BIOLOGY AND POLITICS 



Walter Sonneberg 



THE danger in applying knowledge 

 gained in one department of life 

 to other and quite distinct depart- 

 ments lies in the tendency to 

 ignore limitations of application. If 

 we are going to apply principles formu- 

 lated for biology to political conditions 

 we want to be pretty sure in advance 

 just what the limitations of those prin- 

 ciples are. Alleyne Ireland^ suggests the 

 enforcement of a biological teaching to 

 combat the growing worship of the 

 ' ' blind god of Numbers. ' ' Granting the 

 impendment of catastrophe in the com- 

 mitment of political power to the hands 

 of proletariat, Germany's experience of 

 biological principle does not furnish 

 much encouragement for further appli- 

 cation. It is now apparent that a 

 biologically buttressed formula was the 

 most potent inciter to Hun f rightful- 

 ness. 



Through the persuasion of Haeckel 

 and his mechanistic logic, the doctrine 

 "might makes right" was consolidated 

 and confirmed in the German mind: 

 through the idealization of man the 

 machine Germany went down to civiliza- 

 tion-crushing defeat — imagine the moral 

 effect, on receptive minds, of the preach- 

 ment that all life rose exclusively and 

 strictly from mechanic stresses and 

 chemical reactions. Earlier philosophers 

 emphasized the advantages of a God 

 relegated to the remoteness of ultra- 

 astronomical confines; subsequent de- 

 velopments made manifest that the 

 spiritual beauty they painted was a 

 mirage veiling lust released and rapacity 

 revivified. Discontented minds the 

 world over eagerly devoured the alluring 

 doctrine. What could be more palatable 

 to their half enlightened mentality than 

 a philosophy made up of egotism and 

 irresponsibility compounded in a spirit- 

 ual vacuum? 



Mr. Ireland mentions the tendency 

 of talent to concentrate hereditarily 

 through selective mating ; the advertise- 

 ment and acceptance of this tendency is 

 the only hope for rescuing the political 



hierarchy from the maw of Bolsheviki. 

 Though we may be loath to admit it, the 

 smoothness of our government operation 

 is the outcome of the political wisdom 

 of the self-selected few who control 

 electorate votes. Where political power 

 happens to foregather in fairly wise 

 hands results are fairly satisfactory; 

 where it is unwisely used democracy is 

 less triumphant. 



One thing is certain, neither biological 

 nor political science has anything to 

 gain by adherence to a scientifically 

 repudiated mechanistic doctrine. Bio- 

 logically it has served its purpose in 

 stimulating research; politically it has 

 proven criminally defective. In the 

 hands of ignorance it undeniably fur- 

 thers irresponsibility and immorality, 

 notwithstanding naive protests of closest 

 biologists. 



As Dr. Frederick Adams Woods 

 indicates,- it may be possible to eliminate 

 despotic rulers by regulating the sources 

 from which they spring, but a prole- 

 tariat gone rabid, of misinformation and 

 impracticable ideals cannot be disposed 

 of so summarily. No satisfactorily 

 permanent substitute for common sense 

 has yet been found. Biology is under 

 the strongest obligation to unteach what 

 it has already taught, and leave politics 

 to work out its own salvation. While 

 agreeing with Mr. Ireland as to the 

 unfitness of majority to vote intelli- 

 gently on complicated political measures 

 it is less easy to accept his remedy. 



The glaring disparity between moral 

 profession and performance in the 

 modern world is its great defect. The 

 remedy lies, not in formal education, 

 not in biological formula; but in the 

 steady and consistent example of work 

 and sacrifice set by the knowing few for 

 the unknowing many. Convert the 

 energy of laudation and oratory into 

 useful, character producing work. Noth- 

 ing less will avail to stay the forces of 

 license and licentiousness ^.e': loose by a 

 mistaken application of biological doc- 

 trine. 



1 Journal of Heredity, December, 1918, p. 339. 

 - Journal of Heredity, December, 1918, p. 353. 



139 



