Chapter 28

Professor J. W. A. Young, of the University of Chicago, in his work on "Mathematics in Prussia," says: "In the work in mathematics done in the nine years from the age of nine on, we Americans accomplish no more than the Prussians, while we give to the work seven fourths of the time the Germans give." Professor James Pierpont, of Yale, writing in the Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society (April, 1900), shows a like comparison can be made with French instruction. Pierpont's table exhibits only one hour a week needed for arithmetic for pupils aged 11 and 12! As the advertisements sometimes say, there must be a reason.

But if the children are kept in school two thirds of a year longer somebody pays for this extra expense. Now children do not drop out of school until they are about 12 years of age and have both appetites and earning power. The number of these children that drop out each year is probably about 2 1/2 millions. Of this number let us say 1 1/2 millions would become wage earners, thus passing from the class that are supported to the class that support themselves and earn a small wage besides. We have then three items in this count: (1) The cost to the state in taxes for the education of 2 1/2 million for two thirds of a year, or $50,000,000; (2) The cost to the parents for support of 1 1/2 millions for two thirds of a year at $67 each, or $100,000,000; (3) The wages of 1 1/2 millions over and above the cost of their support, say $50 each, or $75,000,000.

The above figures are put low purposely so that they can not be criticized. It should be remembered that 46 per cent. of our population is agricultural, and that on the farm, youths of from 13 to 15 very often do men's and women's work: also that in many manufacturing centers great numbers of children get work at relatively good wages, and that the number of completely idle children out of school is not large.

With these figures in hand let us consider now a kind of debit and credit sheet against and for our present system of weights and measures.

PRESENT SYSTEM OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

In ANNUAL account with UNCLE SAM

Cr. By culture (?) acquired by the children through learning more common fractions and our crazy tables of weights and measures.......... $?

Dr. To cost in school taxes of keeping 2 1/2 millions of children in school 2/3 year. $50,000,000 To cost to parents for supporting 1 1/2 millions children 2/3 year............. 100,000,000 To loss of productive power of 1 1/2 millions youth for 2/3 year ............. 75,000,000 To loss of earning power by having children driven out of school by difficulties of arithmetic as now taught .................................... 25,000,000 To loss of time in making arithmetical calculations by men in trade, industries and manufactures.......................... 30,000,000 To extra weighing and measuring instruments needed for sundry tables....... 10,000,000 To loss of time in making cross reductions to and from our system and metric system .............................. 5,000,000 To loss of profit from foreign trade because our goods are not in metric units ..................................... 20,000,000 ------------ Total annual loss ................. $315,000,000

Commenting for a moment on the credit side of the above ledger account, it can be said that recent psychology shows conclusively that training in common fractions and weights and measures can not be of much practical help as so-called culture, or training for learning other things, unless those other things are closely related to them, and there are not many things in life so related to them once we had dropped our present weights and measures.

It may be complained that the expense of changing to the new system is not taken account of in the above table. The reason is that that expense would occur once for all. The above table deals with the ANNUAL cost of our present medieval system.

One powerful reason for the adoption of the metric system different in character from the others is the ease of cheating by the old system. In the past the people have been unmercifully abused through short weights and measures. Many of the states have taken this matter up latterly and prosecuted merchants right and left. Nine tenths of this trouble would disappear with the new system in use.

Let us consider now for a little time the reasons why the metric system has not been accepted and adopted for use in the United States. Evidently the great main reason has been that the masses of the people, in fact all of them except a very small educated class in science are almost totally uninformed on this whole question. Such articles as have been published have almost invariably appeared in either scientific, technical or educational magazines, mostly the first, so that there has been no means of reaching the masses, or even the school teachers with the facts. For another reason the United States occupies an isolated position geographically, and our people do not come into personal contact with those in other countries using the metric system. But there is still another potent reason. After the United States government legalized the metric system in 1866, all the school books on arithmetic began presenting the topic of the metric system, and, quite naturally, they did it by comparing its units with those of our system and calling for cross reductions from one system to the other. No better means of sickening the American children with the metric system could have been devised. Multitudes of the young formed a strong dislike for the foreign system with its foreign names, and could not now be easily convinced that it is not difficult to learn. Every school boy knows how easy it is to learn United States money. The boy just naturally learns it between two nights. The whole metric system UNDER FAVORABLE CONDITIONS is learned nearly as easily. By favorable conditions is meant the constant use of the system in homes, schools, stores, etc. These favorable conditions, of course, we have never had.

In 1904 an earnest effort was made again both in this country and Great Britain to have the metric system adopted for general use. The exporting manufacturers in both countries grew much concerned over the whole situation. A petition to have the metric system adopted in Great Britain was signed by over 2,000,000 persons. A bill to make the system mandatory was passed by the House of Lords and its first reading in the House of Commons. The forces of conservatism then bestirred themselves and the bill was held up. Forseeing a movement of the same kind in this country, the American Manufactures' Association got busy, laid plans to defeat such movement which they later did. Strictly speaking this action was not taken by the association as such but only by a part of it. One fourth of the membership and probably much more than a fourth of the capital of the association was on the side for the adoption of the system. Politically, however, the side opposed to the new system had altogether the most influence.

Careful study of the whole matter showed that the main cost to make the change to the new system would be in dies, patterns, gauges, jigs, etc. A careful estimate put this cost at $600 for each workman and assuming a million workmen, we have a total cost of $600,000,000. But we have just seen that the annual expense of retaining the old system of weights and measures is over $300,000,000. Thus we see that two short years would suffice to pay for what seems to the great manufacturers association an insuperable expense. From all this we see that the question is not one for N. M. A. bookkeeping, but for national bookkeeping.

Many well-informed people studying the matter superficially, think the difficulties in the way of a change to the new system insurmountable. Thus, they think of the cost to the manufacturer--which we have just seen to be rather large but not insurmountable; they think of the changes needed in books, records, such as deeds, and the substitution of new measuring and weighing instruments. Germany and all the other countries of continental Europe made the change. Are we to assume that the United States can not? That would be ridiculous. Granting that commerce has grown greatly, so also has intelligence and capability of the people for doing great things.

Scientists are universally agreed as to the wisdom of the adoption of the metric system. The country, as a whole, must be educated up to the notion that sooner or later it is sure to be universally adopted, that it is only a question of time when this will be done. Already electrical, chemical and optical manufacturing concerns use the metric units and system exclusively. The system is also used widely in medicine and still other arts. Then all institutions of learning use the metric system exclusively whenever this is possible. All that is needed is to complete a good work well begun.

There is one rational objection to the metric system and but one. It is that 10 is inferior to 12 as a base for a notation for numbers, but the world is not ready to make this change nor is it likely to be for generations to come. Moreover, this improvement is far less important than uniformity in weights and measures. For these reasons this objection can be passed over. Men said the metric system would never be used outside of France; but it has come to be used all over the world. The prophets said we should never have uniformity as regards a reference meridian of longitude. But we have. And so it will be with the adoption of the metric system in the United States and Great Britain. It is only a question of whether it comes sooner or later. When that day comes, the meter, a long yard, will replace the yard, the liter, the quart (being smaller than a dry and larger than a liquid quart), the kilogram will replace the pound, being equal to 2.2 pounds, and the kilometer (.6 mi.) will replace the mile. Within a week or so after the change has been made to the new system, all men in business will be reasonably familiar with the new units and how they are used, and within a few months every man, woman and child will be as familiar with the new system as they ever were with the simplest parts of the old. So easy it will be to make the change as far as ordinary business affairs are concerned. However, for exact metal manufactures years will be needed to fully change over to the new. Here the plan is to begin with new unit constructions and new models, as automobiles using new machinery constructed in the integral units of the metric system. All old constructions are left as they are and repaired as they are. This was the plan used in Germany and of course it works.

In conclusion it can be said that we started with the idea that the change to the metric system was needed for the sake of foreign commerce. We now see that we need it also for our own commercial and manufacturing transactions. If we are to have the efficiency so insistently demanded by the age in which we live, then we must have the metric system in use for the ordinary affairs of daily life of the masses of the people, we must have it in commercial and manufacturing industries, and we must have it in education. If efficiency is to be the slogan, then the metric system must come no matter what obstacles stand in its way.

ADAPTATION AS A PROCESS

BY PROFESSOR HARRY BEAL TORREY

REED COLLEGE

FOR the physicist and chemist the term adaptation awakens but the barren echo of an idea. In biology it still retains a certain standing, though its significance has, in recent years, been rapidly contracting, as the influence of the conception for which it stands has waned. Many biologists are now of the opinion that their science would be better off entirely without it. They believe it has not only outlived its usefulness, but has become a source of confusion, if not, indeed, reaction.

Darwin's first task, in the "Origin of Species," was to demonstrate that species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. But he was well aware that

such a conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory until it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting the world have been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of structure and coadaptation which justly excites our admiration.

To establish convincingly the doctrine of descent with modification as a theory of species, it was necessary for him to develop the theory of adaptation which we now know as natural selection.

The origin of adaptive variations gave him, at that time, little concern. Though keenly appreciative of the problem of variation which his studies in evolution presented, he dismissed it in the "Origin" with less than twenty-five pages of discussion. Such brevity is not surprising, since a more extended treatment would only have embarrassed the progress of the argument. In fact, his restraint in this direction enabled him, first, to avoid the difficulties into which Lamarck, with his bold attack on the problem of variation, had fallen; and second, by doing so, to deal the doctrine of Design a blow from which it has never recovered.

The latter was a service of well-nigh incalculable value to the young science of biology--and, as it appeared, to modern civilization as well. But it has not been uncommon, from Aristotle's day to this, for the work of great men to suffer at the hands of less imaginative followers. Sweeping applications of Darwin's doctrine have been repeatedly made without due regard either for its original object or for the success with which that object was achieved. So I believe it to be no fault of Darwin that the growing indifference of European laboratories toward natural selection should find occasional expression in such a phrase as "the English disease." Disease, indeed, I believe we must in candor admit that devotion to it to be which blinds its devotees to those problems of more elementary importance than the problem of adaptation, which Darwin clearly saw but was born too soon to solve.

The problem of species has profoundly changed since 1859. For Darwin it was perforce a problem of adaptation. For the investigator of to-day it has become a part of the more inclusive problem of variation. Along with the logical results of natural selection he contemplates the biological processes of organic differentiation. He is no longer satisfied to assume the existence of those modifications that make selection possible. In his efforts to control them, the conception of adaptation as a result has been crowded from the center of his interest by the conception of adaptation as a process.

The survival of specially endowed organisms, the elimination of competing individuals not thus endowed, are facts that possess, in themselves, no immediate biological significance. Selection as such is not a biological process, whether it is accomplished automatically on the basis of protective coloration, or self-consciously by man. Separating sheep from goats may have a purely commercial interest, as when prunes and apples, gravel and bullets, are graded for the market. Such selection is, at bottom, a method of classification, serving the same general purpose as boxes in a post-office. Similarly, natural selection is but a name for the segregation and classification that take place automatically in the great struggle for existence in nature. The fact that it is a result rather than a process accounts, probably more than anything else, for its remarkable effect upon modern thought. It is non-energetic. It exerts no creative force. As a conception of passive mechanical segregation and survival, it was a most timely and potent substitute for the naive teleology involved in the idea of special creation.

As a theory of adaptation, then, natural selection is satisfactory only in so far as it accounts for the "preservation of favored races." It throws no light upon the origin of the variations with which races are favored. Since it is only as variations possess a certain utility for the organism that they become known as adaptations, the conception of adaptation is inevitably associated with the welfare of individuals or the survival of races. To disregard this association is to rob the conception of all meaning. Like health, it has no elementary physiological significance.

Our profound interest in the problem of survival is natural and practical and inevitable. But in spite of Darwin's great contribution toward a scientific analysis of the mechanism of organic evolution, and in spite of the marvelous recent progress of medicine along its many branches, the fact remains that so far as this interest in the problem of survival is dominant it must continue to hinder adequate analysis of the problem of adaptation. Indeed, it is in large measure due to such domination in the past that biology now lags so far behind the less personal sciences of physics and chemistry. For survival means the survival of an individual. And there is no doubt that the individual organism is the most conspicuous datum in the living world. The few who, neglectful of individuals and survivals, find their chief interest in living substance, its properties and processes, are promptly challenged by the many to find living substance save in the body of an organism. Thus, in a peculiarly significant sense, organisms are vital units. And since the individual organism shows a remarkable capacity to retain its identity under a wide range of conditions, adaptability or adjustability comes to be reckoned as the prime characteristic of life by all to whom the integrity of the individual organism is the fact of chief importance.

With the use of the words adaptability and adjustability, our discussion assumes a somewhat different aspect. Instead of contemplating further the mechanical selection of individuals on the basis of characters that, like the structure of "the woodpecker, with its feet, tail, beak and tongue, so admirably adapted to catch insects under the bark of trees," can not be attributed to the influence of the external conditions that render them useful, we are invited to consider immediate and plastic adjustments of the organism to the very conditions that call forth the response. For the fortuitous adjustments that tend to preserve those individuals or races that chance to possess them, are substituted, accordingly, the direct primary adjustments that tend to preserve the identity of the reacting organism. We turn thus from the RESULTS of the selection of favorable variations to the biological PROCESSES by which organisms become accommodated to their conditions of life.

At once the old questions arise. Are these processes fundamentally peculiar to the life of organisms? Does the capacity of the organism thus to adjust itself to its environment involve factors not found in the operations of inorganic nature? Our answers will be determined essentially by the nature of our interest in the organism--whether we regard its existence as the END or merely an incidental EFFECT of its activities. The first alternative is compatible with thoroughgoing vitalism. The second, emphasizing the nature of the processes rather than their usefulness to the organism, relieves biology of the embarrassments of vitalistic speculation, and allies it at the same time more intimately than ever with physics and chemistry. This alliance promises so well for the analysis of adaptations, as to demand our serious attention.

Physiologically, the living organism may be thought of as a physico-chemical system of great complexity and peculiar composition which varies from organism to organism and from part to part. Life itself may be defined as a group of characteristic activities dependent upon the transformations in this system under appropriate conditions. According to this definition, life is determined not only by the physical and chemical attributes of the system, but by the fitness of its environment, which Henderson has recently done the important service of emphasizing.[1] Relatively trifling changes in the environment suffice to render it unfit, however, that is, to modify it beyond the limits of an organism's adaptability. The environmental limits are narrow, then, within which the transformations of the organic system can take place that are associated with adaptive reactions. The conditions within these limits are, further, peculiarly favorable for just such transformations in just such physico-chemical systems.

[1] "The Fitness of the Environment."

The essential characteristic of the adaptive reaction appears to be that the organism concerned responds to changing conditions without losing certain attributes of behavior by which we recognize organisms in general and by which that organism is recognized in particular. It exhibits stability in the midst of change; it retains its identity. But this stability, let us repeat, is the stability of a certain type of physico-chemical system, with respect to certain characters only, and exhibited under certain circumscribed conditions. In so far as the problem of adaptation is thus restricted in its application, it remains a question of standards, a taxonomic convenience, a problem of the organism by definition only, empty of fundamental significance.

It is to be expected that systems differing widely in composition and structure will differ in their responses to given conditions. This will be true whether the systems compared thus are organic, or inorganic, or representative of both groups. The compounds of carbon, of which living substance is so characteristically composed, exhibit properties and reactions that distinguish them at once in many respects from the compounds of lead or sulphur. They also differ widely among themselves; compare, in this connection, serum albumen, acetic acid, cane sugar, urea. No vitalistic factor is needed for the interpretation of divergencies of this kind. But there are many significant similarities between organisms and inorganic systems as well. These are so frequently overlooked that it will now be desirable to consider a few illustrative cases. For the sake of brevity, they have been selected as representative of but two types of adaptation commonly known under the names of ACCLIMATIZATION and REGULATION.

Let us first consider the case of organisms which become acclimatized by slow degrees to new conditions that, suddenly imposed, would produce fatal results. Hydra is an organism which becomes thus acclimatized finally to solutions of strychnine too strong to be endured at first. Outwardly it appears to suffer in the process no obvious modifications. Yet modifications of a physiological order take place, as is shown, first, by the necessary deliberation of the acclimatization, second, by the death of the organism if transferred abruptly back to its original environment.

In other forms the structural changes accompanying acclimatization may be far more conspicuous. For example, the aerial leaves of Limnophila heterophylla are dentate, while those grown under water are excessively divided. Again, the helmets and caudal spines of Hyalodaphnia vary greatly in length with the seasonal temperature.

In these and the large number of similar cases that might be cited, stability of the physiological system under changed conditions is only obtained by changes in the system itself which are often exhibited by striking structural modifications.