I can show easily that all these objections rest upon a simple misunderstanding. I have never conceived of the existence of any ideal of nature or of the inevitable necessity of transforming disharmonies to harmonies. I have no knowledge of the “designs” and “motives” of nature; I have never taken my stand on metaphysical ground. I have not the remotest idea if nature has any ideal and if the appearance of man on the earth were a part of such an ideal. What I have spoken of is the ideal of man corresponding to the need to ward off the great evils of old age as it is now, and of death as we see it around us. I have said, moreover, that human nature, that collection of complex features of multiple origin, contains certain elements which may be used to modify it according to our human ideal. I have done nothing but what the horticulturist does when he finds in the nature of plants elements which suggest to him to try and make new and improved races. Just as the constitution of some plum trees contains elements which make it possible to produce plums without stones which are pleasanter to eat, so also in our own nature there exist characters which make it possible to transform our disharmonious nature into a harmonious one, in accordance with our ideal, and able to bring us happiness. I have not the smallest idea what ideal nature may have on the subject of plums, but I know very well that man has such designs and such an ideal as form a point of departure for the transformation of the nature of plums. Substitute man for the plum tree and you are at my point of view. When I have spoken of the normal cycle of life or of physiological old age, I have used the words normal and physiological only in relation to our ideal of the human constitution. I might just as well have said that a cactus without thorns is the normal cactus in the conditions where it was desired to obtain a succulent plant useful as food for cattle. The words “normal” and “physiological” seemed to me more convenient than such a phrase as “in correspondence with human ideals.”
I am so little convinced of the existence of any disposition of nature to transform our ills into goods, and our disharmonies into harmonies, that it would not surprise me if such an ideal were never reached. Even in unmetaphysical circles it is said that nature has the intention of preserving the species at the expense of the individual. The ground of this is that the species survives the individual. On the other hand, very many species have completely disappeared. Amongst these species were animals very highly organised, such as some anthropoid apes (Dryopithecus, etc.). As nature has not spared these, how can we be certain that she is not ready to deal with the human race in the same way. It is impossible for us to know the unknown, its plans and motives. We must leave nature on one side and concern ourselves with what is more congruous with our intelligence.
Our intelligence informs us that man is capable of much, and for this reason we hope that he may be able to modify his own nature and transform his disharmonies into harmonies. It is only human will that can attain this ideal.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Westergaard, Mortalitaet u. Morbilitaet, 2nd. Edit., 1901, pp. 653-655.
[2] The volume of the urine excreted in 24 hours (in January 1905) was 500 c.c., with a density of 1019. There was no albumen or sugar. The quantity, per litre, of urea was 11·50 gr., of chlorides 9 gr., of phosphates 1·15 gr. The sediment contained crystals of uric acid, some pavement epithelium cells, a very few cells from the tubules, some hyaline platelets and isolated white corpuscles.
[3] Extinct Animals, London, 1905, pp. 28, 29.
[4] Rendiconti d. Accad. d. Lincei, 1906, vol. xiv. pp. 351, 390.
[5] Ueb. d. physiologische Degeneration bei Actinosphærium eichhornii. Jena, 1904.