On the other hand, let us suppose for a moment (impossible supposition!) that mankind could conceivably divest itself of ’these foolish ideas about love and the tastes of young people,’ and could hand over the choice of partners for life to a committee of anthropologists, presided over by Sir George Campbell.  Would the committee manage things, I wonder, very much better than the Creator has managed them?  Where would they obtain that intimate knowledge of individual structures and functions and differences which would enable them to join together in holy matrimony fitting and complementary idiosyncrasies?  Is a living man, with all his organs, and powers, and faculties, and dispositions, so simple and easy a problem to read that anybody else can readily undertake to pick out off-hand a help meet for him?  I trow not!  A man is not a horse or a terrier.  You cannot discern his ‘points’ by simple inspection.  You cannot see a priori why a Hanoverian bandsman and his heavy, ignorant, uncultured wife, should conspire to produce a Sir William Herschel.  If you tried to improve the breed artificially, either by choice from outside, or by the creation of an independent moral sentiment, irrespective of that instinctive preference which we call Falling in Love, I believe that so far from improving man, you would only do one of two things—­either spoil his constitution, or produce a tame stereotyped pattern of amiable imbecility.  You would crush out all initiative, all spontaneity, all diversity, all originality; you would get an animated moral code instead of living men and women.

Look at the analogy of domestic animals.  That is the analogy to which breeding reformers always point with special pride:  but what does it really teach us?  That you can’t improve the efficiency of animals in any one point to any high degree, without upsetting the general balance of their constitution.  The race-horse can run a mile on a particular day at a particular place, bar accidents, with wonderful speed:  but that is about all he is good for.  His health as a whole is so surprisingly feeble that he has to be treated with as much care as a delicate exotic.  ‘In regard to animals and plants,’ says Sir George Campbell, ’we have very largely mastered the principles of heredity and culture, and the modes by which good qualities may be maximised, bad qualities minimised.’  True, so far as concerns a few points prized by ourselves for our own purposes.  But in doing this, we have so lowered the general constitutional vigour of the plants or animals that our vines fall an easy prey to oidium and phylloxera, our potatoes to the potato disease and the Colorado beetle; our sheep are stupid, our rabbits idiotic, our domestic breeds generally threatened with dangers to life and limb unknown to their wiry ancestors in the wild state.  And when one comes to deal with the infinitely more complex individuality of man, what hope would there be of our improving the breed by deliberate selection?  If we developed the intellect, we would probably stunt the physique or the moral nature; if we aimed at a general culture of all faculties alike, we would probably end by a Chinese uniformity of mediocre dead level.