LAWS OF MULTIPLICATION. 269 



holds true of all species, yet most fully of man, since that modification 

 of psychical activities in which his evolution essentially lies, is par 

 excellence and increasingly the respect in which artificial comes in to 

 replace natural selection. Without therefore ignoring the latter, or 

 hoping ever wholly to escape from the iron grasp of Nature, we yet 

 have within our power more and more to mitigate the pressure of 

 population, and that without any sacrifice of progress, but actually 

 by hastening it. Since, then, the remedy of pressure and the hope 

 of progress alike lie in advancing individuation, the course for practical 

 action is clear, — it is in the organization of these alternate reactions 

 between bettered environment (material, mental, social, moral) and 

 better organism in which the whole evolution of life is defined, in 

 the conscious and rational adjustment of the struggle into the culture 

 of existence. 



The practical corollaries of the Malthusian view are celibacy, late 

 marriage, and moral control ; the objections are vice, increased 

 mortality in childbirth, and the present low evolution of our moral 

 nature. The practical corollary of the Darwinian doctrine is virtually 

 nil; the objection, that the survival of what we consider the best types 

 is doubtful, and that the survival of the fit is apt to be cruel. The 

 practical corollaries of the Spencerian principle, although Mr. Spencer 

 can hardly be said to have insisted upon these, are individuate and 

 educate. The objection is, that the pressure of population is already 

 felt, and that individuation is a matter of centuries. Furthermore, the 

 effect of education, for instance in reducing sexuality, will tell most 

 where it is least wanted, namely, among the best types. 



We are therefore bound to include, as a continuation of the above 

 table, the amendment of some of the most thoughtful exponents of 

 what is generally called neo- Malthusian doctrine. This advocates the 

 use of artificial preventive checks to fertilization. Discussion of this 

 proposal is at present difficult, because of the comparative absence of 

 distinctly expressed opinion on the part of medical experts, and because 

 of strong superficial prejudices, not only against the scheme, but 

 against its discussion. These prejudices are, however, dying out; and 

 that is well, for they do nothing but obscure appreciation alike of the 

 merits and demerits of the doctrine. An increasing realization of the 

 plain facts of reproduction and population must rapidly exterminate the 

 persistently theological absurdities which people utter, if they do not 

 believe on the subject. The vague feeling that control of fertilization 

 is "interfering with Nature," in some utterly unwarrantable fashion, 

 can not be consistently stated by those who live in the midst of our 

 highly artificial civilization. The strongest prejudice seems to be 

 based in a moral cowardice, which gauges a scheme by its " respecta- 



