582 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. VOL. XXXm. No. 850 



that men can not be put in laboratories and 

 experimented on. It would seem, therefore, 

 that observation must have a place in studies 

 of man that it need not have in animal in- 

 vestigations. In the second place, the tests be- 

 tween the two methods do not lie in problems 

 of normal development, but of pathology and 

 degeneration. There are few observations 

 about normality that are worth much. Social 

 observations are mainly about defects and ab- 

 normalities. Keeping these facts in mind, the 

 issue is clear. I will state it in the words of 

 Dr. F. A. Woods. " Experimentally and sta- 

 tistically there is not a grain of proof that 

 ordinarily environment can alter the salient 

 mental and moral traits in any measurable 

 degree from what they were predetermined to 

 be through innate influences."" To test such 

 a statement it must first be asked what are 

 " mental and moral traits." If Dr. Woods 

 means traits like sympathy, I agree with him. 

 I know of no observational evidence showing 

 it can be altered except by organic develop- 

 ment. This may be true of all positive char- 

 acters. But many so-called characters are not 

 positive traits, but merely conditions. We can 

 not make good men better merely by an en- 

 vironmental change but we can in this way 

 eliminate vice. Is there then a difference be- 

 tween a condition that leads to degeneration 

 and a biologic trait that is necessary for 

 progress? To be specific, are drunkenness, 

 hysteria and criminal tendencies conditions 

 having objective causes or are they biologic 

 characters? Social observers point out what 

 the conditions are that bring on these results 

 and contend that the so-called traits appear 

 and disappear with the presence or absence of 

 given objective conditions. The deductive 

 biologists start with premises about germ 

 cells and apply their conclusions to man with- 

 out verification. The difference is not one of 

 fact, but of the sufiicieucy of bold reasoning. 



If, as Dr. Minot asserts, scientists seldom 

 err in conclusions when their measurements 

 are exact the weight of authority is with 

 theorists. I am not so sure of this as he is. 

 The weakness seems to me to lie in the dif- 



'The Popular Science Monthly, April, 1910. 



ference between the conditions of man's sur- 

 vival and those of lower animals. Before the 

 rise of social sentiments elimination acted 

 sharply against the defective individual, and 

 hence degeneration could not become promi- 

 nent. Then all traits were traits of survival 

 and few pathological states appeared. Man, 

 however, through sympathy preserves the 

 weak and hence lowers the average man be- 

 low his normal condition. If we regard one hun- 

 dred points as the normal level in the animal 

 world the lack of ten points would lead to elim- 

 ination. In human society, however, a man 

 could lack forty points and yet perpetuate his 

 kind. I do not wish to attempt a mathe- 

 matical demonstration, but it is plain that hu- 

 man sympathy reduces materially the sharp- 

 ness of elimination. Sympathy could not act 

 in this way if society did not have a surplus 

 that it used to maintain the defectives. 

 Sympathy is thus the indirect cause of the 

 failure of elimination, but a condition of sur- 

 plus is its direct cause. If it were absent, 

 only normal people and normal traits would 

 survive. 



There are two objective conditions that re- 

 flect themselves in abnormal traits, a condi- 

 tion of surplus and a condition of deficit. 

 The traits due to a surplus are usually called 

 vices, while those of deficit are called crimes. 

 These terms are not sharply contrasted, but 

 their use is definite enough to illustrate my 

 meaning. Give men more than they need and 

 they sink into vice : take from them what they 

 need and they become criminal. If vices and 

 crimes can be changed or removed by altering 

 income conditions we have proof that vicious 

 and criminal traits are not biologic but eco- 

 nomic in origin. We can then conclude that 

 abnormal traits are not true biologic char- 

 acters, but the impressment of economic con- 

 ditions which are modified as the environment 

 gives a surplus or deficit to those within it. 

 A condition of deficit desocializes those who 

 suffer from it and thus brings out atavistic 

 traits not appearing in normal persons. A 

 condition of surplus making people emotional, 

 morbid and hysterical undermines the power 

 of the will. Deficit people can be said to be 



