Applied Eugenics

by Paul Popenoe; Roswell H. Johnson

The evolutionist answered both these questions affirmatively. However great may be the superiority of his mind, man is first of all an animal, subject to the natural laws that govern other animals. He can learn to comply with these laws; he can, therefore, take an active share in furthering the process of evolution toward a higher life.

That, briefly, is the scope of the science of eugenics, as its founder, Sir Francis Galton, conceived it. "Now that this new animal, man, finds himself somehow in existence, endowed with a little power and intelligence," Galton wrote 30 years ago, "he ought, I submit, to awake to a fuller knowledge of his relatively great position, and begin to assume a deliberate part in furthering the great work of evolution. He may infer the course it is bound to pursue, from his observation of that which it has already followed, and he might devote his modicum of power, intelligence and kindly feeling to render its future progress less slow and painful. Man has already furthered evolution very considerably, half consciously, and for his own personal advantages, but he has not yet risen to the conviction that it is his religious duty to do so, deliberately and systematically."

But, it may well be asked, how does this sudden need for eugenics arise, when the world has gone along without it for hundreds of millions of years in the past, and the human race has made the great ascent from an ape-like condition in spite of the fact that such a science as eugenics was never dreamed of?

For answer recall that natural selection, which is mainly responsible for bringing man to his present situation, has worked chiefly through a differential death-rate. The less fit die: the more fit survive. In the earlier stages of society, man interfered little with natural selection. But during the last century the increase of the philanthropic spirit and the progress of medicine have done a great deal to interfere with the selective process. In some ways, selection in the human race has almost ceased; in many ways it is actually reversed, that is, it results in the survival of the inferior rather than the superior. In the olden days the criminal was summarily executed, the weakly child died soon after birth through lack of proper care and medical attention, the insane were dealt with so violently that if they were not killed by the treatment they were at least left hopelessly "incurable" and had little chance of becoming parents. Harsh measures, all of these, but they kept the germ-plasm of the race reasonably purified.

To-day, how is it? The inefficients, the wastrels, the physical, mental, and moral cripples are carefully preserved at public expense. The criminal is turned out on parole after a few years, to become the father of a family. The insane is discharged as "cured," again to take up the duties of citizenship. The feeble-minded child is painfully "educated," often at the expense of his normal brother or sister. In short, the undesirables of the race, with whom the bloody hand of natural selection would have made short work early in life, are now nursed along to old age.

Of course, one would not have it otherwise with respect to the prolongation of life. To expose deformed children as the Spartans did would outrage our moral sentiments; to chloroform the incurable is a proposition that almost every one condemns.

But this philanthropic spirit, this zealous regard for the interests of the unfortunate, which is rightly considered one of the highest manifestations of Christian civilization, has in many cases benefited the few at the expense of the many. The present generation, in making its own life comfortable, is leaving a staggering bill to be paid by posterity.

It is at this point that eugenics comes in and demands that a distinction be made between the interests of the individual and the interests of the race. It does not yield to any one in its solicitude for the individual unfortunate; but it says, "His happiness in life does not need to include leaving a family of children, inheritors of his defects, who if they were able to think might curse him for begetting them and curse society for allowing them to be born." And looking at the other side of the problem, eugenics says to the young man and young woman, "You should enjoy the greatest happiness that love can bring to a life. But something more is expected of you than a selfish, short-sighted indifference to all except yourselves in the world. When you understand the relation of the individual to the race, you will find your greatest happiness only in a marriage which will result in a family of worthy children. You are temporarily a custodian of the inheritance of the whole past; it is far more disgraceful for you to squander or ruin this heritage, or to regard it as intended solely for your individual, selfish gratification, than it would be for you to dissipate a fortune in money which you had received, or to betray any trust which had been confided to you by one of your fellow men."

Such is the teaching of eugenics. It is not wholly new. The early Greeks gave much thought to it, and with the insight which characterized them, they rightly put the emphasis on the constructive side; they sought to breed better men and women, not merely to accomplish a work of hygiene, to lessen taxes, and reduce suffering, by reducing the number of unfortunates among them. As early as the first half of the sixth century B. C. the Greek poet Theognis of Megara wrote: "We look for rams and asses and stallions of good stock, and one believes that good will come from good; yet a good man minds not to wed an evil daughter of an evil sire, if he but give her much wealth.... Wealth confounds our stock. Marvel not that the stock of our folk is tarnished, for the good is mingling with the base." A century later eugenics was discussed in some detail by Plato, who suggested that the state intervene to mate the best with the best, and the worst with the worst; the former should be encouraged to have large families, and their children should be reared by the government, while the children of the unfit were to be, as he says, "put away in some mysterious, unknown places, as they should be." Aristotle developed the idea on political lines, being more interested in the economic than the biological aspects of marriage; but he held firmly to the doctrine that the state should feel free to intervene in the interests of reproductive selection.

For nearly two thousand years after this, conscious eugenic ideals were largely ignored. Constant war reversed natural selection, as it is doing to-day, by killing off the physically fit and leaving the relatively unfit to reproduce the race; while monasticism and the enforced celibacy of the priesthood performed a similar office for many of the mentally superior, attracting them to a career in which they could leave no posterity. At the beginning of the last century a germ of modern eugenics is visible in Malthus' famous essay on population, in which he directed attention to the importance of the birth-rate for human welfare, since this essay led Darwin and Wallace to enunciate the theory of natural selection, and to point out clearly the effects of artificial selection. It is really on Darwin's work that the modern science of eugenics is based, and it owes its beginning to Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton.