No More Learning

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.

[Illustration: HISTORY OF 100 BABIES

FIG. 42. --The top of the diagram shows the children "starting
from scratch. " By following down the vertical lines, one can see that
their longevity depends largely on the size of family from which they
come. Those who had 10 or a dozen brothers and sisters are most likely
to live to extreme age. Alexander Graham Bell's data, 2964 members of
the Hyde family in America. ]


[Illustration: ADULT MORTALITY

FIG. 43--If child mortality is eliminated, and only those
individuals studied who live to the age of 20 or longer, the small
families are still found to be handicapped. In general it may be said
that the larger the family, the longer a member of it will live. Large
families (in a normal, healthy section of the population) indicate
vitality on the part of the parents. This does not, of course, hold good
in the slums, where mental and financial inefficiency are abundant.
Within certain classes, however, it may be said with confidence that the
weaklings in the population are most likely to be from small families.
Alexander Graham Bell's data. ]

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.

[Illustration: INFLUENCE OF MOTHER'S AGE

FIG. 44. --As measured by the percentage of infant deaths, those
children show the greatest vitality who were born to mothers between the
ages of 20 and 25. Infant mortality increases steadily as the mother
grows older. In this case the youngest mothers (those under 20 years of
age) do not make quite as good a showing as those who are a little
older, but in other studies the youngest mothers have made excellent
records. In general, such studies all show that the babies are penalized
if marriage is delayed beyond the age of 25, or if child-bearing is
unduly delayed after marriage. Alexander Graham Bell's data. ]

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.