Chapter XVIII: The Eugenic Aspect of Some Specific Reforms (1)

Nearly every law and custom of a country has an influence direct or remote on eugenics. The eugenic progress to be expected if laws and customs are gradually but steadily modified in appropriate ways, is vastly greater and more practicable than is any possible gain which could be made at present through schemes for the direct control of "eugenic marriages."

In this present chapter, we try to point out some of the eugenic aspects of certain features of American society. It must not be supposed that we have any legislative panaceas to offer, or that the suggestions we make are necessarily the correct ones. We are primarily concerned with stimulating people to think about the eugenic aspects of their laws and customs. Once the public thinks, numerous changes will be tried and the results will show whether the changes shall be followed up or discontinued.

The eugenic point of view that we have here taken is becoming rather widespread, although it is often not recognized as eugenic. Thinkers in all subjects that concern social progress are beginning to realize that the test of whether or not a measure is good is its effect. The pragmatic school of philosophy, which has been in vogue in recent years, has reduced this attitude to a system. It is an attitude to be welcomed wherever it is found, for it only needs the addition of a knowledge of biology, to become eugenic.

TAXATION

To be just, any form of taxation should repress productive industry as little as possible, and should be of a kind that can not easily be shifted. In addition to these qualifications, it should, if possible, contribute directly to the eugenic strength of the nation by favoring, or at least by not penalizing, useful families. A heavy tax on land values (in extreme, the single-tax) and a heavy tax on bachelors have sometimes been proposed as likely to be eugenic in effect. But they are open to criticism. The tax on land values appears too likely to be indiscriminate in working: it would appear to favor inferior families as much as superior ones. The tax on bachelors is proposed as a means of getting bachelors to marry; but is this always desirable? It depends on the quality of the bachelors. Even at present it is our belief that, on the whole, the married men of the population are superior to the unmarried men. If the action of sexual selection is improved still further by the eugenics campaign, this difference in quality will be increased. It will then be rather an advantage that the bachelors should remain single, and a tax which would force them into marriage for reasons of economy, is not likely to result in any eugenic gain. But a moderate indirect tax by an exemption for a wife and each child after a general exemption of $2,000 would be desirable.

The inheritance tax seems less open to criticism. Very large inheritances should be taxed to a much greater degree than is at present attempted in the United States, and the tax should be placed, not on the total amount of the inheritance, but on the amount received by each individual beneficiary. This tends to prevent the unfair guarantee of riches to individuals regardless of their own worth and efforts. But to suggest, on the other hand, as has often been done, that inheritances should be confiscated by the government altogether, shows a lack of appreciation of the value of a reasonable right to bequeath in encouraging larger families among those having a high standard of living. It is not desirable to penalize the kind of strains which possess directing talent and constructive efficiency; and they certainly would be penalized if a man felt that no matter how much he might increase his fortune, he could not leave any of it to those who continued his stock.

The sum exempted should not be large enough to tempt the beneficiary to give up work and settle down into a life of complacent idleness, but enough to be of decided assistance to him in bringing up a family: $50,000 might be a good maximum. Above this, the rate should advance rapidly, and should be progressive, not proportional. A 50% tax on inheritances above $250,000 seems to us desirable, since large inheritances tend to interfere with the correlation of wealth and social worth, which is so necessary from a eugenic point of view as well as from that of social justice.

The Federal estate law, passed in September, 1916, is a step in the right direction. It places the exemption at $50,000 net. The rate, however, is not rapid enough in its rise: e.g., estates exceeding $250,000 but less than $450,000 are taxed only 4%, while the maximum, for estates above $5,000,000, is only 10%. This, moreover, is on the total estate, while we favor the plan that taxes not the total amount bequeathed but the amount inherited by each individual. With the ever increasing need of revenue, it is certain that Congress will make a radical increase in progressive inheritance tax on large fortunes, which should be retained after the war.

Wisconsin and California have introduced an interesting innovation by providing a further graded tax on inheritances in accordance with the degree of consanguinity between the testator and the beneficiary. Thus a small bequest to a son or daughter might be taxed only 1%; a large bequest to a trained nurse or a spiritualistic medium might be taxed 15%. This is frank recognition of the fact that inheritance is to be particularly justified as it tends to endow a superior family. Eugenically it may be permissible to make moderate bequests to brothers, nephews and nieces, as well as one's own children; and to endow philanthropies; but the State might well take a large part of any inheritance which would otherwise go to remote heirs, or to persons not related to the testator.

At present there is, on the whole, a negative correlation between size of family and income. The big families are, in general in the part of the population which has the smallest income, and it is well established that the number of children tends to decrease as the income increases and as a family rises in the social scale--a fact to which we have devoted some attention in earlier chapters. If this condition were to be permanent, it would be somewhat difficult to suggest a eugenic form of income tax. We believe, however, that it is not likely to be permanent in its present extent. The spread of birth control seems likely to reduce the negative correlation and the spread of eugenic ideas may possibly convert it into a slight positive correlation, so that the number of children may be more nearly proportional to the means of the family. Perhaps it is Utopian to expect a positive correlation in the near future, yet a decrease in the number of children born to the class of casual laborers and unskilled workers is pretty certain to take place as rapidly as the knowledge of methods of birth control is extended; and at present it does not seem that this extension can be stopped by any of the agencies that are opposing it.

If the size of a family becomes more nearly proportional to the income, instead of being inversely proportional to it as at present, and if income is even roughly a measure of the value of a family to the community--an assumption that can hardly be denied altogether, however much one may qualify it in individual cases,--then the problem of taxing family incomes will be easier. The effect of income differences will be, on the whole, eugenic. It would then seem desirable to exempt from taxation all incomes of married people below a certain critical sum, this amount being the point at which change in income may be supposed to not affect size of family. This means exemption of all incomes under $2,000, an additional $2,000 for a wife and an additional $2,000 for each child, and a steeply-graded advance above that amount, as very large incomes act to reduce the size of family by introducing a multiplicity of competing cares and interests. There is also a eugenic advantage in heavy taxes on harmful commodities and unapprovable luxuries.

THE "BACK TO THE FARM" MOVEMENT

One of the striking accompaniments of the development of American civilization, as of all other civilizations, is the growth of the cities. If (following the practice of the U. S. Census) all places with 2,500 or more population be classed as urban, it appears that 36.1% of the population of the United States was urban in 1890, that the percentage had risen to 40.5 in 1900, and that by 1910 not less than 46.3% of the total population was urban.

There are four components of this growth of urban population: (1) excess of births over deaths, (2) immigration from rural districts, (3) immigration from other countries, and (4) the extension of area by incorporation of suburbs. It is not to be supposed that the growth of the cities is wholly at the expense of the country; J. M. Gillette calculates[173] that 29.8% of the actual urban gain of 11,826,000 between 1900 and 1910 was due to migration from the country, the remaining 70.2% being accounted for by the other three causes enumerated.

Thus it appears that the movement from country to city is of considerable proportions, even though it be much less than has sometimes been alleged. This movement has eugenic importance because it is generally believed, although more statistical evidence is needed, that families tend to "run out" in a few generations under city conditions; and it is generally agreed that among those who leave the rural districts to go to the cities, there are found many of the best representatives of the country families.

If superior people are going to the large cities, and if this removal leads to a smaller reproductive contribution than they would otherwise have made, then the growth of great cities is an important dysgenic factor.

This is the view taken by O. F. Cook,[174] when he writes: "Statistically speaking cities are centers of population, but biologically or eugenically speaking they are centers of depopulation. They are like sink-holes or _siguanas_, as the Indians of Guatemala call the places where the streams of their country drop into subterranean channels and disappear. It never happens that cities develop large populations that go out and occupy the surrounding country. The movement of population is always toward the city. The currents of humanity pass into the urban _siguanas_ and are gone."

"If the time has really come for the consideration of practical eugenic measures, here is a place to begin, a subject worthy of the most careful study--how to rearrange our social and economic system so that more of the superior members of our race will stay on the land and raise families, instead of moving to the city and remaining unmarried or childless, or allowing their children to grow up in unfavorable urban environments that mean deterioration and extinction."

"The cities represent an eliminating agency of enormous efficiency, a present condition that sterilizes and exterminates individuals and lines of descent rapidly enough for all but the most sanguinary reformer. All that is needed for a practical solution of the eugenic problem is to reverse the present tendency for the better families to be drawn into the city and facilitate the drafting of others for urban duty.... The most practical eugenists of our age are the men who are solving the problems of living in the country and thus keeping more and better people under rural conditions where their families will survive."

"To recognize the relation of eugenics to agriculture," Mr. Cook concludes, "does not solve the problems of our race, but it indicates the basis on which the problems need to be solved, and the danger of wasting too much time and effort in attempting to salvage the derelict populations of the cities. However important the problems of urban society may be, they do not have fundamental significance from the standpoint of eugenics, because urban populations are essentially transient. The city performs the function of elimination, while agriculture represents the constructive eugenic condition which must be maintained and improved if the development of the race is to continue."

On the other hand, city life does select those who are adapted to it. It is said to favor the Mediterranean race in competition with the Nordic, so that mixed city populations tend to become more brunette, the Nordic strains dying out. How well this claim has been established statistically is open to question; but there can be no doubt that the Jewish race is an example of urban selection. It has withstood centuries of city life, usually under the most severe conditions, in ghettoes, and has survived and maintained a high average of mentality.

Until recently it has been impossible, because of the defective registration of vital statistics in the United States, to get figures which show the extent of the problem of urban sterilization. But Dr. Gillette has obtained evidence along several indirect lines, and is convinced that his figures are not far from the truth.[175] They show the difference to be very large and its eugenic significance of corresponding importance.

"When it is noted," Dr. Gillette says, "that the rural rate is almost twice the urban rate for the nation as a whole, that in only one division does the latter exceed the former, and that in some divisions the rural rate is three times the urban rate, it can scarcely be doubted that the factor of urbanization is the most important cause of lowered increase rates. Urban birth-rates are lower than rural birth-rates, and its death-rates are higher than those of the latter."

Considering the United States in nine geographical divisions, Dr. Gillette secured the following results:

RATE OF NET ANNUAL INCREASE
_Division_ _Rural_ _Urban_ _Average_
New England 5.0 7.3 6.8
Middle Atlantic 10.7 9.6 10.4
East North Central 12.4 10.8 11.6
West North Central 18.1 10.1 15.8
South Atlantic 18.9 6.00 16.0
East South Central 19.7 7.4 17.8
West South Central 23.9 10.2 21.6
Mountain 21.1 10.5 17.6
Pacific 12.6 6.6 9.8
---- ---- -----
Average 16.9 8.8 13.65

Even though fuller returns might show these calculations to be inaccurate, Dr. Gillette points out, they are all compiled on the same basis, and therefore can be fairly compared, since any unforeseen cause of increase or decrease would affect all alike.

It is difficult to compare the various divisions directly, because the racial composition of the population of each one is different. But the difference in rates is marked. The West South Central states would almost double their population in four decades, by natural increase alone, while New England would require 200 years to do so.

Dr. Gillette tried, by elaborate computations, to eliminate the effect of immigration and emigration in each division, in order to find out the standing of the old American stock. His conclusions confirm the beliefs of the most pessimistic. "Only three divisions, all Western, add to their population by means of an actual excess of income over outgo of native-born Americans," he reports. Even should this view turn out to be exaggerated, it is certain that the population of the United States is at present increasing largely because of immigration and the high fecundity of immigrant women, and that as far as its own older stock is concerned, it has ceased to increase.

To state that this is due largely to the fact that country people are moving to the city is by no means to solve the problem, in terms of eugenics. It merely shows the exact nature of the problem to be solved. This could be attacked at two points.

1. Attempts might be made to keep the rural population on the farms, and to encourage a movement from the cities back to the country. Measures to make rural life more attractive and remunerative and thus to keep the more energetic and capable young people on the farm, have great eugenic importance, from this point of view.

2. The growth of cities might be accepted as a necessary evil, an unavoidable feature of industrial civilization, and direct attempts might be made, through eugenic propaganda, to secure a higher birth-rate among the superior parts of the city population.

The second method seems in many ways the more practicable. On the other hand, the first method is in many ways more ideal, particularly because it would not only cause more children to be born, but furnish these children with a suitable environment after they were born, which the city can not do. On the other hand, the city offers the better environment for the especially gifted who require a specialized training and later the field for its use in most cases.

In practice, the problem will undoubtedly have to be attacked by eugenists on both sides. Dr. Gillette's statistics, showing the appalling need, should prove a stimulus to eugenic effort.

DEMOCRACY

By democracy we understand a government which is responsive to the will of a majority of the entire population, as opposed to an oligarchy where the sole power is in the hands of a small minority of the entire population, who are able to impose their will on the rest of the nation. In discussing immigration, we have pointed out that it is of great importance that the road for promotion of merit should always be open, and that the road for demotion of incompetence should likewise be open. These conditions are probably favored more by a democracy than by any other form of government, and to that extent democracy is distinctly advantageous to eugenics.

Yet this eugenic effect is not without a dysgenic after-effect. The very fact that recognition is attainable by all, means that democracy leads to social ambition; and social ambition leads to smaller families. This influence is manifested mainly in the women, whose desire to climb the social ladder is increased by the ease of ascent which is due to lack of rigid social barriers. But while ascent is possible for almost anyone, it is naturally favored by freedom from handicaps, such as a large family of children. In the "successful" business and professional classes, therefore, there is an inducement to the wife to limit the number of her offspring, in order that she may have more time to devote to social "duties." In a country like Germany, with more or less stratified social classes, this factor in the differential birth-rate is probably less operative. The solution in America is not to create an impermeable social stratification, but to create a public sentiment which will honor women more for motherhood than for eminence in the largely futile activities of polite society.

In quite another way, too great democratization of a country is dangerous. The tendency is to ask, in regard to any measure, "What do the people want?" while the question should be "What ought the people to want?" The _vox populi_ may and often does want something that is in the long run quite detrimental to the welfare of the state. The ultimate test of a state is whether it is strong enough to survive, and a measure that all the people, or a voting majority of them (which is the significant thing in a democracy), want, may be such as to handicap the state severely.

In general, experts are better able to decide what measures will be desirable in the long run, than are voters of the general population, most of whom know little about the real merits of many of the most important projects. Yet democracies have a tendency to scorn the advice of experts, most of the voters feeling that they are as good as any one else, and that their opinion is entitled to as much weight as that of the expert. This attitude naturally makes it difficult to secure the passage of measures which are eugenic or otherwise beneficial in character, since they often run counter to popular prejudices.

The initiative by small petitions, and the referendum as a frequent resort, are dangerous. They are of great value if so qualified as to be used only in real emergencies, as where a clique has got control of the government and is running it for its self-interest, but as a regularly and frequently functioning institution they are unlikely to result in wise statesmanship.

The wise democracy is that which recognizes that officials may be effectively chosen by vote, only for legislative offices; and which recognizes that for executive offices the choice must be definitely selective, that is, a choice of those who by merit are best fitted to fill the positions. Appointment in executive officers is not offensive when, as the name indicates, it is truly the best who govern. All methods of choice by properly judged competition or examination with a free chance to all, are, in principle, selective yet democratic in the best sense, that of "equality of opportunity." When the governing few are not the best fitted for the work, a so-called aristocracy is of course not an aristocracy (government by the best) at all, but merely an oligarchy. When officers chosen by vote are not well fitted then such a government is not "for the people."

Good government is then an aristo-democracy. In it the final control rests in a democratically chosen legislature working with a legislative commission of experts, but all executive and judicial functions are performed by those best qualified on the basis of executive or judicial ability, not vote-getting or speech-making ability. All, however, are eligible for such positions provided they can show genuine qualifications.

SOCIALISM

It is difficult to define socialism in terms that will make a discussion practicable. The socialist movement is one thing, the socialist political program is another. But though the idea of socialism has as many different forms as an amoeba, there is always a nucleus that remains constant,--the desire for what is conceived to be a more equitable distribution of wealth. The laborer should get the value which his labor produces, it is held, subject only to subtraction of such a part as is necessary to meet the costs of maintenance; and in order that as little as possible need be subtracted for that purpose, the socialists agree in demanding a considerable extension of the functions of government: collective ownership of railways, mines, the tools of production. The ideal socialistic state would be so organized, along these lines, that the producer would get as much as possible of what he produces, the non-producer nothing.

This principle of socialism is invariably accompanied by numerous associated principles, and it is on these associated principles, not on the fundamental principle, that eugenists and socialists come into conflict. Equalitarianism, in particular, is so great a part of current socialist thought that it is doubtful whether the socialist movement as such can exist without it. And this equalitarianism is usually interpreted not only to demand equality of opportunity, but is based on a belief in substantial equality of native ability, where opportunity is equal.

Any one who has read the preceding chapters will have no doubt that such a belief is incompatible with an understanding of the principles of biology. How, then, has it come to be such an integral part of socialism?

Apparently it is because the socialist movement is, on the whole, made up of those who are economically unsatisfied and discontented. Some of the intellectual leaders of the movement are far from inferior, but they too often find it necessary to share the views of their following, in order to retain this following. A group which feels itself inferior will naturally fall into an attitude of equalitarianism, whereas a group which felt itself superior to the rest of society would not be likely to.

Before criticising the socialistic attitude in detail, we will consider some of the criticisms which some socialists make of eugenics.

1. It is charged that eugenics infringes on the freedom of the individual. This charge (really that of the individualists more than of socialists strictly speaking) is based mainly on a misconception of what eugenics attempts to do. Coercive measures have little place in modern eugenics, despite the gibes of the comic press. We propose little or no interference with the freedom of the normal individual to follow his own inclinations in regard to marriage or parenthood; we regard indirect measures and the education of public opinion as the main practicable methods of procedure. Such coercive measures as we indorse are limited to grossly defective individuals, to whom the doctrine of personal liberty can not be applied without stultifying it.

It is indeed unfortunate that there are a few sincere advocates of eugenics who adhered to the idea of a wholesale surgical campaign. A few reformers have told the public for several years of the desirability of sterilizing the supposed 10,000,000 defectives at the bottom of the American population. Lately one campaigner has raised this figure to 15,000,000. Such fantastic proposals are properly resented by socialists and nearly every one else, but they are invariably associated in the public mind with the conception of eugenics, in spite of the fact that 99 out of 100 eugenists would repudiate them. The authors can speak only for themselves, in declaring that eugenics will not be promoted by coercive means except in a limited class of pathological cases; but they are confident that other geneticists, with a very few exceptions, hold the same attitude. There is no danger that this surgical campaign will ever attain formidable proportions, and the socialist, we believe, may rest assured that the progress of eugenics is not likely to infringe unwarrantably on the principle of individual freedom, either by sterilization or by coercive mating.

2. Eugenists are further charged with ignoring or paying too little attention to the influence of the environment in social reform. This charge is sometimes well founded, but it is not an inherent defect in the eugenics program. The eugenist only asks that both factors be taken into account, whereas in the past the factor of heredity has been too often ignored. In the last chapter of this book we make an effort to balance the two sides.

3. Again, it is alleged that eugenics proposes to substitute an aristocracy for a democracy. We do think that those who have superior ability should be given the greatest responsibilities in government. If aristocracy means a government by the people who are best qualified to govern, then eugenics has most to hope from an aristo-democratic system. But admission to office should always be open to anyone who shows the best ability; and the search for such ability must be much more thorough in the future than it has been in the past.

4. Eugenists are charged with hindering social progress by endeavoring to keep woman in the subordinate position of a domestic animal, by opposing the movement for her emancipation, by limiting her activity to child-bearing and refusing to recognize that she is in every way fitted to take an equal part with man in the world's work. This objection we have answered elsewhere, particularly in our discussion of feminism. We recognize the general equality of the two sexes, but demand a differentiation of function which will correspond to biological sex-specialization. We can not yield in our belief that woman's greatest function is motherhood, but recognition of this should increase, not diminish, the strength of her position in the state.

5. Eugenists are charged with ignoring the fact of economic determinism, the fact that a man's acts are governed by economic conditions. To debate this question would be tedious and unprofitable. While we concede the important rôle of economic determinism, we can not help feeling that its importance in the eyes of socialists is somewhat factitious. In the first place, it is obvious that there are differences in the achievements of fellow men. These socialists, having refused to accept the great weight of germinal differences in accounting for the main differences in achievement, have no alternative but to fall back on the theory of economic determinism. Further, socialism is essentially a reform movement; and if one expects to get aid for such a movement, it is essential that one represent the consequences as highly important. The doctrine of economic determinism of course furnishes ground for glowing accounts of the changes that could be made by economic reform, and therefore fits in well with the needs of the socialist propagandists. When the failure of many nations to make any use of their great resources in coal and water power is remembered; when the fact is recalled that many of the ablest socialist leaders have been the sons of well-to-do intellectuals who were never pinched by poverty; it must be believed that the importance of economic determinism in the socialist mind is caused more by its value for his propaganda purposes than a weighing of the evidence.

Such are, we believe, the chief grounds on which socialists criticise the eugenics movement. All of these criticisms should be stimulating, should lead eugenists to avoid mistakes in program or procedure. But none of them, we believe, is a serious objection to anything which the great body of eugenists proposes to do.

What is to be said on the other side? What faults does the eugenist find with the socialist movement?

For the central principle, the more equitable distribution of wealth, no discussion is necessary. Most students of eugenics would probably assent to its general desirability, although there is much room for discussion as to what constitutes a really equitable division of wealth. In sound socialist theory, it is to be distributed according to a man's value to society; but the determination of this value is usually made impossible, in socialist practice, by the intrusion of the metaphysical and untenable dogma of equalitarianism.

If one man is by nature as capable as another, and equality of opportunity[176] can be secured for all, it must follow that one man will be worth just as much as another; hence the equitable distribution of wealth would be an equal distribution of wealth, a proposal which some socialists have made. Most of the living leaders of the socialist movement certainly recognize its fallacy, but it seems so far to have been found necessary to lean very far in this direction for the maintenance of socialism as a movement of class protest.

Now this idea of the equality of human beings is, in every respect that can be tested, absolutely false, and any movement which depends on it will either be wrecked or, if successful, will wreck the state which it tries to operate. It will mean the penalization of real worth and the endowment of inferiority and incompetence. Eugenists can feel no sympathy for a doctrine which is so completely at variance with the facts of human nature.

But if it is admitted that men differ widely, and always must differ, in ability and worth, then eugenics can be in accord with the socialistic desire for distribution of wealth according to merit, for this will make it possible to favor and help perpetuate the valuable strains in the community and to discourage the inferior strains. T. N. Carver sums up the argument[177] concisely:

"Distribution according to worth, usefulness or service is the system which would most facilitate the progress of human adaptation. It would, in the first place, stimulate each individual by an appeal to his own self-interest, to make himself as useful as possible to the community. In the second place, it would leave him perfectly free to labor in the service of the community for altruistic reasons, if there was any altruism in his nature. In the third place it would exercise a beneficial selective influence upon the stock or race, because the useful members would survive and perpetuate their kind and the useless and criminal members would be exterminated."

In so far as socialists rid themselves of their sentimental and Utopian equalitarianism, the eugenist will join them willingly in a demand that the distribution of wealth be made to depend as far as feasible on the value of the individual to society.[178] As to the means by which this distribution can be made, there will of course be differences of opinion, to discuss which would be outside the province of this volume. Fundamentally, eugenics is anti-individualistic and in so far a socialistic movement, since it seeks a social end involving some degree of individual subordination, and this fact would be more frequently recognized if the movement which claims the name of socialist did not so often allow the wish to believe that a man's environmental change could eliminate natural inequalities to warp its attitude.

CHILD LABOR

It is often alleged that the abolition of child labor would be a great eugenic accomplishment; but as is the case with nearly all such proposals, the actual results are both complex and far-reaching.

The selective effects of child labor obviously operate directly on two generations: (1) the parental generation and (2) the filial generation, the children who are at work. The results of these two forms of selection must be considered separately.

1. On the parental generation. The children who labor mostly come from poor families, where every child up to the age of economic productivity is an economic burden. If the children go to work at an early age, the parents can afford to have more children and probably will, since the children soon become to some extent an asset rather than a liability. Child labor thus leads to a higher birth-rate of this class, abolition of child labor would lead to a lower birth-rate, since the parents could no longer afford to have so many children.

Karl Pearson has found reason to believe that this result can be statistically traced in the birth-rate of English working people,--that a considerable decline in their fecundity, due to voluntary restriction, began after the passage of each of the laws which restricted child labor and made children an expense from which no return could be expected.

If the abolition of child labor leads to the production of fewer children in a certain section of the population the value of the result to society, in this phase, will depend on whether or not society wants that strain proportionately increased. If it is an inferior stock, this one effect of the abolition of child labor would be eugenic.

Comparing the families whose children work with those whose children do not, one is likely to conclude that the former are on the average inferior to the latter. If so, child labor is in this one particular aspect dysgenic, and its abolition, leading to a lower birth-rate in this class of the population, will be an advantage.

2. On the filial generation. The obvious result of the abolition of child labor will be, as is often and graphically told, to give children a better chance of development. If they are of superior stock, and will be better parents for not having worked as children (a proviso which requires substantiation) the abolition of their labor will be of direct eugenic benefit. Otherwise, its results will be at most indirect; or, possibly, dysgenic, if they are of undesirable stock, and are enabled to survive in greater numbers and reproduce. In necessarily passing over the social and economic aspects of the question, we do not wish it thought that we advocate child labor for the purpose of killing off an undesirable stock prematurely. We are only concerned in pointing out that the effects of child labor are many and various.

The effect of its abolition within a single family further depends on whether the children who go to work are superior to those who stay at home. If the strongest and most intelligent children are sent to work and crippled or killed prematurely, while the weaklings and feeble-minded are kept at home, brought up on the earnings of the strong, and enabled to reach maturity and reproduce, then this aspect of child labor is distinctly dysgenic.

The desirability of prohibiting child labor is generally conceded on euthenic grounds, and we conclude that its results will on the whole be eugenic as well, but that they are more complex than is usually recognized.

COMPULSORY EDUCATION

Whether one favors or rejects compulsory education will probably be determined by other arguments than those derived from eugenics; nevertheless there are eugenic aspects of the problem which deserve to be recognized.

One of the effects of compulsory education is similar to that which follows the abolition of child labor--namely, that the child is made a source of expense, not of revenue, to the parent. Not only is the child unable to work, while at school, but to send him to school involves in practice dressing him better than would be necessary if he stayed at home. While it might fit the child to work more gainfully in later years, yet the years of gain are so long postponed that the parent can expect to share in but little of it.

These arguments would not affect the well-to-do parent, or the high-minded parent who was willing or able to make some sacrifice in order that his children might get as good a start as possible. But they may well affect the opposite type of parent, with low efficiency and low ideals.[179] This type of parent, finding that the system of compulsory education made children a liability, not an immediate asset, would thereby be led to reduce the size of his family, just as he seems to have done when child labor was prohibited in England and children ceased to be a source of revenue. Compulsory education has here, then, a eugenic effect, in discouraging the reproduction of parents with the least efficiency and altruism.

If this belief be well founded, it is likely that any measure tending to decrease the cost of schooling for children will tend to diminish this effect of compulsory education. Such measures as the free distribution of text-books, the provision of free lunches at noon, or the extension to school children of a reduced car-fare, make it easier for the selfish or inefficient parent to raise children; they cost him less and therefore he may tend to have more of them. If such were the case, the measures referred to, despite the euthenic considerations, must be classified as dysgenic.

In another and quite different way, compulsory education is of service to eugenics. The educational system should be a sieve, through which all the children of the country are passed,--or more accurately, a series of sieves, which will enable the teacher to determine just how far it is profitable to educate each child so that he may lead a life of the greatest possible usefulness to the state and happiness to himself. Obviously such a function would be inadequately discharged, if the sieve failed to get all the available material; and compulsory education makes it certain that none will be omitted.

It is very desirable that no child escape inspection, because of the importance of discovering every individual of exceptional ability or inability. Since the public educational system has not yet risen to the need of this systematic mental diagnosis, private philanthropy should for the present be alert to get appropriate treatment for the unusually promising individual. In Pittsburgh, a committee of the Civic Club is seeking youths of this type, who might be obliged to leave school prematurely for economic reasons, and is aiding them to appropriate opportunities. Such discriminating selection will probably become much more widespread and we may hope a recognized function of the schools, owing to the great public demonstration of psychometry now being conducted at the cantonments for the mental classification of recruits. Compulsory education is necessary for this selection.

We conclude that compulsory education, as such, is not only of service to eugenics through the selection it makes possible, but may serve in a more unsuspected way by cutting down the birth-rate of inferior families.

VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE AND TRAINING

In arguments for vocational guidance and education of youth, one does not often hear eugenics mentioned; yet these measures, if effectively carried out, seem likely to be of real eugenic value.

The need for as perfect a correlation as possible between income and eugenic worth, has been already emphasized. It is evident that if a man gets into the wrong job, a job for which he is not well fitted, he may make a very poor showing in life, while if properly trained in something suited to him, his income would have been considerably greater. It will be a distinct advantage to have superior young people get established earlier, and this can be done if they are directly taught efficiency in what they can do best, the boys being fitted for gainful occupations, and the girls for wifehood and motherhood in addition.

As to the details of vocational guidance, the eugenist is perhaps not entitled to give much advice; yet it seems likely that a more thorough study of the inheritance of ability would be of value to the educator. It was pointed out in Chapter IV that inheritance often seems to be highly specialized,--a fact which leads to the inference that the son might often do best in his father's calling or vocation, especially if his mother comes from a family marked by similar capacities. It is difficult to say how far the occupation of the son is, in modern conditions, determined by heredity and how far it is the result of chance, or the need of taking the first job open, the lack of any special qualifications for any particular work, or some similar environmental influence. Miss Perrin investigated 1,550 pairs of fathers and sons in the English _Dictionary of National Biography_ and an equal number in the English _Who's Who_. "It seems clear," she concluded, "that whether we take the present or the long period of the past embraced by the Dictionary, the environmental influences which induce a man in this country to follow his father's occupation must have remained very steady." She found the coefficient of contingency[180] between occupation of father and occupation of son in _Who's Who_ to be .75 and in the _Dictionary of National Biography_ .76. For the inheritance of physical and mental characters, in general, the coefficient would be about .5. She thinks, "therefore, we may say that in the choice of a profession inherited taste counts for about 2/3 and environmental conditions for about 1/3."

An examination of 990 seventh and eighth grade boys in the public schools of St. Paul[181] showed that only 11% of them desired to enter the occupation of their fathers; there was a pronounced tendency to choose occupations of a more remunerative or intellectual and less manual sort than that followed by the father. That this preference would always determine the ultimate occupation is not to be expected, as a considerable per cent may fail to show the necessary ability.

While inherited tastes and aptitude for some calling probably should carry a good deal of weight in vocational guidance, we can not share the exaggerated view which some sociologists hold about the great waste of ability through the existence of round pegs in square holes. This attitude is often expressed in such words as those of E. B. Woods: "Ability receives its reward only when it is presented with the opportunities of a fairly favorable environment, _its_ peculiarly indispensable sort of environment. Naval commanders are not likely to be developed in the Transvaal, nor literary men and artists in the soft coal fields of western Pennsylvania. For ten men who succeed as investigators, inventors, or diplomatists, there may be and probably are in some communities fifty more who would succeed better under the same circumstances."

While there is some truth in this view, it exaggerates the evil by ignoring the fact that good qualities frequently go together in an individual. The man of Transvaal who is by force of circumstances kept from a naval career is likely to distinguish himself as a successful colonist, and perhaps enrich the world even more than if he had been brought up in a maritime state and become a naval commander. It may be that his inherited talent fitted him to be a better naval commander than anything else; if so, it probably also fitted him to be better at many other things, than are the majority of men. "Intrinsically good traits have also good correlatives," physical, mental and moral.

F. A. Woods has brought together the best evidence of this, in his studies of the royal families of Europe. If the dozen best generals were selected from the men he has studied, they would of course surpass the average man enormously in military skill; but, as he points out, they would also surpass the average man to a very high degree as poets,--or doubtless as cooks or lawyers, had they given any time to those occupations.[182]

The above considerations lead to two suggestions for vocational guidance: (i) it is desirable to ascertain and make use of the child's inherited capacities as far as possible; but (2) it must not be supposed that every child inherits the ability to do one thing only, and will waste his life if he does not happen to get a chance to do that thing. It is easy to suppose that the man who makes a failure as a paperhanger might, if he had had the opportunity, have been a great electrical engineer; it is easy to cite a few cases, such as that of General U. S. Grant, which seem to lend some color to the theory, but statistical evidence would indicate it is not the rule. If a man makes a failure as a paperhanger, it is at least possible that he would have made a failure of very many things that he might try; and if a man makes a brilliant success as a paperhanger, or railway engineer, or school teacher, or chemist, he is a useful citizen who would probably have gained a fair measure of success in any one of several occupations that he might have taken up but not in all.

To sum up: vocational guidance and training are likely to be of much service to eugenics. They may derive direct help from heredity; and their exponents may also learn that a man who is really good in one thing is likely to be good in many things, and that a man who fails in one thing would not necessarily achieve success if he were put in some other career. One of their greatest services will probably be to put a lot of boys into skilled trades, for which they are adapted and where they will succeed, and thus prevent them from yielding to the desire for a more genteel clerical occupation, in which they will not do more than earn a bare living. This will assist in bringing about the high correlation between merit and income which is so much to be desired.

THE MINIMUM WAGE

Legal enactment of a minimum wage is often urged as a measure that would promote social welfare and race betterment. By minimum wage is to be understood, according to its advocates, not the wage that will support a single man, but one that will support a man, wife, and three or four children. In the United States, the sum necessary for this purpose can hardly be estimated at less than $2.50 a day.

A living wage is certainly desirable for every man, but the idea of giving every man a wage sufficient to support a family can not be considered eugenic. In the first place, it interferes with the adjustment of wages to ability, on the necessity of which we have often insisted. In the second place, it is not desirable that society should make it possible for every man to support a wife and three children; in many cases it is desirable that it be made impossible for him to do so. Eugenically, teaching methods of birth control to the married unskilled laborer is a sounder way of solving his problems, than subsidizing him so he can support a large family.

It must be frankly recognized that poverty is in many ways eugenic in its effect, and that with the spread of birth control among people below the poverty line, it is certain to be still more eugenic than at present. It represents an effective, even though a cruel, method of keeping down the net birth-rate of people who for one reason or another are not economically efficient; and the element of cruelty, involved in high infant mortality, will be largely mitigated by birth control. Free competition may be tempered to the extent of furnishing every man enough charity to feed him, if he requires charity for that purpose; and to feed his family, if he already has one; but charity which will allow him to increase his family, if he is too inefficient to support it by his own exertions, is rarely a benefit eugenically.

The minimum wage is admittedly not an attempt to pay a man what he is worth. It is an attempt to make it possible for every man, no matter what his economic or social value, to support a family. Therefore, in so far as it would encourage men of inferior quality to have or increase families, it is unquestionably dysgenic.

MOTHERS' PENSIONS

Half of the states of the Union have already adopted some form of pension for widowed mothers, and similar measures are being urged in nearly all remaining states. The earliest of these laws goes back only to 1911.

In general,[183] these laws apply to mothers who are widows, or in some cases to those who have lost their means of support through imprisonment or incapacity of the husband. The maximum age of the child on whose account allowance is made varies from 14 to 16, in a few cases to 17 or 18. The amount allowed for each child varies in each state, approximately between the limits of $100 and $200 a year. In most states the law demands that the mother be a fit person, physically, mentally and morally to bring up her children, and that it be to their interest that they remain with her at home instead of being placed at work or sent to some institution. In all cases considerable latitude is allowed the administrator of the law,--a juvenile court, or board of county commissioners, or some body with equivalent powers.

Laws of this character have often been described as being eugenic in effect, but examination shows little reason for such a characterization. Since the law applies for the most part to women who have lost their husbands, it is evident that it is not likely to affect the differential birth-rate which is of such concern to eugenics. On the whole, mothers' pensions must be put in the class of work which may be undertaken on humanitarian grounds, but they are probably slightly dysgenic rather than eugenic, since they favor the preservation of families which are, on the whole, of inferior quality, as shown by the lack of relatives with ability or willingness to help them. On the other hand, they are not likely to result in the production from these families of more children than those already in existence.

HOUSING

At present it is sometimes difficult, in the more fashionable quarters of large cities, to find apartments where families with children are admitted. In other parts of the city, this difficulty appears to be much less. Such a situation tends to discourage parenthood, on the part of young couples who come of good families and desire to live in the part of the city where their friends are to be found. It is at least likely to cause postponement of parenthood until they feel financially able to take a separate house. Here is an influence tending to lower the birth-rate of young couples who have social aspirations, at least to the extent of desiring to live in the pleasanter and more reputable part of their city. Such a hindrance exists to a much less extent, if at all, for those who have no reason for wanting to live in the fashionable part of the city. This discrimination of some apartment owners against families with children would therefore appear to be dysgenic in its effect.

Married people who wish to live in the more attractive part of a city should not be penalized. The remedy is to make it illegal to discriminate against children. It is gratifying to note that recently a number of apartment houses have been built in New York, especially with a view to the requirements of children. The movement deserves wide encouragement. Any apartment house is an unsatisfactory place in which to bring up children, but since under modern urban conditions it is inevitable that many children must be brought up in apartments, if they are brought up at all, the municipality should in its own interests take steps to ensure that conditions will be as good as possible for them. In a few cases of model tenements, the favored poor tenants are better off than the moderately well-to-do. It is essential that the latter be given a chance to have children and bring them up in comfortable surroundings, and the provision of suitable apartment houses would be a gain in every large city.