4l6 DARWINISM AND THE PROBLEMS OF LIFE 



and artisans. But these more intelligent men are 

 prevented from reproducing. In this way for centuries 

 the more intelligent have been taken out of each 

 generation, and their better germ - qualities have 

 perished with them, because they were forbidden to 

 have children. Thus the intelligent were continuously 

 selected for destruction, the stupid were enabled to 

 pass on their inferior germ-qualities to the next genera- 

 tion, and the mental level of the race was bound to be 

 gradually lowered.^ 



However, the scientific treatment of the evils of our 

 time seems to be fairly justified. What must we make 

 of the positive moral laws of sociology ? 



We must point out in the first place that there is a 

 view which predicts the greatest future, not for society, 

 but for the individual. This is the well-known philo- 

 sophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, though founded before 

 him by Max Stirner. 



^ We may regard celibacy from another, I would almost say a more 

 fitting-point of view. We are told that the peasants give to the clergy 

 those of their sons who are least suitable for agricultural work. In 

 other words, the weaker are selected for barrenness, and so celibacy 

 must tend to strengthen the next generation. In the same way it may 

 be contended that military training is of great service to our young 

 men. It would certainly be better for humanity if nations did not 

 face each other armed to the teeth, but we are still very far from this, 

 and standing armies are at present inevitable. Moreover, it may be 

 objected to the proposal to condemn weaklings and the diseased to 

 infertility that it is impracticable. In my opinion all these questions 

 should be settled by the historical method, because the work of natural 

 science is merely the theoretical interpretation of the world. This will 

 be made clear in what follows. 



I was, therefore, surprised when a reviewer in a New York Journal 

 observed that my point of view — which he calls Darwinian-ethical — 

 can hardly be maintained on practical grounds. That is not my point 

 of view, as I think I have clearly stated. 



