Grey River Argus FRIDAY, February 26th., 1926. BIRTH CONTROL.

Grey River Argus, 26 February 1926, Page 4

Grey River Argus FRIDAY, February 26th., 1926. BIRTH CONTROL.

Evidently ignoring the history of the .lecline and tall of empires like Rome, many to-day think the danger of raci suicide is no more than a figment 01 the imagination. By one such, a Reef-

ton corresponiiunt, we yesterday wcie inkon to task for an article condemning Bishop Barnes’ recent advocacy oi the ‘‘prevention of the survival’’ of what he "calls the “socially unfit.’ Affirming ‘‘birth controlis not race suicide, our correspondent question whether we know Dr Barnes to be a Darwinian, and whether, in any case, we “think the acceptance of Darwin's theories necessarily implies hostility tr the working class.” Our critic while accusing us of advancing no k.gical argument against birth control, refrains from advancing for it any argument at all, refusing to state not only its object, but whether the process to attain : hat obje'i js to he vou.i‘.ir? *or compulsory. Presumably Dr Barnes’ interpretation is meant, which, obviously, neans compulsion exercised on the alleged ‘‘unlit” by the 3 jn-oseuiy “fit.’' Were those classing themselves as

“fit” for survival, and seeking to impose their will 04 the “other fellow,’ io be put—bv 11 me “other fellov- ” — in the ‘‘unfit” category, we suggest co our correspondent that they woulg be prone to evolve a new the “movement.” What is social “fitness,” anyway? Out of 2,425,000 met 1 examined in Great Britain in 191», only 36 per cent, were of normal health ami strength. In the United States and Britain forty-fiv per cent, of the people never develop me.'tal • capacity beyond ihnt of a nonual child of 12, oO the scientists say. Arc these millions to In classed us unfit for survival? Who gives the others the right to say so? Who gives anybody the right to pul an end to any even in the embryo? Thou shalt not kill is a dictum some deny to refer to the unborn, but even physical science teaches human life begins with conception. In the human personality inhere the rights of man; and nobody is at liberty to deny to another such rights in ordei to impose his own will. We all know the evil birth control has wrought in France, afraid as she is to-day of Gei many’s greater population. The Krtl: controller is one who would try to ••.uro

an iniernr.l cancer with a must arc plaster. He does not go to the rout of the evil for which be thinks cure is far preferable to prevention. Wo fear the subjection of the working class to Darwin’s theories because they are only theories, and are not truths. Their effect would bo that people would bo expected to fit their environment.

instead of the environment being made to fit the people. Dr Barnes himself reckons there are innumerable people already unfit for their environment, but instead of suggesting another environment, in- wants to do away with the people! His phraseology is just as obviously inspired by Darwin’s dictum, “the survival of the fittest.” Bui who, we ask again, arc the fittest? Is it those who do survive? If so, Dr Barnes ought not to bo talking of “preventing” their survival. Civilisation cannot be vivified by physical selection. Character is the basis of human progress. The pre-eminent need of to-day is not for people who will work for a better social order, but fa l, those who will themsches be in that order. The birth controllers have no philosophy to reach me causes that render some people “unfit” for survival. Manifestly the cause is not the process of generation (which one authority says is a preventive of cancer). If it were, the only remedy would be to decree the end of the whole human race, by “preventing” the generation of one more human being! If it is not this, then, it must bo something else. Why not go after that something with a tomahawk? Why not, in short, banish slums and poverty and underfeeding and the habits of idleness that corrupt, the lazy rich? If Darwinian theories decree one class shall “prevent” the “survival” of another as being “unfit,” wo say they are worse

than useless to the working class 01 anv other class. We believe Dr Barnes

menus the “unfit’’ are among the poor, | becav.se he has time and again referred to v..c uiteinpioyd as being sc because nf their and the methods he advocates spring naturally from the Darwinian philosophy. They certainly are the antithesis of Christianity. The dictum “increase and multiply’’ he regards sceptically. Ho has a tafegory into which ho would corral the Uunfit/' but he dues nut dct|jie his ptnnd-

ard of “fitness.” Birth controllers often .-ire careless as 10 that question, and aim to liiiiir population solely for the convenience of ihemselvos. If all

took up tne same stand, the race wouki die out immediately. As it is the classes they consider fittest are those most sterile. Nature, ns Mendel proved, always works towards the normal, and if man did not artificially balk nature, by hording people into slums, but. removed the hindrances to nature, physical deterioration would be stemmed. The savage races are physically superior to the civilised for that rea-| son. If man lacked rationality, there might be some excuse for treating him like pedigree cattle, but as his volition is guided by reason, and he acts only as it seems good to him, the human individual is entitled to liberty in working out his own destiny so long ns he accords the same right to each and all of his fellows.