Volume 1

Popular science / edited by Arthur Mee.

Date:
1912-1913
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)

Credit: Popular science / edited by Arthur Mee. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    793/802 (page 763)
    be, between % those who accept it and those who reject it—'nothing but ceaseless war until the triumph of the right. The instant that the conception of the two germ-cells has occurred, a new human life is in the world ; and the very persistence of mankind is in danger if we relax the in defeasible rigour of the principle that that new life, and every existing life, at that and every subsequent stage, is entitled to the best nurture for its needs. All New Life that Comes into the World > must be Regarded as Sacred The Eugenist sees, what no one else sees, that in only too many cases the new life should never have been made. He sees, and must teach the world, that its care and control must begin earlier than ever here tofore. He must repeatedly protest against the folly and carelessness which have permitted, say, the feeble-minded girl of sixteen to wander in the streets and be ruined, and help to ruin the future, after the daily fashion which disgraces all who know and do not protest against it. But the principle here laid down is that, the instant a new life has been formed, and always thereafter, the claims of Natural Eugenics can no longer be heard in that particular case. The Eugenist should have spoken sooner, or, if he spoke and was not heard, he must register his protest, and now proceed to make the best of a bad business, saying, “ I told you so,” at every lamentable stage in the development and history of the half-witted or diseased child which the folly of society has brought into the world. But no matter what that new life may be, no matter how certain to be part not of the wealth but of the illth of the nation, no matter whether the invisible beginnings of its history are in a palace or a slum, or whether its parents be married or unmarried, that is a new human life in the world; it is therefore sacred, and entitled to whatever conditions will make of it the best that its nature makes possible. The Lie that the Labour of a Mother in a Factory Does No Harm Not by denying that will the Eugenist ever obtain the consent of public opinion to the merciful prevention of parenthood that can only result in offspring worthless to them selves and to others, hopeless and dangerous whatever nurture, whatever love and money and tears, be expended upon them. Logically, nurture comes second in our study and our campaign, and that state ment of its place is the distinctive mark of modern eugenics. Nevertheless, for several reasons we shall here deal with nurture or Nurtural Eugenics first, and with Nature and Natural Eugenics thereafter. The best of those reasons is that the demands of nurture are clear, requiring no previous research in genetics, and that public opinion already assents to the principle, and is seeking to apply it in many ways. Further, we must attempt to stem the flood of pseudo-eugenic literature with which the public in this country, though fortunately not in America or on the Continent, is being plied by the statisticians, to the effect that nurture is negligible, and in a lecture, not yet three months old, to the effect that the labour of a mother in a factory, rather than in her home, does no harm to her children. Here we find our analyses met with the old question, so familiar and so foolish: Which is the more important, heredity or environment, “nature or nurture”? To the biologist, who sees both factors neces sary for every tissue, organ, function, feature, of every living thing, the question is a futile one. There is no better illustra tion of the truth enunciated by Bacon, that the triumph of philosophy depends upon rightly putting the question to Nature. The False ideas about Heredity that are Taught To-day If a living creature were made of a piece contributed by heredity, and a second piece manufactured from the environment, and stuck on to the first, the question could be asked and answered. If, for instance, a new cell grew into an adult by plastering its food outside itself, then we could say that such and such a percentage of its composition was due to nature, and such and such to nurture. But that is not what happens. Every iota of the organism is a product of multiplication, in which two factors, nature and nurture, are necessary, for we cannot multiply without two factors, and ten times nothing is not ten, but nothing. Notwithstanding the simplicity of the facts, for many years past we have been taught on all hands, in many contradictory voices, that nature has an influence upon the individual equal to, say, 75 per cent., and nurture 25 per cent.—or the other way about. Both statements are equally wrong and equally right. When the mathematicians tell the public and the students of life that nature is more important than nurture, say, as re gards longevity, the simple and final reply is —what nurture ? And a few drops of prussic acid in the calculators’ soup, no matter how long-lived their ancestors, would demonstrate