November d, 1891.J 



SCIENCE. 



259 



Capellini, Hauchecorne, Bejrich, Eenevier, Vilanova, Delgado, de 

 Lapparent, Dewalque, Torell, and a few others who have been the 

 acknowledged leaders and directors of the congress, and most of 

 whom have attended every session, not one was here. In fact, 

 with the exception of Professors Gaudry, von Zittell, T. M. K. 

 Hughes. Dr. Barrois, and perhaps two or three more, there were 

 no geologists of the first rank from abroad at all. Professor 

 Hauchecorne stated three years ago that he intended to bring 

 twenty or thirty mining students from Germany to visit our an- 

 thracite regions, yet the writer is informed that after the arrange- 

 ments for a visit to the anthracite fields had been completed by 

 others than the Washington committee, no one took advantage of 

 the opportunity. 



As to the work done, according to the reporter of the American 

 Geologist, "the congress passed off with the simple presenta- 

 tion, largely or entirely, of some American views on American 

 geology, followed by such desultory comment or discussion as hap- 

 pened to spring up." 



The "long excursions" may have resulted in much good to the 

 visitors. It is to be doped that they did, for the subscription price 

 was prohibitive for many foreigners who would have been best 

 able to profit by them. Persifor Feazeb. 



Philadelphia, Pa., Oct. 27. 



The Man of the Future. 



A READING of the article under the above heading by Dr. Shu- 

 feldt (Science. Oct. 16) impresses me with the manifold difficulties 

 attending all speculations regarding the future history of tbe race, 

 as a result of the varying standpoints occupied by the anthropo- 

 logical prophets. 



The problem of human progress seems to have a five-fold aspect, 

 physical, material, social, moral, and intellectual; and it therefore 

 involves questions belonging to sciences as widely divergent as 

 physiology, technology, sociology, and psychology. 



Upon its first phase Dr. Shufeldt, as a professional biologist, 

 can sjieak with much more authority than myself. But there is 

 not wanting excellent biological authority for the supposition that 

 a further natural development in this respect is precluded by the 

 artificial conditions which have made man to a large extent inde- 

 pendent of those laws whose operation is traceable in all the his- 

 tory of organic evolution. This, of course, does not militate 

 against the probability of changes tending towards his perfect 

 adaptation to the erect posture and the elimination of rtidimentary 

 structures, as resulting from the varying conditions of his artificial 

 environment. Although in the sub-human state the environment 

 may have made the man, in the human state the man, generally 

 speaking, makes his environment. The care taken to preserve 

 the sickly, imbecile, and otherwise useless or noxious members of 

 society, is, from this point of view, a powerful anti-progressive 

 factor. The refinements of civilization place man out of the reach 

 of natural selection, and operate to diminish his vital energy, at 

 the same time they promote delicacy of structure. Such practices 

 as tight-lacing and foot-pressing are barbarous customs, tending 

 truly, as Dr. Shufeldt observes, to produce structural modifications, 

 but certainly doomed to extinction at the very next stage of psy- 

 chological evolution. 



The ruling ethical codes not only give rise to an unscientific 

 tenderness, but they operate to prevent sexual selection. The only 

 serious attempt at scientific human stirpiculture was in the Oneida 

 Community; and this has been a failure, partly because of the 

 inevitable triumph of traditional instincts over speculative princi- 

 ples, as soon as the zeal of the experimenters had cooled, and 

 partly because of symptoms of a violent crusade against the ex- 

 periment by the exponents of the accepted morality. If the gov- 

 ernment could follow the suggestion made by Professor Lester F. 

 Ward and other savants, and relegate the whole business of the 

 propagation of the species to individuals especially selected for 

 the purpose, a very rapid improvement would naturally take place ; 

 but the plan is fraught with collateral difficulties, and, even if 

 these could be overcome, it seems to be forever out of the question, 

 on account of the moral impossibility of obtaining for it, under 

 any conceivable circumstances, the sanction of public opinion. 



Dr. Shufeldt's prediction of the abolition of war is open to th& 

 criticism that we have no knowledge of any animal whose exist- 

 ence is not accompanied, if not maintained, by warfare and even 

 deliberate slaughter. Progress has thus far tended, not towards 

 peace, but towards periodicity in war. The engines of destructiort 

 become daily more deadly, and each war is more costly, both in 

 men and money, than the preceding. Chateaubriand, in his pam- 

 phlet "De Bonaparte et des Bourbons," calculated that more lives 

 had been lost during the Napoleonic wars than during the whole 

 of the Middle Ages throughout all Christendom. An argument in 

 favor of war, considered in the abstract, is that its psychological 

 effects are exceedingly good, and that periods of peace are usually 

 periods of moral degradation. 



The material progress of the past century has been unquestiona- 

 bly enormous, and as its continuance seems to be assured for all 

 time, it is difficult to set a limit to its possibilities; but this field is 

 a well-worked one, and predictions are superfluous. It must be 

 observed, however, that the problem of aerial navigation seems 

 on the point of being solved, now that it has passed out of the 

 hands of charlatans into those of serious scientific investigators; 

 and if it once becomes an accomplished fact, it will produce sucb 

 changes in the conditions of human life as to vitiate any specula- 

 tions which do not take it into account. 



The social progress of the world, or even of Christendom, I ven- 

 ture to believe problematical. The principle of political and social 

 equality seems to be directly in the teeth of modem science, which 

 assures us, above all things else, that inequality is not merely an. 

 existing fact throughout the whole domain of nature, but that it 

 is the sine qua non of progress. Every new type is created by 

 the accumulation of variations in the old. The differentiation of 

 the patrician classes from the plebian is a continuation of the 

 same process which, according to the evolutionary hypothesis, has 

 differentiated from each other all the diverse forms of animal and 

 vegetable life. The tendency in modern society to obliterate 

 hereditary distinctions is detrimental to progress, for so far as it 

 is carried out it makes impossible the production of any higher 

 human type than the present. 



Furthermore, the laws of nature are uniform throughout all 

 realms, and that of specialization of function holds good in soci- 

 ology as well as in biology. The highest social condition would 

 be one in which every social, industrial, and political function was^ 

 performed by a distinct class, concentrating upon that function 

 all its energies. It is this principle which alone makes tbe man 

 structurally superior to the Anioeba ; and the popular negation 

 of it is an indication that the tide of social development is in it& 

 ebb. 



This negation is not usually extended to the industrial realm, 

 where specialization of function is the order of the day. But this 

 industrial progress has given rise to grave problems, which cannot 

 be solved in a half-hour. 



It is when we come to the psychological aspect of progress that 

 we are confronted with the most serious difficulties, for upon no 

 point is there a greater variance of opinion in the thinking world 

 than upon the lines which true moral, religious, and intellectual 

 progress must follow. 



It is even a debatable question whether there can be any moral 

 or religious progress, as it is denied that ethics or religion have 

 any other than a pathological significance. To give them validity, 

 there must be a real object and true mode of worship, and an im- 

 perative norm of duty. It would seem, on the one hand, that it 

 is impossible to verify or vindicate scientifically these fundamen- 

 tal postulates ; and yet both religion and ethics are so characteris- 

 tic of the human species as to lead to the suspicion of a psycho- 

 logical atavism wherever they are absent. 



Passing by this antinomy, it is evident that if there are any re- 

 ligious and ethical facts, they must be capable of definition, classi- 

 fication, and rational exploitation: in other words, a science may 

 be erected upon them, and a progress in this science must take 

 place parallel to that which every other science is undergoing. 



The question of intellectual progress in general is as difficult as 

 that of religion and morals. Such a progress may take two forms; 

 either the accumulation of knowledge, or the development of the 

 faculties of tliought and observation. As regards the first, no one 



