Part 8

It is not easy to accept this view, but I think there are some facts that support it. I will advance a few. The hive of the honey-bee contains three kinds of insects: the queen, the drones or males, and the workers. The queen makes her nuptial flight but once in a life-time, and does it from instinct. How can an instinct like this have been acquired by being performed but once? The drones are derived from unfertilized eggs; yet their instincts are those of the male, not of the female. As they have no male ancestors, it seems probable there was in the germ-plasm of some queen bee, at a time far back, some change which allowed unfertilized eggs to produce males.

The workers are all females, not fully developed sexually on account of a diet with too small a proportion of nitrogenous food and containing so large a proportion of the hydrocarbons. They inherit from the mother, or rather from the germ-plasm, the instinct to gather honey, yet neither their male nor female ancestors ever gathered any honey in their lives, nor have they for ages. Far back in antiquity the queen, no doubt, did gather honey, but the disuse of this instinct has not caused it to disappear in the working bee, as it should have done according to the Lamarckian theory of disuse causing decay of function. Is there any way to account for this, except on the theory that the germ-plasm produces working bees as well as the other kinds, irrespective of the habits of the queen? Her character in this respect is fixed and does not change. Is it unreasonable to think that some time in the past, in some queen bee, was formed a germ-plasm capable of producing three varieties, and that there was such an advantage in it for survival, that it has been continued ever since by natural selection? Queens not able to do this have not been selected, left no offspring, and thus the perfection of the stock has been assured.

One more case. Some years ago, when interested in agricultural entomology, I made a study of the so-called seventeen-year locust. Noting the wonderful precision with which the female cuts into a soft twig of a tree and lays its eggs in two rows, the thought was suggested to me, how can an instinct, used only a few hours, once in seventeen years, be acquired by exercise and persist in the offspring seventeen years later? Weismann's theory of the origin of instinct from favorable variations in the germ-plasm offers, it seems to me, a rational explanation.

I do not need to extend illustrations which abound in the insect world, especially among the ants, which furnish cases of coadaptation that cannot be transmitted, as they do not propagate, so I will not mention them here.

Now, if acquired characters _are not_ transmitted to offspring, how should these facts affect our methods of educating children?

One advantage will be evident, I think, to all. Erroneous systems of training, which do not injure the health, will not appear through heredity in the offspring of parents thus wrongly trained, except as a result of environment. That is to say, the injury does not become congenital--will not be in the blood--and, consequently, it will be less difficult to eradicate it and to introduce better systems. This may be considered an advantage. But it is not all. If heredity takes place only through the germ-plasm, then it seems to me that whatever promotes a knowledge of how to maintain it in a high degree of health, and how to favor more perfectly natural selection, are subjects with which our educators may busy themselves far more than they do. That is to say, the study of biology, of life--of the laws of human growth and development, and of evolution, will become, more and more, important factors in our school curriculum. We can hardly imagine how much our common every-day life has been aided by even the slight knowledge of mathematics gained by an acquaintance with addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. By it we are able to keep our little accounts correctly, and neither cheat our creditors nor be cheated by them. Could we not by a knowledge of the laws of evolution, and also the laws of growth and development, keep our larger account with nature in a far better condition? Could we not keep ourselves from being cheated out of our health and happiness, and also do something to put an end to physical, intellectual and moral deterioration which threatens so many families and even races? It seems to me that the time is not far distant when these studies will be quite as much attended to as the not unimportant ones of arithmetic and grammar.

KNOWLEDGE OF HEREDITY.--Whatever doctrine of heredity prevails, however, one thing is certain, some knowledge of the subject will be very useful to those who have in care the training of children. To them, often more than to the parent, is entrusted the task of developing the character and the individuality of the child. Can he do this well if he knows nothing of what the bent of the child's genius from ancestral influence is? I doubt very much if any of us realize how important it is that this individuality should have its proper share of attention. As the evolution of society goes on, more and more must there be differentiation of our various activities. If every boy and every girl can be educated so that to a considerable extent they can follow the bent of their genius, _whenever that bent is a normal one_, will not the available intellectual and moral energy of society be considerably augmented? If you educate a boy which nature intended for a blacksmith for a preacher, has not the world lost something? Educate another for a blacksmith who should have been a preacher, is there not also a great loss? There are a few children who will come out all right, no matter how much they are schooled, or whether they have any schooling, so well have they been born, but with the majority this is not the case. Now it seems to me that the teacher who knows the natures of his pupils, and something of their ancestors', can direct their energies more satisfactorily than the one who does not. If there are hereditary defects of intellect or morals, he can more easily correct them. If there are ancestral tendencies to disease through imperfections of certain organs, for instance, the lungs or the brain, he can often put the child on such a course of physical culture or mental training as to lift it above danger, so that it may go through life a useful person instead of a feeble one or a lunatic. Even the tendency to crime might be averted.

INDIVIDUALITY.--If we could educate the young so as to bring out more fully their normal individualities we should be able to cultivate in them more independence of character. On this subject Prof. Mills says: "With all its imperfections, I am bound to say that the individuality of the pupils in the old log school-house was often more developed than in the city public schools of today, where for a boy to be himself frequently brings with it the ridicule of his fellows--a condition of things that has its effect afterward on the lad at college. I find that this fear of being considered odd,--out of harmony with what others may think,--one of the greatest drawbacks to the development of independent investigating students at college. The case is still worse for girls. When women begin to be really independent in thought, in feeling, in action, I shall be more hopeful of the progress of mankind. Happily, the dawn of this day is already begun."

We must not forget that there is also a spectre of heredity. It is seen under different forms. The physician is often reminded by his patients that they have inherited this or that disease from father or mother, or an ancestor farther back. Now, there are few diseases which come to us directly through inheritance. In a majority of cases they are not transmitted. Even consumption is not. If we accept the modern theory of its origin, as we must, this plague is the result of germs floating in the air being introduced into our bodies by respiration, or in food, or through contact with abraided Surfaces. Those with weakened constitutions are more liable to it than the strong, and a weakened constitution may be inherited, for in this case the germ-plasm will not be well nourished and will suffer; but those thus handicapped in the race of life will get on far better by endowing themselves with knowledge and obeying the laws of life than they can by living under the shadow of the great spectre of heredity, and casting anathemas at their ancestors for not having done more for them. No doubt most of them have done the best they could; and if life is worth living, as most of us believe, we owe them many thanks for having brought us into the world.

THE SPECTRE OF HEREDITY.--There is a spectre of heredity of a more serious nature. It is the spirit of the dead past, with its mighty hand on society, on institutions, on modes of life. Wendell Phillips used to tell a story, in his anti-slavery addresses, which illustrates the evil effect of this inherited spectre. It ran in this wise. In an Eastern temple, an idol, in the image of a god, stood calmly on its pedestal. It was sacrilege to touch it with human hands; but rats having no such feelings of awe in the presence of a deity, began to gnaw about it in various places, yet no one was bold enough to remove it to a place of safety; and so the rats gnawed on and on, and built their nests within the sacred image. In time they loosened it from its firm foundation, and one morning, when the worshippers came in to pay their devotions, they found their god had fallen prostrate on the floor. So it is sometimes with our inherited beliefs. They hold us back from progress like a heavy weight. We fear to remove them, for they are sacred inheritances, idols, gods, and so our institutions decay, perish.

FOOTNOTES:

[106:A] Darwin did not regard this experiment as settling this question. He had great affection, so to speak, for this poor, despised theory, and believed it would finally be established as in the main true.

EVOLUTION'S HOPEFUL PROMISE FOR A HEALTHIER RACE.

_Given before the Greenacre Conference of Evolutionists._

We have most of us in the past looked upon health as a matter of inheritance, or temperance and moderation in working, in eating and drinking; or as depending on climate; or exercise, or plenty of sleep, pure water and a morning bath, or some other secret, one or more of which is pretty sure to be in the possession of most persons who have lived long enough to have had some experience with those things that do them good or harm. All these agencies have great value; but I think few of us realize that nature, through the laws of evolution, has long been working to produce a brave and strong, healthy and hardy race of men and women by other methods than those health habits which most of us value so highly.

Nature has been doing this chiefly by two methods, and it seems necessary that I should say something about them in order to present my subject as I wish to present it. The methods to which I refer are those of sexual and natural selection. It is to these two processes that we are largely indebted for race improvements--more perfect bodies, more active brains, and the high degree of health which a considerable portion of the race enjoys.

SEXUAL SELECTION.--By sexual selection is meant that preference which the male or the female has for certain characteristics of the other sex. It also includes the advantages which the stronger and more capable male has over the weaker one in obtaining a choice, or, among polygamous animals, a larger number of females, thus allowing offspring to be generated by the most capable, and preventing the most incapable from procuring mates.

The first principle of sexual selection, that of preference, would imply a considerable development of the intellect, and some taste, but I do not think it has had great influence on the lower forms of life. It is difficult to study the preferences of insects, for instance; but I have studied the moth of the silkworm, and could never observe that either male or female had a choice for any particular mate. They always appear to take the first one that comes along. I think this is the conclusion come to by those entomologists who have had opportunities for studying other insects. The spider might perhaps be studied in this relation to advantage, as the female is ferocious, often eating her male suitors while they are trying to woo her. Nor do I believe that it is a very important matter in many other animals. Certainly among the domestic ones--the sheep, the horse, the bull and the cow--a superior male and female will mate with inferior ones of the opposite sex, apparently without the slightest objection. I have sometimes thought I had observed in pigeons a preference, having occasionally seen a male leave his mate for a more attractive female; at least one that seemed more attractive to me.

When it comes to sexual selection through struggle, no doubt there has been great advantage, and it has produced important effects. This occurs among polygamous and also among non-polygamous animals, and the strong males are certain to secure the largest number of females and, consequently, leave the largest number of offspring. This would, no doubt, through the laws of inheritance, be beneficial in producing animals of greater vigor and more perfect health. But even in this case, the males seem to have little preference for any particular female; and so while the least vigorous ones would leave few, and many no offspring, the least vigorous females would leave nearly as many as the more vigorous ones. Still, through pure-blooded males alone, stockbreeders tell us, herds of cattle can be brought up to a high degree of perfection in three or four generations, even if the females, at the beginning of the experiment, are inferior. The first generation would be half pure blood; the second three-fourths; the third, seven-eighths, and the fourth fifteen-sixteenths, or almost thoroughbred.

When it comes to man, however, the case is different. With him sexual selection is more important, and the preference shown by both sexes is very marked. Many women have strong prejudices against marrying men with certain characteristics, and nothing will induce them to such a union. So strong are the desires many of them have for mates with particular qualities, that they prefer to remain single rather than marry one not possessing these qualities. Through this preference, on the whole, the better and those most adapted mate with those most suited to them, and a considerably larger class of physically and mentally inferior ones do not mate at all, or, if they do, leave few offspring. The idiot would stand no chance of securing a mate, although, if left free, he would unite with another idiot, like an animal. Such things have happened, and the offspring were not idiots, as might have been expected; but they were not superior beings. The most deformed in body would, in most cases, unless they had mental traits of a high order to counterbalance them, rarely find mates. Thus, through this agency, some of the poorest specimens of both sexes do not produce offspring, and this raises the standard of the health and ability of the race.

There are many characters which have come into existence, it is believed, through sexual selection. One is beauty in women, greater beauty of form, of hair, of eyes, of grace, fidelity, chastity, power of love, etc. These all give pleasure to the opposite sex, and have an element of usefulness in them. Whenever these characters have appeared in women they have given the possessors a better chance to find a partner with superior characters. The same is true of men. Woman being debarred from the hardest labor through maternity has found it useful, even in early times, to choose men who were strong, brave, courageous and capable of defending and caring for her, so far as was possible, and thus by sexual selection she has indirectly promoted health and vigor in man, for these qualities are inseparable from it.

But the results of sexual selection are by no means perfect. The sexes are nearly equally divided, and as polygamy is not to any great extent practiced among human beings, with the exception of those already named, most men and women can find mates if they wish, even though they may have many serious imperfections of body and mind, and from them many children will be born physically and mentally incompetent.

There is no doubt that sexual selection is coming more and more into play, however. We have abundant evidence of this in the growing sentiment against the marriage of those with a tendency to any serious disease, as insanity, syphilis, etc. Only a little while ago was published an account of a suit for a breach of promise brought by a young woman in an English court against her suitor. He, having in view the value of a healthy wife, and also of children well endowed physically, asked her before the engagement if any of her near relatives had died of consumption, and she replied that none had, which he afterwards found was not true. On learning of it he refused to marry her. I am sorry to say that she won her suit. One of the questions asked in court was: "Is it possible that a lover would ask such questions of his sweetheart as would be asked of a candidate for life insurance?"

Courtship is such a delightful occupation for the young, that it seems a pity to mar it by bringing in questions of health. Yet men and women are often such deceivers, and frequently so ignorant, that some way must be devised to prevent deception if sexual selection is ever expected to have its full influence on race improvement.

HUMAN SELECTION.--Under the head of human selection Galton and Wallace have made some interesting and valuable suggestions for improving the health and quality of man. Mr. Galton proposed a system of marks for family health, intellect and morals, and those members of families having the highest number were to be encouraged to marry early by state endowments sufficient to enable them to make a good start in life, early marriages being favorable to large families. It was a bold suggestion, savoring too strongly of socialism or state control of marriage to suit many of us.

Professor Wallace's plan is that women shall, so far as possible, be made independent, so that they will not feel the necessity of marrying for a home. Her time might be occupied either in public duties or self-culture, or any occupation she might prefer. She should be educated to believe it degrading to marry for a home, without love and adaptation, and equally wrong to marry her inferior. This would compel men to be more manly, to leave off their bad habits and many vices, in order to obtain wives; and the idle, selfish, sickly and deformed would not easily get them. One difficulty in the way of carrying out this plan is the greater number of women in society as it exists today, owing to the larger mortality among boys. But by a better hygiene which is likely to result from the evolution of the race, this greater mortality of the masculine sex is certain in the future to be prevented, and there will then be an excess of men instead of women. This will be a real advantage, for a scarcity of women would give her a greater influence in selection, and the result would be, the worst men would not be able to get wives.

Being in a minority, women would be held in higher esteem, be more sought for, and have a real choice in marriage by being able to reject unsatisfactory suitors, which is certainly not the case now to any considerable extent.

Mr. Wallace's plan would not require such early marriages as that of Mr. Galton's, and this would be a positive benefit to the physical vigor of the children, for we know that the progeny of too early marriages are more delicate, and reproduction before bodily maturity lowers the standard of health in parents as well as of their offspring. Marriage being delayed, and the culture of the mind being more attended to than is possible when it is early, would reduce the number of children in any family, and this would enable parents to bestow more care upon them. It would also prevent, to a limited extent, over-multiplication of the race, which is a real evil, for if every couple left three or four children the whole world would soon be full, and over-population would result in much disease.

Mr. Wallace's scheme has in view the prevention of marriage by the weak and worthless. He believes that if this can be done little more will be required, for the superior would be the only ones to procreate, and this would be quite sufficient in a few generations to produce a strong and healthy race. He calls his plan that of "human selection," but it may be considered practically as a modification of sexual selection.

NATURAL SELECTION.--Natural selection is another process which takes place on an enormous scale and constantly among all organisms, whether animal or vegetable. Natural selection is the result of the operation of certain laws in the natural world which brings about the survival of those best fitted for their environment. It is a weeding-out system by the destruction of a certain portion, at least, if not all, of the weak and the bad, and it occurs because there is such a rapid increase of most organisms. We speak of it as the survival of the fittest, but it is also, at the same time, the destruction of the unfit.

Mr. Darwin says: "We have seen that man is variable in body and mind, and that the variations are induced either directly or indirectly by the same general causes, and obey the same general laws as with the lower animals. Man has spread widely over the face of the earth, and must have been exposed during his incessant migrations to the most diversified conditions. They must have passed through many climates and changed their habits many times before they reached their present homes. They must have been exposed to a struggle for existence and, consequently, to the rigid law of natural selection. Beneficial variations of all kinds have been preserved and injurious ones eliminated. If, then, the progenitors of man, inhabiting any district, especially one undergoing some changed conditions, were divided into two equal bodies, the one-half including those with the best adapted powers for movement, for gaining a subsistence, for self-defence, would, on the average, have more offspring than the other and the less well endowed half."