exemption from the evils of alcoholism is by the survival of the fittest, and the elimination of the unfittest—at least, in so far as to prevent the latter influencing posterity—it is surely only logical to suppose that the way to secure exemption from zymotic disease, is by the survival of the fittest, and the elimination of the unfittest against the latter?
But there is this essential difference between disease and alcoholism: no man craves for disease, whereas many men crave, knowingly or unknowingly, for excessive indulgence in alcohol. We may reasonably hope to banish the microbes of disease; and, if we achieve their banishment, it will not matter how far the race retrogresses in relation to them, for no man will endeavour to bring them back. But in the face of the craving for alcohol, we cannot reasonably hope to banish that poison permanently; and if we succeed in banishing it for a time, the craving for it (or other narcotics), ever growing in consequence of retrogression, will assuredly result in some future generation in its reintroduction, when the last state of the race will be worse than the first; and, owing to unchecked atavism, the more complete and lengthened its banishment, the worse will be the state of affairs consequent on its reintroduction.
Moreover, there is no reason why we should not employ against disease, especially against such a disease as tuberculosis, which we can scarcely hope to banish, the same measures it is here proposed to employ against alcohol; there is no valid reason, for instance, why we should not forbid the marriage of persons weak against tuberculosis, or, at least, why we should not forbid the procreation of children by them, but, having regard to the happiness of posterity, every reason why we should. Such a proposal, also, will doubtless be objected to on "moral grounds"; but of this portion of the popular
