or one that appeals to some moral principle. In the latter case, the quality may be such that the loss of a large part of the army will be peculiarly damaging to the progress of the race. This situation is more common than might be supposed, for by skillful diplomacy and journalism a cause which may be really questionable is presented to the public in a most idealistic light. But here, again, one can not always apply sweeping generalizations to individual cases. It might be supposed, for instance, that in the Confederate army the best eugenic quality was represented by the volunteers, the second best by those who stayed out until they were conscripted, and the poorest by the deserters. Yet David Starr Jordan and Harvey Ernest Jordan, who investigated the case with care, found that this was hardly true and that, due to the peculiar circumstances, the deserters were probably not as a class eugenically inferior to the volunteers.[157] Again some wars, such as that between the United States and Spain, probably develop a volunteer army made up largely of the adventurous, the nomadic, and those who have fewer ties; it would be difficult to demonstrate that they are superior to those who, having settled positions at home, or family obligations, fail to volunteer. The greatest damage appears to be done in such wars as those waged by great European nations, where the whole able-bodied male population is called out, and only those left at home who are physically or mentally unfit for fighting—but not, it appears to be thought, unfit to perpetuate the race.

Even within the army of one side, lethal selection is operative. Those who are killed are by no means a haphazard sample of the whole army. Among the victims there is a disproportionate representation of those with (1) dauntless bravery, (2) recklessness, (3) stupidity. These qualities merge into each other, yet in their extremes they are widely different. However, as the nature of warfare changes with the increase of artillery, mines, bombs, and gases, and decrease of personal combat, those who fall are more and more chance victims.

In addition to the killed and mortally wounded, there are many deaths from disease or from wounds which were not necessarily fatal. Probably the most selective of any of these three agencies is the variable resistance to disease and infection and the widely varying knowledge and appreciation of the need for hygienic living shown by the individual, as, for instance, by less reckless drinking of unsterilized water. But here, too, in modern warfare, this item is becoming less selective, with the advance in discipline and in organized sanitation.

The efficiency of selection will be affected by the percentage that each side has sent to the front, if the combatants are either above or below the average of the population. A nation that sends all its able-bodied males forward will be affected differently from its enemy that has needed to call upon only one-half of its able-bodied men in order to win its cause.

Away from the fighting lines of the contending sides, conditions that prevail are rendered more severe in many ways than in times of peace. Poverty becomes rife, and sanitation and medical treatment are commonly sacrificed under the strain. During a war, that mitigation of the action of natural selection which is so common now among civilized nations, is somewhat less effective than in times of peace. The scourge of typhus in Serbia is a recent and graphic illustration.

After a war has been concluded, certain new agencies of inter-group selection arise. The result depends largely on whether the vanquished have had a superior culture brought to them, as in the case of the Philippines, or whether, on the contrary, certain diseases have been introduced, as to the natives of the New World by the Spanish conquerors and explorers, or crushing tribute has been levied, or grievous oppression such as has befallen Belgium.

Sometimes the conquerors themselves have suffered severely as the result of excessive spoliation, which has produced vicious idleness and luxurious indulgence, with the ultimate effect of diminishing the birth-rate.

Within the nation there may be various results. Sometimes, by the reduction of overcrowding, natural selection will be less severe. On the other hand, the loss of that part of the population which is more economically productive is a very serious loss, leading to excessive poverty with increased severity in the action of natural selection, of which some of the Southern States, during the Reconstruction period, offer a good illustration.

Selection is also rendered more intense by the heavy burden of taxation, and in the very common depreciation of currency as is now felt in Russia.

Sexual selection as well as lethal is affected by war in manifold ways. Considering the armed force, there is an inter-group selection, when the enemy's women are assaulted by the soldiers. While this has been an important factor in the past, it is somewhat less common now, with better army discipline and higher social ideals.

Within the group, mating at the outset of a war is greatly increased by many hurried marriages. There is also alleged to be sometimes an increase of illegitimacy in the neighborhood of training camps. In each of these instances, these matings do not represent as much maturity of judgment as there would have been in times of peace, and hence give a less desirable sexual selection.

In the belligerent nation at home, the number of marriageable males is of course far less than at ordinary times. It becomes important, then, to compare the quality of the non-combatants and those combatants who survive and return home, since their absence during the war period of course decreases their reproduction as compared with the non-combatants. The marked excess of women over men, both during the war and after, necessarily intensifies the selection of women and proportionately reduces that of men, since relatively fewer men will remain unmated. This excess of women is found in all classes. Among superiors there are, in addition, some women who never marry because the war has so reduced the number of suitors thought eligible.

The five years' war of Paraguay with Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina (1864-1869) is perhaps the most glaring case on record[158] in recent years of the destruction of the male population of a country. Whole regiments were made up of boys of 16 or less. At the beginning of the war the population of Paraguay had been given as 1,337,437. It fell to 221,709 (28,746 men, 106,254 women, 86,079 children); it is even now probably not more than half of the estimate made at the beginning of the war. "Here in a small area has occurred a drastic case of racial ravage without parallel since the time of the Thirty Years' War." Macedonia, however, furnishes a fairly close parallel—D. S. Jordan found whole villages there in 1913 in which not a single man remained: only women and children. Conditions were not so very much better in parts of the South at the close of the Civil War, particularly in Virginia and North Carolina, where probably 40% of the young men of reproductive age died without issue. And in a few of the Northern states, such as Vermont, Connecticut and Massachusetts, the loss was proportionately almost as great. These were probably as good men as any country has produced, and their loss, with that of their potential offspring, undoubtedly is causing more far-reaching effects in the subsequent history of the United States than has ever been realized.

In the past and still among many savage peoples, inter-group selection has been affected by the stealing of women from the vanquished. The effect of this has been very different, depending on whether these women would otherwise have been killed or spared, and also depending on the relative quality of their nation to that of their conquerors.

To sum up, there are so many features of natural selection, each of which must be separately weighed and the whole then balanced, that it is a matter of extensive inquiry to determine whether a certain war has a preponderance of eugenic or dysgenic results.

When the quality of the combatants is so high, compared with the rest of the world, as during the Great War, no conceivable eugenic gains from the war can offset the losses. It is probably well within the facts to assume that the period of this war represents a decline in inherent human quality, greater than in any similar length of time in the previous history of the world.

Unfortunately, it does not appear that war is becoming much less common if we consider number of combatants rather than number of wars as times goes on,[159] and it steadily tends to be more destructive. War, then, offers one of the greatest problems which the eugenist must face, for a few months of war may undo all that eugenic reforms can gain in a generation.

The total abolition of war would, of course, be the ideal, but there is no possibility of this in the near future. The fighting instinct, it must be remembered, is one of the most primitive and powerful that the human mechanism contains. It was evolved in great intensity, to give man supremacy over his environment—for the great "struggle for existence" is with the environment, not with members of one's own species. Man long ago conquered the environment so successfully that he has never since had to exert himself in physical combat in this direction; but the fighting instinct remained and could not be baulked without causing uneasiness. Spurred on by a complex set of psychological and economic stimuli, man took to fighting his own kind, to a degree that no other species shows.

Now contrary to what the militarist philosophers affirm, this particular sort of "struggle for existence" is not a necessity to the further progressive evolution of the race. On the contrary it more frequently reverses evolution and makes the race go backward, rather than forward.

The struggle for existence which makes the race progress is principally that of the species with its environment, not that of some members of the species with others. If the latter struggle could be supplanted by the former then racial evolution would go ahead steadily without the continuous reversals that warfare now gives.

William James saw, we believe, the true solution of the problem of militarism, when he wrote his famous essay on The Moral Equivalent of War. Here is man, full of fighting instinct which will not be baulked. What is he to do? Professor James suggested that the youth of the nation be conscripted to fight the environment, thus getting the fight "out of its system" and rendering a real service to the race by constructive reclamation work, instead of slaying each other and thus turning the hands of the evolutionary clock backward.

When education has given everyone the evolutionary and eugenic view of man as a species adapted to his environment, it may be possible to work out some such solution as this of James. The only immediate course of action open seems to be to seek, if possible, to diminish the frequency of war by subduing nations which start wars and, by the organization of a League to Enforce Peace; to avoid war-provoking conquests; to diminish as much as possible the disastrous effects of war when it does come, and to work for the progress of science and the diffusion of knowledge which will eventually make possible the greater step, effective international organization.



CHAPTER XVII

GENEALOGY AND EUGENICS

Scientific plant breeders to-day have learned that their success often depends on the care with which they study the genealogy of their plants.

Live-stock breeders admit that their profession is on a sure scientific basis only to the extent that the genealogy of the animals used is known.

Human genealogy is one of the oldest manifestations of man's intellectual activity, but until recently it has been subservient to sentimental purposes, or pursued from historical or legal motives. Biology has had no place in it.

Genealogy, however, has not altogether escaped the re-examination which all sciences received after the Darwinian movement revolutionized modern thought. Numerous ways have been pointed out in which it could be brought into line with the new way of looking at man and his world. The field of genealogy has already been invaded at many points by biologists, seeking the furtherance of their own aims.

It will be worth while to discuss briefly the relations between the conventional genealogy and eugenics. It may be that genealogy could become an even more valuable branch of human knowledge than it now is, if it were more closely aligned with biology. In order to test this possibility, one must inquire:

(1) What is genealogy?

(2) What does it now attempt to do?

(3) What faults, from the eugenist's standpoint, seem to exist in present genealogical methods?

(4) What additions should be made to the present methods?

(5) What can be expected of it, after it is revised in accordance with the ideas of the eugenist?

The answer to the first question, "What is genealogy?" may be brief. Genealogy may be envisaged from several points. It serves history. It has a legal function, which is of more consequence abroad than in America. It has social significance, in bolstering family pride and creating a feeling of family solidarity—this is perhaps its chief office in the United States. It has, or can have, biological significance, and this in two ways: either in relation to pure science or applied science. In connection with pure science, its function is to furnish means for getting knowledge of the laws of heredity. In application, its function is to furnish a knowledge of the inherited characters of any given individual, in order to make it possible for the individual to find his place in the world and, in particular, to marry wisely. It is obvious that the use of genealogy in the applied science of eugenics is dependent on previous research by geneticists; for marriage matings which take account of heredity can not be made unless the mode of inheritance of human traits has previously been discovered.

The historical, social, legal and other aspects of genealogy do not concern the present discussion. We shall discuss only the biological aspect; not only because it alone is germane to the present book, but because we consider it to have by far the greatest true value, accepting the criterion of value as that which increases the welfare of mankind. By this criterion, the historical, legal and social aspects of genealogy will be seen, with a little reflection, to be of secondary importance to its biological aspect.

(2) Genealogy now is too often looked upon as an end in itself. It would be recognized as a science of much greater value to the world if it were considered not an end but a means to a far greater end than it alone can supply. It has, indeed, been contended, even by such an authority as Ottokar Lorenz, who is often called the father of modern scientific genealogy, that a knowledge of his own ancestry will tell each individual exactly what he himself is. This appears to be the basis of Lorenz's valuation of genealogy. It is a step in the right direction: but

(3) The present methods of genealogy are inadequate to support such a claim. Its methods are still based mainly on the historical, legal and social functions. A few of the faults of method in genealogy, which the eugenist most deplores, are:

(a) The information which is of most value is exactly that which genealogy ordinarily does not furnish. Dates of birth, death and marriage of an ancestor are of interest, but of limited biological importance. The facts about that ancestor which vitally concern his living descendant are the facts of his character, physical and mental; and these facts are given in very few genealogies.



(b) Genealogies are commonly too incomplete to be of real value. Sometimes they deal only with the direct male line of ascent—the line that bears the family name, or what animal breeders call the tail-male. In this case, it is not too much to say that they are nearly devoid of genuine value. It is customary to imagine that there is some special virtue inherent in that line of descent which carries the family name. Some one remarks, for instance, to Mr. Jones that he seems to be fond of the sea.

"Yes," he replies, "You know the Joneses have been sailors for many generations."

But the small contribution of heredity made to an individual by the line of descent carrying his family name, in comparison with the rest of his ancestry, may be seen from Fig. 40.

Such incomplete pedigrees are rarely published nowadays, but in studying historic characters, one frequently finds nothing more than the single line of ascent in the family name. Fortunately, American genealogies rarely go to this extreme, unless it be in the earliest generations; but it is common enough for them to deal only with the direct ancestors of the individual, omitting all brothers and sisters of those ancestors. Although this simplifies the work of the genealogist immensely, it deprives it of value to a corresponding degree.

(c) As the purpose of genealogy in this country has been largely social, it is to be feared that in too many cases discreditable data have been tacitly omitted from the records. The anti-social individual, the feeble-minded, the insane, the alcoholic, the "generally no-count," has been glossed over. Such a lack of candor is not in accord with the scientific spirit, and makes one uncertain, in the use of genealogies, to what extent one is really getting all the facts. There are few families of any size which have not one such member or more, not many generations removed. To attempt to conceal the fact is not only unethical but from the eugenist's point of view, at any rate, it is a falsification of records that must be regarded with great disapproval. At present it is hard to say to what extent undesirable traits occur in the most distinguished families; and it is of great importance that this should be learned.

Maurice Fishberg contends[160] that many Jewish families are characterized by extremes,—that in each generation they have produced more ability and also more disability than would ordinarily be expected. This seems to be true of some of the more prominent old American families as well. On the other hand, large families can be found, such as the remarkable family of New England office-holders described by Merton T. Goodrich,[161] in which there is a steady production of civic worth in every generation with almost no mental defectives or gross physical defectives. In such a family there is a high sustained level. It is such strains which eugenists wish especially to increase.

In this connection it is again worth noting that a really great man is rarely found in an ancestry devoid of ability. This was pointed out in the first chapter, but is certain to strike the genealogist's attention forcibly. Abraham Lincoln is often quoted as an exception; but more recent studies of his ancestry have shown that he is not really an exception; that, as Ida M. Tarbell[162] says, "So far from his later career being unaccounted for in his origin and early history, it is as fully accounted for as is the case of any man." The Lincoln family was one of the best in America, and while Abraham's own father was an eccentric person, he was yet a man of considerable force of character, by no means the "poor white trash" which he is often represented to have been. The Hanks family, to which the Emancipator's mother belonged, had also maintained a high level of ability in every generation; furthermore, Thomas Lincoln and Nancy Hanks, the parents of Abraham Lincoln, were first cousins.

The more difficult cases, for the eugenist, are rather to be found in such ancestries as those of Louis Pasteur and Michael Faraday. Pasteur[163] might perhaps be justly considered the greatest man France has ever produced; his father was a non-commissioned soldier who came of a long line of tanners, while his mother's family had been gardeners for generations. Faraday, who is worthy to be placed close to Charles Darwin among eminent Englishmen, was the son of a blacksmith and a farmer's daughter. Such pedigrees are striking; and yet, as Frederick Adams Woods has remarked, they ought to strengthen rather than to weaken one's belief in the force of heredity. When it is considered how rarely such an ancestry produces a great man, it must be fairly evident that his greatness is due to an accidental conjunction of favorable traits, as the modern theory of genetics holds; and that greatness is not due to the inheritance of acquired characters, on which hypothesis Pasteur and Faraday would indeed be difficult to explain.

Cases of this sort, even though involving much less famous people, will be found in almost every genealogy, and add greatly to the interest of its study, as well as offering valuable data to the professional geneticist.

(d) Even if the information it furnishes were more complete, human genealogy would not justify the claims sometimes made for it as a science, because, to use a biological phrase, "the matings are not controlled." The results of a certain experiment are exhibited, but can not be interpreted unless one knows what the results would have been, had the preceding conditions been varied in this way or in that way. These controlled experiments can be made in plant and animal breeding; they have been made by the thousand, by the hundred thousand, for many years. They can not be made in human society. It is, of course, not desirable that they should be made; but the consequence is that the biological meaning of human history, the real import of genealogy, can not be known unless it is interpreted in the light of modern plant and animal breeding. It is absolutely necessary that genealogy go into partnership with genetics, the general science of heredity. If a spirit of false pride leads genealogists to hold aloof from these experiments, they will make slow progress. The interpretation of genealogy in the light of modern research in heredity through the experimental breeding of plants and animals is full of hope; without such light, it will be discouragingly slow work.

Genealogists are usually proud of their pedigrees; they usually have a right to be. But their pride should not lead them to scorn the pedigrees of some of the peas, and corn, snapdragons and sugar beets, bulldogs and Shorthorn cattle, with which geneticists have been working during the last generation; for these humble pedigrees may throw more light on their own than a century of research in purely human material.

The science of genealogy will not have full meaning and full value to those who pursue it, unless they bring themselves to look on men and women as organisms subject to the same laws of heredity and variation as other living things. Biologists were not long ago told that it was essential for them to learn to think like genealogists. For the purpose of eugenics, neither science is complete without the other; and we believe that it is not invidious to say that biologists have been quicker to realize this than have genealogists. The Golden Age of genealogy is yet to come.

(4) In addition to the correction of these faulty methods, there are certain extensions of genealogical method which could advantageously be made without great difficulty.

(a) More written records should be kept, and less dependence placed on oral communication. The obsolescent family Bible, with its chronicle of births, deaths and marriages, is an institution of too great value in more ways than one, to be given up. The United States have not the advantage of much of the machinery of State registration which aids European genealogy, and while working for better registration of vital statistics, it should be a matter of pride with every family to keep its own archives.

(b) Family trees should be kept in more detail, including all brothers and sisters in every family, no matter at what age they died, and including as many collaterals as possible. This means more work for the genealogist, but the results will be of much value to science.

(c) More family traits should be marked. Those at present recorded are mostly of a social or economic nature, and are of little real significance after the death of their possessor. But the traits of his mind and body are likely to go on to his descendants indefinitely. These are therefore the facts of his life on which attention should be focused.

(d) More pictorial data should be added. Photographs of the members of the family, at all ages, should be carefully preserved. Measurements equally deserve attention. The door jamb is not a satisfactory place for recording the heights of children, particularly in this day when removals are so frequent. Complete anthropometric measurements, such as every member of the Young Men's Christian Association, most college students, and many other people are obliged to undergo once or periodically, should be placed on file.

(e) Pedigrees should be traced upward from a living individual, rather than downward from some hero long since dead. Of course, the ideal method would be to combine these two, or to keep duplicate pedigrees, one a table of ascendants and the other of descendants, in the same stock.

Genealogical data of the needed kind, however, can not be reduced to a mere table or a family tree. The ideal genealogy starts with a whole fraternity—the individual who is making it and all his brothers and sisters. It describes fully the fraternity to which the father belongs, giving an account of each member, of the husband or wife of that member (if married) and their children, who are of course the first cousins of the maker of the genealogical study. It does the same for the mother's fraternity. Next it considers the fraternity to which the father's father belongs, considers their consorts and their children and grandchildren, and then takes up the study of the fraternity of the father's mother in the same way. The mother's parents next receive attention; and then the earlier generations are similarly treated, as far as the available records will allow. A pedigree study constructed on this plan really shows what traits are running through the families involved, and is vastly more significant than a mere chain of links, even though this might run through a dozen generations.

(5) With these changes, genealogy would become the study of heredity, rather than the study of lineage.

It is not meant to say that the study of heredity is nothing more than applied genealogy. As understood nowadays, it includes mathematical and biological territory which must always be foreign to genealogy. It might be said that in so far as man is concerned, heredity is the interpretation of genealogy, and eugenics the application of heredity. Genealogy should give its students a vision of the species as a great group of ever-changing, interrelated organisms, a great network originating in the obscurity of the past, stretching forward into the obscurity of the future, every individual in it organically related to every other, and all of them the heritors of the past in a very real sense.

Genealogists do well in giving a realization of the importance of the family, but they err if they base this teaching altogether on the family's pride in some remote ancestor who, even though he bore the family name and was a prodigy of virtues, probably counts for very little in the individual's make-up to-day. To take a concrete though wholly imaginary illustration: what man would not feel a certain satisfaction in being a lineal descendant of George Washington? And yet, if the Father of his Country be placed at only four removes from the living individual, nothing is more certain than that this hypothetical living individual had fifteen other ancestors in George Washington's generation, any one of whom may play as great or a greater part in his ancestry; and so remote are they all that, as a statistical average, it is calculated that the contribution of George Washington to the ancestry of the hypothetical living individual would be perhaps not more than one-third of 1% of the total. The small influence of one of these remote ancestors may be seen at a glance, if a chart of all the ancestors up to the generation of the great hero is made. Following out the illustration, a pedigree based on George Washington would look like the diagram in Fig. 41. In more remote generations, the probable biological influence of the ancestor becomes practically nil. Thus Americans who trace their descent to some royal personage of England or the Continent, a dozen generations ago, may get a certain amount of spiritual satisfaction out of the relationship, but they certainly can derive little real help, of a hereditary kind, from this ancestor. And when one goes farther back,—as to William the Conqueror, who seems to rank with the Mayflower immigrants as a progenitor of many descendants—the claim of descent becomes really a joke. If 24 generations have elapsed between the present and the time of William the Conqueror, every individual living to-day must have had living in the epoch of the Norman conquest not less than sixteen million ancestors. Of course, there was no such number of people in all England and Normandy, at that time, hence it is obvious that the theoretical number has been greatly reduced in every generation by consanguineous marriages, even though they were between persons so remotely related that they did not know they were related. C. B. Davenport, indeed, has calculated that most persons of the old American stock in the United States are related to each other not more remotely than thirtieth cousins, and a very large proportion as closely as fifteenth cousins.



At any rate, it must be obvious that the ancestors of any person of old American stock living to-day must have included practically all the inhabitants of England and Normandy, in the eleventh century. Looking at the pedigree from the other end, William the Conqueror must have living to-day at least 16,000,000 descendants. Most of them can not trace back their pedigrees, but that does not alter the fact.

Such considerations give one a vivid realization of the brotherhood of man; but they can hardly be said to justify any great pride in descent from a family of crusaders for instance, except on purely sentimental grounds.

Descent from a famous man or woman should not be disparaged. It is a matter of legitimate pride and congratulation. But claims for respect made on that ground alone are, from a biological point of view, negligible, if the hero is several generations removed. What Sir Francis Galton wrote of the peers of England may, with slight alterations, be given general application to the descendants of famous people:

"An old peerage is a valueless title to natural gifts, except so far as it may have been furbished up by a succession of wise intermarriages.... I cannot think of any claim to respect, put forward in modern days, that is so entirely an imposture as that made by a peer on the ground of descent, who has neither been nobly educated, nor has any eminent kinsman within three degrees."

But, some one may protest, are we not shattering the very edifice of which we are professed defenders, in thus denying the force of heredity? Not at all. We wish merely to emphasize that a man has sixteen great-great-grandparents, instead of one, and that those in the maternal lines are too often overlooked, although from a biological point of view they are every bit as important as those in the paternal lines. And we wish further to emphasize the point that it is the near relatives who, on the whole, represent what one is. The great family which for a generation or two makes unwise marriages, must live on its past reputation and see the work of the world done and the prizes carried away by the children of wiser matings. No family can maintain its eugenic rank merely by the power of inertia. Every marriage that a member of the family makes is a matter of vital concern to the future of the family: and this is one of the lessons which a broad science of genealogy should inculcate in every youth.

Is it practicable to direct genealogy on this slightly different line? As to that, the genealogist must decide. These are the qualifications which old Professor William Chauncey Fowler laid down as essential for a successful genealogist:

Love of kindred. Love of investigation. Active imagination. Sound and disciplined judgment. Conscientious regard to truth. A pleasing style as a writer.

With such qualifications, one can go far, and it would seem that one who possesses them has only to fix his attention upon the biological aspect of genealogy, to become convinced that his science is only part of a science, as long as it ignores eugenics. After all, nothing more is necessary than a slight change in the point of view; and if genealogists can adopt this new point of view, can add to their equipment some familiarity with the fundamental principles of biology as they apply to man and are laid down in the science of eugenics, the value of the science of genealogy to the world ought to increase at least five-fold within a generation.

What can be expected from a genealogy with eugenic foundation?

First and foremost, it will give genetics a chance to advance with more rapidity, in its study of man. Genetics, the study of heredity, can not successfully proceed by direct observation in the human species as it does with plants and rapidly-breeding animals, because the generations are too long. Less than three generations are of little value for genetic researches, and even three can rarely be observed to advantage by any one person. Therefore, second-hand information must be used. So far, most of this has been gained by sending field-workers—a new kind of genealogist—out among the members of a family, and having them collect the desired information, either by study of extant records, or by word of mouth. But the written records of value have been usually negligible in quantity, and oral communication has therefore been the mainstay. It has not been wholly satisfactory. Few people—aside from genealogists—can give even the names of all their great-grandparents, far less can they tell anything of importance about them.

It is thus to genealogy that genetics is driven. Unless family records are available, it can accomplish little. And it can not get these family records unless genealogists realize the importance of furnishing them; for as has already been pointed out, most genealogies at present available are of little value to genetics, because of the inadequacy of the data they furnish. It is only in the case of exceptional families, such as the royal houses of Europe, that enough information is given about each individual to furnish an opportunity for analysis. What could be done if there were more such data available is brilliantly illustrated in the investigation by Frederick Adams Woods of Boston of the reigning houses of Europe. His writings should be read by every genealogist, as a source of inspiration as well as information.

More such data must be obtained in the future. Genealogists must begin at once to keep family records in such a way that they will be of the greatest value possible—that they will serve not only family pride, but bigger purposes. It will not take long to get together a large number of family histories, in which the idea will be to tell as much as possible, instead of as little as possible, about every individual mentioned.

The value of pedigrees of this kind is greater than most people realize.

In the first place, it must be remembered that these traits, on whose importance in the pedigree we have been insisting, are responsible not only for whatever the individual is, but for whatever society is,—whatever the race is. They are not personal matters, as C. B. Davenport and H. H. Laughlin well point out; "they come to us from out of the population of the past, and, in so far as we have children, they become disseminated throughout the population of the future. Upon such traits society is built; good or bad they determine the fate of our society. Apart from migration, there is only one way to get socially desirable traits into our social life, and that is reproduction; there is only one way to get them out, by preventing the reproduction. All social welfare work is merely education of the germs of traits; it does not provide such germs. In the absence of the germs the traits can not develop. On the other hand, it is possible with difficulty, if possible at all, by means of the strongest repressive measures merely, to prevent the development of undesirable hereditary traits. Society can treat the delinquent individual more reasonably, more effectively, and more humanely, if it knows the 'past performance' of his germ-plasm."

In addition to their importance to society, a knowledge of the traits of a pedigree has a great direct importance to the individual; one of the most valuable things to be learned from that knowledge is the answer to the question, "What shall a boy or girl do? What career shall one lay out for one's children?" A knowledge of the child's inborn nature, such as can be had only through study of his ancestry, will guide those who have his education in hand, and will further guide those who decide, or help the child decide, what work to take up in life. This helps to put the problem of vocational guidance on a sound basis,—the basis of the individual's inherent aptitudes.

Not too much must be expected from vocational guidance at the present time, but in the case of traits that are inherited, it is a fair inference that a child is more likely to be highly endowed with a trait which both parents possess, than with one that only one parent possesses. "Among the traits which have been said to occur in some such direct hereditary way," H. L. Hollingworth[164] observes, "or as the result of unexplained mutation or deviation from type, are: mathematical aptitude, ability in drawing,[165] musical composition,[166] singing, poetic reaction, military strategy, chess playing. Pitch discrimination seems to depend on structural factors which are not susceptible of improvement by practice.[167] The same may be said of various forms of professional athletic achievement. Color blindness seems to be an instance of the conspicuous absence of such a unit characteristic."

Again, the knowledge of ancestry is an essential factor in the wise selection of a husband or wife. Insistence has been laid on this point in an earlier chapter of this book, and it is not necessary here to repeat what was there said. But it seems certain that ancestry will steadily play a larger part in marriage selection in the future; it is at least necessary to know that one is not marrying into a family that carries the taint of serious hereditary defect, even if one knows nothing more. An intelligent study of genealogy will do much, we believe, to bring about the intelligent selection of the man or woman with whom one is to fall in love.

In addition to these general considerations, it is evident that genealogy, properly carried out, would throw light on most of the specific problems with which eugenics is concerned, or which fall in the field of genetics. A few examples of these problems may be mentioned, in addition to those which are discussed in various other chapters of this book.



1. The supposed inferiority of first-born children has been debated at some length during the last decade, but is not yet wholly settled. It appears possible that the first-born may be, on the average, inferior both physically and mentally to the children who come directly after him; on the other hand, the number of first-born who attain eminence is greater than would be expected on the basis of pure chance. More data are needed to clear up this problem.[168]

2. The advantage to a child of being a member of a large or small family is a question of importance. In these days of birth control, the argument is frequently heard that large families are an evil of themselves, the children in them being handicapped by the excessive child-bearing of the mother. The statistics cited in support of this claim are drawn from the slums, where the families are marked by poverty and by physical and mental inferiority. It can easily be shown, by a study of more favored families, that the best children come from the large fraternities. In fact Alexander Graham Bell found evidence,[169] in his investigation of the Hyde Family in America, that the families of 10 or more children were those which showed the greatest longevity (see Figs. 42 and 43). In this connection, longevity is of course a mark of vitality and physical fitness.

3. The question of the effect of child-bearing on the mother is equally important, since exponents of birth control are urging that mothers should not bear more children than they desire. A. O. Powys' careful study[170] of the admirable vital statistics of New South Wales showed that the mothers who lived longest were those who bore from five to seven children.

4. The age at which men and women should marry has not yet been sufficiently determined, on biological grounds. Statistics so far compiled do not indicate that the age of the father has any direct influence on the character of the children, but the age of the mother undoubtedly exercises a strong influence on them. Thus it is now well established[171] that infant mortality is lowest among the children of young mothers,—say from 20 to 25 years of age,—and that delay in child-bearing after that age penalizes the children (see Fig. 44). There is also some evidence that, altogether apart from the infant mortality, the children of young mothers attain a greater longevity than do those of older women. More facts are needed, to show how much of this effect is due to the age of the mother, how much to her experience, and how much to the influence of the number of children she has previously borne.

5. Assortative mating, consanguineous marriage, the inheritance of a tendency to disease, longevity, sex-linked heredity, sex-determination, the production of twins, and many other problems of interest to the general public as well as to the biologist, are awaiting the collection of fuller data. All such problems will be illuminated, when more genealogies are kept on a biological basis.



Here, however, an emphatic warning against superficial investigation must be uttered. The medical profession has been particularly hasty, many times, in reporting cases which were assumed to demonstrate heredity. The child was so and so; it was found on inquiry that the father was also so and so: Post hoc, ergo propter hoc—it was heredity. Such a method of investigation is calculated to bring genetics into disrepute, and would hazard the credit of genealogy. As a fact, one case counts for practically nothing as proof of hereditary influence; even half a dozen or a dozen may be of no significance. There are two ways in which genealogical data can be analyzed to deduce biological laws: one is based on the application of statistical and graphic methods to the data, and needs some hundreds of cases to be of value; the other is by pedigree-study, and needs at least three generations of pedigree, usually covering numerous collaterals, to offer important results. It is not to be supposed that anyone with a sufficiently complete record of his own ancestry would necessarily be able by inspection to deduce from it any important contribution to science. But if enough complete family records are made available, the professional geneticist can be called into cooperation, can supplement the human record with his knowledge of the results achieved by carefully controlled animal and plant breeding, and between them, the genealogist and the geneticist can in most cases arrive at the truth. That such truth is of the highest importance to any family, and equally to society as a whole, must be evident.

Let the genealogist, then, bring together data on every trait he can think of. As a guide and stimulus, he should read the opening chapters of Herbert's Spencer's Autobiography, or of Karl Pearson's, Life, Letters and Labors of Sir Francis Galton, or C. B. Davenport's study[172] of C. O. Whitman, one of the foremost American biologists. He will also find help in Bulletin No. 13 of the Eugenics Record Office, Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, New York. It is entitled, How to Make a Eugenical Family Study, and gives a list of questions which should be answered, and points which should be noted. With some such list as this, or even with his own common-sense, the genealogist may seek to ascertain as much as possible about the significant facts in the life of his ancestors, bearing in mind that the geneticist will ask two questions about every trait mentioned:

1. Is this characteristic inherited?

2. If so, how?

Nor must it be forgotten that the geneticist is often as much interested in knowing that a given character is not inherited under certain conditions, as that it is.

It is highly desirable that genealogists should acquire the habit of stating the traits of their subjects in quantitative terms. They too often state that a certain amount is "much"; what should be told is "how much." Instead of saying that an individual had fairly good health, tell exactly what diseases he had during his lifetime; instead of remarking that he was a good mathematician, tell some anecdote or fact that will allow judgment of the extent of his ability in this line. Did he keep record of his bank balance in his head instead of on paper? Was he fond of mathematical puzzles? Did he revel in statistics? Was the study of calculus a recreation to him? Such things probably will appear trivial to the genealogist, but to the eugenist they are sometimes important.

Aside from biology, or as much of it as is comprised in eugenics, genealogy may also serve medicine, jurisprudence, sociology, statistics, and various other sciences as well as the ones which it now serves. But in most cases, such service will have a eugenic aspect. The alliance between eugenics and genealogy is so logical that it can not be put off much longer.

Genealogists may well ask what facilities there are for receiving and using pedigrees such as we have been outlining, if they were made up. All are, of course, familiar with the repositories which the different patriotic societies, the National Genealogical Society, and similar organizations maintain, as well as the collections of the Library of Congress and other great public institutions. Anything deposited in such a place can be found by investigators who are actively engaged in eugenic research.

In addition to this, there are certain establishments founded for the sole purpose of analyzing genealogies from a biological or statistical point of view. The first of these was the Galton Laboratory of the University of London, directed by Karl Pearson. There are two such at work in the United States. The larger is the Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, New York, directed by Charles B. Davenport. Blank schedules are sent to all applicants, in which the pedigree of an individual may be easily set down, with reference particularly to the traits of eugenic importance. When desired, the office will send duplicate schedules, one of which may be retained by the applicant for his own files. The schedules filed at the Eugenics Record Office are treated as confidential, access to them being given only to accredited investigators.

The second institution of this kind is the Genealogical Record Office, founded and directed by Alexander Graham Bell at 1601 Thirty-fifth Street N. W., Washington D. C. This devotes itself solely to the collection of data regarding longevity, and sends out schedules to all those in whose families there have been individuals attaining the age of 80 or over. It welcomes correspondence on the subject from all who know of cases of long life, and endeavors to put the particulars on record, especially with reference to the ancestry and habits of the long-lived individual.

The Eugenics Registry at Battle Creek, Mich., likewise receives pedigrees, which it refers to Cold Spring Harbor for analysis.

Persons intelligently interested in their ancestry might well consider it a duty to society, and to their own posterity, to send for one of the Eugenics Record Office schedules, fill it out and place it on file there, and to do the same with the Genealogical Record Office, if they are so fortunate as to come of a stock characterized by longevity. The filling out of these schedules would be likely to lead to a new view of genealogy; and when this point of view is once gained, the student will find it adds immensely to his interest in his pursuit.

Genealogists are all familiar with the charge of long standing that genealogy is a subject of no use, a fad of a privileged class. They do not need to be told that such a charge is untrue. But genealogy can be made a much more useful science than it now is, and it will be at the same time more interesting to its followers, if it is no longer looked upon as an end in itself, nor solely as a minister to family pride. We hope to see it regarded as a handmaid of evolution, just as are the other sciences; we hope to see it linked with the great biological movement of the present day, for the betterment of mankind.

So much for the science as a whole. What can the individual do? Nothing better than to broaden his outlook so that he may view his family not as an exclusive entity, centered in a name, dependent on some illustrious man or men of the past; but rather as an integral part of the great fabric of human life, its warp and woof continuous from the dawn of creation and criss-crossed at each generation. When he gets this vision, he will desire to make his family tree as full as possible, to include his collaterals, to note every trait which he can find on record, to preserve the photographs and measurements of his own contemporaries, and to take pleasure in feeling that the history of his family is a contribution to human knowledge, as well as to the pride of the family.

If the individual genealogist does this, the science of genealogy will become a useful servant of the whole race, and its influence, not confined to a few, will be felt by all, as a positive, dynamic force helping them to lead more worthy lives in the short span allotted to them, and helping them to leave more worthy posterity to carry on the names they bore and the sacred thread of immortality, of which they were for a time the custodians.



CHAPTER XVIII

THE EUGENIC ASPECT OF SOME SPECIFIC REFORMS

Nearly every law and custom of a country has an influence direct or remote on eugenics. The eugenic progress to be expected if laws and customs are gradually but steadily modified in appropriate ways, is vastly greater and more practicable than is any possible gain which could be made at present through schemes for the direct control of "eugenic marriages."

In this present chapter, we try to point out some of the eugenic aspects of certain features of American society. It must not be supposed that we have any legislative panaceas to offer, or that the suggestions we make are necessarily the correct ones. We are primarily concerned with stimulating people to think about the eugenic aspects of their laws and customs. Once the public thinks, numerous changes will be tried and the results will show whether the changes shall be followed up or discontinued.

The eugenic point of view that we have here taken is becoming rather widespread, although it is often not recognized as eugenic. Thinkers in all subjects that concern social progress are beginning to realize that the test of whether or not a measure is good is its effect. The pragmatic school of philosophy, which has been in vogue in recent years, has reduced this attitude to a system. It is an attitude to be welcomed wherever it is found, for it only needs the addition of a knowledge of biology, to become eugenic.

TAXATION

To be just, any form of taxation should repress productive industry as little as possible, and should be of a kind that can not easily be shifted. In addition to these qualifications, it should, if possible, contribute directly to the eugenic strength of the nation by favoring, or at least by not penalizing, useful families. A heavy tax on land values (in extreme, the single-tax) and a heavy tax on bachelors have sometimes been proposed as likely to be eugenic in effect. But they are open to criticism. The tax on land values appears too likely to be indiscriminate in working: it would appear to favor inferior families as much as superior ones. The tax on bachelors is proposed as a means of getting bachelors to marry; but is this always desirable? It depends on the quality of the bachelors. Even at present it is our belief that, on the whole, the married men of the population are superior to the unmarried men. If the action of sexual selection is improved still further by the eugenics campaign, this difference in quality will be increased. It will then be rather an advantage that the bachelors should remain single, and a tax which would force them into marriage for reasons of economy, is not likely to result in any eugenic gain. But a moderate indirect tax by an exemption for a wife and each child after a general exemption of $2,000 would be desirable.

The inheritance tax seems less open to criticism. Very large inheritances should be taxed to a much greater degree than is at present attempted in the United States, and the tax should be placed, not on the total amount of the inheritance, but on the amount received by each individual beneficiary. This tends to prevent the unfair guarantee of riches to individuals regardless of their own worth and efforts. But to suggest, on the other hand, as has often been done, that inheritances should be confiscated by the government altogether, shows a lack of appreciation of the value of a reasonable right to bequeath in encouraging larger families among those having a high standard of living. It is not desirable to penalize the kind of strains which possess directing talent and constructive efficiency; and they certainly would be penalized if a man felt that no matter how much he might increase his fortune, he could not leave any of it to those who continued his stock.

The sum exempted should not be large enough to tempt the beneficiary to give up work and settle down into a life of complacent idleness, but enough to be of decided assistance to him in bringing up a family: $50,000 might be a good maximum. Above this, the rate should advance rapidly, and should be progressive, not proportional. A 50% tax on inheritances above $250,000 seems to us desirable, since large inheritances tend to interfere with the correlation of wealth and social worth, which is so necessary from a eugenic point of view as well as from that of social justice.

The Federal estate law, passed in September, 1916, is a step in the right direction. It places the exemption at $50,000 net. The rate, however, is not rapid enough in its rise: e.g., estates exceeding $250,000 but less than $450,000 are taxed only 4%, while the maximum, for estates above $5,000,000, is only 10%. This, moreover, is on the total estate, while we favor the plan that taxes not the total amount bequeathed but the amount inherited by each individual. With the ever increasing need of revenue, it is certain that Congress will make a radical increase in progressive inheritance tax on large fortunes, which should be retained after the war.

Wisconsin and California have introduced an interesting innovation by providing a further graded tax on inheritances in accordance with the degree of consanguinity between the testator and the beneficiary. Thus a small bequest to a son or daughter might be taxed only 1%; a large bequest to a trained nurse or a spiritualistic medium might be taxed 15%. This is frank recognition of the fact that inheritance is to be particularly justified as it tends to endow a superior family. Eugenically it may be permissible to make moderate bequests to brothers, nephews and nieces, as well as one's own children; and to endow philanthropies; but the State might well take a large part of any inheritance which would otherwise go to remote heirs, or to persons not related to the testator.

At present there is, on the whole, a negative correlation between size of family and income. The big families are, in general in the part of the population which has the smallest income, and it is well established that the number of children tends to decrease as the income increases and as a family rises in the social scale—a fact to which we have devoted some attention in earlier chapters. If this condition were to be permanent, it would be somewhat difficult to suggest a eugenic form of income tax. We believe, however, that it is not likely to be permanent in its present extent. The spread of birth control seems likely to reduce the negative correlation and the spread of eugenic ideas may possibly convert it into a slight positive correlation, so that the number of children may be more nearly proportional to the means of the family. Perhaps it is Utopian to expect a positive correlation in the near future, yet a decrease in the number of children born to the class of casual laborers and unskilled workers is pretty certain to take place as rapidly as the knowledge of methods of birth control is extended; and at present it does not seem that this extension can be stopped by any of the agencies that are opposing it.

If the size of a family becomes more nearly proportional to the income, instead of being inversely proportional to it as at present, and if income is even roughly a measure of the value of a family to the community—an assumption that can hardly be denied altogether, however much one may qualify it in individual cases,—then the problem of taxing family incomes will be easier. The effect of income differences will be, on the whole, eugenic. It would then seem desirable to exempt from taxation all incomes of married people below a certain critical sum, this amount being the point at which change in income may be supposed to not affect size of family. This means exemption of all incomes under $2,000, an additional $2,000 for a wife and an additional $2,000 for each child, and a steeply-graded advance above that amount, as very large incomes act to reduce the size of family by introducing a multiplicity of competing cares and interests. There is also a eugenic advantage in heavy taxes on harmful commodities and unapprovable luxuries.

THE "BACK TO THE FARM" MOVEMENT

One of the striking accompaniments of the development of American civilization, as of all other civilizations, is the growth of the cities. If (following the practice of the U. S. Census) all places with 2,500 or more population be classed as urban, it appears that 36.1% of the population of the United States was urban in 1890, that the percentage had risen to 40.5 in 1900, and that by 1910 not less than 46.3% of the total population was urban.

There are four components of this growth of urban population: (1) excess of births over deaths, (2) immigration from rural districts, (3) immigration from other countries, and (4) the extension of area by incorporation of suburbs. It is not to be supposed that the growth of the cities is wholly at the expense of the country; J. M. Gillette calculates[173] that 29.8% of the actual urban gain of 11,826,000 between 1900 and 1910 was due to migration from the country, the remaining 70.2% being accounted for by the other three causes enumerated.

Thus it appears that the movement from country to city is of considerable proportions, even though it be much less than has sometimes been alleged. This movement has eugenic importance because it is generally believed, although more statistical evidence is needed, that families tend to "run out" in a few generations under city conditions; and it is generally agreed that among those who leave the rural districts to go to the cities, there are found many of the best representatives of the country families.

If superior people are going to the large cities, and if this removal leads to a smaller reproductive contribution than they would otherwise have made, then the growth of great cities is an important dysgenic factor.

This is the view taken by O. F. Cook,[174] when he writes: "Statistically speaking cities are centers of population, but biologically or eugenically speaking they are centers of depopulation. They are like sink-holes or siguanas, as the Indians of Guatemala call the places where the streams of their country drop into subterranean channels and disappear. It never happens that cities develop large populations that go out and occupy the surrounding country. The movement of population is always toward the city. The currents of humanity pass into the urban siguanas and are gone."

"If the time has really come for the consideration of practical eugenic measures, here is a place to begin, a subject worthy of the most careful study—how to rearrange our social and economic system so that more of the superior members of our race will stay on the land and raise families, instead of moving to the city and remaining unmarried or childless, or allowing their children to grow up in unfavorable urban environments that mean deterioration and extinction."

"The cities represent an eliminating agency of enormous efficiency, a present condition that sterilizes and exterminates individuals and lines of descent rapidly enough for all but the most sanguinary reformer. All that is needed for a practical solution of the eugenic problem is to reverse the present tendency for the better families to be drawn into the city and facilitate the drafting of others for urban duty.... The most practical eugenists of our age are the men who are solving the problems of living in the country and thus keeping more and better people under rural conditions where their families will survive."

"To recognize the relation of eugenics to agriculture," Mr. Cook concludes, "does not solve the problems of our race, but it indicates the basis on which the problems need to be solved, and the danger of wasting too much time and effort in attempting to salvage the derelict populations of the cities. However important the problems of urban society may be, they do not have fundamental significance from the standpoint of eugenics, because urban populations are essentially transient. The city performs the function of elimination, while agriculture represents the constructive eugenic condition which must be maintained and improved if the development of the race is to continue."

On the other hand, city life does select those who are adapted to it. It is said to favor the Mediterranean race in competition with the Nordic, so that mixed city populations tend to become more brunette, the Nordic strains dying out. How well this claim has been established statistically is open to question; but there can be no doubt that the Jewish race is an example of urban selection. It has withstood centuries of city life, usually under the most severe conditions, in ghettoes, and has survived and maintained a high average of mentality.

Until recently it has been impossible, because of the defective registration of vital statistics in the United States, to get figures which show the extent of the problem of urban sterilization. But Dr. Gillette has obtained evidence along several indirect lines, and is convinced that his figures are not far from the truth.[175] They show the difference to be very large and its eugenic significance of corresponding importance.

"When it is noted," Dr. Gillette says, "that the rural rate is almost twice the urban rate for the nation as a whole, that in only one division does the latter exceed the former, and that in some divisions the rural rate is three times the urban rate, it can scarcely be doubted that the factor of urbanization is the most important cause of lowered increase rates. Urban birth-rates are lower than rural birth-rates, and its death-rates are higher than those of the latter."

Considering the United States in nine geographical divisions, Dr. Gillette secured the following results:

RATE OF NET ANNUAL INCREASE Division Rural Urban Average New England 5.0 7.3 6.8 Middle Atlantic 10.7 9.6 10.4 East North Central 12.4 10.8 11.6 West North Central 18.1 10.1 15.8 South Atlantic 18.9 6.00 16.0 East South Central 19.7 7.4 17.8 West South Central 23.9 10.2 21.6 Mountain 21.1 10.5 17.6 Pacific 12.6 6.6 9.8 —— —— ——- Average 16.9 8.8 13.65

Even though fuller returns might show these calculations to be inaccurate, Dr. Gillette points out, they are all compiled on the same basis, and therefore can be fairly compared, since any unforeseen cause of increase or decrease would affect all alike.

It is difficult to compare the various divisions directly, because the racial composition of the population of each one is different. But the difference in rates is marked. The West South Central states would almost double their population in four decades, by natural increase alone, while New England would require 200 years to do so.

Dr. Gillette tried, by elaborate computations, to eliminate the effect of immigration and emigration in each division, in order to find out the standing of the old American stock. His conclusions confirm the beliefs of the most pessimistic. "Only three divisions, all Western, add to their population by means of an actual excess of income over outgo of native-born Americans," he reports. Even should this view turn out to be exaggerated, it is certain that the population of the United States is at present increasing largely because of immigration and the high fecundity of immigrant women, and that as far as its own older stock is concerned, it has ceased to increase.

To state that this is due largely to the fact that country people are moving to the city is by no means to solve the problem, in terms of eugenics. It merely shows the exact nature of the problem to be solved. This could be attacked at two points.

1. Attempts might be made to keep the rural population on the farms, and to encourage a movement from the cities back to the country. Measures to make rural life more attractive and remunerative and thus to keep the more energetic and capable young people on the farm, have great eugenic importance, from this point of view.

2. The growth of cities might be accepted as a necessary evil, an unavoidable feature of industrial civilization, and direct attempts might be made, through eugenic propaganda, to secure a higher birth-rate among the superior parts of the city population.

The second method seems in many ways the more practicable. On the other hand, the first method is in many ways more ideal, particularly because it would not only cause more children to be born, but furnish these children with a suitable environment after they were born, which the city can not do. On the other hand, the city offers the better environment for the especially gifted who require a specialized training and later the field for its use in most cases.

In practice, the problem will undoubtedly have to be attacked by eugenists on both sides. Dr. Gillette's statistics, showing the appalling need, should prove a stimulus to eugenic effort.

DEMOCRACY

By democracy we understand a government which is responsive to the will of a majority of the entire population, as opposed to an oligarchy where the sole power is in the hands of a small minority of the entire population, who are able to impose their will on the rest of the nation. In discussing immigration, we have pointed out that it is of great importance that the road for promotion of merit should always be open, and that the road for demotion of incompetence should likewise be open. These conditions are probably favored more by a democracy than by any other form of government, and to that extent democracy is distinctly advantageous to eugenics.

Yet this eugenic effect is not without a dysgenic after-effect. The very fact that recognition is attainable by all, means that democracy leads to social ambition; and social ambition leads to smaller families. This influence is manifested mainly in the women, whose desire to climb the social ladder is increased by the ease of ascent which is due to lack of rigid social barriers. But while ascent is possible for almost anyone, it is naturally favored by freedom from handicaps, such as a large family of children. In the "successful" business and professional classes, therefore, there is an inducement to the wife to limit the number of her offspring, in order that she may have more time to devote to social "duties." In a country like Germany, with more or less stratified social classes, this factor in the differential birth-rate is probably less operative. The solution in America is not to create an impermeable social stratification, but to create a public sentiment which will honor women more for motherhood than for eminence in the largely futile activities of polite society.

In quite another way, too great democratization of a country is dangerous. The tendency is to ask, in regard to any measure, "What do the people want?" while the question should be "What ought the people to want?" The vox populi may and often does want something that is in the long run quite detrimental to the welfare of the state. The ultimate test of a state is whether it is strong enough to survive, and a measure that all the people, or a voting majority of them (which is the significant thing in a democracy), want, may be such as to handicap the state severely.

In general, experts are better able to decide what measures will be desirable in the long run, than are voters of the general population, most of whom know little about the real merits of many of the most important projects. Yet democracies have a tendency to scorn the advice of experts, most of the voters feeling that they are as good as any one else, and that their opinion is entitled to as much weight as that of the expert. This attitude naturally makes it difficult to secure the passage of measures which are eugenic or otherwise beneficial in character, since they often run counter to popular prejudices.

The initiative by small petitions, and the referendum as a frequent resort, are dangerous. They are of great value if so qualified as to be used only in real emergencies, as where a clique has got control of the government and is running it for its self-interest, but as a regularly and frequently functioning institution they are unlikely to result in wise statesmanship.

The wise democracy is that which recognizes that officials may be effectively chosen by vote, only for legislative offices; and which recognizes that for executive offices the choice must be definitely selective, that is, a choice of those who by merit are best fitted to fill the positions. Appointment in executive officers is not offensive when, as the name indicates, it is truly the best who govern. All methods of choice by properly judged competition or examination with a free chance to all, are, in principle, selective yet democratic in the best sense, that of "equality of opportunity." When the governing few are not the best fitted for the work, a so-called aristocracy is of course not an aristocracy (government by the best) at all, but merely an oligarchy. When officers chosen by vote are not well fitted then such a government is not "for the people."

Good government is then an aristo-democracy. In it the final control rests in a democratically chosen legislature working with a legislative commission of experts, but all executive and judicial functions are performed by those best qualified on the basis of executive or judicial ability, not vote-getting or speech-making ability. All, however, are eligible for such positions provided they can show genuine qualifications.

SOCIALISM

It is difficult to define socialism in terms that will make a discussion practicable. The socialist movement is one thing, the socialist political program is another. But though the idea of socialism has as many different forms as an amoeba, there is always a nucleus that remains constant,—the desire for what is conceived to be a more equitable distribution of wealth. The laborer should get the value which his labor produces, it is held, subject only to subtraction of such a part as is necessary to meet the costs of maintenance; and in order that as little as possible need be subtracted for that purpose, the socialists agree in demanding a considerable extension of the functions of government: collective ownership of railways, mines, the tools of production. The ideal socialistic state would be so organized, along these lines, that the producer would get as much as possible of what he produces, the non-producer nothing.

This principle of socialism is invariably accompanied by numerous associated principles, and it is on these associated principles, not on the fundamental principle, that eugenists and socialists come into conflict. Equalitarianism, in particular, is so great a part of current socialist thought that it is doubtful whether the socialist movement as such can exist without it. And this equalitarianism is usually interpreted not only to demand equality of opportunity, but is based on a belief in substantial equality of native ability, where opportunity is equal.

Any one who has read the preceding chapters will have no doubt that such a belief is incompatible with an understanding of the principles of biology. How, then, has it come to be such an integral part of socialism?

Apparently it is because the socialist movement is, on the whole, made up of those who are economically unsatisfied and discontented. Some of the intellectual leaders of the movement are far from inferior, but they too often find it necessary to share the views of their following, in order to retain this following. A group which feels itself inferior will naturally fall into an attitude of equalitarianism, whereas a group which felt itself superior to the rest of society would not be likely to.

Before criticising the socialistic attitude in detail, we will consider some of the criticisms which some socialists make of eugenics.

1. It is charged that eugenics infringes on the freedom of the individual. This charge (really that of the individualists more than of socialists strictly speaking) is based mainly on a misconception of what eugenics attempts to do. Coercive measures have little place in modern eugenics, despite the gibes of the comic press. We propose little or no interference with the freedom of the normal individual to follow his own inclinations in regard to marriage or parenthood; we regard indirect measures and the education of public opinion as the main practicable methods of procedure. Such coercive measures as we indorse are limited to grossly defective individuals, to whom the doctrine of personal liberty can not be applied without stultifying it.

It is indeed unfortunate that there are a few sincere advocates of eugenics who adhered to the idea of a wholesale surgical campaign. A few reformers have told the public for several years of the desirability of sterilizing the supposed 10,000,000 defectives at the bottom of the American population. Lately one campaigner has raised this figure to 15,000,000. Such fantastic proposals are properly resented by socialists and nearly every one else, but they are invariably associated in the public mind with the conception of eugenics, in spite of the fact that 99 out of 100 eugenists would repudiate them. The authors can speak only for themselves, in declaring that eugenics will not be promoted by coercive means except in a limited class of pathological cases; but they are confident that other geneticists, with a very few exceptions, hold the same attitude. There is no danger that this surgical campaign will ever attain formidable proportions, and the socialist, we believe, may rest assured that the progress of eugenics is not likely to infringe unwarrantably on the principle of individual freedom, either by sterilization or by coercive mating.

2. Eugenists are further charged with ignoring or paying too little attention to the influence of the environment in social reform. This charge is sometimes well founded, but it is not an inherent defect in the eugenics program. The eugenist only asks that both factors be taken into account, whereas in the past the factor of heredity has been too often ignored. In the last chapter of this book we make an effort to balance the two sides.

3. Again, it is alleged that eugenics proposes to substitute an aristocracy for a democracy. We do think that those who have superior ability should be given the greatest responsibilities in government. If aristocracy means a government by the people who are best qualified to govern, then eugenics has most to hope from an aristo-democratic system. But admission to office should always be open to anyone who shows the best ability; and the search for such ability must be much more thorough in the future than it has been in the past.

4. Eugenists are charged with hindering social progress by endeavoring to keep woman in the subordinate position of a domestic animal, by opposing the movement for her emancipation, by limiting her activity to child-bearing and refusing to recognize that she is in every way fitted to take an equal part with man in the world's work. This objection we have answered elsewhere, particularly in our discussion of feminism. We recognize the general equality of the two sexes, but demand a differentiation of function which will correspond to biological sex-specialization. We can not yield in our belief that woman's greatest function is motherhood, but recognition of this should increase, not diminish, the strength of her position in the state.

5. Eugenists are charged with ignoring the fact of economic determinism, the fact that a man's acts are governed by economic conditions. To debate this question would be tedious and unprofitable. While we concede the important role of economic determinism, we can not help feeling that its importance in the eyes of socialists is somewhat factitious. In the first place, it is obvious that there are differences in the achievements of fellow men. These socialists, having refused to accept the great weight of germinal differences in accounting for the main differences in achievement, have no alternative but to fall back on the theory of economic determinism. Further, socialism is essentially a reform movement; and if one expects to get aid for such a movement, it is essential that one represent the consequences as highly important. The doctrine of economic determinism of course furnishes ground for glowing accounts of the changes that could be made by economic reform, and therefore fits in well with the needs of the socialist propagandists. When the failure of many nations to make any use of their great resources in coal and water power is remembered; when the fact is recalled that many of the ablest socialist leaders have been the sons of well-to-do intellectuals who were never pinched by poverty; it must be believed that the importance of economic determinism in the socialist mind is caused more by its value for his propaganda purposes than a weighing of the evidence.

Such are, we believe, the chief grounds on which socialists criticise the eugenics movement. All of these criticisms should be stimulating, should lead eugenists to avoid mistakes in program or procedure. But none of them, we believe, is a serious objection to anything which the great body of eugenists proposes to do.

What is to be said on the other side? What faults does the eugenist find with the socialist movement?

For the central principle, the more equitable distribution of wealth, no discussion is necessary. Most students of eugenics would probably assent to its general desirability, although there is much room for discussion as to what constitutes a really equitable division of wealth. In sound socialist theory, it is to be distributed according to a man's value to society; but the determination of this value is usually made impossible, in socialist practice, by the intrusion of the metaphysical and untenable dogma of equalitarianism.

If one man is by nature as capable as another, and equality of opportunity[176] can be secured for all, it must follow that one man will be worth just as much as another; hence the equitable distribution of wealth would be an equal distribution of wealth, a proposal which some socialists have made. Most of the living leaders of the socialist movement certainly recognize its fallacy, but it seems so far to have been found necessary to lean very far in this direction for the maintenance of socialism as a movement of class protest.

Now this idea of the equality of human beings is, in every respect that can be tested, absolutely false, and any movement which depends on it will either be wrecked or, if successful, will wreck the state which it tries to operate. It will mean the penalization of real worth and the endowment of inferiority and incompetence. Eugenists can feel no sympathy for a doctrine which is so completely at variance with the facts of human nature.