PSYCHOGENESIS 369 



and Lamarck, just as Charles Darwin, Spencer and Butler, 

 were all in their respective provinces pioneers of 

 Bio-Economics, which, of course, it is comparatively easy to 

 develop to-day owing- to their various labours. 



Butler warns us that the term ''fittest" in survival can 

 only apply to those variations into which " a moral and 

 intellectual system of payment according to results has largely 

 entered " ; i.e., as I would say, what " Selection " there is in 

 Nature is in accordance with bio-economic qualifications. The 

 same thing is really implied when Butler speaks of " the 

 survival of those who know best how to turn fortune to 

 account " ; i.e., those who have remained within the bond of 

 symbiogenesis. 



Butler's demurrer to Darwin's attempt at "pitch-forking 

 mind out of the universe " is interesting, and, as I do not 

 believe that Butler's biological writings have yet had their due, 

 I feel justified in quoting him further at some length. Thus, 

 as regards Darwin's remark that " we must suppose that there 

 is a power represented by natural selection or the survival of 

 the fittest always intently watching each slight alteration, 

 etc.," he says : 



Mr. Darwin probably said : "A power represented by natural selec- 

 tion " instead of " natural selection " only, because he saw that to talk 

 too frequently about the fact that the most lucky live longest as 

 " intently watching " something was greater nonsense than it would 

 be prudent even for him to write, so he fogged it by making the intent 

 watching done by " a power represented by," a fact, instead of by the 

 fact itself. As the sentence stands it is just as great nonsense as it 

 would have been if "the survival of the fittest" had been allowed to 

 do the watching instead of ' ' the power represented by ' ' the survival of 

 the fittest ; but the nonsense is harder to dig up, and the reader is more 

 likely to pass it over. This passage gave Mr. Darwin no less trouble 

 than it must have given to many of his readers. In the original 

 edition of the Origin of Species it stood, "Further, we must suppose 

 that there is a power always intently watching each slight accidental 

 variation." I suppose it was felt that if this was allowed to stand, 

 it might be fairly asked what natural selection was doing all this time ? 

 If the power was able to do everything that was necessary now, why 

 not always? and why any natural selection at all? This clearly woiild 



