Part 32 (2/2)
”Let us now imagine that some _administrative authority, as far superior in power and intelligence to men, as men are to their cattle, is set over the colony, charged to deal with its human elements_ in such a manner as to a.s.sure the victory of the settlement over the antagonistic influences of the state of nature in which it is set down. He would proceed in the same fas.h.i.+on as that in which the gardener dealt with his garden. In the first place, he would, as far as possible, put a _stop to the influence of external compet.i.tion_ by thoroughly extirpating and excluding the native rivals, whether men, beasts, or plants. And our administrator would select his human agents, with a view to his ideal of a successful colony, just as the gardener selects his plants with a view to his ideal of useful or beautiful products.
”In the second place, in order that no struggle for the means of existence between these human agents should weaken the efficiency of the corporate whole in the battle with the state of nature, he would make arrangements by which each would be provided with those means; and would be relieved from the fear of being deprived of them by his stronger or more cunning fellows. Laws, sanctioned by the combined force of the colony, would restrain the self-a.s.sertion of each man within the limits required for the maintenance of peace. In other words, the cosmic struggle for existence, as between man and man, would be rigorously suppressed; and _selection, by its means, would be as completely excluded as it is from the garden_.
”At the same time, the obstacles to the full development of the capacities of the colonists by other conditions of the state of nature than those already mentioned, would be removed by the creation of artificial conditions of existence of a more favorable character.
Protection against extremes of heat and cold would be afforded by houses and clothing; drainage and irrigation works would antagonize the effects of excessive rain and excessive drought; roads, bridges, ca.n.a.ls, carriages, and s.h.i.+ps would overcome the natural obstacles to locomotion and transport; mechanical engines would supplement the natural strength of men and of their draught animals; hygienic precautions would check, or remove the natural causes of disease. With every step of this progress in civilization, the colonists would become more and more independent of the state of nature; more and more, their lives would be conditioned by a state of art. In order to attain his ends, the administrator would have to avail himself of the courage, industry, and cooperative intelligence of the settlers; and it is plain that the interest of the community would be best served by increasing the proportion of persons who possess such qualities, and diminis.h.i.+ng that of persons devoid of them. In other words, by _selection directed towards an ideal_.
”Thus the administrator might look to the establishment of an earthly paradise, a true garden of Eden, in which all things should work together towards the well-being of the gardeners; within which the cosmic process, the coa.r.s.e struggle for existence of the state of nature, should he abolished; in which that state should be replaced by a state of art; where every plant and every lower animal should be adapted to human wants, and would perish if human supervision and protection were withdrawn; where men themselves should have been selected with a view to their efficiency as organs for the performance of the functions of a perfected society. And this ideal polity would have been brought about, not by gradually adjusting the men to the conditions around them, but by creating artificial conditions for them; not by allowing the free play of the struggle for existence, but by excluding that struggle; and by subst.i.tuting selection directed towards the administrator's ideal for the selection it exercises.”[209]
And this is not confined to physical things, but is extended to moral.
”_Social progress_,” he says, ”_means a checking of the cosmic process at every step and the subst.i.tution for it of another, which may be called the ethical process_; the end of which is not the survival of those who may happen to be the fittest, in respect of the whole of the conditions which obtain, but of those who are ethically the best.”[210] And this leads to the final conclusion:
”As I have already urged, the practice of that which is ethically best--what we call goodness or virtue--involves a course 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-a.s.sertion it demands self-restraint; in place of thrusting aside, or treading down all compet.i.tors, it requires that the individual shall not merely respect, but shall help his fellows; its influence is directed, _not so much to the survival of the fittest, as to the fitting of as many as possible to survive_. It repudiates the gladiatorial theory of existence. It demands that each man who enters into the enjoyment of the advantages 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 weakens the fabric in which he has been permitted to live.”[211]
Further on, he repeats:
”Let us understand, once for all, that the ethical progress of society depends, not on imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but in combating it.”[212]
And later on:
”I see no limit to the extent to which intelligence and will, guided by sound principles of investigation, and organized in a common effort, may modify the conditions of existence, for a period longer than that now covered by history. _And much may be done to change the nature of man himself._ The intelligence which has converted the brother of the wolf into the faithful guardian of the flock ought to be able to do something towards curbing the instincts of savagery in civilized men.”[213]
And in a note Huxley emphasizes the extent to which human nature has been already modified by pointing to the fact that s.e.xual instinct has been suppressed between near relations.[214]
Huxley's demonstrations that the happiness of man can only be attained by the limitation of compet.i.tion, by deliberate inst.i.tutions to that effect, and by conscious efforts to create an environment that will tend to develop the ethical qualities of men, put an end to the last serious occasion for conflict between Science and Religion; for it results in the same theories of human responsibility, and the same appeals to human effort, that it has been the role of the church to preach from the beginning.
I have quoted from ”Evolution and Ethics” because to my mind this essay and its prolegomena make Huxley the founder of Scientific and Ethical Socialism. It is true that he himself repudiates this. To him Socialism is impossible because of what he describes as ”the mighty instinct of reproduction.”[215] He points out that we cannot apply to superfluous or defective human beings the system of extirpation which gardeners apply to superfluous and defective vegetables and weeds.
I have already answered the objection to Socialism on the ground of overproduction.[216] But Huxley never had presented to him the modern idea of Socialism herein described. He speaks of the ”elimination of compet.i.tion.” It never occurred to him that the evils of compet.i.tion could be eliminated without eliminating compet.i.tion. Candor, however, compels me to admit that I do not think any presentation of the most modern form of Socialism would at all have converted Professor Huxley.
There were two subjects upon which he could not speak without getting into a temper: Gladstone and Socialism.
When I met him, I was not myself a Socialist. Indeed, I did not become a Socialist until after Huxley died. My impressions, therefore, of him were not affected by a prejudice in favor of Socialism. On the contrary, I still regarded Socialism as impractical; I still believed it to be absurd. It was only after months of labor in attempting to utilize the ”considerable fragments of a constructive creed”[217]
which Professor Ritchie found in Professor Huxley's pages, that I was driven to a study of the Socialism to which I was utterly opposed, and found in it the only solution to the contradictions which blurred even the lucid pages of Huxley's works. And the contradictions in Huxley are not difficult to find. Nothing could be more pessimistic than what seems to be the climax of his argument in ”Evolution and Ethics”:
”The theory of evolution encourages no millennial antic.i.p.ations. If, for millions of years, our globe has taken the upward road, yet, some time, the summit will be reached and the downward route will be commenced. The most daring imagination will hardly venture upon the suggestion that the power and the intelligence of man can ever arrest the procession of the great year.”[218]
And yet, on the very next page, he closes this essay with a note of the serenest optimism:
”So far, we all may strive in one faith towards one hope.”[219] And the keynote of his att.i.tude towards this subject is to be found in a pa.s.sage in which he ”thinks it unjust to require a crossing-sweeper in Piccadilly to tell you the road to Highgate; he has earned his copper if he had done all he professes to do and cleaned up your immediate path”; and a little later where he ”shudderingly objects to the responsibility of attempting to set right a world out of joint.”
Now Socialists have the audacity to maintain that it is not beyond the intelligence of the crossing-sweeper of Piccadilly to know and tell the road to Highgate, and that the time has come when no one has a right to ”shudderingly object to the responsibility of attempting to set right a world out of joint.”
Huxley builded better than he knew; and in spite of his detestation of Socialism it was he who built its strongest and most enduring foundation; for unanswerable as may be the economic argument in favor of Socialism, it might take centuries to prevail if there were not an equally strong scientific and ethical argument for it.
<script>