NATURE’S PRUNING HOOK.

Waikato Times, Volume 110, Issue 18405, 12 August 1931, Page 9

NATURE’S PRUNING HOOK.

(To the Editor.) Sir.—The views of Sir Arthur Keith covered by the arresting article in the Times oi August 8, should create widespread interest and controversy. It would be Interesting to have an expression of opinion on Sir Arthur Keith's views from leaders of peace societies, and of the Christian Churches. Personally, I think that Sir Arthur postulates an exploded fallacy, and so, naturally, arrives at an unsatisfactory conclusion. He says — “ Every tribe In the prehistoric world represents an evolutionary experiment. As you look through the doorway into this prehistoric world y<u become astounded at the ingenuity, almost diabolical, xvhich Nature had introduced Into its organisation. She had arranged It on the competitive basis; each tribe was a team engaged in the eternal struggle to obtai., p'omotlon and avoid relegation." This may be all perfectly true as a historical statement, but to assume that because it was true, that prehistoric condition must he applied to modern conditions seems altogether unwarranted. If Ch-Hstlain ethics do not supersede so-called natural law, in relation to human society, then, why call ourselves a Christian people? Many years ago Professor Huxley stated that it was an utter fallacy to attempt to apply the analogy of cosmic nature to society. He said: “There is another fallacy which appears to me to pervade the so-called ethics of evolution. Il is the notion that because on the whole animals and plants have advanced in perfection of organisation by means of the struggle for existence and consequent survival of the fittest, therefore, men in society—men as ethic>l beings—must look to the same p •flcess to help them towards perfection. I suspect that this fallacy arises from the unfortunate ambiguity of the term ‘ survival of the fittest.’ Fittest, has a connotation of best, and about best there hangs a moral flavour. But, the practice of that which is ethically best, what we call goodness, or virtue, involves a line of conduct which in all respects Is opposed to that which leads to success In the cosmic struggle for existence. In place of ruthless self-assertion It demands self-restraint. Instead of thrusting aside and treading down all competitors it demands that every man shall not ortly respect, but help his fellows. It repudiates altogether the gladiatorial theory of existence, and it demands that every man who enters into the enjoyment of a polity shall be mindful of his debt to those who have laboriously constructed It, and shall take heed that no act of his weaken the fabric in which he is permitted to live. It Is from neglect ot these plain considerations that the fanatical individualism of our time attempts to apply the analogy of cosmic nature to socl ity. ’ It may be objected that Sir Arthui Keith did not actually attempt to apply the analogy ot cosmic natu.'e to society, but I submit that his retorence to “ The most diabolical ingenuity which nature had Introduced ini.) its organisation " Justifies me in quoting Professor Huxley as above. Sir Arthur Keith states further:—“Nature keeps her human orchard healthy by pruning; war is her pruning hook. We cannot dispense with her services."' Most of your readers, sir, will be conversant with the fact that It Is stated authoritatively that if another great war takes place, whole nations could be practically wiped out by new discoveries in poison gasses, etc. Surely then every intelligent man and woman may be pardoned, saying with due emphasis;—“to hell with Nature’s pruning hook," and this in all reverence. Many years ago Thomas Carlyle in another connection spoke as follows:—-“Such a platitude of a world, were it not best to end It? To have done with it and restore it once for all, to the mud giants, frost giants and chaotic brute gods of the beginning? For the old anarchic brute-gods it may be well enough; but it Is a platitude which men should be above countenancing by their presence in it.” If Sir Arthur Keith’s theory as to war being essential as Nature's pruning hook to keep the orchard clean is sound, then, I for one, am well In favour of Carlyle’s dictum.

In conclusion, Sir Arthur Keith says:—“ I am not afraid of the future of our English-speaking League if all its members realise the part prejudice plays In determining the fate of mankind . . . But there is an important proviso—the National heart must never master the National head." May I suggest that it were best to *everse this last sentence and for the following reason. One of the wise prophets said:—'•’What a man luinketh In his heart, that is he." Pedantic persons tell us that the heart is not the seat of thought and reason; but attar all, abstract thought is purely nebulous. It is only when tnought Is permeated by feeling, sympathy and a sense of .justice—all Indeed that Is embodied in the term righteousness—that It has any real significance In a society that Is presumed to be governed by moral sanctions, or Christian ethics. To quote the saying of Disraeli: —“I am on the side ol the angels,” but I trust, sir, that other of your readers may give expression to their views on Sir Arthur Keith’s theories.—l am, etc., JOHN SYKES. Hamilton, August 11, 1931.