412 



The Journal of Hp:redity 



aristogenics tending to jjcrfcction as a 

 limit. 



But, as actual disease introduces new 

 factors and new duties into hygiene, so 

 are essentially deteriorating factors in- 

 troduced into eugenics. It should be 

 our task to determine the nature of 

 these factors of what may be termed 

 absolute cacogenics as distinguished 

 from relative cacogenics. 



Relative eugenics — the sort which 

 might, e.g., insist that the eugenics of 

 the white race is the cacogenics of the 

 black race — is of far less theoretical 

 interest than absolute eugenics — the sort 

 which might seek the amelioration of 

 the whole human race by hereditary 

 factors. In my capacity as a loyal son 

 of Japhct, I might, as interested in the 

 relative eugenics of the Caucasian, 

 desire the extermination of the black 

 race, and any hereditary factor which 

 would tend to the black's survival I 

 should regard as cacogenic for the 

 Caucasian. Obviously, however, the 

 son of Ham can fairly assert the same 

 philosophy, and Caucasian cacogenics 

 could be legitimately termed, by the 

 Ethiops, Ethiopian eugenics. 



THE VIEW-POINT. 



Herein we discuss to no more purpose 

 than with regard to the relative merits 

 of breeding for milk or breeding for 

 beef. Nor have we the recourse of 

 referring to our bank-accounts as in the 

 milk versus V)eef j^roV^lem. 



What the theorist of relative eugenics 

 is reduced to is the identification of 

 eugenics and cacogenics and the defini- 

 tion of each according to some point of 

 view. To me such eugenics of the view- 

 point is unsatisfactory, if not revolting. 

 The "view-point" or "relative" eugen- 

 ist of British race has really no answer 

 to the Cerman who might say that 

 Galtonian eugenics is nothing but a 

 prudential onslaught on Germany, an 

 endeavor to meet the German war- 

 policy. Naturally nothing was more 

 remote from Galton's mind, albeit I do 

 not doubt he was a loyal Englishman 

 and desired his race to excel. 



No! British eugeincs is not Gemian 

 cacogenics, and (k-nnan eugenics is not 



British cacogenics! Rather must tho 

 improvement of the inborn qualities of 

 both races proceed to such a point that 

 the peace of Europe can never be 

 threatened. Let the improvement of 

 the races proceed as much in the 

 twentieth century as in the nineteenth, 

 and the peace of Eiu"ope might never be 

 threatened. Perhaps all we need is 

 another Faraday, another Helmholtz, 

 another Darwin, and another Pasteur. 

 Four gifts like these do not seem over- 

 much to ask, since the world is in the 

 habit of receiving them. To be sure 

 in the cases of Faraday and Pasteur, 

 there are no available hereditary data 

 which ])rove that they are aristogenic 

 products. And the case of Helmholtz 

 is not so good as that of Darwin for the 

 aristogenic proof. Yet think how young 

 is the form of investigation which 

 could bring that proof. And eugenics 

 remains civilization's best technique for 

 transforming itself through the works 

 of great men. Or shall we just wait for 

 something to turn u])? 



Is there then any legitimate field for a 

 logically sound cacogenics? Alas! yes. 

 There is, I believe, a sense in which 

 cacogenics is not a relative term, not 

 merely a term to express that what is 

 meat for one is jjoison for another. 

 Absolute cacogenics is a kind of patho- 

 logical eugenics. The cacogenic is not 

 merely the less eugenic, any more than 

 the morbid is the less healthy. Just as 

 there are in some sense degrees of 

 health, so there are in some sense degrees 

 of disease: — but it would be rash to say 

 that the two .scales of health and disease 

 could be set end to end and so jjolarized 

 that the least degree of disease would 

 just precede the least degree of health. 



NO CONTINUITY. 



We spoke above of golden age eugenics 

 as capable of a more or less, even if 

 cacogenic factors were 1\\- hyi^othesis 

 absent:— but who would su])])o.se that, 

 beginning (a) with the worst cacogenics 

 (let us say cakistogenics) and rising in 

 the scale (b) to the least and faintest 

 cacogenics, we shall then slide over (c) 

 into the least eugenics and finallv 



