Alcoholism: A Study in Heredity

Front matter

Google to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

Preface

The scope of the present work is scarcely so wide as that of the writer's ** Present Evolution of Man." The author hopes he has profited by the criticism and advice which he received on the publication of his former work. Some preliminary discussion of the general problem of evolution has been necessary for the sake of the general reader, but as much as possible of the technical material , has been banished to the Appendix. Thus, though both the preliminary statement (the first five chapters) and the Appendix are unusually long, as compared to the main body of the work, yet the way has been cleared for the full study of a particular field of thought and human endeavour. The fact that the preliminary statement contains a little that is new may reconcile the biologist to it It is to be feared that nothing can reconcile the general reader to the Appendix. However, vi PREFACE

if the reader be impatient, and especially if he have some slight acquaintance with modem biological thought, it is possible to take both the preliminary statement and the Appendix for granted, and confine the reading to the last nine chapters of the book.

It must be admitted that the selected field of thought is of great importance. It would be impossible to over-estimate the issues which hang upon latter-day human evolution — especially of all that has resulted from disease and from the use of narcotics. An attempt is made in this volume to trace the causes of intemperance on purely scientific lines, and to indicate a practical remedy. It is probable that the scientific data enunciated here, as well as the suggested remedy, will be denounced in general terms. But the writer challenges detailed criticism. If his opponents are able to break but a single link of the long chain of fact and argument, it will be sufficient If, however, they limit themselves to epithets, his contention that "every scheme of temperance reform, hitherto enunciated, which depends upon

PREFACE vii

the diminution or extinction of the supply of alcohol — Total Prohibition, Local Option, the Gothenburg System, etc, — is, in effect, a scheme for the promotion of drunkenness," will not be destroyed.

The remedy suggested by the author may be impracticable at present. But it is the only real remedy, and Nature has found it practicable.

The writer thanks the Editors of The Lancet, The Scottish Medical and Surgical Journal, Natural Science, The Medical Magazine, and other periodicals, for permission to reproduce articles or parts of articles which have appeared in their journals. Portions of the present volume were utilized for a course of lectures on Heredity in the University of Edinburgh. Chapters III. and IV. originally appeared in The Scottish Medical and Surgical Journal, whence they have been adapted for the purposes of this work. The extracts from the evidence given before the Royal Commission on Opium were published in **The Present Evolution of Man." Appendix C is adapted from The Lancet and The Scottish Medical wi PREFACE

amd Suf^cU Journal. Appendix D is reprinted from Science. Appendix E was read before Section D of the British Association for the Advancement of Science at the Bristol Meeting. Subsequently it was published in Natural Science^ December 1 898. Appendices C and E have obvious bearings on the doctrines of this book. The latter merely re-affirms in more technical terms and in greater detail the doctrine laid down in Chapter V. Appendix D has a less obvious bearing, but is included to prove that Social and Moral Evolution— concerning which so much has been written of late — are myths, from the biological point of view, and that the only real evolution Man is undergoing is that indicated in the body of the work.

The writer ventures to call the reader's attention to Appendix M. It is the Report of a Research Committee^ appointed by The Society for the Study and Cure of Inebriety^ " to consider the conditions under which a tendency to inebriety is transmitted from parent to offspring." The membership of this Society is limited to medical men, but

PREFACE ix

lay associates are admitted. To the best of the writer's knowledge, it is the only Society within the kingdom that studies inebriety on scientific lines. The Author s thanks are due to Dr A. F. R. Piatt, who compiled Appendix A, and to Dr Laing Gordon for counsel and assistance in preparation of the volume.

Chapter I Evolution

The antiquity of drinking habits — Inebriety a problem of evolution — Proof of evolution — Evolution implied in all creeds — Enough for the purposes of this work .

Chapter II

The two rival doctrines — Characters, inborn and acquired — Lamarck's theoiy — Darwin's theory — Illustrations of the two theories — ^The complexity of Lamarck's doctrine — ^The simplicity of Darwin's — Limits within which Natural Selection works — Reasons for rejecting Lamarck's doctrine — Acquired characters not transmissible — Prdofs drawn from the body and mind of man

PAGB xii CONTENTS

Chapter V

The different parts of the higher animals were evolved at different though overlapping periods of a long extending past — Evolution is due to stringent selection, which affects only a few parts at a time — Cessation of selection

«AGB

Objections to the doctrine of Natural Selection — ^The impossibility of proving Natural Selection by a study of wild Nature — Man no longer evolves along ancient lines — Social and moral evolution a myth from a biological standpoint — Proof of the actuality of Natural Selection obtainable from the study of human death-rates — Zymotic disease the principal cause of human elimination — " Parasitic " and " saprophytic " diseases — Evolution against disease — Acquired and inborn immunity — Acquired effects of disease not transmissible to offspring 24

CHAPTER IV

THE ROOTS or EMPIRE

The part played by malaria in the natural and political history of man — ^The part played by consumption — The world's greatest tragedy — The part played by disease in the fortunes of Anglo-Saxons — ^The part played by disease in the fortunes of other races — The building of an empire 37

CONTENTS xui

PACK results in degeneration — Difficult to obseire in wild animals — ^Easy to observe in tame animals and cultivated plants — Degeneration due to atavism — In the absence of selection every species tends to revert to ancestral type 51

Chapter VI Thb Death-ratb From Alcohol

Alcohol highly esteemed andentiy as a medicine — Less esteemed to-day — ^The statistics of Insurance and Friendly Societies — Estimates by medical men . 62

Chapter VII

Men drink alcoholic solutions for three distinct reasons : To satisfy thirst ; to gratify taste ; to produce a direct effect on the brain — Only the last is a cause of drunkenness — Men differ in their predisposition to inebriety — As a rule, men drink in proportion to their individual predispositions — Self-control a subordinate factor in the causation of sobriety — Lack of temptation the principal factor 72

Chapter VIII

Alcohol, a selective agency — Analysis of the craving for drink — ^The three factors — The inborn factor is transmissible, the acquired &ctors are not — The confusion oipost vnxYi propter A?^— Application of the Lamarckian and the Darwinian doctrines. . . • , , 85 xiv CONTENTS

Chapter X

mACIAL DIFFBRBMCBS

CHAPTER XI rAGB

The JewSi Greeks, Italians, Spaniards, Germans, English- Polynesians and A£ricans — Other savages — The increased per capita consumption in France — ^Fallacy of reasoning from the per capita consumption — Predisposition to inebriety arose in man apart from the use of alcohol— -Alcoholism a '^ disease "-^-Civilisation impossible in the absence of alcoholic evolution . 97

Theories to account for racial differences in drinking habits — Climate — Potency of alcoholic beverages — Civilisation — Education and training — ^Temperament — Recreation — ^The theory of alcoholic evolution alone covers all the instances ••..,. 113

Parallel between diseases and narcotics-^The evohition against opium more easy than that against alcohol-* The elimination more thorough from the banning — The evidence produced before the Royal Commission on Opium , . 127

CONTENTS XV

CHAPTER XII THE TEMPBlUaiOB FAILURE

Two methods of Tempexance Reform-— Nature's plan — The reformer's plan — ^The faflure of Temperance Reform in America — ^Total Prohibition inapplicable to dense population — Local Option likewise inapplicable — " Safety valves ^ — ^The failure of Temperance Reform in Australasia — ^The failure in Scandinavia — ^The Gothenburg System 144

CHAPTER XIII THE SOLXrriON OF THE PROBLEM

Civilisation inimical to the Temperance Reformer's method — A relic of barbarism — The fundamental errors of Temperance Reformers — Temperance Reform impossible from the biological standpoint- Can only aggravate the evil — ^A Sisyphean task — The true remedy — ^The obstacle imposed by man — The alternatives 158

Chapter XIV

The Tapu System — The Procreation Tapu — ^The Denunciation of Malthus — ^The Denunciation of Sir James Simpson — Ecclesiastical Midwifery — Law and morals — ^The contagious diseases — Their encouragement on religious grounds — Human sacrifice — ^The magnitude of the evil — ^The Contagious Diseases Acts — Their repeal — ^The price — The bearing of the fetish on rational Temperance Reform 173

XVI

CONTENTS

APPENDICES

Appendix A . . . .

Appendix B . . .

•••••. 201

Appendix C . . .

Appendix E . . . .

••••••. 242

Appendix F . . . .

Appendix G ^^

Appendix H . . . . ^^o

Appendix I . . . ^^^

Appendix] ^6^

Appendix K . . * ^^^

Appendix L ^^^

Ik

Chapter I Evolution

The antiquity of drinking habits — Inebriety a problem of evolution — Proof of evolution — Evolution implied in all creeds — Enough for the purposes of this work.

At a period extremely remote in human history, and in an evil hour, the discbvery was made that fermented liquors were capable of inducing pleasant sensations. At the same time, or shortly afterwards, it was doubtless observed that deep drinkers purchased their short-lived pleasure at heavy expense in health and happiness, and that through them the well-being of the community suffered. As a consequence, from a period also extremely remote, historically for some fifty centuries,^ punishments have been inflicted on drunkards, and attempts have been made to diminish or abolish the consumption of alcohol — with the

* Vide Appendix A.

A result that the use of that poison is now more general and widespread on the surface of the globe than at any former period. But fifty centuries and more of known failure have not yet disheartened temperance reformers; and still, as in years long past, we are urged by them to seek a remedy in coercive measures, the futility of which has been proved a thousand times.

Temperance reformers have been actuated almost invariably by religious or philanthropic motives. Seldom has the problem been approached from a scientific standpoint, and then only by observing the effects of alcohol on the individual. But, since a craving for alcohol of greater or lesser depth is readily awakened in most men, and since different races of men, Spaniards and American Indians for instance, differ vastly in respect to the depths of their desires for indulgence, it is plainly important to ascertain the origin of this craving, and in particular the causes which have rendered some races more or less inclined to excessive indulgence than others. In other words, it is plainly important to study the effect of alcohol, not only on the individual but also on the race. The problem then becomes one for the evolutionist ; and when he has ascertained why Spaniards, for example, are less prone to deep indulgence than Englishmen, and d fortiorithdJi American Indians, we may, by following the path that Nature

EVOLUTION 3

herself has marked out, find the source of our former failures, and, perhaps, even achieve some measure of real success in temperance reform in the future.

It is the fashion to speak of evolution as of scientific interest, but as having no immediate bearing on the present-day problems of humanity. Indeed, some writers appear to think that the evolution of man has ceased ; they tell us that, judging by ancient monuments, no race appears to have undergone appreciable change for thousands of years. Others think the processes of evolution so slow as not to come within the range of practical politics. If, however, the reader will have patience, I think I shall supply him with reasons for arriving at a contrary conclusion. Man is changing very swiftly at the present time. Owing to great and rapid changes in his environment, he is evolving at a rate far more speedy than at any former period of his existence ; but in a direction not suspected by the writers I have indicated.

Speaking practically, the doctrine of evolution is not now questioned by any one acquainted with the facts on which it is founded. So vast is the evidence in its favour afforded by every science which deals with life — zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, embryology, palaeontology, and the rest — that the immense majority of scientific men are as thoroughly convinced of its truth as they are of the fact that the world is round. It is no longer considered by them as an interesting guess, a mere hypothesis, a thing that may be doubted. It is regarded as a proven and accepted fact. But scientific belief filters downwards very slowly. Nearly four hundred years have elapsed since the Copernican doctrine of the spherical shape of the world and of its revolution round the sun was first enunciated, and to this day there are doubters even among the most civilised peoples. The theory of evolution was brought prominently before the world scarce forty years ago ; its progress has been much more rapid than the Copernican theory, for, as I say, it is already accepted by almost the whole of the educated world ; but, as is natural, the masses still reject it. At least they reject it nominally. Really I suppose no sane human being in existence doubts it. All that objectors usually dojs to set limits to its operations, which vary with the extent of their knowledge. Thus, while many men decline the doctrine that all species of plants and animals had a common origin, all men, even the most savage, believe that the different races of mankind sprang in the far distant past from a common stock — Heathen Gods, Adam and Eve, a species of lower animals ; it matters not which. But to-day the different races differ vastly. Some are white, qfhers black, yellow, or copper-coloured. Some are big, others are small. Some have long

EVOLUTION 5

straight hair ; the hair of others is short and woolly. And everywhere Nature has adapted every race to its particular environment The Negro flourishes in West Africa, where the Englishman perishes. The Negro dies almost as surely in London* The Esquimau and the naked Tierra Del Fuegian are able to endure extremes of cold. The native of India sits unharmed with bare shaven head in the full glare of the tropic sun. By their big brains Europeans and some Asiatics are fitted for the complex conditions of civilised life ; simpler, but not less stringent conditions, have developed to an extraordinary degree the senses, the sight, smell, hearing, of Australian Aborigines.

It is not possible, then, for any sane human being to doubt evolution. In particular, it is not possible for the orthodox Christian, who derives the human races from Adam and Eve, to doubt it. Such a one must admit also that evolution may be very rapid since, according to him, six or seven thousand years only have sufficed to produce types so widely divergent as the Scandinavian and the African Pigmy. That evolution is very rapid may be proved beyond doubt by a study of our cultivated plants and domesticated animals. A very few generations only separate some of our most highly modified garden and orchard plants from their wild congeners. The evolution of our prize breeds of animals has been slower; nevertheless, many breeders, within the short span of the working life, have produced great changes in different species and varieties. It will doubtless be objected that man is different from Nature : that man selects with care while Nature does not. But presently I shall show that in all the races of mankind Nature is selecting certain types of men for survival, for procreation, with a stringency so extreme that, while no race escapes decimation, some races are undergoing extermination.

For the purposes of this work it matters not whether my readers subscribe to the doctrine of evolution in its totality — whether they hold the belief that all plants and animals had a common origin. If they admit, as admit they must, that races of plants and animals change somewhat under altered surroundings, it is sufficient. We can then start from a common basis, and have a hope that a dispassionate consideration of evidence will lead us to a common conclusion. All that can then be in dispute between us is that which is still in dispute to some extent among scientific men ; namely, the method by which evolution works, the method by which living species undergo change.

Chapter II

The two rival doctrines — Characters, inborn and acquired — Lamarck's theory — Darwin's theory — Illustrations of the two theories — The complexity of Lamarck's doctrine — The simplicity of Darwin's — Limits within which Natural Selection works — Reasons for rejecting Lamarck's doctrine — Acquired characters not transmissible — Proofs drawn from the body and mind of man.

Evolution is said to occur when a species undergoes a progressive and adaptive change ; as for example when, during the course of generations, the wings of k species of bird grow stronger, larger, and better adapted for flight. During this process it is plain that succeeding generations must, in succession, become superior to those which preceded them. The whole prob|iem of evolution hinges on the question: In what way is this improvement effected? By what method?

Only two theories of evolution are possible, or even thinkable. AH other theories, of which several have been enunciated, are, from the nature of the case, mere variations of those two.^ Lamarck, because he first formally enunciated it, gave his name to the one theory; Darwin, for the same reason, gave his to the other. We have seen that all men have, within limits, a belief in evolution. It is curious that during every age they have accepted as a belief the method of evolution laid down by Lamarck, but have followed as a practice that laid down by Darwin. In other words, they have believed that races change in the manner described by Lamarck, but have sought to improve their own plants and animals in the manner described by Darwin.

The two theories can be explained best by illustrations drawn from the animal world, but first it is necessary to define two important terms. All the characters of a living being, every physical structure and every mental trait, may be placed in one of two categories. Either they are inborn^ or they are acquired} An inborn or innate character

^ Evolution must proceed by the transmission of inborn traits, or of acquired traits, from parent to child, and by their accentuation during succeeding generations. Even if we regard the course of evolution as designed and predestined, no other method is thinkable, because no traits other than the inborn and the acquired exist in living beings.

' It should be observed that the word "acquired" is a technical biological term, which has a very precise and restricted meaning. It can be applied only to individuals as such, never to races or species as such. Thus, if it were stated that, during its evolution, the negro race acquired woolly hair, the term would not be used in its strict is one which, in common parlance, arises in the individual "by nature." Thus arms, legs, eyes, ears, head, etc, are all inborn characters. The child inherits them from his parent But, if during its development, or after the completion of the development, any one of the inborn characters of an individual is modified by some occurrence, the change thus produced is known as an acquired character, or, shortly, as an acquirement Thus all the effects of exercise are acquirements ; for example, the enlargement which exercise causes in muscles. The effects of lack of exercise are also acquirements, for example, the wasting of a disused muscle. The effects of injury are acquirements, for example, the changes in a diseased lung or injured arm. Every modification of the mind is also an acquirement, for example, everything stored within the memory. If a man be blinded by accident or disease, his blindness is acquired. But if he come into the world blind, if he be blind by nature, his blindness is inborn. If a son be naturally smaller than his father, then his inferiority of size is inborn ; but if his growth be stunted by ill-health or lack of nourishment or exercise, his inferiority is acquired.

biological meaning. The wooUiness of the hair of negroes was presumably inborn from the very beginning. But, if a man by some process changed his straight hair to wool, the wooUiness would, in that case, be an acquirement.

lo A STUDY IN HEREDITY

Inborn characters are known to be transmissible from parent to ofifspring. Thus the parent transmits arms» legs, eyes, and his other inborn characters. Even when an inborn character appears for the first time in a family it tends to be transmitted. For example, a man bom blind tends to have blind children ; a man born with six fingers tends to perpetuate his peculiarity. Lamarck held, as people in all ages have held, that characters acquired by parents are also transmissible to some extent, and that evolution results from their accentuation during succeeding generations. Lamarck's theory is rejected totally by the modern followers of Darwin. They deny that acquirements are ever transmitted from parent to offspring, and assign quite a different cause for evolution. Even at the cost of some repetition, it is worth our while to dwell a little on this point. When it is understood, the rest of this essay will present few difficulties.

If, as Lamarck alleged, a child inherits his father's acquirement, it must follow that he differs from his father in that he has inborn the peculiarity which the parent acquired. He differs at birth from what his father was at birth. He therefore makes a different start in life. Suppose, for instance, an athlete developed his muscles to an abnormal degree by taking more than a normal

THE METHOD OF EVOLUTION ii

amount of exercise. Then, if the child of this man inherited his father's muscular acquirement, he would develop the abnormal muscles without taking the more than normal exercise. He would start from a position of advantage ; and, if he adopted his fathers training, he would develop his muscles to an extent exceeding his father's muscular development. Obviously, if this process were repeated for many generations, it would result in great evolution. When a child differs innately from his parent, the difference is termed by biologists a variation. Lamarck, then, believed that variations arise through the transmission of parental acquirements to the child, and that evolution results from the repetition of this process during succeeding generations.

But, even if Lamarck were right, even if the transmission of acquirements be admitted, it is still certain that all inborn differences between parent and child cannot be attributed to this cause. For instance, a child may be born with peculiarities of which the parent had never a trace, for example, a mole on the face. The child of a natural athlete, who has trained himself to the point of perfection, may be a natural weakling. The child of a sedentary parent may have in him the makings of an athlete. Most convincing fact of all, the members of a litter of puppies often differ greatly :

were parental acquirements the sole causes of variations in the offspring, the puppies would, from the nature of the case, be all exactly alike, for they would all inherit the same acquirements. It is clear, therefore, that offspring may be superior or inferior to their parents, as regards any particular, from causes other than the transmission of acquirements. On that indubitable fact Darwin founded his theory of evolution.

Darwin accepted Lamarck s theory so far as it went. He agreed that acquirements were transmissible, and, therefore, a cause of evolution. But he thought that variations produced otherwise than by the transmission of acquirements — accidental variations as in our present ignorance we may call them — were also causes of evolution. He thought that Nature, like the breeder, selected to continue the race individuals who were '' accidentally " superior, while she eliminated the "accidentally" inferior. The world has progressed since Darwin's day. A new school has arisen which out-Herods Herod. His modern followers, the Neo-Darwinians, declare that Darwin, with characteristic modesty, underrated his own great discovery. They insist that Lamarck was wholly wrong, that acquired characters are never transmitted, and that therefore Darwin's theory, instead of only partially explaining the facts of evolution, wholly explains them. They have theories as to how variations arise. ^ But we need not pause to consider them. They are not relevant to our inquiry. The essentia] fact is that Neo-Darwinians strenuously deny that variations arise in the manner laid down by Lamarck ; in other words, they strenuously deny the transmission of acquired traits. The reader will note that Darwin merely accepted the indubitable fact that offspring differ from their parents in that they are superior or inferior, and founded his theory on the supposition that, as a general rule, the superior individuals are selected by Nature to continue the race. He did not attempt by his theory to explain how the differences arose.* Lamarck did more. He attempted to go deeper than Darwin. He assig^ned a particular cause for the differences. He supposed that parents transmitted their acquirements to offspring, and, on that supposition, founded his theory of evolution.

Let us now return to our illustrations. The followers of Lamarck attribute the long neck of the modern giraffe to the transmitted effects of stretching. They think that ancestral giraffes lengfthened their necks by stretching upwards, and

1 Vide Appendix B.

' At any rate, the attempt is not implied in his theory of Natural Selection. He did attempt it in his theory of Pangenesis, and failed more dismally than Lamarck.

that this acquirement, being transmitted and increased in subsequent generations, resulted in evolution, Neo- Darwinians, on the other hand, contend that the change was due solely to the survival of those individuals which had naturally the longer necks. They suppose that in times of drought, when food was scarce, the shorter giraffes perished, because they were less able than the taller to reach the higher leaves of trees. The taller thus alone continued the race, and this process, repeated during long ages and- many generations, resulted in the long neck of the modern animal. Lamarckians believe that hares run swiftly because their efforts at swift running developed the appropriate structures, and this improvement, transmitted and increased generation after generation, resulted at last in that very swift animal the modern hare. Neo-Darwinians contend that the great speed of hares is due to the fact that those animals who were naturally the swiftest escaped their enemies, and that by this means, during the process of ages, was the swift modern hare evolved. Say they, all animals other than giraffes also stretched upwards for food, yet their necks did not grow long; all animals other than hares strove to run fast, yet they did not become so speedy. On the contrary, their survival was secured by evolving in other directions. Lamarckians assert, but Neo-Darwinians deny, that the child of him who does hard manual labour tends to have at birth thicker skin in the palms than the child of him who labours only with his brains. Neo- Darwinians say that a naturally tall man tends to have tall children, but that, no matter how a man is stretched or how he stretches himself, his children will not be the taller in the smallest degree for the stretching; Lamarckians affirm that they will. Lamarckians maintain that if a blacksmith increases the size of his muscles by labour his children will thereby profit, and have stronger muscles than they would otherwise have had. Neo- Darwinians deny this. Lamarckians affirm that if a man develops his brains by study his children will have better brains for this process. This again Neo- Darwinians deny. Lamarckians maintain that if a man has children, and then, after falling into ill-health, has more children, the latter will be more feeble than the former. This yet again is denied by Neo- Darwinians.

Examined closely, it will be seen that the two theories are violently opposed. If the Lamarckian doctrine were true, evolution would be determined solely by beneficial agencies, such as good food and proper exercise. Injurious agencies would cause racial degeneration and ultimate extinction. On the other hand, the Neo- Darwinian doctrine attributes evolution entirely to injurious agencies, and to these only when they operate under certain conditions. They must be selective ; that is, they must discriminate between the fit and the unfit, between the superior and the inferior. Under their action individuals of a certain type, the fittest, who excel in a particular quality or set of qualities, must generally survive to continue the race, while the rest of the species in large measure perish. It follows, if an injurious agency is so little injurious as not to influence the death- (or birth-) rate, or so very injurious as not to discriminate between the fit and the unfit, that it cannot be a cause of evolution. In the one case the unfit are not eliminated; in the other the fit do not survive. Haphazard deaths again are not causes of evolution. Thus fire and water may destroy many lives in this country, but they do not select for survival any particular type of individual.