202 THE TREND OF THE RACE 



tion ' is being curiously revived by these inexperienced eugenists 

 just when it is being discarded by biologists, we may note that 

 any process of selection which can be justified must weed out 

 the worthless without damaging the worthy. Such is the pre- 

 sumed action of natural selection. But to talk of natural selec- 

 tion in anything so hideously unnatural as a slum is wildly un- 

 scientific. . . . What really happens in a slum, of course, is the 

 damaging of all the life therein." We need not tarry over the 

 reckless statements into which Dr. Saleeby has been led appar- 

 ently through the warmth of indignant protest against what 

 he has called the "better dead school." We might be tempted 

 to remark that it was "inexcusable" for any one having the least 

 acquaintance with current biological thought and investigation 

 to refer to natural selection as a sort of exploded notion which has 

 been given up by modern biologists. And we might comment 

 on the absurdity of saying that natural selection cannot be oper- 

 ative in a slum because the conditions there are "unnatural." 

 But disregarding these somewhat impetuous pronouncements, 

 it may be said in regard to the main conclusion that the fact 

 that agencies which are inimical to infancy may also deteriorate 

 the quality of the survivors in no wise proves that natural selec- 

 tion is not in vigorous operation. Its effects may not, on the 

 whole, be desirable, but that is another matter. If bad environ- 

 ment weeds out unfavorable germinal variations, while at the 

 same time it stunts the development of the more favorable 

 ones which it spares, the biological, or perhaps we should say 

 the germinal gain might be more than offset by the social loss. 

 It might not profit us to be the product of superior germ plasm 

 if we had to live under conditions in which we could not attain 

 our full development. To how great an extent do the agencies 

 that commonly produce a high infant mortality handicap in- 

 dividuals in their later development? How far is the fact that 

 certain localities with a high infant mortality have a high child 

 and adult mortality due to the handicapping of infancy, and how 

 far is it due to the direct effect of the unfavorable conditions of 

 later years? There is reason to believe that both of these factors 



