18 Mr, H. G. Wells [Jan. 24, 



present interest centres on the question whether man is indeed, in- 

 dividually and collectively, incalculable, a new element which entirely 

 alters the nature of our inquiry and stamps it at once as vain and 

 hopeless, or whether his presence complicates indeed, but does not 

 alter, the essential nature of the induction. How far may we hope 

 to get trustworthy inductions about the future of man ? 



Well, I think, on the whole, we are inclined to underrate our 

 chance of certainties in the future just as I think we are inclined to 

 be too credulous about the historical past. The vividness of our 

 personal memories, which are the very essence of reality to us, 

 throws a glamour of conviction over tradition and past inductions. 

 But the personal future must in the very nature of things be bidden 

 from us so long as time endures, and this black ignorance at our 

 very feet, this black shadow that corresponds to the brightness of 

 our memories behind us, throws a glamour of uncertainty and un- 

 reality over all the future. We are continually surprising ourselves 

 by our own wills or want of will ; the individualities about us are 

 continually producing the unexpected, and it is very natural to 

 reason that as we can never be precisely sure before the time comes 

 what we are going to do and feel, and if we can never count with 

 absolute certainty upon the acts and happenings even of our most 

 intimate friends, how much the more impossible is it to anticipate 

 the behaviour in any direction of states and communities. 



In reply to which I would advance the suggestion that an in- 

 crease in the number of human beings considered may positively 

 simplify the case instead of complicating it, that as the individuals 

 increase in number they begin to average out. Let me illustrate 

 this point by a comparison. Angular pit-sand has grains of the 

 most varied shapes. Examined microscopically, you will find all 

 sorts of angles and outlines and variations. Before you look, you 

 can say of no particular grain what its outline will be. And if you 

 shoot a load of such sand from a cart, you cannot foretell with any 

 certainty where any particular grain will be in the heap that you 

 make. But you can tell — you can tell pretty definitely — the form 

 of the heap as a whole. And further, if you pass that sand through 

 a series of shoots, and finally drop it some distance to the ground, 

 you will be able to foretell that grains of a certain sort of form and 

 size will for the most part be found in one part of the heap and 

 grains of another sort of form and size will be found in another 

 part of the heap. In such a case, you see, the thing as a whole may 

 be simpler than its component parts, and this, I submit, is also the 

 case in many human affairs. So that because the individual future 

 eludes us completely, that is no reason why we should not aspire to, 

 and discover and use, safe and serviceable generalisations upon 

 countless important issues in the human destiny. 



But there is a very grave and important-looking difference between 

 a load of sand and a multitude of human beings, and this I must face 

 and examine. Men's thoughts and wills and emotions are contagious. 



