32 



The Journal of Hf.rkditv 



of our race. Though often making 

 much of our moral responsibility, and 

 of the possibilities of attaining to some 

 other existence after the life of this 

 world, we have been accustomed to 

 think of the future of mankind as 

 something essentially beyond our con- 

 trol. That we have a biological re- 

 sponsibility for the generations that are 

 to come is a new idea for ovir race. In 

 this perception our wise men remained 

 far behind the sages of ancient Greece, 

 where racial improvement was recog- 

 nized as one of the chief duties of 

 patriotism. 



IMPORTANCE OF HEREDITY. 



But now we have begun to sec that it 

 may be possible, by taking thought of 

 heredity, to navigate the stream of life 

 with greater safety and avoid some of 

 the whirlpools, rocks and quicksands 

 which have destroyed our predecessors. 

 And we see too that our race has reached 

 the stage of development where civiliza- 

 tion begins to be destructive, by inter- 

 fering with the processes of natural 

 selection that guide the progress and 

 guard the strength of primitive peoples. 

 Many forms of weakness and degenera- 

 tion are arising and being preserved 

 amongst us. 



Yet the first stage of awakening to 

 our eugenic responsibilities even brings 

 new dangers. Anxiety to atone for past 

 neglect and zeal of a new cause may lead 

 eugenic reformers to attempt to seize 

 the rudder before they learn what 

 course to steer. This danger of pre- 

 mature interference with our social 

 system on the ground of eugenic reform 

 might be illustrated by many of the 

 suggestions that arc made along the 

 line of direct application of animal 

 breeding methods to mankind, not to 

 speak of suggestions that are justified by 

 nothing that we know of plant or animal 

 breeding. Pity and prudence alike 

 demand that useless suflfering be avoided 

 by reducing the proportion of deformed, 

 defective or constitutionally diseased. 

 However important this may be, it 

 represents, after all, only the first or 

 preliminary stage of eugenic responsi- 

 bility and may even misrepresent the 

 true objects and ideals of the eugenic 

 movement. Sterilization of criminals and 



defectives would be one way to diminish 

 the populations of prisons and asylums 

 and thus reduce the taxes that future gen- 

 erations must pay, but to urge such meas- 

 ures on the ground of eugenics is like 

 recommending house-cleaning as a sub- 

 stitute for architectual skill in building 

 the houses. If our eugenic sensibilities 

 were more highly developed the pro- 

 gress of the race would not be endanger- 

 ed by the propagation of defects and 

 abnormalities. 



The investigation of abnormal hered- 

 ity can be described as eugenics only 

 by way of contrast and precaution, and 

 should not be allowed to displace the 

 primary idea of eugenics as an investi- 

 gation of the possibilities of constructive 

 improvement of the race. It might be 

 better if the study of hereditary defects in 

 mankind were recognized as a separate 

 branch of biological science under such 

 a name as dysgenics or cacogenics, just 

 as teratology is treated as a special 

 branch of plant and animal morphology. 

 Dysgenics would relate more properly 

 to the study of defects as such, caco- 

 genics to the production of the bad 

 instead of the good, as when selection 

 is reversed and the weak multiply in- 

 stead of the strong. 



EUGENICS NOT DYSGENICS. 



Whatever the names, it is certainly 

 most unfortunate to allow the general 

 public to gain the idea that eugenics is 

 a study of diseases and abnomialities. 

 Yet this impression is frequently re- 

 flected in the public press and even in 

 the comic journals. The middle-aged 

 aunt is pictured as saying to the sweet 

 girl graduate, "My dear, what a 

 great deal of unpleasant knowledge you 

 seem to have." "Yes, Auntie, but you 

 know I've done a lot of work in eu- 

 genics." 



Dcfomiity, degeneration and disease 

 are unpleasant ideas, but progress and 

 perfectibility are not. The real ques- 

 tion, of course, is not whether facts are 

 pleasant, but whether we are giving 

 attention to the important facts, those 

 that will enlighten our judgment in 

 dealing with eugenic problems. To 

 dwell much ui^on the wrong facts may 

 be worse than leaving the whole matter 

 alone. 



