(To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR:9 SIR, — The writer of
the review of Professor McDougall's book, National Welfare and National Decay (Spectator, January 14th), asks why " there are not records of dynasties of talent." An obvious answer is that there are records, for which we have to thank good luck rather than good management. That they are not more numerous and more conclusive is owing to the fact that an effect does not precede its cause. Did we practise a system of eugenics designed to produce talent the "dynasties
of talent " would be more numerous, as they already are among creatures mated with some consideration for their offspring. Your reviewer asks why full brothers often display very dissimilar characteristics? How can they do otherwise if they happen to resemble dissimilar ancestors? One brother may resemble a vicious and idiotic maternal grandmother, and the other an altruistic and reasonable father. Your reviewer, perhaps, does not realize how vast is the number of his ancestors, and a glance at the pedigree of a racehorse might prove illuminating. He claims that " the eugenist has got to prove that good education is no use." Why? If education is good, it must be useful; etherwise it cannot be good. But no reasonable eugenist denies the utility of suitable education. He only points out the futility of expecting from it more than it can perform. Your reviewer asks why the eugenist assumes that the child's-potentialities are settled in the pre-natal nine months or in the parents' thirty years or so? Does Professor McDougall assume this? I have not read him, but I doubt it. If the " thirty years or so " were increased to " thirty genera- tions or so" it would be nearer the truth. Very much nearer, but still not quite there. This is assumed because it is proved true of creatures whose records have been accurately kept for that period. Your reviewer asks, "Why do not the eugenists answer these simple questions?" and among the " simple ques- tions " I find, "What is the result of transplanting at an early age? " Why should he ask eugenists a question which primarily concerns environment, whereas eugenists are concerned primarily with heredity? Let him ask those who do think it possible to make silk purses out of sows' ears. He remarks, "Eugenists seem such bad debaters." Well, Sir, I leave it to you. This letter may help to remove your reviewer's reproach that eugenists shirk publicity.—I am, Sir, &c., Norcott House, St. Saviour's Hill, Jersey.
GIP/ PORTER.
Previous page
