Applied Eugenics Part 33

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 a.s.sistance 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, pa.s.sed 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 cla.s.s 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 a.s.sumption 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 cla.s.sed 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 pa.s.s 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 compet.i.tion 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 cla.s.ses, 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 cla.s.ses, 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 ent.i.tled to as much weight as that of the expert. This att.i.tude naturally makes it difficult to secure the pa.s.sage of measures which are eugenic or otherwise beneficial in character, since they often run counter to popular prejudices.

The initiative by small pet.i.tions, 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 inst.i.tution they are unlikely to result in wise statesmans.h.i.+p.

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 compet.i.tion 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 owners.h.i.+p 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 a.s.sociated principles, and it is on these a.s.sociated 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 att.i.tude of equalitarianism, whereas a group which felt itself superior to the rest of society would not be likely to.

Before criticising the socialistic att.i.tude 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 a.s.sociated 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 cla.s.s of pathological cases; but they are confident that other geneticists, with a very few exceptions, hold the same att.i.tude. There is no danger that this surgical campaign will ever attain formidable proportions, and the socialist, we believe, may rest a.s.sured 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 subst.i.tute 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.