342 ANNUAL, REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 19 3 5 



perfect stale of society envisaged by our major prophets, where "econ- 

 omy of plenty " will assure, as we are told, that no one will have to 

 work much for a living, and where the higher philosophy that holds 

 " human rights above property rights " (without perhaps clearly 

 understanding what it means by either) assures that in any event 

 everybody shall be kept alive at public expense whether he works or 

 not, is there not the barest possibility that there might appear a 

 somewhat general inclination on the part of the more intelligent 

 members of the group to opt for the philosophy rather than for the 

 communal work (however slight in amount) ? If anything like this 

 should happen might not the economy of plenty some day find itself 

 once again in a parlous state of unplenty? Not being myself a de- 

 pendable prophet I venture no answer. But in any case, and re- 

 gardless of details, it is difficult to convince a biologist that a social 

 philosophy will endure for any great length of time that deliberately 

 and complacently loads upon the always weary backs of the able and 

 fit an evergrowing burden. If there is one thing certain in the 

 science of biology it is that no species or variety of plant or animal 

 has long survived that was intrinsically incapable of making its own 

 living. There is somewhere a biological limit to altruism, even for 

 man. A large part of the world today gives the impression that it 

 is determined to find the exact locus of that limit as speedily as 

 possible. 



IV 



Up to this point the discussion has been of the social consequences 

 of firmly established biological principles. In what regions of bi- 

 ology may there be expected with some confidence developments new 

 in principle, and with important implications for human behavior, 

 thought, and social relations? Probably not, one is fairly safe in 

 saying, in such fields as morphology, embryology, or taxonomy. The 

 advances in the field of genetics, which has to a considerable degree 

 dominated biological thought during nearly a half century and will 

 probably continue to for some time yet, will inevitably have an in- 

 creasing influence on human affairs as the meaning of its advances 

 is better understood. But this influence seems on the whole likely 

 to be more of a negative than positive character — a matter of avoid- 

 ances, taboos, and prohibitions rather than of positive contributions 

 to human biological progress. Heredity represents the entailed side 

 of biology — things given — about which it is extremely difficult really 

 to do anything effective in the face of other compelling elements of 

 human life and living, especially those elements belonging in the 

 psycho-biological realm. 



It seems probable that advances likely to be made in physiology 

 and psychobiology may profoundly alter human affairs and outlooks 



