sex and marriage

Chapter 25 Eugenics (2)
Nevertheless, it is clear to everyone who has thought about the subject that, although it is at present difficult to determine what constitutes the superior race, the distinctions in this respect are unquestionable, and it will not be long before science may be able to determine these judge the difference.Imagine how a farmer would feel if we demanded that all his bullocks have equal opportunities!In fact, the bulls that are kept for breeding are carefully selected solely on the basis of their mother's ability to produce milk. (Incidentally, since this species is ignorant of science, art, and war, that eminent achievement belongs to the female alone, and the male is at best the bearer of the female's contribution.) Through scientific breeding, domestic animals of all kinds have become It has been greatly improved, so human beings can also obtain ideal improvements through similar methods.

Of course, no one can be sure what our ideal human beings are like.If we breed for physical strength, we risk reducing human intelligence; if we breed for smart intelligence, we risk making humans more susceptible to various diseases; if we seek to produce emotions balance, we risk destroying human art.In this regard, we do not yet have the necessary knowledge.So it's too early to make a big splash about positive eugenics.However, genetics and biochemistry will make great progress in the next 100 years.Therefore, it is not difficult to breed a human race that is generally recognized as superior to modern humans.

Of course, the application of this scientific knowledge required a drastic family change, more drastic than all the changes previously mentioned.If scientific breeding is to be carried out thoroughly, 2% or 3% of males and about 25% of females must be selected from each generation for reproductive purposes.During the estrus period, there may be a medical examination, and those who fail to pass are prohibited from giving birth.A father will have no more to do with his offspring than a bull and a stallion have to do with their offspring now.The mother will be a professional child-maker, and she will live differently from other women.I'm not saying it's going to happen, and I'm not saying I want it to be, because I admit it's very unpopular.Nevertheless, if we analyze the matter objectively, we shall find that this situation may have surprising results.

To support my argument, let's assume that if Japan adopted this plan, then, after three generations, most Japanese would be as smart as Edison and as strong as a gladiator.At the same time, if other nations in the world are still in a state of natural reproduction, they are certainly no match for the Japanese in war.There can be no doubt that the Japanese, so capable, would employ soldiers from other nations and rely on their science and technology to win victories they believed were theirs.Under this system, the idea of ​​blind devotion to the country is extremely easy to instill in the minds of young people.Who dares to assert that this situation cannot happen in the future?
A form of eugenics popular among some politicians and political commentators may be called racial eugenics.The so-called racial eugenics is that a race or nation is so far superior to all other nations (which I certainly belong to) that it should use force to increase its demographic advantage at the expense of inferior races.The most notable example of this is the "Nordic propaganda" in the United States, which actually won the recognition of immigration law.Racial eugenics was originally compatible with Darwin's principle of the survival of the fittest, but it is puzzling that those who are most enthusiastic about this kind of eugenics think that Darwin's theory is illegal.Political propaganda and racial eugenics merged in a way that shouldn't have happened.But let's leave that aside for a moment and just explore the human side of racial eugenics.

Taken to an extreme, the superiority of one nation to another is undeniable.North America, Australia and New Zealand have contributed so much to world culture that they would certainly not have made great contributions if their inhabitants were still indigenous peoples.On the whole, blacks are generally inferior to whites, but blacks are indispensable for work in the tropics, so their extermination is extremely disadvantageous (humanitarian issues aside).But there must be a great deal of pseudoscience to back up this political bias, if it is to be discriminated among the peoples of Europe.In addition, there is no strong evidence to prove that the yellow race is inferior to our white race in any respect.Taken together, racial eugenics is little more than a political subterfuge for chauvinism.

Julius Wolfe has provided a table: This table shows that, in every principal country for which statistics are available, the birth rate per thousand is higher than the death rate.France is the lowest: 1:3, the United States: 4:0, followed by Sweden: 5:8, British India: 5:9, Switzerland: 6:2, Britain: 6:2, Germany: 7:8 , Italy: 10:9, Japan: 14:6, Russia: 19:5, Ecuador is the highest: 23:1.China does not appear in this table.Because no one knows the specifics of it.Wolf's conclusion is that the Western world will be defeated by the Eastern world, namely Russia, China and Japan.I do not intend to refute his argument by my own beliefs about Ecuador.But I should point out that the figures he gives for the birth rates between the rich and the poor in London show that the latter have a lower birth rate now than the former in previous years.This situation will also appear in the Eastern world. Since the Eastern has begun to Europeanize, the birth rate in the Eastern will inevitably decline.A nation will not be militarily dire until it has industrialized, and industrialism will bring with it a sense of confinement to the members of the family.We can therefore only conclude that the Eastern superiority feared by the Western chauvinists would not cause much misfortune if it did materialize.What's more, there is currently no conclusive evidence that this will happen.Nevertheless, warmongers will use this as an excuse to demand that international authorities agree to allow countries to increase their populations.

If science continues to advance and international chaos remains, here again we run into the same dangers that humanity faces.We have already mentioned this danger twice before.Science enables us to achieve our ends, but if our ends are evil, the end will be dire.If the world is still full of malice and hatred, the more scientific the world becomes, the more terrifying it will be.It is, therefore, a vital thing in human progress to put an end to such deliberate fanaticism.The existence of this fanaticism is largely due to wrong sexual ethics and poor sex education.A new and better sexual morality is indispensable for future civilizations.One of the most pressing needs of our time is therefore a change in sexual morality.

From the point of view of personal morality, scientific and non-superstitious sexual morality should first pay attention to eugenics.That is, no matter how liberal the existing restrictions on sexual intercourse may be, a responsible man or woman should not procreate without very careful consideration of the possible value of their conception.Contraception has made childbirth a manageable event rather than an inevitable consequence of sexual intercourse.For a number of economic reasons mentioned in the preceding chapters, fathers will probably not be as important in the education and upbringing of their children as they were in the past.Therefore, women do not necessarily have to father their children with their lover or partner.In the future it may well be possible for women to choose their children's fathers eugenically without sacrificing their happiness, and to be free to control their private emotions in general sexual relations.As for men, it is easier for them to choose the ideal mother for their children.Some people think that sex is socially relevant only because of the kids, and I agree with them.Those who hold this point of view should proceed from the above premises and draw two conclusions with regard to future morality: on the one hand, childless love should be free; Morality dictates the birth of children.Of course, that morality is somewhat different from what has hitherto been accepted.By then, so-called moral birth would no longer require a priest's blessing or a certificate from a registrant.Because there is no evidence that such behavior affects the child's health or intelligence.Instead, what we must pay attention to is the nature and nurture of particular men and women so that they can have the children they deserve.From the perspective of eugenics, when science can give a more positive answer to this question, the moral consciousness of society will become more accurate.At that time, there will be a desperate search for the man with the best genetics to father the child, while other men, though they can also be chosen as lovers, will have to be abandoned in terms of reproduction.The hitherto institution of marriage has made human nature incapable of accommodating such a project, and the practicability of eugenics is therefore generally considered to be extremely remote.but.There is no reason to think that human nature will create the same barriers in the future. Contraceptive laws already make a clear distinction between childbearing and childless sex, and that the relationship between father and child will not be as close as it used to be.The seriousness and high social purpose that moralists used to ascribe to marriage can only be closely connected with procreation if the world can be more scientific in its morals.

Although this idea of ​​eugenics began as the personal morality of a small number of scientists, it is likely that it will gradually spread until it becomes an integral part of the law, such as material incentives for competent parents and financial penalties for incompetent parents. .

There is no doubt that the idea of ​​allowing science to interfere with our deepest personal impulses is objectionable.But this interference is much milder than that advocated by the religions of the ages.Science is still a new thing in the world. Due to the influence of traditional ideas and religion on most people, science has not yet established prestige.In the future, however, science will surely gain prestige and obedience, just as people do with religion today.Of course, the happiness of future generations is far from being the motivation to restrict the emotions of ordinary people. However, if this motivation can become a part of people's recognized morality, and this motivation can not only get praise and criticism from public opinion, but also economic rewards and punishments, then it is It will soon be accepted by all people of good character.Religion has existed since prehistoric times, while science has a history of no more than 400 years at most.However, when science becomes a thing with a long history, it will also restrict people's life like religion.I foresee that those who care for the freedom of the human mind will oppose the tyranny of science.But since there must always be tyranny, it would be better if science should do it.

(End of this chapter)