12 
The increase of reason and experience tended at first to 
intensify the struggle for existence, and to make human develop- 
ment ethically worse as it became more rational; but now an 
altruistic conscience had come to mitigate this process. The 
destruction of man by individual man was condemned by an 
universal sentiment. The public conscience no longer allowed, 
at Jeast in its ethical theory, one set of men to support and enrich 
themselves by procuring the degradation and suffering of others ; 
or, as Huxley put it, ‘It repudiates the gladiatorial theory of 
existence,” and is directed “not so much to the survival of the 
fittest as to the fitting of as many as possible to survive.” Such 
views were based on the application of rules of conduct, for the 
operation of which there was still a wide sphere open. 
The adoption of altruistic principles had acted rather by 
creating a disposition to welcome measures on behalf of public 
health than by furnishing a practical basis for them. Support for 
such measures was given chiefly on economical grounds—a fact 
not to be regretted, since there was a limit to the resources of 
every community and a consequent duty to husband and apply 
them to the best advantage. Moreover, it was closely interwoven 
with the economic well-being of the community, and at times the 
ebb and flow of the public mind (and also one’s own personal 
faith) seemed to throw doubt on this association. The lecturer 
regarded this as so important that considerations on which it was 
based were worth studying shortly, as also was the alternative 
view, viz., that influences, tending to improve the health of strong 
and weak indiscriminately, helped to preserve weaklings who would 
otherwise drop out, and, as a consequence, the average strength of 
the race was reduced and increasing unfitness laid up for future 
generations. 
As an example of this line of thought, the lecturer quoted 
Professor Karl Pearson as follows :—‘‘ We have two groups in the 
community—one parasitic to the other. The latter thinks of 
to-morrow and is childless, the former takes no thought and 
multiplies. It can only end as the case so often ends—the 
parasite kills its host and so ends the tale for both alike.” And 
elsewhere “the birth-rate of the better type of working men has 
been falling off more rapidly than the birth-rate of the nation as a 
whole.” Mr. Balfour also argued at the British Association 
Meeting (September, 1904), that inasmuch as when men won 
their way from lower to middle rank their progeny diminished 
owing to later marriages, &c., ‘‘it seems that as the State 
contrives education so as to allow this rising from a lower to an 
upper class, so much does it do something to diminish the actual 
quality of the breed. . . . There is, or seems to be, no 
escape from the melancholy conclusion that everything done 
towards opening careers to those of the lower class does something 
towards the deterioration of the race.” 

EO 
a 
