The idea of "Natural Equality" is one of the most pernicious delusions that has ever afflicted mankind. It is a figment of the human imagination. Nature knows no equality. The most cursory examination of natural phenomena reveals the presence of a Law of Inequality as universal and inflexible as the Law of Gravitation.
The evolution of life is the most striking instance of this fundamental truth. Evolution is a process of differentiation --
of increasing differentiation -- from the simple one-celled bit of protoplasm to the infinitely differentiated, complex life forms of the present day.
And the evolutionary process is not merely quantitative; it is qualitative as well. These successive differentiations
imply increasingly inequalities. Nobody but a madman could seriously contend that the microscopic speck of protoplasmic jelly floating in the tepid waters of the Palaqeozoic Sea was "equal" to a human being. But this is only the beginning of the story. Not only are the various life types profoundly unequal in qualities and capacities; the individual members of each type are similarly differentiated among themselves. No two individuals are ever precisely alike. We have already seen how greatly this dual process of differentiation both of type and individual has been affected the human species,
and how basic a factor it has been in human progress. Furthermore, individual inequalities steadily increase as we ascend the biological scale. The amoeba differs very little from his fellows; the dog much more so; man most of all. And inequalities between men likewise become ever more pronounced. The innate differences between members of a low-grade savage tribe are as nothing compared with the abyss sundering the idiot and the
genius who coexist in a high-grade civilization.
Thus, we see that evolution means a process of ever-growing inequality. There is, in fact, no such word as "equality" in nature's lexicon. With an increasingly uneven hand she distributes health, beauty, vigor, intelligence, genius -- all the qualities which confer on their possessors superiority over their fellows.
Now, in the face of all this, how has the delusion of "natural equality" obtained -- and retained -- so stubborn a hold on mankind? As to both its antiquity and persistency there can be no shadow of doubt. The slogan of "equality" was raised far back in the remote past, and, instead of lessening, was never more loudly trumpeted than to-day. It is a curious fact that just when the advance of knowledge and the increasing complexity of civilization have enhanced individual differences and rendered superior capacities supremely important, the cry for equality should have become fiercer than ever,
should have been embodied in all sorts of levelling doctrines, and should have been actually attempted in Bolshevik Russia with the most fanactical fury and the most appalling results.
Here is obviously something requiring careful analysis. As a matter of fact, the passion for "natural" equality seems to spring primarily from certain impulses of the ego, the self, particularly from the impulses of self-preservation and self-esteem. Every individual is inevitably the centre of his world, and instinctively tends to regard his own existence and well-being as matters of supreme importance. This instinctive egoism is, of course, modified by experience, observation, and reflection, and may be so overlaid that it becomes scarcely recognizable even by the individual himself. Nevertheless,
it remains, and subtly colors every thought and attitude. In his heart of hearts, each individual feels that he is really a person of importance. No matter how low may be his capacities, no matter how egregious his failures, no matter how unfavorable the judgement of his fellows; still his inborn instincts of self-preservation and self-love whisper that he should survive and prosper, that "things are not right," and that if the world were properly ordered he would be much better placed.
Fear and wounded vanity thus inspire the individual to resent unfavorable status, and this resentment tends to take the form of protest against "injustice." Injustice of what? Of "fate," "nature," "circumstances," perhaps; yet, more often, injustice of persons -- individually or collectively (i.e., "society"). But (argues the discontented ego), since all this is unjust, those better placed persons have no "right" to succeed where he fails.
Though more fortunate, they are not really his superiors. He is "as good as they are." Hence, either he should be up with them -- or they should be down with him.
"We are all men. We are all equal!"

Such, in a nutshell, is the train of thought -- or rather of feeling -- underlying the idea of "natural equality." It is, of course, evident that the idea springs primarily from the emotions, however much it may "rationalize" itself by intellectual arguments. Being basically emotional, it is impervious to reason, and when confronted by hard facts it takes refuge in mystic faith. All levelling doctrines (including, of course, the various brands of modern Socialism) are, in the last analysis, not intellectual concepts, but religious cults. This is strikingly shown by recent events. During the past ten years biology and kindred sciences have refuted practically all the intellectual arguments on which the doctrine of "natural equality" relies. But has this destroyed the doctrine?
Not at all. Its devoted followers either ignore biology, or elaborate pseudobiological fallacies (which we will later examine), or, lastly, lose their tempers, show their teeth, and swear to kill their opponents and get their own way somehow -- which is just what the extreme "proletarian" ragings mean. Quite useless to point out to such zealots the the inequalities of nature. Their answer is that superior endowment is itself a basic injustice (injustice" of nature!) which it is society's duty to remedy by equalizing rewards regardless of ability or service.
This is exemplified by that stock Socialist formula:
Distribution according to "needs."
Such are the emotionsl bases of the doctrine of natural equality. But, as we have already stated, these emotional bases have been buttressed by many intellectual arguments of great apparent force. Indeed, down to our own days, when the new biological revelation (for it is nothing short of that) has taught us the supreme importance of heredity, mankind tended to believe that enviornment rather than heredity was the main factor
in human existence. We simply cannot overestimate the change which biology is effecting in our whole outlook on life. It is unquestionably inaugurating the mightiest transformation of ideas that the world has ever seen.
Let us glance at the state of human knowledge a few short decades ago to appreciate its full significance.
Down to that time the exact nature of the life process remained a mystery. This mystery has now been cleared up. The researches of Weismann and other modern biologists have revealed the fact that all living beings are due to a continuous stream of germ-plasm which has existed ever since life first appeared on earth, and which will continue to exist as long as any life remains. This germ-plasm consists of minute germ-cells which have the power of developing into living beings. All human beings spring from the union of a male sperm-cell and a female egg-cell. Right here, however, occurs the basic
feature of the life process. The new individual consists, from the start, of two sorts of plasm. Almost the whole of him is body-plasm -- the ever multiplying cells which differentiate into the organs of the body. But he also contains germ-plasm. At his very conception a tiny bit of the life stuff from which he springs is set aside, is carefully isolated from the body-plasm, and follows a course of development entirely its own. In fact, the germ-plasm
is not really part of the individual; he is merely it's bearer, destined to pass it on to other bearers of the life chain.
Now all this was not only unknown but even unsuspected down to a very short time ago. Its discovery was in fact dependent upon modern scientific methods.
Certainly, it was not likely to suggest itself to even the most philosophic mind. Thus, down to about a generation ago, the life stuff was supposed to be a product of the body, not differing essentially in character from other body products. This assumption had two important consequences. In the first place, it tended to obscure the very concept of heredity, and led men to think of environment as virtually all-important; in the second place, even where the importance of heredity was dimly perceived, the role of the individual was misunderstood, and he was conceived as a creator rather than a mere
transmitter. This was the reason for the false theory of the "inheritance of acquired characteristics," formulated by Lamark and upheld by most scientists until almost the end of the nineteenth century. Of course, Lamarkism was merely a modification of the traditional "environmentalist" attitude: it admitted that heredity possessed some importance, but it maintained environment as the basic factor.
Now a moment's reflection must suggest the tremendous practical differences between the theories of environment and heredity. This is no mere academic matter; it involves a radically different outlook on every phase of life, from religion and government to personal conduct. Let us examine the facts of the case.

Down to our own days mankind had generally believed that environment was the chief factor in existence. This was only natural. The true character of the life process was so closely veiled that it could not well be discovered except by the methods of modern science; the workings
of heredity were obscure and easily confounded with environmental influences. The workings of environment, on the other hand, were clear as day and forced themselves on the attention of the dullest observer. To the pressing problems of environment, therefore, man devoted himself, seeking in the control of his surroundings both the betterment of the race and the curing of its ills. Only occasionally did a few reflective minds catch a glimpse of the heredity factor in the problem of life.
That marvellous breed of men, the ancient Greeks, had such glimpses of the higher truth. With their charac- teristic insight they discerned clearly the principle of heredity, gave considerable thought to it, and actually evolved a theory of race-betterment by the weeding out of inferior strains and the multiplication of superiors -- in other words, the "Eugenics" theory of to-day.
For example, as early as the sixth century B.C. the Greek poet Theognis of Megara wrote: "We look for rams and asses and stallions of good stock, and one believes that good will come from good; yet a good man minds not to wed the evil daughter of an evil sire. . . . Marvel not that the stock of our folk is tarnished, for the good is mingling with the base." A century later Plato was as much interested in biological selection as the best method for race improvement. He suggested that the state should mate the best with the best and the worst with the worst; the former should be encouraged to breed freely, while the offspring of the unfit should be destroyed. Aristotle likewise held that the state should strongly encourage the increase of superior types.
Of course, these were but the visions of a few seers, which had no practical results. The same is true of those other rare thinkers who, like Shakespear with his famous lines about "nature" and "nuture," evidently grasped the hereditarian idea. The mass of mankind continued to hold that enviornment was the great matter for consideration.
Now a belief in the transcendant importance of environment leads inevitably to certain conclusions of great practical importance. In the first place, if it be true that man is moulded primarily by his environment, it logically follows that he has merely to gain control over his environment in order to change himself almost at will.
Therefore, according to the environmentalist, progress depends, not on human nature, but on conditions and institutions. Again, if man is the product of his environment, human differences are merely effects of environmental differences, and can be rapidly modified by environmental changes. Lastly, before the supreme importance of environment, all human differences whether individual or racial sink into insignificance, and all men are potentially "equal."
Such are the logical deductions from the environmentalist theory. And this theory was certainly attractive. It not only appealed to those wounded feelings of self-preservation and self-esteem among the ill-endowed and the unfortunate which we have previously examined, but it appealed also to many of the most superior minds of the race. What could be more attractive than the thought that humanity's ills were due, not to inborn shortcomings but to faulty surroundings, and that the most backward and degraded human beings might possibly be raised to the highest levels if only the environment were sufficiently improved? This appeal to altruism was powerfully strengthened by the Christian doctrine of the equality of all souls before God. What wonder, then, that philosophers and scientists combined to elaborate theories about mankind of a wholly environmentalist character?
All the greatest thinkers of the eighteenth century (who still influence our ideas and institutions to a far greater degree than we may imagine) were convinced believers in "natural equality." Locke and Hume, for example, taught that at birth "the human mind is a blank sheet, and the brain a structureless mass, lacking inherent organization or tendencies to develop in this way or that; a mere mass of undefined potentialities which, through
experience, association, and habit, through education, in short, could be molded and developed to an unlimited extent and in any manner or direction." (1) The doctrine of natural equality was brilliantly formulated by Rousseau, and was explicitly stated both in the American Declaration of Independence and in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man. The doctrine, in its most uncompromising form, held its ground until well past the middle of the nineteenth century. At that period so notable a thinker as John Stuart Mill could declare roundly: "Of all vulgar modes of escaping from the consideration of the effect of social and moral influences on the human mind, the most vulgar is that of attributing the diversities of conduct and character to inherent natural differences."
Mill's utterance may be considered an expression of pure environmentalism. At the moment when he spoke, however, the doctrine had already been considerably modified. In fact, by the beginning of the nineteenth century, the progress of science had begun to lift the veil which obscured the mystery of heredity, and scientists were commencing to give close attention to such matters. At first the phenomena of inheritance were not believed to effect the basic importance of environment.
This idea was clearly stated early in the nineteenth century by the French naturalist Lamarck. Lamarck asserted that the forms and functions of living beings arose and developed through use, and that such changes were directly transmitted from generation to generation. In other words, Lamarck formulated the theory of the "inheritance of acquired characteristics" which was destined to dominate biological thinking down to a generation ago. This theory, which is usually termed "Lamarckism," was merely a modification of the old environmentalist philosophy. It admitted the factor of heredity, but it considered heredity dependent upon environmental influences.
It is difficult to overestimate the tremendous practical consequences of Lamarkism, not merely upon the nineteenth century but also upon our times. the primal importance of heredity may to-day be accepted by most scientists and by an increasing number of forward-looking persons everywhere, but it has as yet neither deeply penetrated the popular consciousness nor sensibly modified our institutions. The march of new ideas is slow at best, and however much we may be changing our thinking, we are still living and acting under the environmentalist theories of the past. Our political, educational, and social systems remain alike rooted in Lamarckism and proceed on the basic premise that environment rather than heredity is the chief factor in human existence.
The emotional grip of Lamarckism is very strong. It is an optimistic creed, appealing to both the hopes and sympathies. To Lamarckism was due in large measure the cheery self-confidence of the nineteenth century, with its assurance of automatic and illimitable progress. Indeed, in some respects, Lamarckism increased rather than diminished the traditional faith in environment. Before Lamarck, men had believed that the new-born individual was a blank sheet on which society could write. Now came Lamarck, asserting that much of this writing could be passed on by inheritance to succeeding generations with cumulative effect. Considering the powerful agencies which society had at its disposal -- government, the church, the home, the school, philanthropy, etc. it was easy to believe that a wiser and intenser application of these social agencies offered a sure and speedy road to the millennium.

Accordingly, "the comfortable and optimistic doctrine was preached that we had only to improve one generation by more healthy surroundings, or by better education, and, by the mere action of heredity, the next generation would begin on a higher level of natural endowments than its predecessor. And so, from generation to generation, on this theory, we could hope continually to raise the inborn character of a race in an unlimited progress of cumulative improvement." (2)
On this common environmentalist basis all the political and social philosophies of the nineteenth century arose.
They might differ widely and wrangle bitterly over which environmental factor was of prime importance. Political thinkers asserted that progress depended on constitutions; "naturalists" like Buckle claimed that peoples were moulded by their physical environments like so much soft clay; while Socialists proclaimed that man's regeneration lay in a new system of economics. Nevertheless, they were all united by a common belief in the
supreme importance of environment, and they all either ignored heredity or deemed it a minor factor.
We need to stress this point, because we must remember that it is precisely these doctrines which still sway the thought and action of most persons -- even the educated. "Whether they know it or not, most people who have not made a particular study of the question still tacitly assume that the acquirements of one generation form part of the inborn heritage of the next, and the present social and educational systems are founded in large
part on this false foundation." (3)
Let us now consider the rise of the new biology, which has already exerted so powerful an influence upon our philosophy of life and which promises to affect profoundly the destines of mankind. Modern biology can be said to date from the publication of Darwin's work on The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, in the year 1859. This epoch-making book was fiercely challenged and was not generally accepted even by the scientific world until the last quarter of the nineteenth century.
Its acceptance, however, marked nothing short of a revolution in the realm of ideas. Darwin established the principle of evolution and showed that evolution preceeded by heredity. A second great step was soon taken by Francis Galton, the founder of the science of "Eugenics" or "Race Betterment." Darwin had centred his attention on animals. Galton applied Darwin's teaching to man, and went on to break new ground by pointing out not merely the inborn differences between men, but the fact that these differences could be controlled; that the human stock could be surely and lastingly improved by increasing the number of individuals endowed with superior qualities and decreasing the number of inferiors. In other words, Galton grapsed fully the momentous implications of heredity (which Darwin had not done), and announced clearly that heredity rather than environment was the basic factor in life and the prime lever of human progress.
_

(1) W. McDougall, Is America Safe for Democracy? (Lowell Institute
Lectures), p.21 (New York, 1921).

(2) W.C.D. and C.D. Whetham, Heredity and Society, p.4 (London
1912)

(3) Popenoe and Johnson, Applied Eugenics, p.33 (New York, 1920)

This is an excerpt of Chapter II - The Iron Law of Inequality from The Revolt Against Civilization; The Menace of the Under Man (1922) by Lothrop Stoddard PhD (Harvard).

.