EUGENICS, THE WAR 



INSTINCT AND DEMOCRACY 



Journal of Heredity: 



Certain articles that have appeared 

 in the journal during the last five or six 

 months have moved me to a certain 

 amount of speculation, which I now 

 put forward tentatively. They are 

 merely the speculations of a layman. 



In one number of the journal (which 

 I have not at hand and cannot definitely 

 refer to) was an article (by Woods, I 

 believe) to the effect that war might be 

 beneficial by aiding Nature in her 

 problem of the survival of the fittest.^ 

 Does not war rather tend to take the 

 fittest from each nation, and kill, or 

 maim, or break them with disease, and 

 in this way, rather than leave Nation A 

 stronger than Nation B, leave B weaker 

 than A, and both A and B, and hence 

 the race, weaker than before? In the 

 same number was an article by Popenoe 

 which attempted to demonstrate that 

 war is inevitable, because of an innate 

 instinct in man for war, an hereditary 

 instinct, an instinct which is therefore 

 as ineradicable as one's heart or lungs. 

 Is there not rather a desire for occupa- 

 tion, for a struggle for existence, which 

 under favorable circumstances may be 

 directed along industrial, scientific, and 

 artistic lines, but which under unfavor- 

 able conditions may run to marauding 

 and bloodshed? It is a notable fact, 

 at any rate, that all of the wars in the 

 history of civilization have been due 

 either to the ambitions of some foolish 

 monarch or to the commercial interests 

 of those classes from which a monarch 

 draws his support. Perhaps if these 

 wars had not occurred, others would, 

 due to the innate desire of which the 

 author speaks; perhaps peace would 



have reigned; there is no telling. But 

 supposing both or either of these theories 

 to be correct, they seem to me, unless 

 followed to their natural conclusion, to 

 be rather dangerous doctrines to preach. 

 There are four possibilities in regard 

 to them. 



1. War is neither beneficial nor in- 

 evitable, in which case we should do 

 everything in our power to forestall the 

 possibility of war. 



2. War is beneficial but evitable. In 

 this case one can only ask how much 

 excessive war is beneficial, for certainly 

 too much war means extinction. What 

 scientist will draw the line between too 

 much and enough? I scarcely think 

 there is any. Then we take no more 

 risks in evading war than in indulging 

 in . it — for how can we tell that we do 

 not indulge too much? And war is a 

 different thing to control, anyway — 

 once it gets started there is no saying 

 how far it will go. A well-directed 

 system of executions would be much 

 safer. So the same thing to do in this 

 case, of course, would be to look to our 

 present weal as we cannot look to our 

 future and forestall any possibility of 

 war. 



3. War is detrimental but inevitable. 

 If this be true we can only remove all 

 superficial causes of war, and for the 

 rest either resign ourselves or shake our 

 fists at the Unknowable, as our natures 

 or religions dictate. 



4. War is beneficial and inevitable. 

 In this event, war is a result of natural 

 law, and, as a result of natural law, is 

 beneficial. But it no less surely follows 

 that any war that is not the result of 

 natural law, but the result of super- 



1 The article is by Alleyne Ireland in the November number, 1918. It concerns a quotation 

 from "Is War Diminishing?" by Woods and Baltzly. The contention, however, was never made 

 by these authors that war is eugenic. Woods pointed out some possible eugenic aspects of war 

 that were ignored by partisan writers and by the then numerous pacifists. The disgenic aspects 

 of war are also here considered, and the contention is made that further researches are necessary. 

 — Acting Editor. 



254 



