NATURE, HISTORY, AND ETHICS 419 



thing that holds good everywhere and at all times, and 

 cannot be suddenly destroyed by the very objects to 

 which it applies. 



It is true that the laws of nature hold good always, 

 and cannot be influenced by civilisation. Selection 

 would act even in a state that covered the whole world. 

 It merely demands that those shall survive who are 

 most in harmony with their actual environment. In a 

 universal state the conditions would be different from 

 what they are to-day. Selection would then allow those 

 individuals to multiply most who are best and quickest 

 able to secure maintenance and found a family. Even 

 if the state extends equal care to all its members there 

 will always be variations in the fertility of the citizens, 

 and the more fruitful will tend to predominate. 

 Whether they will be the more intelligent is another 

 question. It is, in fact, pretty clear that in such a 

 universal state, where cleverness would be no advantage 

 and would not put a man in a better position to found a 

 family, and where selection would no longer favour nien 

 according to their degree of intelligence, ability would 

 diminish. In the end the citizens might become too 

 stupid to maintain the state. It would break up, and 

 then selection would once more favour the more 

 intelligent ; they in turn would build up a state, which 

 would meet the same fate, and so on in an endless cycle. 



However that may be, we can see clearly how 

 difficult it is to build up a science of morality, or ethics, 

 on the principal of selection. We can hardly determine 

 what is "better" for our own time; how much less 



