EUGENICS AND CHRISTIANITY.

Otago Witness, Issue 3015, 27 December 1911, Page 38

EUGENICS AND CHRISTIANITY.

LECTURE BY THE REV. R. E. DAVIES. Stuart Hall held a very fair audience, on the 21st inst., when the Rev. R. Evan Davies delivered a most interesting address on " Eugenics and Christianity." Dr Will, who occupied the chair, said he wished to draw attention to the middle name of their society—the Eugenics Education Society. People seemed to have the idea that they, as a society, did most extraordinary things, whereas the one thing they wanted to do was to educate people so as to induce them to improve the present condition of things. He then called upon Mr Davies to give his address. Mr Davies, in prefacing his remarks, stated that the' Eugenics Education Societv existed; for the consideration of the best means for preventing the spread of disease through the continual production of unhealthy children, and. further, to influence public opinion, and eventually legislation, so that the segregation of the unfit might be -enforced by law. The speaker then proceeded briefly to define " eugenics," and stated that the causes that had led Sir Francis GaJton and a number of prominent men to undertake its study were: —(1) Th*» decrease in the birth-rate of the fit; (2) the increase in the birth-rate of the unfit; and (3) the injudicious methods of modern philanthropy. He then went on to ask what the best methods were of influencing public opinon on these matters. Should the Christian Church undertake to teach its young people. He said " No" advisedly. Parents in the home or those responsible for the general education of youths and maidens should undertake the task, provided, of course, that they possessed the knowledge, tact, and sympathy. With all these at their command the duty would

bo by no moans easy. The study of physiology, which was now given a larger place in the curriculum of our schools, was doing much to remove ignorance regarding questions of life and conduct. In regard to adults he could not say that he considered the pulpit was the place for the teaching of the principles of eugenics. It was better to rely on the dissemination of such knowledge by means of the printed page, in booklet, or periodical, or by means of the larger and heavier treatises by men of science.

The study of the question of heredity naturally lay at the basis of the question. How far heredity exercised an influence upon, men and how far environment were questions that must be faced fairly andsquaxely at the outset. Scientific authorities had come as yet to few exact conclusions as to heredity, and even some of its fundamental characteristics were still in dispute. Recent studies of heredity, however, appeared to give less weight to it than before. It was now frequently asserted that acquired qualities could not be transmitted. Weissmamn's investigations had emphasised the importance of environment to the extent that all problems of social reform presented a new aspect, and called for solution with increasing urgency. The opinion of several of the most eminent scientists of the day was that acquired characteristics of the parent did not pass to the child by inheritance. What it was necessary to ascertain was* the value of the factors of heredity and environment in the solution of the many social problems. The lecturer then proceeded to elaborate the differences between these two by means of examples, one of which was to the effect that many of the best families in England could trace their descent back to the robbers and pirates of the early history of the country. Continuing, Mr Davies said that when he saw in the press that legislation in accordance with eugenic principles was being contemplated by the Attorney-general he had said to himself "God forbid." That method of solving social problems had already been very much overdone in this country. Legislation was necessary up to a certain point, but beyond that it could do nothing. Before any measure should be brought forward on these lines it was necessary to educate the minds of men and women, and even our youths and maidens, in eugenic principles. And even when this had been accomplished he questioned the advisability of any legal enactment unless it might be in the case of a criminal or one mentally defective. The viewpoint in criminology had changed so that penologists were now considering the responsibility of society to the offender rather, than, as formerly, the responsibility of the offender to society. This led up to the point he desired to raise—viz., that certain criminals committed crimes because of some twist in their nature, some fundamental defect in their physical and mental constitution. They were habituals, and no one ' would object to the segregation of such being enforced bv law. The advanced school of /eugenics study advocated the segregation of all Who were unfit—also the enforcement of such by law. Even supposing that that might safely be left in the hands of doctors appointed by the State on authority based on scientific theories, there remained very serious considerations to be faced by Christians. Legislation which took away from men opportunities for eelf-control, the exercise of judgment and discrimination, would inevitably undermine the whole edifice of duty and responsibility. Such conditions of life might produce men of exotic growth, but men with moral fibre and personal force—never. Individuals became virtuous by confronting temptation. Life demanded effort, but should a society be produced whereby the need for such would be almost entirely wanting, a race would become weak and degenerate. The scientist very often could only see the evil, and often thought it could be removed by the drastic method characteristic of the surgeon. This remedy attacked only the existing mischief. It was a cure for the disease as it presented itself at the moment. But from the standpoint of Christianity disease and its remedy must be considered from the viewpoint of character. The men who spent their days trying to elucidate natural phenomena were to be admired. But there were times when the Church chloroformed the mindsof its adherents lest, perchance, some new principle of truth unfolded by man's research might unsettle their minds or imperil the Church's authority. In this they did not represent the master with whom they said, " Light, and yet more light.'' As fcr scientists, he wished them to continue their research until they had pushed back the clouds of ignorance and superstition that hung so heavily over the minds of men and had revealed more of life's mysteries. Much had been heard recently of the liberty of the subject, but the liberty to exercise our own powers of judgment in the light of and spirit of God, the liberty to develop in ourselves the virtues of self-control and consideration for others, was one that must not be sacrificed. It would be difficult to establish an authority to decide who was fit to produce children and who was not without consenting to an insupportable tyranny. The standard of efficiency must to a great extent be physical. No one would doubt the importance of this, but to give such undue prominence to the question of marriage would be to resolve the whole movement into a reductio ad absurdum. It might be said with some confidence that the development of the race was now, and would be, psychic, rather than physical. The factors most prominent in such progress were such that no materialistic philosophy could truly appreciate. In conclusion, the speaker said he would commend the principles of eugenics to the most careful consideration of all earnest Christians. While he did not see right through the situation that those questions raised, and while he was not quite confident that the solution of the problems confronted was as easy or as ready as some believed, still he maintained that much good would be done should the more thoughtful of this Dominion give the question time and thought. We owed an enormous debt of gratitude to the eugenist for making us realise in some sort the curse under which we were lying; and if, as we believed, there was a religious failure at the root of every social evil, then we must acknowledge that the responsibility was ours—ours as Cnristians. A vote of thanks to Mr Davies for hi» illuminating paper, moved by Mr F. G. Cumming, closed the meeting.