292 THE EVOLUTION OF SEX. 



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. vSince 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 organisation 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, in- 

 creased 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, viz., 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 ex- 

 ponents of what is generally called neo-Malthusian doctrine. 

 This advocates the use of artificial preventive checks to fer- 

 tilisation. Discussion of this proposal is at present difiicult, 

 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 

 realisation 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 fertilisation is " interfering with 

 nature," in some utterly unwarrantable fashion, cannot be 



