1322 LIFE : OUTLINES OF GENERAL BIOLOGY 



and evolve very unequally. Yet he does not thereby revert to the 

 aristocratic exaggerations, errors, and consequent decadences of 

 the past. 



Long ago, when some optimist was praising the traditional 

 economic ways of success and of getting on in life, as even into the 

 peerage, Huxley grimly remarked: "No doubt very fine for these 

 classes; but how about getting their incompetent members and 

 successors down again? Is not that often the greater difficulty?" 

 Every true eugenist must admit that he is bound b}^ his doctrines 

 to tackle that question too. His goal may thus be described as 

 towards true aristo- democracy, and also true demo-aristocracy; 

 yet not by going back upon "equality of opportunity", but through 

 yet more thorough provision of this; and much through seeing to 

 its true selection as well. That "the tools are to those who can 

 handle them aright" is neither a proposition of old social pri\dleges, 

 nor of later political election. It is a high calling indeed, and an 

 election which should become sure: yet open, as Christianity at its 

 best, before all races, all classes — "Barbarian, Scythian, bond or 

 free". Democracy and freedom have rightly affirmed their claims to 

 seek and choose their best leaders, and to find and choose yet better 

 when they can: so here is a further help for them to do it; and a 

 further incentive, not only to be worthy of such leadership, but to 

 see to producing more of it anew and among themselves. 



How then put these doctrines more clearly before the community — 

 and even get their applications into it? Again mental inertia blocks 

 the way. Intensity of appeal is thus needed ; so here we may slightly 

 condense a passage from a recent vivid American presentment of 

 the case for Eugenics (A. E. Wiggam. The New Decalogue of Science, 

 London (Dent), 1924), and in a volume addressed as an open letter 

 to "H.E. The Statesman, Executive Mansion". 



"The first commandment of science to statesmanship is the duty of 

 eugenics. 3,000 years after the Hebrew statesmen incorporated eugenics 

 into their civil and canon law, 2,400 years after Plato gave it formulation 

 in political philosophy, 2,000 years after Jesus reinforced its moral and 

 religious sanctions, 60 years after Darwin, 50 after Galton, 30 after 

 Weismann, and 20 after Mendel, I seem to hear you inquiring, in vague, 

 mystified wonder, 'What is Eugenics ?' 



"Perhaps I can best answer by pointing out first what Eugenics is not. 

 Eugenics is not free-love, not sex-hygiene, not public health, not trial 

 marriage, not a vice-crusade, not pre-natal culture, nor physical culture, 

 not enforced marriage, not killing off the weaklings, not a scheme for 

 breeding supermen, or producing genius to order, not for taking the 

 romance out of love, not for breeding human beings like animals, and 

 not a departure from the soundest ideas of sex-morals, love, marriage, 

 home and parenthood .... Turning to the positive side, and modern- 

 ising Galton's definition, 'Eugenics is the study of all those agencies 

 that are within social control, which will improve or impair the inborn 



