WCP6902

[1]

[page illeg.]

[2]

[page illeg.]

[3] It is the ^{quality in the} [1 word illeg.] which then an these individual in the offering of the future will ^{in the long run} control, [1 word illeg crossed out] all the [1 word illeg] of the [1 word illeg] power[.] Even [1 word illeg.] which to [1 word illeg.] which environment must fit into it or the game will not in turn maintain its [1 word illeg.] which in the struggle[.] Perhaps I may be allowed to make this xxxx claim by the following quotation from a letter written to Mr A R Wallace in a correspondence on the subject.

[4]

[page illeg.]

[5]

[page illeg.]

[6]

[page illeg.]

[7]

[page illeg.]

[1]

WESTGATE,

SOUTH CROYDON.

Will you grant me the favour of a little space for a brief explanation of a few points connected with my <last> book Principles of W.C. [illeg.] <the> Henry's[?] within [illeg.] of the book contribution to the last number of nature, Rev if the [illeg] of the book in question of the book in last month's issue of Nature he asks how I [2 words illeg.] ^{with reference to what he currently states to} be the main idea of the book; how is it possible the offspring in the future "projected efficiency" can determine a struggle that has to be fought out in the present? For one has to look at the I have [illeg.] this <sentence> <through> some <time> <now>

[1] May I in cu

I would in

[1 word illeg] is one further matter [1 word illeg]

in which I I would like to refer to one matter further mentioned by the reviewer. ^{In any} The [1 word illeg] and assumptions which he with which he answers the author [3 words illeg] to the book he will find if he will only read it carefully. ^{Try to} [1 word illeg] ^him This is no [1 word illeg] assumptions required of the reader. If as in the argument about projected efficiency. ^{The argument for the principle} If the principle he [1 word illeg] principle of projected efficiency[1 word illeg] The argument

[2][p. 3]¹

Darwinian’s was almost exclusively incentrated[?][.] I am in the end subordinate to these, as otherwise the form will not maintain its place in the struggle [?] when the future becomes the present.

Perhaps I may be allowed to make the point clearer by the following quotation extract from a letter forming part of a correspondence written by me to Mr Alfred Russel Wallace and forming part of a correspondence on the subject.

I have remained fully conscious of the bearing of the fact that adaptation, as you say, "is always to present environment". As I have put it more than once — "the battle ground upon which Natural Selection can alone discriminate between such types of efficiency as may arise remains, and must always remain, in the present time". But my argument is that ^amongst almost every surviving form, as amongst all the forms which will endure in the future, this present efficiency, (i.e. adaptation to existing environment ) must include, ^{and must always have included} latent or otherwise, the qualities which will contribute to efficiency in a future and possibly changed environment. I am well aware of the fact that, as you say, "the unknown and non-existent future has no effect and can have no effect in evolution till it becomes the present". But the future [3][p. 4] is always becoming the present; and if the mind is carried back over the history of the development of form and functi^tion in any typpe it will , I think, come to be seen that it is really those qualities which have offered the best basis for adaptation in the as yet non-existent future which have in the end controlled the process throughout. The forms whose efficiency in the present did ^do not include the qualities, either active, latent, or indifferent, which will contribute ^contributing to efficiency in the future will ^do not maintain their places when the future becomes the present. They do not therefore count. They become, as it were, ^{as they have continually become in the past}, blind alleys in the evolutionary process. The only condition in which your bearing criticism would have a bearing on my argument would be that in which it would have to be assumed that no other qualities — active, inherent or indifferent — could co-exist with those by which a form of life was engaged in maintaining its adaptation, to existing environment. Even without Romanes[']² criticism (chap. VIII vol,II After Darwin), which I consider to be effective, it would now be impossible, I think, to hold this argument in face of facts. A great number of forms of life are always at any particular time adapting themselves to the same environment in different ways[,] and amongst these it is the forms in which the highest potentiality of adaptation in the future is already inherent which will inherit the future when it arrives. My divergence from the views of the early Darwinians may I think, be put in this way. I am not only regarding ^{not only} that infinitessimal cross section of the evolutionary process which is in the present but am looking at the process end-on, ^{when results which appear to us to be separated} [2 words illeg]³ as it were. Viewed in this way it seems to me to be about the [4][p. 5] efficiency in the future. Take for instance the evolution of the air-breathing lung of the higher animals, reputed to have come down through the type of the dipnoi mud-fishes[.] These fishes were, at the time, probably a lowly form al already to all appearance, from their habits, worsted in the main struggle amongst pisces. Yet

theirs, was the only adaptation amongst pisces which included the ^higher potentiality of the future. If you will go back over the details of the evolutionary process in your mind you will, I think, see that the forms which are constantly becoming extinct fail to hold their places in the present rivalry owing, as a rule, to causes which lie in the past history of the type. Their differentiation in response to an earlier environment has often been too complete. They are not able to respond as effectively as less differentiated forms when the future becomes the present in a changed environment. In the evolution of the determining functions of life it is, In the evolution it seems to me, the principle of projected efficiency that controls the process everywhere in the end. Take the case of the primates, where the evolution of brain-function has been correlated with development of a grasping organ. Looking at the conditions some stages back in biological time it would not have been possible to predict on your ^the principle of adaptation to existing environment the part which the lemuridae were destined to play in the evolution of life. The forms in [5][p. 6] it is the principle of projected efficiency included in existing adaptation which has ruled. During the evolution⁴

In my own long study of the forms intermediate between the social life of Bombus and that of Apis mellifica the same conclusion has been before me. It was the forms, possibly not the most successful at the time, in which present adaptation included qualities probably often indifferent but involving the potentiality of higher development of the social type in the as yet non-existent future which became in the end the winning typs types which extinguished the others. An example nearer home⁵

I think the principle will be established. It is in some respects a more inclusive one than that of natural selection as originally stated; for looking back over the mechanism of the evolutionary process the law of natural selection as first understood is, it seems to me, shut up with in it.

[6]⁶destination as in the early plants, the phanerogams and the cryptogams must for long have maintained a fairly equal struggle in relation to existing environment. But as soon as the mechanism of the higher function has been ^is perfected the former-inherit the flowering plants take ^increasing possession of the earth and the cryptogams drop slowly out. [1 illegible typed sentence and 1 illegible handwritten sentence crossed out]

In my own long study of the forms intermediate between the social life of bombus and that of apis mellifica the same conclusion has been always before me. It was the forms, possibly often not the most successf ful at the time, in which present adaptation included qualities probably often indifferent but involving the potentiality of the higher development of the social type in the yet non-existent future which became the winning typs types that extinguished the others. An example nearer home is that of the struggle between Mahommedan[sic] civilization and our own in Western history. Judged by your test of adaptati[on] to existing environment Mahommedan[sic] civilization was ^{for the time being} quite eqaul[sic] to the other. It was probably in this respect its superior. Yet the other civilization contained the germs of a higher potentiality in the future; and now Natural Selection, as "the non-existent future" becomes the present has ^{in virtue of this fact} begun to discriminate against this its rival — projected efficiency again

I think the principle will be established. It is [in] some respects, a more inclusive one than Natural Selection for if you look closely at ^{looking back over} the mechanism of the evolutionary process the Law of natural Selection is, it seems to me shut up within it.

I regret that I cannot accept your offer of agreement with me provided I put the argument on a teleological basis. The argument for the principle of projected efficiency must stand or fall by by the same kind of reasoning as established [in] the countries[?] involved in facts of gravitation.

I am, Dear Mr. Wallace, with many thanks for your kindness | Very truly yours | Benj[amin] Kidd [signature]

[7][p. 7] I regret that I cannot accept your offer of agreement with me provided I put the argument on a teleological basis. The argument for the principle of projected efficiency must stand or fall by the same kind of reasoning as established the deductions ^from founded on the facts of gravitation.

I am, Dear Mr Wallace, very truly yours | Benj Kidd [signature]

May I in conclusion beg ^ask Mr Headley⁷ to understand that the argument of the book does not (as he seems to imagine) involve any teleological assumption. The creeds and dogmas against which he tilts are, I beg to assure him, unrepresented in the book, as he will find if he will read it carefully. It certainly represents an attempt to deal with the principles of Western Civilisation as affected by the form of belief associated with it, but the aim has been to do this work in "the same attitude of passionless indifference to all preconceived opinions and beliefs whatever which has now come to be the ideal if not the characteristic of the higher work of science in every other department of knowledge." In this attempt one conviction, at all events, has been over present in the mind of the author namely a conviction ^that of the unworthy position occupied by science in the squalid polemics of the last few decades wherein a subject like totemism on affecting the development of society is ^considered the occasion of exhaustive scientific studly study, while the principles and phenomena of as affecting the evolution of society, of the important and [1 word illeg] form of religious belief associated with our civilisation have been conceived as if they called for no serious scientific study or notice from science. There is one plea which I would earnestly enter in Nature[.] It is that the principle that I have endeavoured to [1 word illeg crossed out] enunciate may be considered in the spirit in which it is [8][p. 8] I have thus endeavoured to put it forward. A book and a principle which touches the subject of heated controversy at so many points ^{is heavily handicapped enough against fair consideration. It} must expect to be misrepresented and even absurdly distorted. But I should ^{expect to} be free from this [1 word illeg crossed out] from a reviewer in [1 word illeg crossed out] ^the columns ^of Nature. Even in so small a matter however, as a summary of very ^the argument Mr Headley sets one's teeth on edge by suggesting that I continually [1 word illeg] of the "marvellous" and the "astounding". while Words like, noteworthy, remarkable or extra-ordinary are perf perfectly legitimate as applied to phenomena. ^But no scientific writer would, in [1 word illeg] circumstances use either of the above and I venture to [1 word illeg] Mr Headley once more that if he will read the book, rather than review of it itself and not other sources of it he will not find either of these words ^{as so used by me} within its covers.

I am &c | Benjamin Kidd [signature]

[1]¹

Dear Mr Wallace

Thank you very much for your letter. I am sorry for your remarks on the principle of "Projected Efficiency"; not, indeed, because they shake my mind on the subject, but because you should think I had gone so little into the matter as not to be able to meet them. The criticism (as it appears to me) does not reach the heart of the subject. It is of course possible and even likely that in dealing with a matter that has been developing in my own mind for some fifteen years in a single chapter in my recent book, I may, from the point of view of the reader, have taken too much for granted. If this should prove to be so there will of course be nothing for it but to go into the subject more fully elsewhere.

I do not know how far you had got with the book but you will see before the end that I have²

[1]¹

Dear Mr Wallace

Thank you very much for your letter. I am sorry for your remarks on the principle of "Projected Efficiency"; not, indeed, because they shake my mind on the subject, but because you should think I had gone so little into the subject matter as not to be able to meet them. The criticism (as it appears to me) is altogether elementary does not reach the heart of the subject. It is of course possible and even likely that in dealing with a matter that has been developing in my own mind for some fifteen years in a single chapter in my recent book, I may^{, from the point of view of the reader,} have taken too much for granted. If this should prove to be so there will of course be nothing for it but to go into the subject more fully elsewhere.

I do not know how far you had got with the book but you will see before the end that I have remained fully conscious of the bearing of the fact that adaptation, as you say, "is always to present environment". As I have put it more than once, "the battle ground upon which Natural Selection can alone discriminate between such types of efficiency as may arise remains, and must always remain, in the present time["]. But my argument is that almost every surviving form, as amongst all the forms which will endure in the future, this present efficiency (i.e. adaptation to existing environment) must include^{, latent or otherwise,} the qualities which will contribute to efficiency in a future and possibly changed environment. I am well aware of the fact that, as you well say, "the unknown existent [2] and non-existent future has no effect and can have no effect in evolution till it becomes the present". But the future is always becoming the present; and if you carry your mind the mind is carried back over the history of the development of form and function in any type you it will, I think come to see [to] be seen that it is really those qualities which have been identified with offered the best basis for adaptation in the as yet non-existent future which have in the end controlled the process throughout. The forms whose efficiency in the present did not include the qualities, either active, latent, or indifferent, which will contribute no efficiency in the future do will not maintain their places when the future becomes the present. They do not therefore count. ^{They become, as it were, blind alleys in the evolutionary process}. The only condition in which your criticism would have a bearing on my argument would have a bearing on my argument would be that in which it would have to be assumed that no ^other qualities — active, inherent or indifferent — could co-exist with those by which a form of life was engaged in maintaining its adaptation to existing environment. Even without Romane's criticism (Chap. VIII Vol II After Darwin) which I consider to be effective, it would now be impossible, I think, to hold this argument in face of facts. A great number of forms of life are always at any particular time adapting themselves to the same environment in different ways, and amongst these it is the forms in which the highest potentiality of adaptation in the future is already inherent which will be naturally inherit the future when it arrives. My great divergence from the views of the early Darwinians may I think, be put in this way wise. They looked at I am not only regarding that infinitessimal cross-section of the evolutionary process which they say ^is in the present ^{but am} looking at it the process end-on, ^{as it were. Viewed in this way} it seems to me to be about the slow evolution of the main great functions of life that the main struggle has always centred. Adaptation of the needs of the passing present, so long as the form has been able ^{without retrogression} to preserve itself from extinction, has been a secondary matter compared with ^{large and often determining} efficiency in the future. Take for instance the evolution of the air-breathing lung of the higher animals, reputed to have come down through the type [3] of the dipnoi ^mud-fishes. These ^fishes were, at the time, probably a lowly form al already to all appearances, from their habits, worsted in the main struggle amongst pisces. Yet theirs was the only adaptation amongst pisces which included the potentiality of the future. If you will go back over the details of the evolutionary process in your mind you will, I think, see that the forms which are constantly becoming extinct fail to hold their places in the present rivalry because of a cause owing, as a rule, to causes which lies in the past history of the type. Their differentiation in response to an earlier environment has ^often been too complete. They were are not able to respond as effectively as less differentiated forms when the future becomes the present in a changed environment. In the evolution of the determining functions of life it is it seems to me the principle of projected efficiency that has controlled controls the process throughout ^{everywhere in the end}. Take the case of the primates, where the evolution of brain function has benn been correlated with development of a grasping organ, Looking at the condition of life some stages back in biological time it would not have been possible to predict ^{on your principle of} to adaptation to existing environment the part which the Lemur^idae were destined to play in the evolution of life. The forms in which adaptation to existing environment (in large size of body and well developed weapons of attack and defence) had been carried furthest ^{were apparently the highest types and were in fullest possession of the world. But they} have since been dropping out of the struggle. It was the comparatively undifferentiated Lemuridae — related as Huxley has said to the lowest, smallest, and least intelligent of the placental Mammalia — which were destined to become the dominant type and to carry brain development to its highest potentiality. Similarly in the central tstruggle struggle waged round the evolution of function in plant life it is the principle of projected efficiency developed in existing adaptation which has ruled. In During the evolution of the mechanism by which the phanerogams the fertilisi [sic: fertilized] cell in reaching the resting cell to be waiting to be fertilized ^{is air-borne and afterwards becomes directly insect-borne} instead of having to accidentally swim to its²