Part 7 (2/2)
It is fatal to apply the ”survival of the fittest” theory in the same sense to two radically different cla.s.ses of life. The ”survival of the fittest” for animals-for _s.p.a.ce_-binders-is survival _in s.p.a.ce_, which means fighting and other brutal forms of struggle; on the other hand, ”survival of the fittest” for human beings _as such_-that is, for _time-binders_-is survival _in time_, which means intellectual or spiritual compet.i.tion, struggle for excellence, for making the _best_ survive. The-fittest-in-time-those who make the best survive-are those who do the most in producing values for all mankind including _posterity_.
This is the scientific base for natural ethics, and ethics from which there can be no side-stepping, or escape.
Therefore time-binders can not use ”_animal_” logic without degrading themselves from their proper status as human beings-their status as established by nature. ”Animal” logic leads to ”animal” ethics and ”animal” economics; it leads inevitably to a brutalized industrial system in which cunning contrives to rob the living of the fruit of the dead.
_Human_ logic points to human ethics and human economics; it will lead to a humanized industrial system in which compet.i.tion will be compet.i.tion in science, in art, in justice: a compet.i.tion and struggle for the attainment of excellence in human life. The time-binding capacity, which manifests itself in drawing from the PAST, through the PRESENT for the FUTURE gives human beings the means of attaining a precious kind of immortality; it enables them to fulfill the law of their own cla.s.s of life and to survive everlastingly in the fruits of their toil, a perpetual blessing to endless generations of the children of men. This is the truth we instinctively recognize when we call a great man ”immortal.” We mean that he has done deeds that _survive in time_ for the perpetual weal of mankind.
Human logic-mathematical logic, the logic _natural_ for man-will thus show us that ”good” and ”just” and ”right” are to have their significance defined and understood entirely in terms of human _nature_. Human nature-not animal nature-is to be the basis and guide of Human Engineering. Thus based and guided, Human Engineering will eliminate ”wild-cat schemers,” gamblers and ”politicians.” It will put an end to industrial violence, strikes, insurrections, war and revolutions.
The present system of social life is largely built upon misconceptions or misrepresentations. For all work we need the human brain, the human time-binding power, yet we continue to call it ”hand-labor” and treat it as such. Even in mechanical science, in the use of the term ”horse-power,”
we are incorrect in this expression. How does this ”horse” look in reality? Let us a.n.a.lyse this ”horse.” All science, all mechanical appliances have been produced by ”man” and man alone. Everything we possess is the production of either dead men's or living men's work. The enslavement of the solar man-power is purely a human invention in theory and practice. Everything we have is evidently therefore a time-binding product. What perfect nonsense to call a purely human achievement the equivalent of so much ”horse-power”! Of course it does not matter mathematically what name we give to a unit of power; we may call it a Zeus or a Zebra; but there is a very vicious implication in using the name of an animal to denote a purely human product. Everything in our civilization was produced by MAN; it seems only reasonable that this unit of power which is the direct product of Man's work, should be correctly named after him. The educational effect would be wholesome and tremendous. The human value in work would be thus emphasized again and again, and respect for human work would be taught, from the beginning in the schools. This ”horse-power” unit causes us to forget the human part in it and it degrades human work to the level of a commodity. This is an example of the degrading influence of wrong conceptions and wrong language. I said ”educational” because even our subconscious mind is affected by this. (See App. II.)
Human Engineering will not interfere with any scientific research; on the contrary, it will promote it in many ways. Grown-ups, it is to be hoped, will stop the nonsense of intermixing dimensions, for which we chastise children. It is the same kind of blundering as when we intermix phenomena-measuring ”G.o.d” by human standards, or human beings by animal standards. The relations.h.i.+p, if any, between these phenomena or the overlapping of different cla.s.ses, is interesting and important; but in studying such relations.h.i.+ps of cla.s.ses, it is fatal to mix the cla.s.ses; for example, if we are studying the relations between surfaces and solids, it is fatal to mistake solids for surfaces; just so, too, if we stupidly confuse humans with animals.
In the reality of life, we are interested only in the values of the function of the phenomena by themselves and to arrive at right conclusions we have to use units appropriate to the phenomena. The intermixing of units gives us a wrong conception of the values of each phenomenon; the results of our calculations are wrong and the outcome is a misconception of the process of human life. The fact once realized, we will cease applying animal measures to man; even theology will abandon the monstrous habit.
Animal units and standards are to be applied to animals, human standards to man, ”Divine” standards to ”G.o.d.”
In the dark ages, with the complete innocence or misunderstanding of science, the ”why” of things was explained by the ”who” of things; therein investigation culminated; man was regarded as _h.o.m.o sapiens_ and h.o.m.o sapiens = animal spark of _super_natural; this monstrous formula was accepted as a final truth-as an answer to the question: What is Man? This type of answer became in the hands of church and state a powerful instrument for keeping the people in subjection.
The tendency of the ma.s.ses to let others think for them is not really a _natural_ characteristic-quite the opposite. The habit of not thinking for one's self is the result of thousands of years of subjection. Those in authority, in general, used their ingenuity to keep the people from thinking. The most vital reason why many humans appear to be, and are often called, ”stupid,” is that they have been spoken to in a language of speculation which they instinctively dislike and distrust; thus there arose the proverb that speech was made to conceal the truth. It is no wonder that they appear ”stupid,” the wonder is that they are not more ”stupid.” The truth is that they will be found to be far less stupid when addressed in the natural language of ascertainable fact. My whole theory is based upon, and is in harmony with, the natural feelings of man. The conceptions I introduce are based on human _nature_. Natural language-so different from the speech of metaphysical speculation-will lead to mutual understanding and the disappearance of warring factions.
”Discrimination, as the proverb rightly teaches, is the beginning of mind. The first psychic product of that initial psychic act is _numerical_: to discriminate is to produce _two_, the simplest possible example of multiplicity. The discovery, or better the invention, better still the production, best of all the creation, of multiplicity with its correlate of number, is, therefore, the most primitive achievement or manifestation of mind.... Let us, then, trust the arithmetic instinct as fundamental and, for instruments of thought that shall not fail, repair at once to the domain of number.” (C. J. Keyser, Loc. Cit.)
The thinking few knew the power there is in ”thinking”; they wanted to have it and to keep the advantage of it for themselves; witness the late introduction of public schools. Belief in the inferiority of the ma.s.ses became the unwritten law of the ”privileged cla.s.ses”; it was forced upon, rubbed into, the subconscious mind of the ma.s.ses by church and state alike, and was humbly and dumbly accepted by the ”lower orders” as their ”destiny.” Ignorance was proclaimed as a bliss.
As time went on, this ”coefficient of ignorance” became so useful to some people and some cla.s.ses of people that no effort was spared to keep the world in ignorance. It gave a legalistic excuse to imprison, burn and hang people for expressing an opinion which the ruling cla.s.ses did not like.
The elimination from church, from school, from universities, of any teacher, any professor or any minister who dared to exemplify or encourage fearless investigation and freedom of speech became very common. It is less common in our generation, but there remains much to win in the way of freedom.
Freedom, rightly understood, is the aim of Human Engineering. But freedom is not license, it is not licentiousness. Freedom consists in _lawful_ living-in living in accord with the laws of human _nature_-in accord with the _natural_ laws of Man. A plant is free when it is not prevented from living and growing according to the natural laws of plant life; an animal is free when it is not prevented from living according to the natural laws of animal life; human beings are free when and only when they are not prevented from living in accord with the natural laws of human life. I say ”when not prevented,” for human beings will live _naturally_ and, therefore, in freedom, when they are not prevented from thus living by ignorance of what human nature is and by artificial social systems established, maintained, and protected by such ignorance. Human freedom consists in exercising the time-binding energies of man in accordance with the natural laws of such natural energies. Human freedom is thus the aim of Human Engineering because Human Engineering is to be the science of human nature and the art of conducting human affairs in accordance with the laws of human nature. Survival of the fittest, where _fittest_ means _strongest_, is a _natural_ law for brutes, for animals, for the cla.s.s of mere _s.p.a.ce_-binders. Survival of the fittest, where _fittest_ means _best_ in science and art and wisdom, is a _natural_ law for mankind, the time-binding cla.s.s of life.
Chapter VIII. Elements Of Power
In the World War Germany displayed tremendous _power_. Restraining our emotions as much as possible, let us endeavor to a.n.a.lyse that power with mathematical dispa.s.sionateness.
Why did Germany display more power than any other single nation? Because in the establishment of her ”ethics,” her political system, and her economic structure, Germany availed herself, in larger measure than any other nation, of scientific achievements and scientific methods. It is a very common, very erroneous, and very harmful belief that war was created solely by a ”war-lord.” Every idea or movement doubtless originates with somebody but back of such ”originations” or initiations there are favoring conditions, forces and impulsions. The stage is set by life and the ages; the actor enters and the show begins. In the instance in question, the stage was set by our whole modern system of civilization. The war lords were the ”Deus ex machina”-the show was a real one-a tragedy.
The true origin of this war must be looked for in the economic field. Our economic system is the very complicated result of all our creeds, philosophies and social customs. It is therefore impossible to understand the working of the economic forces without understanding the foundation upon which this system of forces is based. A short list of works on the subject is given at the end of this book. A plain statement here will be enough.
Germany was committed to a policy of indefinite industrial expansion. This artificial expansion had reached its limits. Germany was on the verge of bankruptcy. Only a victorious war could avoid a national catastrophe; she played her last card, and lost despite her gigantic power, the greatest ever displayed by any nation. The leading European states were not able to overpower her for a long time. This writing is not intended as an apology for Germany, much less to praise her or her war lords. German purposes were nationally narrow and nationally selfish to the root; her methods were inhuman but Germany displayed power; and without the understanding of power, Human Engineering is impossible.
It is possibly a fault of the writer's military training, but it seems to him that the ”General Staff” point of view has as much claim to consideration as any other among the many different interpretations of history-perhaps it has more. It is not the primary aim of the general staff to ”fight,” very far from it. Their primary aim is ”victory” and all the better if victory be possible without a fight. Strategy, brain-work, intelligence, knowledge of facts-these are the chief weapons; brutal fighting is only a last resort. It is highly important to bear that in mind. Soldiers and engineers do not argue-they act. Germany affords the first example of a philosophy or a society having for its main purpose the generating of power to ”do things.” It seems only reasonable and intelligent to a.n.a.lyse the history of the war from the engineer's point of view, which, in this case, happens to coincide with the military point of view. It must be clearly understood that the modern general staff, or military, point of view has very little or nothing to do with the romance or poetry of war. War to-day is a grim business-but ”business” before all else. It has to mobilize all the resources of a nation and generate power to the limit of its capacity. The conduct of war to-day is a technological affair-its methods have to be engineering methods. To crush an obstacle, there is need of a giant hammer, and the more ma.s.s that can be given it and the greater the force put behind it, the more deadly will be the blow.
Prior to the World War technology had not been mobilized on so vast a scale nor confronted with a task so gigantic. Mobilized technology has revealed and demonstrated the fact that it is possible to generate almost unlimited power and has shown the way to do it; at the same time it has demonstrated the measureless potency of engineering and our utter helplessness without it. Technology is comparatively a new science; by some it is called a ”semi-science” because it deals primarily with the application of science to practical issues. But when it became necessary ”to do things,” an engineer had to be called; the general staff had to adopt his view, and all other practices and traditions were bent to his ideas.
<script>