again comes up the question of “stock” within each national area. Is some stock inherently superior, or is it merely a question of equality of opportunity, of material and cultural environment? Though by sympathy a keen environmentalist, I have never been able to get rid of the belief that heredity counts heavily, not merely for “success” in life, but for the higher intellectual and creative values. It is not merely the patent instances of families so rich in genius and ability as the Darwins, Huxleys, Coleridges, but my general experience of hereditary talent on a less distinguished level that obliges me to the conviction that our output of the highest values is seriously impaired by the small or no families of most of the men and women of greatest intellectual distinction in my time. It may well be the case (I have often argued it) that no approach towards equality of educational opportunities yet exists, and that only a small proportion of the naturally gifted sons and daughters of the poorer classes can avail themselves of those opportunities which are wrongly supposed to be within their reach. But while this is a strong argument in favour of a genuine equalization of educational and other opportunities, it does not dispose of the refusal of many men and women of genius or high capacity to realize the duty of transmitting such qualities as experience shows to be transmissible.
It may be true, as is sometimes maintained, that not only the desire but the capacity of procreation
