What is Eugenics?, by Leonard Darwin

That's French for "the ancient system," as in the ancient system of feudal privileges and the exercise of autocratic power over the peasants. The ancien regime never goes away, like vampires and dinosaur bones they are always hidden in the earth, exercising a mysterious influence. It is not paranoia to believe that the elites scheme against the common man. Inform yourself about their schemes here.

Re: What is Eugenics?, by Leonard Darwin

Postby admin » Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:31 am

Chapter VII: Inferior Stocks

IT has been seen that the future welfare of our nation might be greatly improved by attention now being paid to the breed of the coming generations. This could be done by making either superior stock leave more or inferior stock leave fewer descendants behind them. The methods of dealing with inferior stocks will first be considered.

A foolish argument against all attempts to lessen the number of children produced by persons marked by any serious natural inferiority may here be mentioned; because it is commonly met with. It has been said that men of genius are often unhealthy, and that, as the aim of eugenics is to get rid of all who are sickly, eugenic reform would prevent the appearance in the future of many such admirable persons. To this contention there are several answers. In the first place, the ill-health of remarkable men has been greatly exaggerated. In the second place, it would only be if some of the ancestors of the great men of the past had been very defective that eugenic reform would have prevented their appearance on earth; and it is not asserted that this was the case. Moreover, the suffering genius himself would not be interfered with, because eugenics does not propose to kill off all invalids. Lastly, if in the future the appearance of a weakly child could really be foretold, would it not also be possible to prophesy the appearance of a genius? And such an event no one would try to prevent. The argument fails all along the line.

Aktion T4 (German, pronounced [akˈtsi̯oːn teː fiːɐ]) was a postwar name for mass murder through involuntary euthanasia in Nazi Germany. The name T4 is an abbreviation of Tiergartenstraße 4, a street address of the Chancellery department set up in the spring of 1940, in the Berlin borough of Tiergarten, which recruited and paid personnel associated with T4. Certain German physicians were authorized to select patients "deemed incurably sick, after most critical medical examination" and then administer to them a "mercy death" (Gnadentod). In October 1939 Adolf Hitler signed a "euthanasia note" backdated to 1 September 1939 which authorized his physician Karl Brandt and Reichsleiter Philipp Bouhler to implement the programme.

The killings took place from September 1939 until the end of the war in 1945; from 275,000 to 300,000 people were killed in psychiatric hospitals in Germany and Austria, occupied Poland and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (now the Czech Republic). The number of victims was originally recorded as 70,273 but this number has been increased by the discovery of victims listed in the archives of former East Germany.About half of those killed were taken from church-run asylums, often with the approval of the Protestant or Catholic authorities of the institutions.


-- Aktion T4, by Wikipedia


At about this time, Laughlin was also permitted to testify before the Special Committee on Immigration and Naturalization of the New York State Chamber of Commerce. In May of 1939, Laughlin's report, Immigration and Conquest, was published under the imprimatur of the New York State Chamber of Commerce and "Harry H. Laughlin, Carnegie Institution of Washington." The 267-page document, filled with raceological tenets, claimed that America would soon suffer "conquest by settlement and reproduction" through an infestation of defective immigrants. As a prime illustration, Laughlin offered "The Parallel Case of the House Rat," in which he traced rodent infestation from Europe to the rats' ability "to travel in sailing ships."

Laughlin then explained, in a section entitled "The Jew as an Immigrant Into the United States," that Jews were being afforded too large a quota altogether because they were being improperly considered by their nationality instead of as a distinct racial type. By Laughlin's calculations, no more than six thousand Jews per year ought to be able to enter the United States under the existing national quota system -- the system he helped organize a half-decade earlier -- but many more were coming in because they were classified as German or Russian or Polish instead of Jewish. He asked that Jews in the United States "assimilate" properly and prove their "loyalty to the American institutions" was "greater than their loyalty to Jews scattered through other nations." Immigration and Conquest's precepts were in many ways identical to Nazi principles. Laughlin and the ERO proudly sent a copy to Reich Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick, as well as to other leading Nazis, including Verschuer, Lenz, Ploetz and even Rudin at a special address care of a university in occupied Czechoslovakia.


-- War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, by Edwin Black


The aim of eugenics is, on the contrary, to promote the appearance of all manner of men likely to benefit their fellow creatures. How is this to be done? If we could trace our family histories far enough back into the past, we should all find that we are descended from one or more half-witted ancestors, or from some persons who certainly ought not to have become parents. If the reforms here advocated had been adopted in the past, these ancestors of ours would not have married, and, in a sense, no one of us would have come into existence. But the nation would have continued to exist all the same. Moreover, its citizens, being all without any defective ancestors, would, in consequence, have given birth to eminent men more often than at present. Here is a highly beneficial result to be expected from the prevention of parenthood amongst defective persons.

There are two ways of acting when the aim is the production of smaller families by persons of bad stock; and these are persuasion and compulsion. Persuasion is always to be preferred to compulsion, if the end desired can thus be obtained. Let us, therefore, begin by considering what can be done by persuasion.

To ask a man not to marry, or, if he does marry, to have no children, is to ask a great deal. But self-sacrifice is the very foundation of our ideas of what is noble in human conduct. If the world of the future would be benefited by a man refraining from parenthood, surely it must be right for him so to refrain. We should all do what we can to help to ascertain when such conduct would be right; and, when right, to encourage those called on to make such sacrifices to follow the dictates of their consciences. Those who think that little good could be done by such persuasion should, nevertheless, do all they can in this direction. It can, however, hardly be doubted that, if these ideas as to our duties were to become part of our everyday religious thought, the conduct of many persons would thus be affected.

The first question to be answered is. Who should voluntarily refrain from parenthood? In some cases there is no doubt. For example, no one should have a child who is suffering from one of those rare diseases or deformities, including some kinds of blindness and deafness, which cause great suffering when they appear, and which are apt to reappear in the same family for many generations. Many of these maladies could undoubtedly be stamped out in time if the persons so afflicted would make the noble sacrifice of refraining from parenthood. This is, however, a matter too technical here to be discussed at length. All that need be said is that all deformed or diseased persons should certainly consult a doctor before marriage. Indeed, all persons without exception had better do so.

Some forms of insanity are said to be hereditary, and others not to be so; though this is hardly a logical distinction. It is true that insanity is sometimes the direct result of a contagious disease. In such cases the descendants of the insane and diseased man will not be more likely to become insane in consequence of their ancestor's disease; and his insanity may, therefore, be said to be not hereditary. If a person becomes insane, it is more often, however, because he has a certain predisposition to this disease. This predisposition may be strong or weak. If it is very weak, insanity may be avoided, or what is called cured, by leading a careful life. Now such a predisposition, whether strong or weak, is likely to be passed on to succeeding generations. Even if a person inherits a strong predisposition to insanity, it is not certain that he will become insane. But if he does become insane, then his insanity will often be described as being hereditary. It should be for the doctor to decide in any case of insanity whether the predisposition was strong or not. And, if strong, the person so suffering certainly ought not to become a parent. Those who act thus will be happier in the end for so doing. If they have children, they will keep anxiously wondering whether their malady will reappear in those they love so much. And if it does reappear, they will have the agony of feeling that it is their own fault.

As long as a person is in an institution for the insane, no question as to parenthood can arise. As to those who have been insane, and who are described as cured, there is often a considerable chance that the malady will reappear in succeeding generations. But even if the possibility of the disease thus reappearing is left out of consideration, we may yet ask whether these unfortunate individuals ought to have any more children. If all the trouble in the household due to insanity, including the loss of the capacity to win wages and to look after the children, is held in view, surely it seems that no persons liable to a second attack should add to the size of their families. And as there are not many cases of insanity which do not make a second attack more probable, all who have once been thus afflicted would do well to make this sacrifice in regard to parenthood. In this way alone can the person who has recovered from insanity lessen the chances of the reappearance amongst his descendants of an ailment which causes the most intense suffering to all concerned.

Epilepsy is another bad disease which often runs in families. Consequently, no one who has had unmistakable epileptic fits should become a parent. The word "epilepsy," however, probably covers a wide range of diseases. All that can here be said for certain is that a doctor should be consulted before marriage when epilepsy is suspected.

The tendency to suffer from consumption seems also to run in families. In any case those afflicted with definite and pronounced consumption will be unlikely in the future to be able to do their duties as parents in an efficient manner. Consequently those at this stage of the disease should have no more children. This conduct, if widely adopted, would probably make future generations suffer less from this disease; for the hereditary predisposition to catch it might thus in a measure be weeded out.

The most difficult decisions in regard to the renunciation of parenthood arise when an individual, though apparently sound in mind and body, has many defective relatives. Here again all that can be said is, "Consult your doctor." A medical adviser ought to be able to take a more impartial and just view of the whole situation than the patient can possibly do himself. Unfortunately, at present very few doctors have given careful thought to such questions. If more people would ask advice as to whether or not they ought to have children, more doctors would study the problems of heredity so as to be able to give a sound opinion in regard to parenthood.

In giving such advice, the doctor ought to bear many things in mind. A point often forgotten is that good qualities must always be weighed in the balance against the bad. When the relatives of a diseased person are generally high-minded and healthy, this fact should tell in favour of parenthood being justifiable in his case. Even to think of making the necessary sacrifice is an indication of the possession of a high character. Definite defects should appear in several near relatives, and should, as far as can be judged, not be such as are directly due to external conditions, if a person sound in mind and body is to be asked to make this great sacrifice. If the doctor is in doubt, it may be right to recommend a marriage which should result in no more than one or two children.

When eugenics comes to be more studied, it will be possible to give advice with greater confidence than at present on some of the points considered in this chapter. Even with our present knowledge it is, however, unquestionable that great benefits might be conferred on future generations by the voluntary renunciation of parenthood by the diseased and by such as are very likely to be the carriers of the hidden seeds of disease.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: What is Eugenics?, by Leonard Darwin

Postby admin » Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:31 am

Chapter VIII: Birth Control

WE have seen that persons either endowed with bad hereditary qualities, or having many defective relatives, may be advised either to have no children, or that their families should be very small. But by what means ought these results to be brought about? The final decision on this question ought always to rest with the couple concerned. What is here said is only with the object of facilitating such decisions.

Some methods of preventing a too rapid increase of population must have been in operation in all ages. Animals in a state of nature always produce so many offspring that, if all of their young were to survive, the numbers of their kind would increase with enormous rapidity. The same would be true of man if he were to take nature as his guide in these matters. The number of the people has, however, of necessity always been kept down in one harmful way or another. The checks which have been most commonly operative in the past have been war, famine, disease, especially amongst the young, the deliberate destruction of little children, and the practice of abortion.

We all condemn war, at all events with our mouths. Happily it is no longer necessary to argue against the murder of infants or in favour of paying attention to their health. The cure of disease amongst persons of all ages, and its prevention by means of precautions taken in advance, meet with universal approval. Thus we see that we are now striving and are bound to strive against all those methods of keeping down numbers which have been most effective in past ages. Looking to the future, the increase in supplies of all kinds could not keep pace with such an increase in numbers as would take place in the absence of all these checks. If over-population is permitted in the future, it will inevitably result at first in much unemployment, then in increasing poverty and disease, and finally in actual starvation. If this is not sooner or later to be our fate, some means of checking the growth of the population must always be kept actively at work.

Moreover, if we consider each family separately, we shall see that it is often highly desirable that it should not be too large. In the first place, the probable effects on the mother's health must be held in consideration. For this reason, and also for the sake of the children, births should at all events never follow each other too rapidly. Lastly, parents ought not to bring more children into the world than they can reasonably hope to bring up in accordance with a certain standard of living; and this standard as regards all higher things should not in any case be below that which they themselves have been accustomed to. The misery, pauperism, and even crime, resulting from over- crowded houses could certainly be lessened or obviated by forethought as to the size of the family. In fact, others besides those of bad stock ought often to refrain from parenthood.

Thus, whether we are looking to each family considered separately or to the nation taken as a whole, we see that some means of keeping a check on the population will always be necessary. Putting aside all the harmful methods above mentioned, there remain only two alternatives which have to be considered — namely, continence and birth control. It is true that both have been criticized on the ground that they are injurious to health. Neither of them is, however, necessarily injurious. Moreover, even if slightly injurious, this would certainly not be a conclusive argument against either of them. We often have to make a choice between two evils, and the harm done by over-population would far outweigh any minor evils which might attend whatever way was selected of keeping the number of the people within bounds. Details of the methods of birth control will not here be discussed, it being sufficient to remark that the balance of medical opinion seems to be in favour of the view that some of them are harmless. In any case, we may well hope that better means of preventing parenthood will be discovered before long.

The objections which can be raised against each of these two methods of keeping down the numbers of a nation will next be considered. Continence may mean either the renunciation of marriage or abstinence from sexual relations after marriage. The objections to these two forms of continence are sufficiently similar to allow them to be considered together. They are as follows. In the first place, these practices are so much against human nature that it would be out of the question to expect that under any circumstances they would be largely adopted by the bulk of the population. No doubt continence has been deliberately practised after marriage to a greater extent than is generally admitted in order to prevent the appearance of too big a family. But continence alone could never ward off the evils of over-population. Moreover, continence would be more likely to be practised by persons guided by moral motives than by the thoughtless and the weak-willed; for the better the couple, the more consideration, at all events, would they give to any advocacy of continence on moral grounds. The result of trusting to continence alone would, therefore, be that the imprudent and those whose passions are controlled with difficulty would have a proportionately large number of descendants. The harmful quaUties which distinguished them — namely, carelessness, selfishness, and sexual passions — would consequently thus be made to increase in future generations. Another objection to continence in married life is that it may cause such a strain as to stand in the way of affection between husband and wife; a tie which is essential to the well- being of the family. Lastly, when only one of a couple demands continence, the other may make this an excuse, however inadequate, for adultery.

Turning to the objections to birth control, it is urged that a widespread knowledge of the methods of contraception would encourage promiscuous intercourse. This is no doubt true in a measure. Here again we must, however, weigh the good results against the bad. Much might be done in any case to mitigate such harmful results as would result from a widespread knowledge of birth-control methods. Public advertisements of contraceptive appliances should be prohibited. The most important reform which could now be made would be, however, to ascertain the best methods of instructing young people as to sexual matters — a difficult problem — and to see that such improved methods were generally adopted. But whatever steps might be taken in order to safeguard the situation, married women should always be able to get the necessary information without difficulty, which is not the case at present.

Certain moral advantages would, moreover, result from a general admission that birth control is justifiable in certain circumstances. Early marriages would thus be facilitated, and promiscuous intercourse diminished in consequence. The feeling of individual responsibility in regard to their children amongst parents would be increased; because the appearance of each child would be felt to be the result of deliberate choice. The strongest argument in favour of birth control is, however, that the present increase in the population of the world cannot go on indefinitely, and that the only alternatives in the future will be either birth control or the birth of millions of children destined to die a preventable death after a short and useless life. This is what is now taking place in countries where birth control is not practised.

To sum up, when the choice lies between doing an injury to posterity and refraining from parenthood, it appears that either continence or birth control must be practised. Those who admit that continence cannot be relied on as a sufficiently efficient check on population, but who nevertheless hope to see the practice of birth control entirely abandoned, should consider what would be the result of the fulfilment of their hopes. It would certainly be a steady increase in unemployment, poverty, misery, disease, and the death of little children. On the other hand, those who are striving to promote birth control without reference to its effects on the inborn qualities of future generations should consider what would be the result of their endeavours if successful. It certainly would be that birth control would be most practised by the more thoughtful and superior individuals. They would have fewer children in consequence; whilst the inferior stocks, taking less thought for the morrow, would continue to have more children, thus making their bad qualities tend relatively to increase in the future. As we shall see in Chapters XIII and XV, the wrongful use of birth control is now doing an injury to the race which may have disastrous consequences. This is, however, no argument against its rightful use.

Our aim must, therefore, be to facilitate the practice of birth control when it is desirable on all grounds, whilst unsparingly condemning its use for merely selfish motives. A dual campaign, both for and against birth control — or, in other words, for its use only on suitable occasions — is needed in order to maintain the quality of our nation in the future.

There are many human beings, however, who could under no circumstances be trusted to practise the self-restraint needed for the voluntary abandonment of parenthood, whether by continence or birth control. Persuasion will not do all that is needed to preserve the nation from deterioration, and in future chapters it will be necessary to consider the cases in which pressure ought to be applied.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: What is Eugenics?, by Leonard Darwin

Postby admin » Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:32 am

Chapter IX: Sterilization

STERILIZATION is another means of preventing parenthood which must be considered. It may, in fact, be regarded as a proper method of birth control in certain circumstances.

In the discussions on sterilization, prejudices have often resulted from a misunderstanding as to the nature of the operation which, it is proposed, should be performed. We shall here only be considering certain surgical methods which have been introduced comparatively recently; for the ordinary stockyard way of sterilizing the male is never advocated for eugenic purposes. Moreover, there are some reasonable grounds for hoping that still better means of preventing parenthood will be available before long; these being perhaps dependent on the use either of X-rays or of injections into the blood.

The operation now generally adopted in the case of males, known as vasectomy, is a trifling affair, which can be performed under local anaesthetics. The operation on females, salpingectomy, is a more serious matter, being perhaps comparable in risk to that for appendicitis when there are no complications. The difficulty of operating on females affords no excuse, however, for not operating on males. In regard to both operations, the character and the life of the patient are in no way affected, except that parenthood does not result from the union of the sexes.

Sterilization has been advocated both as a punishment and as a safeguard to the public in regard to sexual offences. The above-mentioned operation on the male would, however, be no safeguard against assault. Moreover, the threat of performing these operations would have little deterrent effect on sexual offenders of either sex. As to the stockyard method of sterilization, it would be unsuitable for the purposes of punishment, and its use would increase the unreasonable prejudices now often aroused against the methods employed for eugenic purposes. In any case, we are not here concerned with punishment.

The essential difference between sterilization and the ordinary methods of birth control is that there is no going back on sterilization. The surgeon cannot undo the work of the surgeon.

Sterilization has been altogether condemned as being an unjust interference with the liberty of the individual. Now, whatever force there may be in this objection, it can apply only to the operation if performed compulsorily. Whether compulsion in this matter should ever be legalised is a question which may perhaps be left to those who come after us to decide. At present certainly the public would not tolerate any such proposal, even if its justice could be fully proved; and no doubt it would be a dangerous innovation, unless very carefully safeguarded. We shall, in consequence, here only be considering sterilization in cases where a consent has been obtained. The question will arise later on, it is true, whether in certain circumstances some pressure might not be applied in order to prevent such consent from being unreasonably withheld.

The practice of sterilization has also been criticized on the ground that it would increase promiscuous intercourse. The reply to this objection is much the same as that already given in regard to birth control — namely, that sterilization should be adopted in spite of certain disadvantages if it can be shown that it would be on the whole beneficial. There is, indeed, less objection to sterilization than to birth control on this account; for few persons would, for the sake of immediate sexual gratification, voluntarily give up for ever the chance of becoming a parent. Moreover, as to such as would act thus, it would be an advantage if they were to be permanently sterilized, for we do not want persons of their kind to reappear in the coming generations.

When it can be finally decided that no more children ought to be born, the fact that sterilization is a step which cannot be retraced may make it especially suitable as a purely voluntary method of preventing parenthood, at all events in the case of men. Its adoption should, therefore, be carefully considered in certain circumstances. When a man has been insane it seems to be especially suitable; because, as has been seen, he had better then give up all idea of having any or more children. As to a woman in the same circumstances, it would be preferable if her husband, or the man she is going to marry, would consent to be sterilized, so that she might be saved from the more serious operation. With improved methods of sterilization no doubt in this case also it should be the woman who ought to be rendered incapable of parenthood; because it would certainly be undesirable to prevent the chance of a sound man becoming a parent if he should marry a second time. What has just been said about insanity is equally true in regard to a number of other rare hereditary diseases. Sterilization is also suitable when the consent to have no more children is given reluctantly; for then it would be desirable that the decision arrived at should not be revocable at will.

As to the feeble in mind, any consent which might be obtained from them would be meaningless. Parents and guardians should, therefore, be empowered to allow sterilization to take place when they see fit. As to criminals, paupers, and all living uncivilized lives in a civilized country, their sterilization would not only tend to purify the race, but might be beneficial by preventing the appearance of big families in bad homes. To these subjects we shall, however, return in later chapters.

As an objection to sterilization, and indeed to all other methods of preventing parenthood, it has been urged that the racial improvement thus brought about would be very slowly obtained. But even if it were so, to lessen the amount of insanity, mental defect, crime, and the many other failings found in association with them, would certainly be worth a long-sustained effort. Statistical considerations, however, indicate that the effects on the race of preventing parenthood would at first be fairly rapid, and would become very slow only when the harmful natural qualities in question had been to a large extent successfully banished.

In reply to all that has been said in favour of sterilization, it may be urged that, in such a serious matter, mere theoretical considerations are an insufficient guide, and that reform can only be safely based on actual experiences gained in the past. But how are such experiences to be gained if no one will make a move? Luckily, there is one place in the world, though only one place, to which we can look when seeking for practical information in regard to sterilization; and that is the State of California in the United States.

Over 5000 operations for sterilization were performed in California in the eighteen years ending in 1926. To give an idea of what this means, if these operations had been carried on here on the same scale there would have been well over 3000 persons sterilized in England alone every year. About one insane person in twelve of those admitted to the Californian State Asylum was sterilized, these being those most likely to transmit this disease to posterity. It is true that in some cases the operation was performed in the belief that it would be beneficial to the health of the patient; this being very likely a mistaken belief. On the other hand, there is no reason to suppose that the operation was in any way injurious to health. Indeed, certain married women with a tendency to insanity, and with an excessive fear of pregnancy, were able to live comfortably at home after sterilization.

Turning to the treatment of the feeble in mind in California, all allowed to leave the State Asylum have been sterilized in recent years. A considerable number of girls have been sent by their parents to this institution in order to be sterilized, and have then been allowed to return home. Many patients are allowed out on parole, as it is there called, when they live with their parents or appointed guardians. Girls who have already gone wrong need careful watching, whilst there has been surprisingly little trouble in regard to sexual matters with the men when on parole. A number of the sterilized persons are married, some having had children before sterilization. Marriage is indeed regarded as the most practical way of steadying girls when at liberty. It is claimed that, on the whole, sterilization has not increased promiscuous intercourse, and may even have lessened it.

English experience indicates that, in spite of great care, feeble-minded girls when not in institutions sometimes give birth to illegitimate children. In these circumstances a feeble-minded mother should not be held to be responsible or blameworthy, for it was impossible for her to have fully realized the nature of her offence. Since such occurrences could certainly be avoided by sterilization, a parent or guardian who fails to take this precaution must be prepared to accept the whole blame. If mothers of feeble-minded girls would picture to themselves all the shame and suffering which would be felt if an illegitimate grandchild were to be born in their home, they might begin to look on sterilization in a new light.

We have here been dealing with a disagreeable subject; but, in view of the possibility of thus improving the lot of all future generations, eugenics demands that careful and unprejudiced consideration should be given to the uses to which sterilization might be put.  
 
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: What is Eugenics?, by Leonard Darwin

Postby admin » Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:55 am

Chapter X: Feeble-mindedness

RELIABLE estimates shew that out of every 1000 persons in this country there are between four and five who may be described as feeble in mind, imbeciles, or idiots. The total number in England and Wales of those who are so poorly endowed by nature as to have been incapable of profiting by ordinary education when of school age is about 350,000 in all. These facts are appalling, especially when we call to mind the suffering of parents when discovering that their child is feeble-minded or worse and utterly different from the being so hopefully pictured in advance. As to actual idiots, after visiting an institution where numbers of these creatures are being dragged through a useless and senseless existence, everyone must wish that something more might be done to prevent all such as these from entering the world.

It is certain that the number of persons who are duly certified as being feeble in mind has been increasing in recent years. There is no doubt, moreover, that this increase is largely due to more care having been taken in searching them out. Nevertheless, it seems on the whole probable that a real increase in their numbers is slowly taking place. And this possibility or probability makes it all the more necessary to try to wipe away this stain on our race.

The question may here be asked. What was it which first brought this trouble into the world? The answer is simple enough — We do not know. Many guesses have been made. The drunkenness, disease, overwork, bad housing conditions, etc., of parents have all been suggested as causes of the feeble-mindedness of their children and of this ailment having then been passed on to their descendants by heredity. The evidence is not enough, however, to make it possible to say for certain that any one of these things either does or does not have this effect. If feeble-mindedness did first come into the world as a direct result of these social evils, in fighting against them we should be helping to prevent the appearance of these sad mental troubles in the future. But, on the other hand, if bad social conditions really have no harmful hereditary effects on posterity, we are nevertheless bound to fight against these social evils because of their immediate harmful influences. Our practical policy in regard to drunkenness, for example, ought to be the same whether it does or does not give rise to mental troubles amongst the descendants of the drunkard.

Feeble-mindedness is sometimes described as being hereditary; though, as a fact, no very clear line of demarcation can be drawn separating off such cases from those described as not being hereditary.

Dealing first with the cases described as not hereditary, this means that, if a person so afflicted is married, the children resulting from the marriage will be no more likely to be defective in mind than will be the children of their neighbours. Here it should be noted that the duties to be performed by a mother in rearing a child are amongst the most important of all human duties, and that a feeble-minded woman is quite unfit to perform them. It follows, therefore, that children ought to be taken away from feeble-minded mothers. But even if this were done, these children would grow up without a mother's care, which would be an incalculable loss to them. And all this applies, though in a less degree, to the father. In short, nothing can prevent parenthood being harmful in the case of feeble-minded persons. Moreover, we can never be quite sure that the feeble-mindedness is not hereditary, and that the descendants of the feeble in mind would not be of inferior stock. Consequently, we may conclude that no feeble-minded person should be allowed to become a parent, even if it seems unlikely that the trouble would reappear in future generations.

Turning to what is called hereditary feeble-mindedness, what does this mean? A dose of harmful heredity, if it may be so described, may come into existence in a child, we know not why. This dose may either he quite hidden in that child for all his life, apparently doing him no harm; or it may make him stupid, ill-tempered, nervous, epileptic, criminal, or with a tendency to drink. In all circumstances the dose will be passed on to many of the descend- ants of the child in which it first came into existence. Now, if several such doses are passed on to the same child, some coming from one ancestor and some from another, that child will be actually feeble-minded. And something like this, only a good deal more complicated, is how this ailment generally originates; when it may be called hereditary.

When such a feeble-minded person marries, some or all of these doses of evil heredity will be passed on to his children. If the child gets as many doses as the parent had, it will be feeble-minded also. If only some of the doses are received by the child, it may show any of the harmful qualities above mentioned. Or a dose may he hidden and unsuspected in the child, though ready to be passed on to its descendants, in whom any of these harmful qualities may, therefore, reappear.

Somewhere about nine-tenths of all feeble-minded persons probably may be described as suffering from an hereditary disease in this sense. In such cases, some of their descendants, if they have any, will be classed as actually feeble-minded, whilst many more will show some marks of inferiority. It follows that, if all the feeble in mind were to be prevented from having children, much would thus be done to gradually lessen all these evils as the generations succeeded each other. Moreover, no child could then suffer all the harm due to being brought up by a feeble-minded mother.

If subject to no control, feeble-minded persons would have large families and many descendants. This is because they have little power of looking into the future, or of foreseeing the consequence of their own acts. They do not well remember past warnings, and are often in some respects devoid of a sense of shame. And the fact that they would multiply rapidly if left at liberty makes the prevention of parenthood especially necessary in their case.

Then as to the ways in which parenthood should be prevented, some of the feeble in mind are endowed with strong sexual impulses, and are a danger to the public when at liberty. All of them, if unaided, are incapable of looking after themselves properly. As to those without natural protectors, many must, therefore, be sent to institutions, whilst far more ought thus to be cared for than is the case at present. This is, in fact, generally the best way of preventing parenthood.

To have to shut up any one is of course very distasteful to us all, for we all advocate freedom. But can we call the feeble-minded person "free," even when he is at liberty? A boy so afflicted may be jeered at in the streets, and when grown up he will not be treated as an equal by his companions. Is this freedom? When sent to an institution he will for the first time in his life be surrounded by his equals; with the result that he will generally be more contented than when out in the world. Those who visit such an institution, and who watch the faces of its inmates, will realize that they are not as a rule to be pitied on account of their own feelings. No doubt a few do fret, but not many. At such places the feeble in mind can learn better than anywhere else to pass their time in a useful and not disagreeable manner, and consequently to send them there is generally the kindest thing to do for them.

If the parents are neither feeble in mind nor living uncivilised lives, or if suitable guardians can be found, it is often a good plan to leave the feeble-minded person under supervision at home or elsewhere. In nearly all cases the possibility that they will have illegitimate children has to be considered; but, as remarked in the last chapter, this risk could always be avoided by sterilization. This policy of sterilizing the feeble in mind has no doubt been condemned on grounds which will now be considered.

The cheapest way of dealing with the feeble in mind would at first sight appear to be to sterilize them all, and then to turn them all adrift to look after themselves. And there are some who fear that our Local Authorities cannot be trusted not to adopt such a policy. No doubt to house all the feeble in mind in a proper manner would be a costly business. But every other way of dealing with them would often be cruel, and would in some cases throw risk on the public. Moreover, the expense of maintaining all feeble- minded persons in institutions would not be so great as it would appear on paper. For against the costs as thus incurred there ought to be reckoned as an offset the heavy expenditure which would otherwise fall on private individuals, together with the additional public expenditure on prisons, workhouses, and hospitals into which many mental defectives would inevitably drift if not retained in other institutions. Lastly, the feeble in mind can often do more towards supporting themselves when in institutions than when at large. Local Authorities will learn to take these considerations into account; and they ought in this matter of sterilization to be trusted to do what is for the good of the nation to the same extent as in regard to many other duties. When it is seen that they cannot thus be trusted, all power should be taken away from them.

Another objection urged against sterilization, which was mentioned in the last chapter, is that it would facilitate promiscuous intercourse. Certainly it ought always to be possible to recall any certified mentally defective person to an institution on receipt of an unsatisfactory report. With a well-organised system of guardianship thus safeguarded, sterilization ought to add little to the risk of sexual troubles arising. Experience alone could show how many persons could safely be allowed more liberty because of sterilization; for on this point the evidence is contradictory. But thus to add to the happiness of even a few is well worth striving for.

Marriage might sometimes be the best thing for high-grade feeble-minded persons, and at all events after sterilization it would be harmless to the race. Without this precaution, the marriage of certified mental defectives adds greatly to the difficulty of preventing parenthood, and it ought to be made illegal, except in cases when parenthood is impossible.

To sum up, the right policy for feeble-minded persons is to send them to institutions; or, in selected cases, to place them under guardianship, the probability of parenthood always being held in view. This would result in a slow but continuous decrease both of this grievous malady and of many other evils associated with it.

The Mental Deficiency Acts were mainly designed to safeguard all mentally defective persons, whilst they have had a beneficial effect in lessening parenthood. Though imperfect, they have done much good in certain districts, whilst in other places they have not been properly carried out. It is easy, from the figures already given, to get some idea of the number of mentally defective persons in your county or borough. Ask your representative what accommodation his Council has available for them, and you may find that it is miserably deficient. In that case, if you will suggest that your vote at the next election will be decided by the way in which the candidates regard this matter, you will have done something practical both for the feeble in mind and the future of your country.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: What is Eugenics?, by Leonard Darwin

Postby admin » Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:56 am

Chapter XI: The Habitual Criminal

THERE are three things which make a person likely to commit a crime. These are, in the first place, a bad home; in the second place, subsequent temptation; and, lastly, bad natural qualities. We are bound to mitigate all these causes to the best of our abilities.

Endeavours to wipe out the effects of harmful early surroundings, or to lessen temptation later in life, do not come within the scope of eugenics. This makes them none the less important; but it is a reason why they should not be discussed in a book on that subject.

It is true, no doubt, that it is practically impossible to disentangle the effects of these three causes of crime. It has been said on good authority that the son of a criminal is ten times as likely to commit a crime as is the son of honest parents. But with our present knowledge we cannot divide out this result and say that so much is due to bad early environment, so much to meeting the devil in the path of life, and so much to bad inborn predispositions. We may conclude, however, from such facts as this that if criminals had fewer children there would be less crime in the coming generation.

The following is the way in which criminals are separated out from the rest of the community. A lad who has a very bad home, or very bad natural qualities, or both, will go astray under almost all conditions. Another lad, with a better home or with better qualities, will commit his first breach of the law only if actually tempted; if shown by a relative, for example, when hard up how he can benefit himself at little risk by pilfering. It is the strength of all the harmful conditions added together which decides whether the trigger of crime will or will not be pulled. The criminal is a man of the same kind as his neighbour's, differing from them only in degree or in luck.

There are some persons who think that natural predispositions need not be considered, and that attention should be concentrated on the surroundings either of the child when at home or of the man later in life. Those who look on the matter thus may believe that, if all children were taken away from bad homes, all the bad effects of the bad home might be wiped out. One of the consequences certain to result from the adoption of such a policy is, however, generally overlooked; and that is that it would result in more children issuing from bad homes. There are several reasons why this would be the case. Both birth control and abortion are practised because the family is big enough already. Take away a child, and these ways of preventing parenthood will be less likely to be used and more children will be born. Again, the fewer children there are at home, the more care they will get, and the fewer will die from want of attention. This is a good result in itself; but it does follow that the removal of children from bad homes will increase the number coming out of them. Children cannot be taken from their parents, however undesirable, without some harm as well as some good being done.

It is, moreover, impossible to deny that many natural qualities that help to promote crime are often passed on by parents to their descendants. No one who has studied the subject doubts that this is true of feeble-mindedness. And, when criminals are examined, a number are invariably found to be feeble-minded. There have been considerable differences of opinion as to the proportion of those who on first conviction should thus be described. In America the proportion is said to be much higher than the figures given for this country; this being because the term "feeble-minded" is there held to cover many comparatively mild ailments. In any case, the experts in England agree that, besides the feeble in mind, a very large proportion of young criminals may be described as not quite normal. Now all these mental troubles, whether mild or severe, are often transmitted to future generations by natural inheritance. It is possible to do much to ward off the harm likely to result from all such harmful predispositions; but they are a force which has to be reckoned with when once the child is born.

The ideal plan would be for every young person, when accused of a crime, to be examined as regards his mental powers before being brought into court. Those found to be definitely feeble-minded should be certified as such and the criminal proceedings at once abandoned. Here is a direction in which reforms are much needed. The milder cases of mental trouble constitute a more difficult and possibly a more important problem. It is, however, one which we are not yet ready to touch.

It has just been suggested that the powers which human beings possess of overcoming their evil propensities are strictly limited; and this view will doubtless be resented by many. But we must look facts in the face. A boy from a very bad home commits a crime with no excuse, and in consequence he is sent to a reformatory, where he is well cared for. Another boy does not fall so readily, but when somewhat older and when more tempted he does become a criminal. Now, those who put everything down to the influence of home surroundings must assume that the home of this second boy was bad, though not so bad as that of the first boy. This second boy remained later in his presumably bad home, and had for a shorter time the advantage of reformatory training; that is, in comparison with the first boy, coming from the even worse home. Let those who look only to surroundings consider which boy will be most likely to commit a crime after having finished his reformatory training.

As a fact, it is those boys who have been longest in reformatories who are found to be most likely to become habitual criminals. Properly regarded this does not, however, throw any discredit on reformatory training. The explanation is that it was the boys with worst natural qualities who on the whole committed offences against the law earlier in life. They had in consequence the longest reformatory training; but, when coming out, their bad qualities began to tell once again and soon led them to a life of crime. No doubt many who have been led astray mainly by the force of bad example can be and are put on the right road by care and training; and this fact amply justifies the existence of institutions for this purpose. But here we have a proof of the existence of hereditary qualities tending to promote crime which cannot be denied.

Those criminals who have the worst predispositions will do most harm to posterity by having children. We should, therefore, ascertain as well as we can which classes of criminals have the worst natural qualities. The men who receive heavy punishments have often committed crime requiring at all events skill, intelligence, and courage. Habitual criminals, who commit many trifling offences against the law, need have only courage enough to face a trivial punishment and the attendant disgrace. Moreover, they are found as a rule to be very stupid, and often lazy, bad-tempered, thoughtless, and decidedly inferior in strength and other bodily qualities. They take to crime early in life, and they far outnumber what are generally called the worst offenders. For all these reasons it is the habitual offender — that is, the person often convicted of petty offences — to whom most attention should be paid when considering how to diminish crime in the future.

We see, therefore, that it is on all accounts desirable that habitual criminals should have few children. But how is this result to be brought about, whilst at the same time giving a fair chance to all who have failed through bad surroundings to get on their legs again? It is now generally admitted that prison does no good to the criminal himself; for the more often he is shut up, the more certain he seems to be to commit another crime. Short imprisonments do nothing, moreover, to lessen the size of the family. The best plan would be to treat the habitual criminal in three different ways or stages, each with a somewhat different end in view.

The aim at the first stage, immediately after the first offence, should be to get rid as far as possible of the after-effects of the bad home. The young offender, if not kept under probation, should be sent immediately to some institution to be trained; and he should be kept there as long as any useful purpose would be served. Life at such places should be made pleasant rather than unpleasant; for that would lessen the opposition to such detention. Many will be saved, and excellent work will be accomplished. On the other hand, failures will be frequent; for innate stupidity cannot be stamped out by the schoolmaster.

During the second stage the aim should be to make young offenders more afraid of coming within the grasp of the law. Short and sharp imprisonments should be given when crimes are committed by those who have had adequate reformatory training. The punishment should be sufficiently unpleasant to make it feared; for if this is the case it will deter a few from crime. Those endowed with very bad predispositions will, however, drift back to prison time after time; and, when convicted four or five times, further liberty is practically certain to mean further crime. Then the public has the right to demand adequate protection, both against this intolerable nuisance and against the social contagion springing from the criminal himself.

It would only be in the proposed third stage that the families of criminals would be reduced in numbers, and that the eugenic aim would be in any degree attained. After it had appeared certain that further short imprisonments would be useless, detention after each conviction should be for longer and longer periods; until finally the detention should be permanent. Such long detentions should be made pleasant rather than unpleasant, the sexes, however, being kept apart. Habitual criminals at this stage are to be pitied rather than blamed; because it has become evident that they are persons incapable of managing their own affairs.

Even during what would be regarded as permanent detention, holidays might at times and under favourable conditions be arranged. When this was permitted, the question of sterilization by consent should be considered.

To sum up, every effort should be made by probation and training to give the young first offender a fresh start. Imprisonment benefits no one, and will not frighten those with bad predispositions. Short punishments are, however, useful in sorting out the more hopeless cases as quickly as possible. Liberty is the only reliable test as to fitness to be at liberty; but when this test has failed often, the claims of the public for protection must be considered. Long periods of detention must then be enforced, when nothing will be gained by making life uncomfortable. The result would be the birth of fewer children in criminal homes, something thus being done to stamp out crime in future generations. Various bad qualities associated with crime would thus also be somewhat lessened; including stupidity, sexual profligacy, bad temper, idleness, epilepsy, alcoholism, and bodily weakness and inefficiency. It is in the directions indicated by the second and third stages of this suggested method of dealing with habitual criminals that reform is most needed.

Later we shall be considering whether our race is improving or deteriorating as time goes on. In this connection we are naturally led to enquire what the statistics of crime could tell us. Fewer persons are now being sent to prison; but this may be merely because wiser methods of dealing with young offenders have been adopted. Indeed, statistics indicate that indictable — that is, the more serious — offences known to the police have increased since 1913. But even if this be so, it may be the result of punishments being less severe, and therefore less feared. Crime might increase without any deterioration taking place in the natural qualities of the nation. In fact, existing criminal records can tell us but little as to whether the nation is going uphill or down in inborn qualities.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: What is Eugenics?, by Leonard Darwin

Postby admin » Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:56 am

Chapter XII: Who Pays the Bill?

IN previous chapters we have been dealing with criminals, the insane, the defective in mind, and all those suffering from serious hereditary diseases. Such persons as these, who may be described as the unfit, are not difficult to separate from the rest of the community.

The unfit throw a heavy burden of expenditure on their neighbours in many ways, some of which often escape notice. That the care of this class of persons necessitates heavy public expenditure is indeed obvious to all. This expenditure includes all that falling on the State on account of the presence of the unfit in prisons, workhouses, hospitals, asylums for the insane, for idiots, and for other mental defectives, together with the cost of all public services dependent on these institutions, including their construction and repair, and also that on outdoor relief. Great numbers of persons are employed as judges, magistrates, prison officials, doctors, nurses, special school teachers, and attendants of many kinds; and the services of most of these could be dispensed with if there were no unfit in our ranks. It is difficult to get an accurate estimate of all this expenditure, but the sum must be very large.

The unfit also throw a heavy burden on private individuals, the cost of maintaining mental defectives, the insane, and the diseased at home or in private institutions being especially heavy.

It is obvious, therefore, that if all the unfit could be replaced by hard-working citizens, the gain to the country would be great; and we shall see that there are other reasons even more important for coming to this conclusion. Before considering them, it should be observed that there is another class, less easily distinguishable from other citizens, which should be considered in this connection. This class comprises all those who in no circumstances would or could continue to win such a wage as is deemed to be essential by the general sense of the community. This class may be described as the inferior, and this wage as the minimum wage.

The inferior include in their ranks the stupid, the careless, the inefficient, the intractable, the idle, the habitual drunkard, as well as those too feeble in body or in health to do a good day's work. The inferior add to public expenditure in the same ways as do the unfit; being often found in public institutions and in receipt of outdoor relief. And this class is so numerous that the gain which would result from its disappearance would be even greater than that due to the disappearance of the unfit.

Unfortunately, citizens often fail to realize many of the following ways in which they are hit by taxation; although the well-to-do can have no doubts on this subject. Poor law expenditure is largely included in rates; and a rise in the rates causes a rise in the rents paid even by the poorest. Every man in effect pays taxes every time he drinks a glass of beer or a cup of tea, or smokes a pipe. Taxation for unproductive purposes affects the commerce of the country in such a way as to tend to cause a rise in the price of all goods. We have seen that a reduction of the numbers of the unfit and the inferior would result in a reduction in public expenditure. We now see that this again would lead to one or all of the following advantages: — A reduction in taxation; an increase in the public money available for expenditure in other directions — on education, libraries, roads, public fighting, public safety, scientific research, for example; and a reduction in prices.

If we were to confine our attention to taxation, we should, however, fail to realize much of the damage done to us by the unfit and the inferior. Employers, whether public or private, often can only look to the value of the work done by whole groups of employees; and consequently they may be bound to pay a lower wage to better workers if working in association with slackers and other inferiors. Or, if employers do keep up wages all round, the prices of the goods they produce must be raised to make up for the poor work of the inferior. Tradesmen are practically forced to charge higher prices in order to cover the bad debts, etc., incurred by dealing with the inferior. When any man insures against any contingency, whether it be unemployment, fire, old age, burial, etc., he would have to pay a smaller sum if the Government or the Company, as the case might be, had not to cover the risks due to dealing with the fraudulent, the unhealthy, the careless, etc. Compulsory public services, such as those on juries and for the defence of the country, would be less onerous if every man called on were fit and willing to serve. Lastly, the trouble brought on all, but most of all on the poor, by the doings of habitual criminals must not be left out of the account. In short, the financial and material injuries done to the public by the unfit and the inferior will be seen in every direction if we look for them carefully enough.

The most important of all the benefits which would result from any diminution in the numbers of the inferior would, however, be that due to a lessening of the harmful results of social contagion. In this chapter we are only looking to financial questions; but it is here in place to note that idleness and many other bad qualities are highly contagious. Consequently, the value of the work done by any body of ordinary citizens would be increased if none of them ever came in contact with the inferior either in or out of work hours.

It is constantly said that a man wants work. It would be more true to say that he wants wages. It would be still more true to say that he wants the goods which he can buy with his wages. Carry on this fine of thought, and we shall find that some of these difficult questions are thus made easier to answer. That is to say, it is often best to put money out of our minds altogether, and to think only of goods. By "goods" is here meant all things that we want and can get in exchange for money, including services rendered. For example, a doctor's visit is goods.

The citizens of any country, as a whole, are producing an enormous mass of goods; and these goods are being shared out amongst all these citizens after they are made. K they are not being shared out fairly, reform in this direction is needed. Such reforms raise very important and difficult questions, but they are not the subject of this book. What we want here to emphasize is that, when a number of men fail to do a fair day's work, the mass of goods to be shared out amongst all our citizens is in consequence so much the smaller. Some or all of us will then suffer by getting a smaller amount of goods as our share. An idle man generally injures many besides himself.

Thus we see that if all the unfit and all the inferior, together with all those officials and attendants whose time is taken up in attending to them, were to do a good day's work in producing useful goods, the amount of such goods available for distribution would be enormously increased. In a previous chapter it was seen how large are the numbers of the mentally defective; and to give an idea of the importance of this subject many other facts might also be mentioned. For example, in England and Wales nearly 70,000 police are employed; whilst in every year the amount of working time lost by sickness by all persons insured by the State, if added together, would amount to 270,000 years. Thus, by putting money out of consideration, it is easy to realize how great would be the benefits to all which would result from any diminution in the numbers of the unfit and the inferior.

There are always a large number of men either out of employment or winning a wage below the minimum; and for this state of things there are several reasons. Many of these unemployed persons would have been willing and able to win that wage if they had been either better trained or given a better start in life; and of course all that can reasonably be done to remedy this evil should be done. When trade is brisk, the majority of those not winning a reasonable wage are, however, so situated because of some defect of character, intellect, or body. They belong, in fact, to the classes we have described as the unfit and the inferior. They might equally well have been called the unemployable at a minimum wage.

We have already seen that, if every one worked as hard as he could, the stream of goods to be shared amongst all would be as large as possible. From this point of view, though not from others, it would be advantageous if the unfit and the inferior were allowed to do any work they could. But as they could not be permitted to live uncivilized lives, this would not prevent the State from being obliged to give some assistance to nearly all of them. There is no way of getting rid of the burden cast on their neighbours by the unfit and the inferior, except by getting rid of them altogether. This, of course, cannot be done with those now with us. But looking to the future, we must remember that like tends to reproduce like. If the unemployable were to multiply more slowly than the employable, then the breed of the unemployables would be proportionately reduced in numbers in the future; and the appearance of fewer unemployables would mean diminished unemployment. To whatever extent the families of the inferior could now be reduced in size, to a corresponding extent would something be done to lessen the burden thrown on our descendants by the inferior of their day. The question is. Can anything be done in this direction? To this enquiry we shall have to return.

It may be said that we have only been suggesting ways of taking a burden off our own shoulders and off the shoulders of our descendants. It may be added that, if we were to regard matters from the point of view of the unfit and the inferior themselves, we should have come to different conclusions. But this is not a just criticism. Vast numbers of these classes lead suffering fives, and if they were to be replaced in the coming generations by healthy and capable citizens, the amount of sorrow and pain which would thus be wiped off the slate would be enormous. And this fact constitutes one of the strongest pleas in favour of a reduction in their numbers.

To conclude, every time any one receives his wages, or buys anything whatever, or pays for any services rendered to him, he comes off worse than he would have done if there had been no unfit or inferior in the ranks of the nation. Then again, the amount these unfortunates suffer, and the amount of suffering they throw on others in many ways, are truly grievous. If all men could realize how much better and happier all classes would become if the number of these unfortunates were to be reduced, then eugenics would come into its own.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: What is Eugenics?, by Leonard Darwin

Postby admin » Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:57 am

Chapter XIII: The Deterioration of our Breed

IT may be asked, If great damage is really now being done to the nation by the unfit and the inferior, why do not we see the results quite clearly? Families are better housed, better fed, better educated, have more amusements, and are more comfortable than they were a century ago. Why not trust to a continuation of this improvement? This is a question needing an answer.

In the first place, what has been said about the unfit and the inferior cannot be passed over lightly. Insanity, mental defect, and crime may be increasing, and our slums are certainly still with us. Again, if progress is being made, it is only in certain directions. We may boast of our increased wealth and greater comfort. All this is, however, mostly due to scientific discoveries made by the few. We shall not continue to make material progress unless as large a proportion of great men appear in the future as in the past. A falling off in our creature comforts, let alone in all higher things, will take place if the breed of our race is not maintained. The greater luxury visible on all sides may hide the fact that man himself is slowly getting worse. It is a slow and unnoticeable change which is most to be feared.

What we ought to look to in this enquiry is the very nature of man himself. The doctor has done much towards defeating those germs which, by invading our bodies, give rise to small-pox, typhus, diphtheria, and other diseases even more loathsome. But what has been accomplished when the trouble lies in the man himself? There are little or no signs of improvement as regards mental defect, cancer, rheumatism, defective eyesight, teeth, or hearing. In these matters the surgeon has done more than the doctor. Education has greatly benefited the poor; but as to those classes which have for long had the advantage of a good education, are they any better or wiser? I doubt it. Do we keep turning out great men as often as in the past? Let each one answer this question for himself.

The greatest cause for alarm arises, not from what we can actually see, but from what we judge must be taking place. The following facts illustrate what is known as the differential birth-rate. In an examination of the census of 1911 the population was divided into eight "social classes"; but of these only three will here be mentioned. The first class, "the upper and middle classes," is sufficiently well described by its name. It includes at the lower limit such occupations as clerks and insurance agents. In this class it was found at the date of the census that every 100 families had 190 children already born, of whom 168 were then alive. In the third of the eight classes, consisting of "skilled workmen," the similar figures were 279 born and 232 surviving. In the fifth class, consisting of "unskilled men," the numbers were 337 born and 268 surviving. Thus the surviving children per 100 families numbered 168,232, and 268 respectively in these three classes. Since 1911 it is probable that the birth-rate of the skilled workmen has fallen more than that of the unskilled men. Thus the rule is, the higher the salaries or wages, the lower the birth-rate. There are exceptions, but they are not enough to prevent us from placing reliance on this generalization.

This matter may be put another way. Where there is overcrowding, where many children are employed, where circumstances make refinement of mind and manners difficult, where many children die, there wives have most children. The high death-rate in the poor districts does not now counterbalance this high birth-rate; though probably it did so in the past. And the death-rate amongst the children of the poor is still falling, as the results of the splendid efforts which have been made to bring about this result. The labourer class has been multiplying more and more quickly as compared with those classes containing artizans, clerks, and all drawing higher salaries.

To illustrate what is now taking place, reference may again be made to a game at cards. First let it be noted that the hands dealt out are never the same in two successive deals; and yet the pack as a whole remains unaltered. In somewhat the same way, although no individual in any one generation is ever exactly like any individual in any succeeding generation, yet the group to which they belong may remain quite unaltered. That is to say, there may be no change in the probability of superior or inferior persons being born. This is, however, but a rough analogy, and it may be as well to get nearer to the actual facts of life. Man develops from a germ, and each such germ contains a number of things called genes. The qualities of a man depend largely on these genes. Some genes tend to promote good qualities, and these may be called good genes. Other genes have an opposite effect, and these may be called bad genes. These genes always go in pairs, one of each pair coming from the father, and one from the mother. When a new generation is being formed by the union of a male and female germ, half the genes in each of the parent germs, one from each pair, are thrown away, as it were, these discarded genes being selected by chance. Thus m every generation the genes in the germs remain in pairs.

An exceptional number of good genes — like an exceptional number of good cards — may come together by chance in a germ. Then the person developing from that germ will be exceptionally intelligent or efficient. If his parents are labourers, he may rise out of that class. He will be lost to the labourer group, and his good genes will go with him. In subsequent generations these good genes cannot reappear in that group, and in it ever afterwards remarkable men will in consequence be less likely to appear. As long as the labourer group continues thus to lose large numbers of its best men, so long will it continue to deteriorate. Its numbers may not diminish, because the gaps in its ranks may be filled up by its high birth-rate.

If these labourers join a group of artizans, they may, however, do no more than fill up the gaps made in the ranks of that group in consequence of its low birth-rate. The relative numbers of the labourers and artizans groups may remain unchanged. But how about their relative qualities? The good genes brought with him by the incoming labourer might, it is true, at first tend to raise the standard of the artizan group in the coming generations. We have seen, however, that these incoming labourers would continually deteriorate in quality; with the result that the artizan class which received them must in time also begin to deteriorate. The artizans would acquire some superiority over the labourers in natural qualities; though in the end all would begin to go slowly down the hill together, the labourers merely leading the way, and all other classes following after them.

Every position should, no doubt, be filled by the man best fitted to fill it, whatever might have been his origin. That men of good parts should continually keep mounting the social ladder is certainly all to the good. The alarming fact is that big gaps occur in every generation in the ranks of the skilled artizans and in other valuable classes. This is because married couples are failing badly in their duty of keeping up the numbers of the nation. These gaps in their ranks are being filled up by means of transfers from classes with a higher birth-rate; and these new-comers, when they have risen, also begin to have small families. It is the big and little families at the two ends of the scale that are the cause of the mischief.

All that has just been said assumes that the men picked out for the better-paid jobs have, as a rule, better qualities than those who are less successful. All must agree that many men fail to win high wages because they are weak, sickly, foolish, ill-tempered, drunken, careless, or dishonest. In reply it may be said that some evil qualities make for success, including greed, ambition, carelessness for the welfare of others, etc. This is true in a measure; but these bad qualities are far outweighed by the good qualities making for success. These include honesty, industry, per- severance, sobriety, intelligence, good-fellowship, strength, and good health. Looking to the mass of mankind, the man who wins his way into a better position generally possesses a considerable balance of good qualities.

Good jobs are, it is true, often obtained by favouritism. Much good work is ill paid. And men often fail from want of training or opportunity. These are all evils against which we must fight, and they are evils which will diminish with any real advance in civilization. A continuous deterioration in the inborn qualities of the people would, however, be certain in time to show itself in a decline in our civilization, and thus put an end to all such hopes.

Here again it may be asked. If the differential birth-rate is really producing such harmful effects, why are they not clearly visible? The reason is that the causes of the harm now being done have been at work for only a comparatively short time, and that the changes for the worse are being produced only very slowly. A century ago there was much less movement up and down between the social classes; the barriers between them being then much harder to surmount. In recent years great efforts have been made, by the award of scholarships and in other ways, to pick out the best even in the poorest districts, so as to help them to win high wages. The families of the artizan and middle classes were larger half a century ago than they are at present; whilst in the poorest quarters children were then dying with terrible frequency. The smaller families now being produced by those doing well-paid work leave more vacancies which can be filled from outside; and to fill them more persons are available because of the diminished death-rate amongst the poor. We are faced with a new and formidable condition of things; so new that it is not surprising that no signs of the damage being done are yet clearly visible.

If we look far enough into the past, the warnings we may thus obtain are clear enough; for wherever civilization has become very luxurious, it has begun to go downhill. One early sign of this deterioration has been the absence of great men. The ancient Greeks at their prime turned out a larger proportion of men of genius than any other nation has done in the last two thousand years. Both Egypt and Rome had high civilizations which disappeared. In these and other countries, luxury was followed by internal disorders and attacks by external enemies; and then followed periods well described as dark ages. One cause of deterioration which is at work now was certainly at work in those ancient days, and that is a low birth-rate amongst the superior breeds and a high birthrate amongst the inferior. Other causes no doubt helped to ruin ancient Rome; but if we sit still her fate will be ours also.

If we wish to maintain the honour and reputation of our country in the distant future, the birth-rate must be increased where it is now often low, and lowered where it is now often high. To do this wisely should be the main aim of eugenics.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: What is Eugenics?, by Leonard Darwin

Postby admin » Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:58 am

Chapter XIV: Eugenics in the Future

ALL of us are being greatly damaged by the presence of the unfit and the inferior in the ranks of the nation. If those included in these classes have large families, this injury to our country will be slowly increased as the generations succeed each other. And in all probability, from this cause, racial deterioration is now actually taking place very slowly but very steadily. All this we have seen, and the question is, What can be done to safeguard the nation against this treacherous disease?

In the first place, how are the individuals to be selected who ought to have either small families or no children? This question has already been answered as regards the insane, mental defectives, criminals, and the diseased. If parenthood were to be entirely prohibited amongst all these classes, not only would all these particular troubles be slowly lessened in the future, but in all probability something would thus be done which would tend to produce a much more widespread improvement. But the possibility that other causes might be at work which would more than counterbalance these beneficial effects must be held in view. To use the analogy of the cards once again, if hands containing, for example, many twos and threes — these representing the germs of certain evil qualities — were to be thrown aside and not dealt out again, the remainder of the packs as a whole would thus be made proportionately richer in good cards. But if, at the same time, many of the somewhat higher cards were also being thrown out in a similar manner — these higher cards represented the germs of those qualities possessed by the men of real use to the nation — it is evident that the effects produced by the removal of the small cards might thus be reversed. The elimination of the unfit, however beneficial in itself, might not alone prevent a deterioration in the breed from taking place.

In fact, the greatest danger to the race in the future is likely to result from what is taking place amongst the mass of the people. It is the large families now so often produced by the less useful citizens, and the small families produced by so many of those on whom our prosperity depends, that constitute the danger signal. It is even more important to look to the inferior than to the unfit.

But who are the inferior? Taken literally, this term is a very vague one. If we imagine a steady improvement in our race going on for long ages — and this, I have no doubt, is at all events a possibility — we see that the superior of one generation would in these circumstances be like the inferior of the succeeding generations. We may, therefore, hope that as time goes on a higher and higher standard will be set when considering what kind of persons ought not to become parents. For the present the line to be drawn separating desirable from undesirable parenthood must be decided by purely practical considerations; that is, by considering what is and what is not possible.

When considering whether it is possible to make any move, other than by mere persuasion, in the direction of lessening the fertility of the inferior, there are two classes of persons to whom it is especially desirable that attention should be directed. The first class comprises those who are living an uncivilized life in our midst. The second class includes all those who have for a long time been in receipt of help of various kinds from the State; that is, of public assistance, as it may be called. Let us begin by considering this second class, who may be conveniently grouped together under the title of dependents, thus separating them off from all truly independent citizens.

A few words must, however, first be said in regard to certain general questions. What is the effect of public assistance on the size of the families of those thus assisted? There are no doubt some individuals who act like the lower animals, being quite uninfluenced in regard to parenthood by any thoughts of future consequences. Such as these would not be affected in regard to the size of their families by public assistance one way or the other. The majority of these animal-like creatures are, however, feeble in mind, and on that account parenthood ought anyhow to be prohibited in their case.

Again, it has been said that some persons are made so miserable by their surroundings that they take no thought whatever of the future and act only on the spur of the moment. All such as these, so it is argued, would be made less reckless by adequate State aid, and would consequently have smaller families. This may be true; but, as I have never come across any such person, I gather that they cannot be numerous.

The great mass of our population are certainly neither purely animal nor utterly reckless; and it is to the mass we should mainly look when framing a social policy. If it were known that the appearance of each additional child would certainly result in the receipt of additional public assistance, the effect on all ordinary citizens would certainly be to make parenthood appear less onerous beforehand. We may conclude, therefore, that any State aid dependent on the number of children would generally tend to increase the size of families. Outdoor relief of the poor other than the aged, unemployment doles if not truly part of an insurance system, and free feeding and clothing of children would certainly tend to encourage fertility.

On the other hand, the effect of the giving of State aid must in all circumstances be to increase the taxation levied on all independent citizens; and increasing taxation tends for long to produce a reduction in the size of the families thus affected.

The foregoing considerations indicate that assistance which eases the strain of family life tends proportionately to increase the number of dependents in the coming generations. All such assistance may be described as philanthropic, whether coming from public or private funds. And we thus see that philanthropy is constantly helping to defeat its own aims. No check must, however, be placed on these noble efforts to lessen human suffering. What we have to seek for is some way of counteracting those consequences of philanthropy which are harmful.

Another general question which has to be considered is whether any couple has the right in all circumstances to bring offspring into the world. Here we have first to ask, What is the meaning of the word "right"? If a man says he has a right to live to the age of eighty, such a statement is meaningless; because all men cannot be made to live to that age. If a man says he has a right to vote at a certain election, he means that the Government ought to see to it that he can record his vote on that occasion. The right of one person always implies an obligation on some other person or persons. And it is only by considering the obligation side of these questions that light can be thrown on them.

As to an unlimited right to parenthood, this would imply an obligation on the part of the State to see to it that all couples could always produce as many children as they liked. But the State does not do this in the case of persons confined in prisons or other institutions. And surely the State ought not to facilitate the appearance of such off- spring as would be likely to produce an injurious effect on all future generations. The right to parenthood cannot be unlimited.

There are, however, other rights which must be held in view. It is generally held that all men have a right to live. If so, every child must, to say the least, be kept alive, if necessary by public assistance. If nothing else were done, this assistance would, as we have seen, tend to encourage the inferior to produce more children. For this reason the State may justly accompany public assistance with certain conditions as to the further production of children.

Returning to the limitation of the size of the families of those we have called dependents, we have seen that they have no unlimited right to parenthood. The State may, therefore, rightly prevent the continued injury which would result from the production of large families by this class of persons. But how? It would be both undesirable and impossible to prevent parenthood amongst so large a class by any form of compulsion. It would not be difficult, however, to warn all those who had for a long time been in receipt of public assistance that no more children ought to be born. Such a warning would, of course, be useless when parenthood had become impossible. When any of those warned did neglect the warning, and when more children appeared, the public assistance given might be reduced in quantity or given only in institutions, where parenthood would be impossible. This would tend to deter others from neglecting these warnings. Until eugenic problems are more widely understood, it will continue to be useless to discuss in detail any such scheme as this, for it will remain without the necessary backing of public opinion.

The other class of persons needing early attention from the eugenic point of view comprises those living uncivilized lives in civilized countries. Many of them have for long been, no doubt, in receipt of State aid, and such as these should be dealt with as dependents. It is the treatment of those living uncivilized though independent lives in our midst which constitutes a most difficult problem. Many of them are living in overcrowded dwellings, or not sending their children to school. In either case, they could be warned that no more children should be born. And they might be told that, if such warnings were neglected, the laws as to overcrowding and education, often a dead letter in such cases, would be rigidly enforced.

Thus we see that there are methods by means of which it would be possible to diminish the size of the families of the inferior, and thus to promote racial progress. The state of public opinion probably now makes all the steps here suggested quite impracticable. If it ever comes to be widely recognised that the fate of the coming generations demands our immediate attention, then something in this direction will become possible. If no such move is ever made, my firm belief is that a very slow decline in the natural qualities of our nation will continue to take place. In these circumstances our civilization would begin to show signs of decay, either immediately or possibly not until after several centuries had elapsed. And these signs would probably be rebellion and chaos within and invasion from without.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: What is Eugenics?, by Leonard Darwin

Postby admin » Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:58 am

Chapter XV: Bigger Families in Good Stocks

THUS far we have mainly been considering how the inferior strains in our race can be diminished, with the object of raising the tone of the whole nation. We now pass on to discuss how the superior strains can be increased, with the same object in view. This might be done by reducing their death-rate; but this is a matter that is always certain to receive great attention. All that need here be considered is whether there are any practical methods of increasing the birth-rate where that is desirable.

When a man and his wife die, they leave two gaps in the ranks of the nation. From this it follows that there should be at least two children in each family, if only to fill up these gaps. But some children die early; others grow up but never marry; and some who marry have no children. In fact, families must have three or four children on the average to keep up the numbers of the nation.

If families in any social class contain only one or two children on the average, and if that class were to be kept apart from the rest of the nation, it follows from what has just been said that it would slowly decrease in numbers and finally vanish. Some social classes, as we have seen, are not diminishing in numbers, only because their ranks are being filled from outside. The breed of a class which is producing very small families is, nevertheless, steadily dying out. When drinking a cup of tea, try filling it up with water after each sip. Go on doing this long enough, and you will find that in the end there is no tea at all in your cup. In the same way, some good breeds are vanishing, even though the numbers in the groups to which they belong are being kept up by additions from outside.

All parents, who have only one or two children when they could have more, are acting as if they thought that their stock was not worth preserving for the nation; for they are doing nothing to prevent it from vanishing. All who will aid in making this one simple fact clear to every one will be helping to save the nation from decay.

But how are we to pick out the good stocks; that is, the couples who should have at least three or four children? We have seen that some who are apparently desirable citizens are carrying the hidden seeds of lunacy and other defects. Others have been insane, and again others have lived criminal lives. All these cases have been considered in previous chapters, and they may now, therefore, be left out of account. Here it is suggested that it would on the whole be well for the nation if all men in well-paid honourable employments were to have four children; that is, families at all events big enough to keep up the numbers of their class. For we have seen that the qualities leading to success of this kind are on the whole such as are to be desired. Yet it is these very people who often have such small families as to tend to make their breed die out. This is a grave national danger.

When it is suggested that wealth should be considered in this connection, some one is sure to cry out about the millionaire and his ill-gotten millions. From the racial point of view, the very rich are of little importance, simply because they are comparatively few in numbers. The millionaire can count only as one in the production of the coming generations. He is of less importance than the feeble-minded woman, for example, who, if left unguarded, is more Likely than he is to produce a large family. It is to the mass of the people we must mainly look in regard to all social questions.

Granted that all healthy men drawing good wages for useful work done ought to take their fair share in keeping up the strength of the nation, how are they to be persuaded to do so? This must be done chiefly by an appeal to their sense of duty and patriotism. When our country was forced to face the perilous risks of the Great War, all our best citizens were ready to send their sons forth to face death for their country's sake. Duty and patriotism are now calling to them just as loudly, if they could only hear it, to supply the men and women needed to maintain our nation in the future in the paths of peace and industry. Surely persons of good stock should feel ashamed to know that parents of bad stock are fulfilling this duty better than themselves.

Here one cannot but ask, What are the reasons which make so many worthy citizens limit the size of their families to such an extent as to tend to wipe out their breed? Some of their reasons are meritorious, though mistaken, whilst some are definitely bad. As to the bad reasons, families are very often limited merely as the result of the love of pleasure. We have nothing to say to the men who put beer before babies, or to the women who rank dress and dances before daughters. If their stock dies out, so much the better.

Ambition is the main cause of small families; and ambition is of two kinds. First there is the desire of parents to rise in the world. This is only bad if it is carried too far. We all see that ambition must not lead to a selfish disregard of the rights of others. Neither must it lead to a disregard of the needs of the nation in the future. To have no more than one or two children in order to make it easy to mount the social ladder should be unsparingly condemned. Snobbishness and the desire for social advancement are found in all ranks of society; and the snobbishness which favours the limitation of families amongst the well-to-do is now doing a deadly injury to the race.

There is certainly one reason for the limitation of the size of the family which is worthy of respect, and that is the desire to make sure that the children already born can be placed in as good positions as is possible. In the following chapters something will be said as to how it could be made more possible in the future to satisfy this ambition of parents where there are several children. But in any case no excuse must here be found for neglecting the call of the nation for families of adequate size. True patriots, if sound in body and mind, will, if possible, have four children, even if it involves some slight fall in the social scale. If the parents' circumstances are such that they cannot, without help from outside, bring up four children to lead useful and honourable, though not necessarily luxurious, Lives, then no doubt they should have few or no children. It is, however, only when another child could not on account of poverty be reared unaided in accordance with a certain minimum standard of civilization that this national call of duty in regard to parenthood should be ignored.

Amongst highly educated women the birth-rate is exceptionally low; and the proportion who do not marry is high. As to women educated in some American Colleges, there are only one and a half children, on the average, to each married couple. Probably it is much the same in this country. In the next chapter we shall see that something more might be done to improve the financial position of married women, so as to make marriage more attractive.

The efforts made by women in recent years to get employment in callings previously only open to men have blinded the eyes of some of them to the fact that women's special duties stand out as amongst the very noblest and most important of all human duties. It depends more on the woman than on the man whether or not a child will be born into the world. Civilization is passed on from generation to generation by tradition. The home is the place where the morals and the customs of those who will come after us are now being determined, chiefly by the mother. If the great importance of the duties which women only can perform were more widely recognized by women, it would often alter their outlook on life. The ideas absorbed in youth unconsciously affect conduct all through life. High ideals as to married life amongst men and women would result in more marriages and wiser marriages.

Sacrifices for our country's good must often include the abandonment of personal pleasures and of social ambitions. The path of duty is the road to racial progress. Our civilization cannot be maintained if the better stocks have small families. To make the production of families of adequate size widely felt to be a paramount duty of parents of good stock is the call of eugenics. This idea must be incorporated in our moral code and advocated with religious zeal.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: What is Eugenics?, by Leonard Darwin

Postby admin » Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:59 am

Chapter XVI: Financial Aids to Parenthood

WE have seen that the inefficient and the poor often have large families. We have also seen that the well-to-do, who ought to have several children, generally have very few. Why not make the rich poorer, and then it would seem that they also would have large families? This desirable result is not, however, as we shall see, to be obtained in this manner.

Let us first consider why the poor have large families. For this fact there are several explanations. The man who depends on the use of his muscles to earn his daily bread can do his best work when young. His wages soon cease to rise, and he can marry with no more imprudence when young than when older. The younger the age at marriage, the larger will be the family as a rule. Hence day labourers have comparatively large families.

It would, of course, be folly to try to make men with good natural abilities rely on their muscles rather than on their brains. This explanation why the poor have large families points to no way of increasing the size of the families where such an increase is to be desired.

Another reason for the big families of the poor is that their children go to work at an early age and soon begin to help to fill the family pot. Such children are regarded as a help and not a hindrance, and parents are thus encouraged to have many. But children who go to work when young must leave off schooling at an early age. We want fewer children to be thus handicapped, not more. If all children in all classes were made to suffer this disadvantage, our high civilization would disappear.

Lastly, many couples have big families because they are naturally careless and take little thought for the future. And the thoughtlessness of these couples also often makes them poor. We cannot wish any one to be improvident. We must not hope for the appearance of larger families in consequence of parents becoming more careless.

What makes people limit the size of their families is really not being rich, but feeling poor. The rich man wishing to be richer feels poorer than the poor man contented with his poverty. People feel poor in every rank of society. We want the well-to-do to feel less poor, not to be poorer. It is the feeling that they cannot live up to the standard customary in their class that tempts a couple to keep the strain of family life within bounds by having few children. We want every skilled artizan, for example, with four or more children, to feel it easier than at present to live in the same way that he sees other artizans living. This would lessen the fear of producing a family large enough to maintain the breed. How can this result be brought about?

Bachelors and childless couples have more money to spend as they like than have those parents with whom they most often associate. It is the childless, therefore, who take a leading part in setting the pace in unnecessary expenditure. If we could take money away from all having no children, the customary expenditure on luxuries would in consequence be diminished. This would make it easier for parents to live up to the customary standard of their class. It would be made still easier for them to do so if the money taken from the childless were to be put into their pockets. If the strain of family life were thus to be eased, couples would in consequence have more children. Moreover, if these transfers of money from the childless to parents were to be made separately in any one class, no other class would be injured thereby. And all this points to several ways of increasing the size of families when that would be desirable.

The first plan to be considered is that known as family allowances; a system under which many millions of workmen in Europe receive their remuneration. The methods adopted vary greatly in detail. Sometimes all the employees similarly employed in a district form one association. Out of the common fund of this association, allowances are paid to married couples, the amounts varying with the number of children in the family. Sometimes the fund is replenished by payments being made by the employers alone. Sometimes the employees also contribute. The Government may add a contribution, or may take entire charge, dealing with all alike, and covering the whole cost from the public funds.

The advantages which would result from family allowances are obvious. Without such a system, fathers with many children get the same wage as bachelors. When allowances are given the incomes of families vary more or less in proportion to their needs. Difficult questions about equal pay for men and women would also thus be more easily settled. Above all, the welfare of children in large families would often be greatly increased.

The effects likely to be produced on the nation in the future by family allowances must, however, be considered. The knowledge that such allowances would be forthcoming would- make marriage seem less formidable in advance, and when received they would make married couples feel less poor. They would, therefore, increase the number of marriages. They would make marriages take place at an earlier age. They would make family limitation less often practised. They would reduce the number of deaths of little children. And for all these four reasons the rate of multiplication of any group of persons in the receipt of family allowances would thus be increased.

We have seen that to increase the size of families when parents are in distress is not only immediately harmful to the nation, but also injurious to the race. If these evil effects are to be avoided, family allowances, if applied to all, must be accompanied by some really effective check on the size of families. This raises nearly the same grave and difficult questions as those which were discussed in Chapter XIV, when considering the ways of diminishing the numbers of the inferior. At present perhaps all that can be done is to try to make the public realize the dangers to the race which may accompany any method of easing the strain of family life.

Family allowances do, however, form the best way of increasing the size of the family when that is desirable. A small dole would, it is true, have no effect on the conduct of the well-to-do; and if their birth-rate is to be raised by family allowances, both the sums paid in by individuals and the sums received by parents must be higher where the standard of life is higher. This system of allowances may be regarded as an insurance against the expenses of parenthood, and then it will be seen to be fair that those who pay in most should get most out. Such a plan could easily be adopted in all public services, and to strive to promote reforms in this direction should be our first effort. Later on this system might be adopted voluntarily in many callings, to the great advantage of the nation in the future.

If the allowances were to be handed to the wife, the result might be an increase in the feeling of independence amongst married women. This would make some superior women more ready to marry.

The strain on parents of good stock, as compared with that felt by the childless, could also be eased in other ways. For example, in regard to the income tax paid by parents, the deduction on account of children might be increased. And this could be done without altering the distribution of taxation between rich and poor.

In callings where salaries are fixed in advance for each grade, as in the public services, the scale might be re- arranged, the senior men getting less and the juniors more. This would lessen customary expenditure on luxuries and encourage early marriages. The change might be made concurrently with the introduction of family allowances.

Parents have to cover heavy expenditure when any of their children pass from elementary schools to colleges or universities. Scholarships should, therefore, be large enough to cover all this extra expenditure. The cost to the State of such a system, if widely adopted, would be so great that rigid precautions would have to be taken to ensure that no public expenditure was wasted in an attempt to push young people higher up the educational ladder than they are capable of mounting. Any increase of taxation would, moreover, make the taxpayers feel poorer; and it would, therefore, for an indefinite period, reduce the size of the families of some of the best stocks. Expenditure on education must not be increased without limit. Taxation should always be kept at a moderate level, and should be changed as little as possible.

And these methods of increasing the size of families by lessening the strain on parents, thus making it easier for them to live up to the standard of their class, should as far as possible be made applicable to all well-paid workmen, artizans, professional and business men. This would certainly help to maintain the quality of our nation in the future. But it would only be a help. Unjustifiable social ambition is the main cause of the small families of persons of good stock. Success in the field of eugenics will mainly depend on the moral aspirations and the sense of patriotism of the mass of the people being aroused in the right directions.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to Ancien Regime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests