/I Catholic Summer School Extension Lectures EUGENICS A LECTURE BY LAWRENCE F. FLICK, M.D. DELIVERED IN THE CATHOLIC SUMMER SCHOOL EXTENSION COURSE. PHILADELPHIA JANUARY 17. 1913 WITH FOREWORD By FRANCIS p. SIEGFRIED PHILADELPHIA JOHM JOSEPH McVEV Digitized by tine Internet Archive in 2008 witin funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation littp://www.arcliive.org/details/eugenicslectureOOflicricli Catholic Summer School Extension Lectures EUGENICS A LECTURE BY LAWRENCE F. FLICK, M.D. DELIVERED IN THE CATHOLIC SUMMER SCHOOL EXTENSION COURSE. PHILADELPHIA JANUARY 17, 1913 WITH FOREWORD By FRANCIS p. SIEGFRIED PHILADELPHIA JOHN JOSEPH McVEV 1913 HQ.7^' r^ Copyright, 1913 JOHN JOSEPH McVEY FOREWORD The present lecture is the first of a series of publications which are to appear under the auspices of the Philadelphia Board of the Catholic Summer School. It is the aim of the Catholic Summer School to extend as far as possible to our larger cities, and throughout the year, the educational and cultural opportunities which it provides for those who attend its annual sessions, during July and August, in its beautiful home at Lake Champlain (Cliff Haven, New York). With a view to giving a wider and more permanent range of influence to this extension work, the Board which represents the Summer School in Philadelphia has determined to publish, from time to time, some of the lectures delivered under its direction. In giving the first place in this project to Dr. Flick's paper on Eugenics, the Board has been influenced both by the vital interest of the subject and by the prestige of the lecturer. The Eugenist Movement is to-day obsessing the minds of large numbers of men and women, who, in all good 267793 6 EUGENICS. disease in the world; also the innate resistance of all living organisms to that which is inimical to life, and the growth of this resistance with the exercise of it. So nicely is the parasitism, the predatory instinct, and the aggressiveness of living beings balanced with the instinct of self-preservation, the power of resist- ance and dexterity in eluding enemies, that in the working out of these fundamental laws of nature, the best is preserved and the worst is permitted to fall by the wayside; all of this is in the interest of eugenics, and has been in operation since the first living thing came upon the earth. These fundamental laws of nature operate not only in the lower forms of life, but also in the higher, and even in the human family. Thus, in God's providence, that which seems evil in the sight of men is permitted to work for man's good, and to accomplish it in fairness to all without infringing upon the rights of any one. God has, moreover, given man a science and an art of eugenics in religion. Man is a com.pound being composed of soul and body. Religion is primarily for the soul, but also for the body; so closely are soul and body united that they have one and the same interest. From the very beginning God gave our first parents religion for the double purpose of maintaining their own physical well- being and that of their offspring, and of renewing their spiritual birthright. The religion which God EUGENICS. 7 taught his chosen people through Moses and the prophets had the same purposes; and when Christ perfected the Old Law, He increased and strength- ened man's resources for these ends. The world over, wherever there has been religion, however primitive, it has had this double object in view. Indeed, whatever is in the interest of good morals is in the interest of eugenics; and, since good morals are the object of religion, all religion must be in the interest of eugenics. Without religion eugenics is impossible, since it is fundamentally dependent upon self-sacrifice and self-control. To be able to understand eugenics, one must have some idea of life and the laws of reproduction. Life is the best thing on earth. It came from God. It is a mystery. Man has not penetrated its secret and probably never will. Our first parents sought knowledge of it from the fruit of the Tree and found death; since then mortal man has sought it and has found confusion. Life abounds upon the surface of the earth, in the waters and in the air. It exists in myriads of forms visible and invisible. Whatever its form, it is fundamentally the same and is subject to the same laws. Although indefinable, we know it by what it does, for we know its operations in man, in the animal kingdom generally, in the vegetable king- dom, and in the micro-organic world. We see it in all that is useful and beautiful on earth. From 8 EUGENICS. the phenomena of Hfe we have learned something about the laws which govern it. We know that it is maintained in the body which it animates for a span of time by chemical interaction of organic substances through forces which are inherent in nature; that it is handed down from the form.s in which it dwells to new forms, which are reproduced by them; and that it finally goes out of the form which it has animated when that form has accom- plished its end. We speak of these things as life, reproduction, and death. All living things manifest these phenomena. All have power to transmit life either individually or in union with another; and life can only come from pre-existing forms in which life has existed. The transmission of life is concomitant with the trans- mission of form. Two primary substances called cells are necessary, and must come together. These substances are made by the living forms out of matter which is taken in as food. In the lowest living things the two substances are made in one and the same individual, which is therefore called "bi- sexual." In the higher living things the two pri- mary substances are made in two individuals differentiated by sex. It is really this quality of a living body which enables it to make out of matter from without one of the primary substances for the production of a new living thing, identical in form with itself, that constitutes sex. One of the indi- EUGENICS. 9 viduals is known as the father, and the other as the mother. For the development of the new being after the two primary substances meet, food, proper temperature, protection and rest are necessary. The individual which supplies these is the mother. The bringing together of the two primary substances, together with their nutrition and protection until the new living form has been completed, is reproduc- tion. The principles of reproduction are the same in all living things; but reproduction itself varies in the scale of action from a mere automatic division of a mature form in the lowest livmg thing to a com- plicated procedure, the most worthy which a creature can perform in the order of nature. God's wonders and man's dignity are both manifested in it. God's providence is also shown in it. In the lowest living things God has made transmission of life automatic; in the higher He has made it a matter of instinct; in man alone has He made it a deliberate act which man may elect or decline to perform. All creation leads up to man and bears the mark of being for his use and for his enjoyment. The lowest living things, the micro-organic entities, change the dead organic matter into inorganic matter, and largely assist in preparing the inorganic matter for the living plant. They are needed in such vast numbers that reproduction must be simple and speedy. Their active life may be but an instant, 10 EUGENICS. yet in that time they perform the task which God has allotted to them. They feed the vegetable kingdom by breaking dead organic matter into inor- ganic matter, and at the same time they protect the earth against undue accumulation of organic matter. The vegetable kingdom feeds the animal kingdom. The kingdom of plants is of a higher order than the micro-organic kingdom, but of a lov/er order than the animal kingdom. Its members, too, are needed in vast numbers and must reproduce themselves rapidly. Reproduction is more complicated than in the micro-organic kingdom, but still simple and cer- tain. It no longer takes place by division. The two primary substances necessary for reproduction are produced in two distinct parts of the living being, and must be brought together; there are males and females; a mother is necessary; and there is a per- ceptible time between the lifetime of the parent and the lifetime of the offspring. All entities of the micro-organic kingdom, and some entities of the vegetable kingdom, are bi-sexual. This is necessary because they have no locomotion. In a few entities of the vegetable kingdom the sexes are separate. So much above the micro-organic kingdom is the vegetable kingdom that in all of its entities, whether the sexes be in the same flower, in different flowers, or even in dif- ferent plants, the two primary substances necessary for reproduction must be brought together by an extraneous force, such as an insect or the moving air. EUGENICS. 1 1 All of the living things on earth are interdepend- ent, but from the lowest to the highest those in each lower kingdom serve the ones higher up. Without the micro-organic kingdom, the vegetable kingdom could not exist; without the vegetable kingdom the animal kingdom could not exist, and both are neces- sary for man. In the animal kingdom below man, reproduction is governed by instinct and is subject to innate laws. These laws differ somewhat in different animals according to size, place inhabited, food, wildness, or domestication. Whatever the laws, they are fulfilled, unless interfered with by extraneous forces, even at the jeopardy of Ufe; but the reproductive impulse is used only for what God has made it. There is no waste of reproductive energy. No law of nature is transgressed, nor is there any inclina- tion to do so. In man alone is reproduction subjected to the will, although in him, too, there is a reproductive impulse. This impulse is transmutable into intel- lectuality. He may elect to transmit his kind or he may decline to do so. He does not transgress the laws of nature when he declines. He cannot be both a human being and an animal. As a human being he is subject to laws which are not in the order of nature, but in the order of religion, coming from God either by inspiration or by revelation. It 12 EUGENICS. is vain for him to try to govern himself by the laws which govern the animal kingdom. When he tries it he goes down to perdition. But since he has been given this high position by God, he must accept the responsibilities which go with it, unless he wishes to default as a human being. Eugenics has been spoken of as a science, and it might be called a science of reproduction. In reality, however, we have as yet very few scientific data bearing upon Eugenics. We have a founda- tion, furnished us by an Augustinian monk, the Right Reverend Abbot Mendel, the discoverer of what are known as the Mendelian Laws.* Abbot Mendel was bom in 1822, and was the son of a farmer. He had a great taste for botany, and evidently also extraordinary talents for it. In his monastic gardens in Silesia, Austria, he carefully studied plant life, and from his observations was able to formulate some definite laws about heredity. He used garden peas for his observations, and later on other plants also. He found that when he arti- ficially fertilized the flowers of a tall stalk with the pollen from the flower of a short stalk, the first product was invariably a tall stalk. When he re- planted the seeds from this second generation, how- ever, he found that in the third generation there * Mendel's original papers are published in aai appendix of Bateson's book on MendeVs Principles of Heredity. New York: Putnam, 1909. EUGENICS. 13 were tall stalks and short stalks in the proportion of three to one. When he planted the seed again from this third generation, he found in the fourth generation that all of the short stalks produced short stalks, that one-third of the tall stalks produced tall stalks, and that two-thirds of the tall stalks pro- duced both tall and short stalks. The tendency of the first generation of his cross-breeding to produce only tall stalks, he called the "dominant" tendency, and the tendency in the third generation to produce short stalks, which were latent in the tall stalks of the second generation, he called the "recessive" tendency. In subsequent generations, he found that the true tall stalks produced only tall stalks, the true short stalks produced only short stalks, and the mixed stalks again divided up in the same ratio as before; that is, one with the dominant tendency and two with the mixed tendency. Mendel found these laws exemplified in other plants. Simultaneously with Mendel, Sir Francis Galton, an Englishman, bom likewise in the year 1822, studied heredity on a statistical basis. He examined the genealogical records of a number of English families to see what tendencies were transmitted to the offspring.* He reached the conclusion that ability and character were transmitted, and he worked out some very interesting but extremely * See Gallon's Hereditary Ccnius. New York: Mac- millan & Co.. 1869. 14 EUGENICS. abstruse theories. Gallon pursued the study of heredity for many years, and wrote quite a number of books on the subject. He has not given us any accurate scientific data, however, upon which definite laws could be based such as those discovered by Mendel. Galton took inspiration from the work of Mendel and that of Darwin, and probably used the ideas of these men as the basis of his work. It was he, more than any one else, who kept alive and fostered the modern movement of eugenics. Many men and women have entered upon the study of this subject. Chairs have been established for it both in England and in America; a labora- tory has been established in its interest in England, and, during July of 1912, an international congress was held in London for the purpose of discussing it from every point of view. This congress was attended by men from all parts of the world, and papers on a great variety of phases of the subject were read and discussed. Some strange doctrines were advanced, at variance with accepted views in m.orals and in physics. Som.e of these doctrines had at that time already found their way into cur- rent literature. We may expect to see much more of them in the future. They are not promulgated by those who study the subject thoroughly, but rather by onlookers who seize ideas here and there and, without understanding them, build codes of ethics on them and even seek to mould the habits EUGENICS. 1 5 and customs of the entire world by them. Some of these "onlookers" speak from lofty places in the world of literature, and may do much harm. The fascinating theories of Dar\vin and the accurate work of Mendel raised, in some, great hopes that facts might be discovered and laws formulated which would, through purely human effort, lead to the elimination of ills from the human fam.ily. Up to the present time the bright expecta- tions have been dulled by disappointment. Mendel's studies have been carried forward, but have not carried us much beyond Mendel. Wonderful things have been accomplished in hybridizing plants, but when analyzed they merely amount to changes in color, size, quality, and fertility of living beings in the same kingdom and within a circum- scribed sphere. Inedible plants have oeen made edible, and unattractive fruits have been made delicious. It has been impossible to elevate a living entity from a lower kingdom into a higher. When the so-called change in species has been carried too far it has met with an abrupt ending in sterility. What has been accomplished in plant life has been likewise done, although in a lesser degree, in animal life. Here, too, it has been possible, by cross- breeding, to make changes in the interests of utility and beauty, but when the process has been carried too far, it, too, has found its limitation in sterility. 16 EUGENICS. The theory of evolution, so satisfying to the mind which seeks to fathom all things and explain them in an orderly way, has not found any support in either the most recent developments of biological research or in the new archaeological discoveries. The last word in biology seems to indicate that like produces like, and that all living things come from other living things of the same kind and character. Pasteur gave the death-blow to the spontaneous origin of life. The old fallacy is again embryonic in the recent claims of artificial fertilization of an egg, but there is little prospect of it ever maturing into even an acceptable doctrine. There is a long step between the artificial fertilization of an egg and the production of an egg. The one involves the stimulation into activity of the life which God has put into the egg; the other, the creation of life.* Historically, we have nothing in support of the theory of evolution of man from the lowest living entities. The first man of whom we have any historical record was as good, nay better, than the present man. He had even a higher code of ethics. He was endowed by the Creator with all the gifts of a social being. He was as perfect in form and feature. We are assured that he knew more of the works of nature and of the relationship between God * Thoughts of a Catholic Anatomist, by Thomas Dwight, M. D. (New York: Longmans, Green & Co.), is well worth reading for the elucidation of this subject. EUGENICS. 1 7 and man. Later history shows the undeveloped man only in the outlying districts, away from the centers from which he went out to subdue and cultivate the earth. In the place where the garden of Eden is said to have been, history reveals man to us in a per- fect state. What glimpses we have into the dark, dim vista of the past around the Tigris and Eu- phrates reveal a high grade of civilization. We can trace that civilization in its degeneration to a low ebb at the beginning of the Christian era, and again in its rise from that point. We hear much of heredity in eugenics. WTiilst reproduction is made the foundation, heredity is made the excuse. The foundation is good. Is the excuse valid? There is room for doubt. To start with, there is a false syllogism: Physical defects, diseases and degeneracy are transmitted from parent to offspring; they are evils which the human family might well be rid of; therefore, reproduction should be controlled, curtailed and, if necessary, stopped. A great many statistics have been gathered to prove that physical defects, diseases and degeneracy are hereditary. The public mind has been quite open to these ideas, especially as regards heredity of diseases, on account of many confusing coinci- dences and the frequent occurrence of phenomena, the easiest explanation of which is heredity. Most of the statistics have been gathered by men who started out to prove a theory. In the conclusions 18 EUGENICS. there has been inadequate differentiation between the effects of heredity and the effects of environ- ment. At best, statistics, except when used on a very large scale and from a very broad viewpoint, furnish unsafe premises for conclusions. The weakness of the argument from statistics can, perhaps, best be pointed out in some of the studies of degeneracy which have been built upon the investigation of long genealogies to prove that individuals with certain diseases or defects, left progenies of degenerates, whilst healthy individuals with one-half of the same ancestry left progenies of normal beings. The story runs something like this: A normally healthy man has a child, out of wedlock, by a woman physically or morally unfit; subsequently, he has other children in wedlock by a woman physically and morally fit. The offspring of the child of the first woman is shown to have many degenerates in her progeny, whilst the offspring of the children of the second woman is shown to have many finely developed and even brilliant cit- izens in theirs. The merest tyro in logic must see at a glance the absurdity of trying to draw deductions on heredity from these two lines of progeny. The one line starts out with a breach of the laws and customs of civilization, with both parents defaulting in their duty, with a fore-ordained life of outlawry from decency and home, and with the brand of sin and EUGENICS. 19 irregularity stamped upon it. The other hne starts out with the protection of law and society, under the custody of both parents, in the shelter of love and home, and with its banner of propriety unfurled to the air. The one line, if it is to return to decency and civilization, must fight its way back against in- surmountable difficulties; the other is fenced in by the habits and customs of civilized life, and in such a way that it would be difficult for it to get out of the traces of respectability. It is doubtful whether physical defects, diseases, and degeneracy can, in a biological sense, be trans- mitted from parent to offspring. The primary sub- stances which go to make the new being are gen- erated by the body from which they come, and undoubtedly must be affected by the normality and healthfulness of that body in its functional capacity. They are new elements, and when they unite they form an independent being. There can be no doubt but that the characteristics of the parents may be transmitted to the offspring through these primary substances, and that union of two characteristics of the same kind might produce an extremely exag- gerated characteristic in the product. In the same way, union of two defective qualities of the parents might produce an extremely defective quality in the offspring. The primary substances might even be so weak that the product would be weak in all its parts, and perhaps not even viable. It would seem, 20 EUGENICS. however, to be physically impossible that a disease which is due to a living entity could be engrafted upon a new product.* Around offspring nature has thrown extraordi- nary protection against transmission of disease from parents. It has given the child, even while depend- ent upon its mother's circulation for nutrition, an independent circulation, and has placed a physical barrier between the circulation of the mother and the circulation of the child. Between the father and the child stands not only this barrier, but the barrier of the mother herself. It is, therefore, not quite consistent with physiological truth to speak of poisoning the blood-stream of the offspring through the parents; and the old saying of a taint in the blood must be taken figuratively, not literally. With the facts before us, the transmissibility of disease, at one time a universally accepted doctrine, is no longer tenable. It is inconsistent with the principles of biology, and has been disproven both by research and by experimental work. Tubercu- losis, for example, which at one time was regarded as the most typical of hereditary diseases, has been proven to be due to a living entity with an inde- pendent biology, and therefore to be essentially con- * On the subject of transmissibility of characteristics. Heredity) Genius; An Inquiry into Its Laws and Conse- quences, by Francis Gallon, F. R. S., etc. (New York: Macmillan & Co., 1869), is worth reading. EUGENICS. 21 tagious. It may be transmitted to the unborn child by the mother, but only when the barrier between the circulation of the mother and the circulation of the child has become infected with the disease. In such a case, the transmission is not by inheritance, but by contact: even in syphilis, when the offspring is affected, the disease has had its beginning by infec- tion of the tissues of the child before birth. The strongest evidence which has so far been gathered in support of the transmissibility of disease is that which has to do with borderland conditions, such as night-blindness, color-blindness, albinism, praesenile cataract, certain abnormal skin conditions and a few other physical abnormalities.* Whilst these are diseases in the broad sense, they are not in the ordinary sense. They may be due to nutri- tional defects in the primary substances which make the new being. But, even in these borderland con- ditions, heredity has not been proven. All of the phenomena could be explained upon the hypothesis that the conditions are due to the action of micro- organisms upon the tissues of the body and con- veyed by the parents to the offspring either before birth or after. It is well known that the same micro-organisms may set up fatal disease in some individuals and may exist in others without giving * MendeVs Principles of Heredity, by W. Baleson. M. A.. F. R. S., V. H. M. (New York: Putnam, 1909). gives us some interesting data upon this subject. 22 EUGENICS. rise to serious inconvenience. It is even within the realms of possibiHty that the same micro-organisms might set up symptoms in persons of one sex and not cause them in persons of the other sex. The pecuhar phenomenon of sex hmitation in these borderland conditions would be more intelligible upon this hypothesis than upon any other. Such a condition might exist in the father, and the micro- organisms might be conveyed to the mother without setting up any symptoms in her, and be transferred by the mother to the sons, who in turn would again manifest the symptoms. Even the more subtle heredity of what is called predisposition could be explained in this way. We speak of heredity of gout, of apoplexy, of affections of the mucous membranes, and of other conditions. We do not as yet know all about the micro- organisms which may infest the human body; and it is quite possible that there are micro-organisms which do not produce disease in the ordinary sense of that term, but which, growing on the mucous membranes or even in the tissues of the body, pour into the circulation substances which have the power of determining changes in the nervous tissue, in the blood vessels, or even in the mucous membranes. The conditions set up by the poisons given off by these micro-organisms might readily be the pre- dispositions which we speak of under the names just mentioned. Such micro-organisms might easily EUGENICS. 23 be conveyed by contagion from parents to children and be carried through life by them without pro- ducing phenomena which would arouse attention. Until we know all about micro-organic life and its effect upon health and happiness, it would be well to suspend judgment about the transmissibility of disease. At all events, until the whole subject has been threshed out, we are not yet ready to adopt drastic measures for the prevention of what are called hereditary diseases.* There is still another side to this question of heredity which must be considered. All living things have an inherent power of self-defense against parasitism and agencies detrimental to life or prejudicial to normality. This power is strengthened with exercise and, as it resides in the cells themselves, becomes cumulative in the indi- vidual, may be transmitted to offspring, and may even become cumulative in the family from genera- tion to generation. That this power exists and accumulates is indicated by what is knowTi as family * In books on heredity of insanity, it is claimed that from 20 per cent, to 50 per cent, of insane people have a family history of insanity. This is merely a statistical argument, the same as that which for ages was used to prove tuber- culosis to be hereditary, and in itself proves nothing. Autopsies show that most insane people have undergone pathological changes in the brain and its membranes, in one or both. 24 EUGENICS. and racial resistance to disease. We see it in the African's resistance to malaria and the Hebrew's resistance to tuberculosis. The African gets malaria just the same as the white man who goes to Africa, but having accumulated a resistance through many generations, does not readily succumb to it. The Hebrew gets tuberculosis as frequently as do people of other races, but the disease is usually mild. The African and the American Indian, on the other hand, who have not yet developed racial resistance to tuberculosis because they have been exposed to it only for a comparatively short time, develop it in a most malignant form and almost invariably die of it. Really, instead of disease being trans- missible from parent to offspring, we have reason to believe that resistance to disease is transmissible. To prohibit or interfere with reproduction in those who are affected with diseases which sometimes are called hereditary might, therefore, from a biological point of view, be a step in the wrong direction. Reproduction is an inherent right, as sacred as the right of life, liberty, and property. It is really an essential part of those rights, and cannot be separated from them. God has given it to man, and, except when it has been forfeited by a crime against society, no man can take it away without committing a heinous offense against God. As a man may forfeit his life by taking the life of another, or his liberty and property by interfering EUGENICS. 25 with the Hberty and property of another, so he may also forfeit his right of reproduction when he has committed against society a crime which merits such a punishment. All the protection which is thrown around the individual for the maintenance of his rights of life, liberty and property, must also be thrown around him for the maintenance of his right of reproduction. To surrender this right to the caprices of one or two or three men, upon an un- proven theory, and against one who has not com- mitted against society any offense worthy of such a punishment, is to pave the way for the surrender of our liberties and our rights of property. It took Christianity over twelve hundred years to produce the Magna Charta, that great charter of human rights. Those rights had been lost to man- kind through the selfishness and brutality of man. Up to the time of Christ's coming into the world, in vain had the law of Moses and the voices of the prophets struggled for their restoration. Christ's sweet gospel of love brought into the struggle a new force which nothing could resist, yet even this force required more than a millennium to win that much of the victory. From the Magna Charta to the present day wonderful strides have been made in the fight for man's rights, and the progress must be attributed to the religion taught by Christ. Is man prepared to sacrifice all that has been won for 26 EUGENICS. him and begin to retrace his steps back to social chaos ? What are the essential conditions for eugenics? What is it that is necessary to be well born? First, there must be healthy parents of normal physical development, living normal physical lives; second, there must be normal sexual attraction; and third, the parents must live chaste lives. With all of these conditions fulfilled, the offspring is bound to be good; with any of them unfulfilled, it may be bad. Fortunately, nature is wonderfully jealous of the well-being of offspring, sacrificing everything in its behalf, even the parents when necessary, and thus often makes it good even when the essential con- ditions are somewhat defective. In consequence of this conserving watchfulness of nature, a healthy offspring may come from sickly parents, and a good product may result even when the mutual sexual attraction is defective. There seems to be one con- dition, however, against which nature can make no compensatory provision, and that is sexual profligacy. For the unchaste there can be no good offspring, and it is through unchastity and the many irregularities of life which go with it that most of the degeneration of the human family comes into existence. Unfortunately, the average modern eugenist, and, I regret to say, the Eugenics Education Society, leave this last important fact out of their EUGENICS. 27 philosophy in dealing with this important subject. They ignore religion, they ignore Christ, and they seek to build up a system of eugenics upon a materialistic platform. They fail to recognize that there is no pov/er on earth except religion which can maintain the essential conditions for eugenics in the human family; and they have not studied history well. In those matters which are essential to eugenics, it is not within the nature of man to be controlled by man-made laws and by ordinances unfounded upon the authority of a supreme being through religion. Sexuality is an appetite; and parenthood, in the animal sense, depends upon instinct. As a rational being, man can control his appetite and direct his instincts, but he must have a motive strong enough to impel his will. Good progeny does not give him such a motive, because progeny is a pros- pective good in the material order of things, of which man can form only an abstract idea, and for which he must sacrifice a good which is at hand in concrete form and toward which he has an over- powering inclination. All through history we see the impotency of mere human effort for eugenics, and in contrast with it the power of God's word. The natural laws, aided by man's intelligence, are exemplified in man's savage life; and God's law, aided by divine grace, in civilized life. TTie best people physically and 28 EUGENICS. socially always were God's people. Even among the people from whose minds the idea of God had almost faded, and with whom religion had drifted into idolatry, it was religion which main- tained some sort of relationship between members of the human family in the interest of eugenics; and civilization flourished among them through the religion of the masses. The customs and habits of the people were based upon religion, and their laws and ordinances were conducive to civilization in proportion to their foundation on divine authority and the extent to which they obtained support through the religious views of the people. The definition of eugenics as given by the Eugenics Education Society of England, the program of the First International Congress on Eugenics, many of the ideas which were given ex- pression to at that congress, most of the books which have recently been written upon the subject, and some of the ideas which have found their way into literature from participants in the eugenic movement, make a discordant hodge-podge of bad philosophy, overgrown humanity born of an extremely diluted, illy nourished, anaemic Christianity, and an uncon- scious erotism which does not bode well for civiliza- tion. The Eugenics Education Society tells us that the racial qualities of future generations are to be im- proved physically and mentally, and that this is to EUGENICS. 29 be done with agencies under social control. Nothing is said about religion, and since religion is not under social control we may assume that it is excluded from the program. We may also infer that the study has a practical purpose, and that this purpose is to suppress those racial qualities which impair future generations physically and mentally, and to foster such as will improve those qualities. What are the agencies under social control? In a broad way, we may say they are the habits and customs of the people and the legal restrictions and curtailments of natural rights which have been mu- tually agreed upon in civilized comn!unities and writ- ten out in the forms of constitutions, laws, and ordi- nances. The customs and habits of the people, whilst they are in a sense under social control, really grow out of the religion, physical well-being, and state of enlightenment of the people. They are the legacies of many generations and usually are handed down by tradition. They are hard to change and cannot be changed, even amongst the most enlight- ened people, in a single generation. When they change they do so gradually, without consciousness of the people, reacting to new ideas which have found lodgment in the public mind. It is difficult to picture to one's self what the habits and customs of a people would be which were built upon a purely materialistic basis without the aid of religion. His- tory helps us to form some idea of it. At the height 30 EUGENICS. of the Grecian and Roman civilizations women and children were chattels without rights, the poor were abandoned to their misfortunes, children could be sold or be permitted to die in the market-place or on vacant lots; there were no eleemosynary institu- tions; there was no public charity; a man could put away his wife when he pleased and take another; and human life had no value except what it was worth to the government. These habits and cus- toms, moreover, existed in peoples who were not entirely devoid of religion. The habits and customs of a people organized upon the principles advocated by some of the most advanced eugenists without any tincture of religion at all would make all men behave as animals, would make everyone follow his instincts and impulses, would destroy the weak and the useless, would send woman back to serfdom and would let men fight to the death for the right of paternity. The fittest would survive and brute force would again take possession of the earth. There would be no need for eleemosynary institutions, no need for hospitals, orphan asylums, reformatories; there would be no room for charity. Physical manhood, physical womanhood, and erotism alone would survive. But, as indicated in the program of the Interna- tional Congress on Eugenics, the eugenist would regulate all of these things by education and legisla-^i tion. He would teach men and women what is best EUGENICS. 31 for a vigorous, healthy, well-developed race; and if this would not suffice for eugenics, he would enact laws compelling the recalcitrants to submit to neces- sary regulations. Legislation seems to be the eugen- ist's greatest hope. Ele proposes to control the prop- agation of the human species by law. He will teach people how to check reproduction without bringing the reproductive impulse under submission, and if this does not work out satisfactorily, he will prevent reproduction by a mutilation of the body without regard for the individual's inalienable rights. Education of the masses is a Christian measure and has its foundation absolutely in the teachings of Christ. The world has apparently forgotten the evolution of our system of education. To try to formulate a system of popular education on a purely physical basis would be an irrational proceeding. Man as an animal has no use for education and would not find enough value in it for the sacrifice which it demands. It would therefore be impossible to do anything for eugenics by education, except upon a foundation of religion. Take away from education the idea of religion and the principles of Christianity and you will banish it from the face of the earth in much less time than it took Christianity to build it up. What can the eugenist do by legislation? Con- stitutions, laws and ordinances represent the experi- ence, knowledge, and thoughts of a people in the 32 EUGENICS. matter of ethics. Laws and ordinances are the cus- toms and habits of a people cast in the mould of experience. They are the ripe wine made from the grapes grown in the vineyard of God's revelation. Constitutions are the reservations in which customs and habits still prevail, and upon which laws and ordinances must not trespass. They are the grapes which nourish and do not intoxicate, and they are essential to human liberty. Excessive laws and ordi- nances breed bad habits and customs and lead back to savagery. The logical order of development of civilization is: first, religion; second, the formation of good habits and customs ; and, third, the moulding of these into laws and ordinances. It is not possible to reverse this order nor omit nor change any of the factors in it. When laws and ordinances are made which transcend the habits and customs of the people, without a solid foundation in ethics, they are made to be disobeyed and will lead to immorality, degen- eration, and decline. There is perhaps nothing more demoralizing in a community than laws and ordi- nances which are disregarded by common consent of the people. Although laws and ordinances are under social control, they have no value for the uplift of man unless their lineage goes back to God's authority through the religion of the community. Laws and ordinances originating in man's thought, knowledge, and wisdom, without authority from God and with- EUGENICS. 33 out foundation in religion, can lead only to man's confusion and degradation, because their foundation is in selfishness. The moment a man cuts loose from the teachings of God and professes himself to be merely an animal without a soul, responsible to no one except his own intellect and brute force, he assumes an attitude to his fellow-man which he can only maintain by the forces to which he subscribes. He may assume the position of a god, but he can bring to his work only the weakness and shortcomings of his human nature. The conception of society as an aggregate of hu- man beings composed of soul and body, with a spirit- ual as well as a physical nature, dependent upon a supreme being from whom flows all authority, gives us a philosophical basis for legislation in the interest of eugenics; but the conception of society as an aggregate of human beings composed of a body without a soul, without a spiritual nature, indepen- dent of a supreme being, gives no basis for anything except disorder and confusion. Animals associate together and have habits and customs growing out of their wants, but the fundamental principle under- lying animal society is self-preservation and the grat- ification of instinct, so that selfishness must govern everything. The controlling principle of human society is not selfishness but self-control, and is based not upon the physical part of man, but upon the 34 EUGENICS. spiritual part. Hence, man with God has made civ- ilization, and man without God has made savagery. The difference between the civilized man and the savage is in the customs, habits, and legislation which religion and a better knowledge of God have gradu- ally brought into existence for the civilized man ; rob him of his spirituality and of his dependence upon God and you again throw him back into a state of savagery. Civilization is a very delicate plant which may easily be damaged by officious cultivation. It has its roots in the eternal truths revealed by God, and it draws its nutrition from God's revealed word through religion. Deprive it of its proper food and supply it with nutriment from the brain of man only and it will soon wither and droop. If man will at- tempt to use without religion the agencies under social control, he undoubtedly will impair the qualities of future generations rather than improve them. By ignoring God and religion he lowers the standard of ethics; and by infringing upon the constitutional rights of the people, and by the enactment of laws and ordinances which transcend the ethical standard of the community, he will wreck civilization in his attempt to improve the racial qualities of the people. Some of the practical measures which have been recommended by eugenists for the improvement of the human race are : the limitation of the size of fam- ilies by artificial preventive practices, the enactment EUGENICS. 35 of more liberal divorce laws, the abolition of mar- riage, and the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane, and the degenerate. All of these measures are in conflict with the teachings of Christianity and with sound philosophy. The limitation of the size of families is an exceed- ingly complicated problem which may easily be mis- understood. There is no doubt that an advantage accrues to children born of the same mother when a long interval intervenes between births to give each child the best possible conditions for nutrition and normal development. An interval of rest between child-bearing periods also favors a better repro- ductive product. It is likewise true, however, that the waste of reproductive energy which goes with the limitation of reproduction by artificial preventive methods disqualifies individuals for good parent- hood, and has a degenerative influence upon any reproductive product that may take place thereafter. To this must be added the injury which must come to children from the moral degeneracy of parents by whom such practices are followed. Divorce is essentially unfavorable to eugenics, in spite of the fact that it looks to be in favor of it. The plea which is made for divorce is that it relieves a good consort of the occasion for reproducing off- spring with a bad consort. This view of the problem is too superficial. In the first place, it does not follow that because a couple disagree, the offspring must 36 EUGENICS. be bad. Discordant elements in the parents may be neutralized in the offspring with the best results. In the second place, when divorce takes place, the chil- dren which already exist and the children which may be born from subsequent unions are at a serious disadvantage in their struggle for an ethical position in society. Statistics show that there is an extraor- dinarily high percentage of children of divorcees in our reformatory and penal institutions. Lastly, an injury to the standard of morals of the community ensues upon divorce, which weakens the moral stam- ina of a great many in matters appertaining to sex relationship. Christian marriage gives the best conditions for eugenics from every viewpoint. It must be Christian marriage, however, and not a mere mockery. The Christian end of marriage implies that those who enter into the married state are qualified to reproduce healthy children, that they have Christian forbear- ance for each other's shortcomings, that they are chaste and have Christian self-control, and that they have a due appreciation of the duties and responsi- bilities which go with the married state. In other words, a Christian marriage is the union of a man and woman for the purpose of carrying out the de- signs of God and not for the gratification of lust. When the eugenist proposes to abolish marriage, one cannot help but wonder whether he is perpetrating EUGENICS. 37 a subtle joke. To propose such a thing seriously is to ignore both history and philosophy. The sterilization of the insane, of the feeble- minded, and of the degenerate is at first blush a very attractive proposition, but it will not bear a philo- sophical analysis. As an assault upon man's inalien- able rights, it should be frow^ned down upon by every one who loves freedom. It has no justification in medical science. Insanity, feeble-mindedness, and degeneracy are not yet well understood and their transmissibility from parent to offspring has not been proven. That such individuals should not be allowed to reproduce offspring can be defended upon other grounds than those of eugenics; but such an end may be reached by other methods than by sterilizar tion. Segregation will do all that sterilization will do, and it will do it without trespassing upon the inalienable rights of man, and without injuring the moral sense of the community. It is true that segre- gation may be a greater financial burden than sterili- zation, but we must not forget that it may be much cheaper in matters of this kind to carry a financial burden than to escape it. What is the relation of alcoholism to eugenics? Should the alcoholic be allowed to reproduce? It has been claimed that alcoholism is due to a form of mental degeneration and is transmissible from parent to offspring. TTiis has not been proven and 38 EUGENICS. all the phenomena of alcoholism in successive genera- tions can be more logically explained in other ways. There are many side problems connected with alco- holism, such as environment and waste of repro- ductive energy on account of undue stimulation. Al- coholism undoubtedly should be treated as a disease and the alcoholic should be segregated during the time that he is suffering from the disease, but there is no justification for making him non-productive by sterilization. Neither is alcoholism a good ground for divorce in the interest of eugenics. The teachings of Christianity are the greatest power for eugenics that the world has seen, and the Catholic Church as the visible repository, custodian, and interpreter of those teachings will have to be the saviour of civilization.* The world needs a positive religion which is ca- pable of reorganizing society so that each member will make some sacrifice for others and help main- tain as far as possible equal opportunites for all. Positive dogma and strong faith are necessary. Man must recognize that he has a spiritual side; that there is a relationship between him and his maker; that as an animal he wants what his appetite craves * For a fair-minded Protestant view of the influence of the Catholic Church upon civilization, see Marriage and the Sex Problem, by Dr. F. W. Foerster, translated by Meyrick Booth, B. Sc, Ph. D. New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company. EUGENICS. 39 and instinctively follows what his instincts suggest; that he must cultivate the qualities of the soul, and keep in touch with God through religion in order to control his appetites and direct his instincts for his own physical and spiritual welfare, in harmony with the spiritual and physical welfare of his fellow- man. He must not rely upon his own experience alone, but upon the experience of others — those of his own generation as well as those of the genera- tions \\hich have gone before him; and, above all, he must rely upon the revelations of God to man. He must seek to behave like a rational being, in union with the saints, in sympathy and harmony with his fellow-militants, seeking to make up for his natu- ral shortcomings by supernatural aids. On this way alone lies the hope of bringing the human family to a higher plane of physical development, of intel- lectual perfection and of social betterment. Lawrence F. Flick. January 20, 191 3. U{ RETURN TO the circulation desk of any University of California Library or to the NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY BIdg. 400, Richmond Field Station University of California Richmond, CA 94804-4698 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS • 2-month loans may be renewed by calling (510)642-6753 • 1-year loans may be recharged by bringing books to NRLF • Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days prior to due date \ i DUE AS STAMPED BELOW SBNroMn.L OCT 1 3 2004 U. C. BERKELEY DD20 1M 3-02 Pamphlet Binder Gaylord Bros.. Inc. Stockton. Calif. T ¥ Rtg U S.P^t Oil <:Dbl337a55 UlflVERSlTY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY