sex and marriage

Chapter 24 Eugenics (1)
Eugenics is an attempt to improve the physical characteristics of the human race by precise and detailed methods.The ideas on which eugenics is based are Darwinian, and it is fitting that the president of the Eugenics Society is Charles, Darwin's son.In fact, the more direct pioneer of eugenics thought was Francis Galton, who strongly emphasized human genetics.Recently, particularly in the United States, genetic issues have become factional.Those American conservatives believe that the formation of an adult's character depends mainly on heredity; those American radicals assert that everything depends on education and that heredity plays no role.

I do not agree with either of these extreme arguments, nor with the premise they both share and give rise to their opposing prejudices: that, as members of the same class, Italians, Yugoslavs, and others alike, are Inferior than those native-born Ku Klux Klan Americans, and this inferiority seems to be invariable.So far, there is no data to indicate which part of human intelligence is genetic and which part depends on education.A scientific solution to this problem would require separating thousands of newborn twins and educating them in as different a manner as possible.However, such testing is currently difficult to achieve.It is my opinion (and I admit that my opinion is not scientific, but merely impressionistic) that a bad education makes people content with mediocrity.In fact, almost everyone is like this, and only those who are extremely talented can make great achievements in different fields.I don't believe that education can turn every ordinary boy into a first-rate pianist; I don't believe that the best schools in the world can turn us all into Einsteins; He learned strategic thinking by watching his mother discipline her naughty sons.I have never doubted that in these few things genius is needed, for talent alone can make education work the wonders it cannot do in the common man.In fact, this is true of everything, but it is not so obvious at a glance.Indeed, there are some obvious facts that can lead to the same conclusion. For example, we can roughly estimate a person's intelligence level based on the shape of the head, but we cannot regard the shape of the head as the result of education.Now let's turn to the opposite extreme, idiocy, imbecility, and stupidity.Even those who vehemently oppose eugenics do not deny that, at least in most cases, idiocy is innate.For anyone with a sense of statistical symmetry, it follows that there is a corresponding proportion of extremely intelligent people on the other side.So it immediately occurred to me that humans differ in their innate intelligence.It also occurred to me that a wise man is better than a stupid man, though of course this may be doubtful.If we admit these two points, it is tantamount to laying the foundation for eugenics.Therefore, whatever we may think of the specific opinions of some of those who advocate eugenics, we must not disdain the whole point of eugenics.

In the past, a lot of nonsense has been written on the subject of eugenics.Most advocates of eugenics add some dubious sociological observations to their sound biological foundations.For example: Morality is directly proportional to income; heritability of poverty (ah, how common!) is a biological rather than a legal phenomenon.So if we only allowed the rich to reproduce and not the poor, everyone would be rich.The fact that poor people are more fertile than rich people annoys and complains to many.I do not find this fact terribly regrettable, since I see no advantage in which the rich are superior to the poor.Even if it is indeed regrettable, it is not a terribly regrettable thing.Because the difference between the rich and the poor is actually only a few years.The birth rate of the poor is gradually declining, and the birth rate of the poor is now comparable to that of the rich nine years ago.It is undeniable that there are reasons for this undue disparity in birth rates.For example, if the government or the police set up barriers to learning about birth control, those below a certain level of knowledge cannot learn about it, while at the same time the regime cannot prevent those people to acquire this knowledge.Therefore, all opposition to the promotion of contraceptive knowledge will result in more stupid family members than intelligent family members.Although, I have always worried about the general consequences of the authorities' policy of obscuring the people.However, this may only be a temporary phenomenon, because it will not be long before even the most ignorant of the population will learn about birth control and will voluntarily undergo abortions.

There are two kinds of eugenics: one is positive; the other is negative.The purpose of the former is to increase the good race; the purpose of the latter is to reduce the bad race.At present, the latter seems to be more realistic.It is true that this passive eugenics has made great strides in several states of the United States, and in Great Britain the reduction of the unsound has been included among the policies to be introduced of late.Many people disagree with this measure, but I believe that the paradox cannot be established.We all know that weak-willed women are prone to illegitimate children.And in general, those illegitimate children are a great burden to society.If such women were forbidden to bear children, they would be glad, because they did not conceive out of the thought of loving children.Of course, this totally applies to weak-willed men as well.There is no doubt that under the present system there is a great danger in that it is easy for the authorities to regard any dissent or speech against the authority as a sign of weakness of will.Obviously, the dangers of this method are probably justified, since the number of idiots, imbeciles and weak-willed people can be greatly reduced by this method.

In my opinion, the prohibition of procreation is fully applicable to those who are mentally handicapped.I can't agree with the kind of law similar to Andahe, because the scope of the law that requires the prohibition of reproduction is: "mentally disabled persons, epileptic patients, habitual criminals, morally corrupt persons and sexual perverts." These latter two types of people The concept of is too general, because different societies have different definitions.Moreover, habitual crime is likely to be caused by insanity, but the disease is, at least in theory, curable by psychoanalytic methods and is not hereditary.Law-makers on such matters, whether in England or America, are ignorant of the work of psychologists, and therefore always lump together many dysfunctions of a quite different nature.And the only basis is that these phenomena show similar symptoms.That is to say, they are about 30 years behind the latest contemporary knowledge.It speaks to the fact that it is dangerous to legislate on such matters until the science is inconclusive and undisputed for at least decades.If this is not recognized, they will insert wrong ideas into laws to win the favor of officials, with the result that they greatly hinder the implementation of better ideas.In my opinion, mental incapacity is at present the only thing that can be a legal problem in this area.It can be determined by objective methods that are officially recognized.The so-called moral corruption is just a matter of concept.For example, to one person, this person is immoral; but to another person, this person is prescient.I do not mean that, even in the future, the law should not expand its scope.All I am saying is that our present scientific knowledge is insufficient for this purpose, and that society would be very dangerous if it allowed its morals to pass off as science, as is the case in the states of the United States.

I now turn to active eugenics.Such eugenics has more interesting possibilities, though such possibilities are a matter of the future.Positive eugenics, which aims to encourage highly intelligent parents to raise many children.The current situation is not satisfactory.For example, an extremely bright schoolboy may not marry until after he has become a specialist, when he is thirty or thirty-five, while children of average intelligence of his age marry around twenty-five.In the class of professionals, the cost of children's education is a great burden, so they always limit their family members very strictly.Their average intelligence is probably higher than most humans, so this limitation is regrettable.The easiest way to solve this problem is to provide their children with free education until they graduate from college.That is to say, providing scholarships should be based on the accomplishments of the parents rather than on the merits of their children.This has the side benefit of freeing children from rote learning and burnout.Most of the extremely bright European youths of today are mentally and physically damaged by stress before they reach the age of twenty-one.

It is unlikely, however, that the state, either in Great Britain or in the United States, should take any really effective measures to enable those professionals to raise large families.The obstacle in this regard is democracy.Eugenics is based on the assumption that people are not equal, whereas democracy advocates the exact opposite.Therefore, promoting eugenic ideas in a democratic society is politically quite difficult.Because eugenics thinks that the number of excellent races is very small, but it refuses to admit that inferior races, such as low-energy people, are also a minority.So, most people are in favor of democracy and not in favor of eugenics, which makes democracy supported by the majority and eugenics opposed by the majority.

(End of this chapter)