142 H. J. MULLER 



of environment. At the same time, we are brought to realize that, in a 

 society having such glaring inequalities of environment as ours, our tests 

 are of little account in the determination of individual genetic differences in 

 intelligence, except in some cases where these differences are extreme or 

 where essential likeness of both home and outer environment can be proved. 



If the above is true of intelligence, it is even more true of temperamental 

 traits, moral qualities, etc., since these are more responsive to conditioning 

 than are purely intellectual characteristics. Thus, certain slum districts 

 of our cities constitute veritable factories for the production of criminality 

 among those who happen to be born in them, whether their parents were 

 of the criminal class or not, and, as Jack Black for instance has shown, an 

 analysis of the lives of various individual criminals reveals to what an extent 

 potentially valuable citizens may be turned to a life of habitual crime 

 through the pressure of our social system. Under these circumstances it is 

 society, not the individual, which is the real criminal, and which stands to be 

 judged. 



Naturally, the apologists for the still existing order would have us naively 

 accept appearances at their face value. Their justification of the existing 

 order depends upon this acceptance. This is bound to lead to a false genetic 

 valuation of individuals, of classes, and of races, so long as this system lasts. 

 The apologists defend their position with the a priori argument that, in the 

 social struggle, the better rise to the top. They neglect to show that suc- 

 cess in modern economic competition depends on many other factors, 

 besides innate endowment, and that today we have increasingly operative, 

 instead, the principle of: "to him that hath shall be given." But if we 

 assume that inborn differences do play some role, the question is, what 

 role? Are the characteristics which now lead men to rise, economically, 

 those which are most desirable, from a social point of view? It could at 

 least as well be maintained that the dominant classes tend to have the 

 genetic equipment which would be least desirable in a well ordered social 

 system, since they have been selected chiefly on the basis of predatory, 

 rather than truly constructive, behavior. A study of the lives of many 

 eminent financiers confirms this. The "respectable" captain of industry, 

 military leader or politician, and the successful gangster are psychologically 

 not so far apart. The high-minded, the scrupulous, the idealistic, the 

 generous, and those who are too intelligent to confine their interests to then- 

 personal success, these are apt to be left behind in the present-day battle. 



This brings us to consideration of another topic: what should be the 

 eugenic goal? So long as present conditions continue the ideology of the 

 people must in the main be a reflection of that of the now dominant class, 



