Essays On Education And Kindred Subjects (Fiscle Part- 11) - Herbert Spencer (if you give a mouse a cookie read aloud txt) 📗
- Author: Herbert Spencer
Book online «Essays On Education And Kindred Subjects (Fiscle Part- 11) - Herbert Spencer (if you give a mouse a cookie read aloud txt) 📗». Author Herbert Spencer
Children Are Strong; And That The Reasons Assigned For Distrusting Them
Are Invalid; But It Is That No Other Guidance Is Worthy Of Confidence.
What Is The Value Of This Parental Judgment, Set Up As An Alternative
Regulator? When To "Oliver Asking For More," The Mamma Or Governess Says
"No," On What Data Does She Proceed? She _Thinks_ He Has Had Enough. But
Where Are Her Grounds For So Thinking? Has She Some Secret Understanding
With The Boy's Stomach--Some _Clairvoyant_ Power Enabling Her To Discern
The Needs Of His Body? If Not, How Can She Safely Decide? Does She Not
Know That The Demand Of The System For Food Is Determined By Numerous
And Involved Causes--Varies With The Temperature, With The Hygrometric
State Of The Air, With The Electric State Of The Air--Varies Also
According To The Exercise Taken, According To The Kind And Quantity Of
Food Eaten At The Last Meal, And According To The Rapidity With Which
The Last Meal Was Digested? How Can She Calculate The Result Of Such A
Combination Of Causes? As We Heard Said By The Father Of A
Five-Years-Old Boy, Who Stands A Head Taller Than Most Of His Age, And
Is Proportionately Robust, Rosy, And Active:--"I Can See No Artificial
Standard By Which To Mete Out His Food. If I Say, 'This Much Is Enough,'
It Is A Mere Guess; And The Guess Is As Likely To Be Wrong As Right.
Consequently, Having No Faith In Guesses, I Let Him Eat His Fill." And
Certainly, Any One Judging Of His Policy By Its Effects, Would Be
Constrained To Admit Its Wisdom. In Truth, This Confidence, With Which
Most Parents Legislate For The Stomachs Of Their Children, Proves Their
Unacquaintance With Physiology: If They Knew More, They Would Be More
Modest. "The Pride Of Science Is Humble When Compared With The Pride Of
Ignorance." If Any One Would Learn How Little Faith Is To Be Placed In
Human Judgments, And How Much In The Pre-Established Arrangements Of
Things, Let Him Compare The Rashness Of The Inexperienced Physician With
The Caution Of The Most Advanced; Or Let Him Dip Into Sir John Forbes's
Work, _On Nature And Art In The Cure Of Disease_; And He Will See That,
In Proportion As Men Gain Knowledge Of The Laws Of Life, They Come To
Have Less Confidence In Themselves, And More In Nature.
Turning From The Question Of _Quantity_ Of Food To That Of _Quality_, We
May Discern The Same Ascetic Tendency. Not Simply A Restricted Diet, But
A Comparatively Low Diet, Is Thought Proper For Children. The Current
Opinion Is, That They Should Have But Little Animal Food. Among The Less
Wealthy Classes, Economy Seems To Have Dictated This Opinion--The Wish
Has Been Father To The Thought. Parents Not Affording To Buy Much Meat,
Answer The Petitions Of Juveniles With--"Meat Is Not Good For Little
Boys And Girls;" And This, At First Probably Nothing But A Convenient
Excuse, Has By Repetition Grown Into An Article Of Faith. While The
Classes With Whom Cost Is No Consideration, Have Been Swayed Partly By
The Example Of The Majority, Partly By The Influence Of Nurses Drawn
From The Lower Classes, And In Some Measure By The Reaction Against Past
Animalism.
If, However, We Inquire For The Basis Of This Opinion, We Find Little Or
None. It Is A Dogma Repeated And Received Without Proof, Like That
Which, For Thousands Of Years, Insisted On Swaddling-Clothes. Very
Probably For The Infant's Stomach, Not Yet Endowed With Much Muscular
Power, Meat, Which Requires Considerable Trituration Before It Can Be
Made Into Chyme, Is An Unfit Aliment. But This Objection Does Not Tell
Against Animal Food From Which The Fibrous Part Has Been Extracted; Nor
Does It Apply When, After The Lapse Of Two Or Three Years, Considerable
Muscular Vigour Has Been Acquired. And While The Evidence In Support Of
This Dogma, Partially Valid In The Case Of Very Young Children, Is Not
Valid In The Case Of Older Children, Who Are, Nevertheless, Ordinarily
Treated In Conformity With It, The Adverse Evidence Is Abundant And
Conclusive. The Verdict Of Science Is Exactly Opposite To The Popular
Part 1 Chapter 4 (Physical Education) Pg 53Opinion. We Have Put The Question To Two Of Our Leading Physicians, And
To Several Of The Most Distinguished Physiologists, And They Uniformly
Agree In The Conclusion, That Children Should Have A Diet Not _Less_
Nutritive, But, If Anything, _More_ Nutritive Than That Of Adults.
The Grounds For This Conclusion Are Obvious, And The Reasoning Simple.
It Needs But To Compare The Vital Processes Of A Man With Those Of A
Boy, To See That The Demand For Sustenance Is Relatively Greater In The
Boy Than In The Man. What Are The Ends For Which A Man Requires Food?
Each Day His Body Undergoes More Or Less Wear--Wear Through Muscular
Exertion, Wear Of The Nervous System Through Mental Actions, Wear Of The
Viscera In Carrying On The Functions Of Life; And The Tissue Thus Wasted
Has To Be Renewed. Each Day, Too, By Radiation, His Body Loses A Large
Amount Of Heat; And As, For The Continuance Of The Vital Actions, The
Temperature Of The Body Must Be Maintained, This Loss Has To Be
Compensated By A Constant Production Of Heat: To Which End Certain
Constituents Of The Body Are Ever Undergoing Oxidation. To Make Up For
The Day's Waste, And To Supply Fuel For The Day's Expenditure Of Heat,
Are, Then, The Sole Purposes For Which The Adult Requires Food. Consider
Now The Case Of The Boy. He, Too, Wastes The Substance Of His Body By
Action; And It Needs But To Note His Restless Activity To See That, In
Proportion To His Bulk, He Probably Wastes As Much As A Man. He, Too,
Loses Heat By Radiation; And, As His Body Exposes A Greater Surface In
Proportion To Its Mass Than Does That Of A Man, And Therefore Loses Heat
More Rapidly, The Quantity Of Heat-Food He Requires Is, Bulk For Bulk,
Greater Than That Required By A Man. So That Even Had The Boy No Other
Vital Processes To Carry On Than The Man Has, He Would Need, Relatively
To His Size, A Somewhat Larger Supply Of Nutriment. But, Besides
Repairing His Body And Maintaining Its Heat, The Boy Has To Make New
Tissue--To Grow. After Waste And Thermal Loss Have Been Provided For,
Such Surplus Of Nutriment As Remains Goes To The Further Building Up Of
The Frame; And Only In Virtue Of This Surplus Is Normal Growth Possible;
The Growth That Sometimes Takes Place In The Absence Of It, Causing A
Manifest Prostration Consequent Upon Defective Repair. It Is True That
Because Of A Certain Mechanical Law Which Cannot Be Here Explained, A
Small Organism Has An Advantage Over A Large One In The Ratio Between
The Sustaining And Destroying Forces--An Advantage, Indeed, To Which The
Very Possibility Of Growth Is Owing. But This Admission Only Makes It
The More Obvious That Though Much Adverse Treatment May Be Borne Without
This Excess Of Vitality Being Quite Out-Balanced; Yet Any Adverse
Treatment, By Diminishing It, Must Diminish The Size Or Structural
Perfection Reached. How Peremptory Is The Demand Of The Unfolding
Organism For Materials, Is Seen Alike In That "Schoolboy Hunger," Which
After-Life Rarely Parallels In Intensity, And In The Comparatively Quick
Return Of Appetite. And If There Needs Further Evidence Of This Extra
Necessity For Nutriment, We Have It In The Fact That, During The Famines
Following Shipwrecks And Other Disasters, The Children Are The First To
Die.
This Relatively Greater Need For Nutriment Being Admitted, As It Must
Be, The Question That Remains Is--Shall We Meet It By Giving An
Excessive Quantity Of What May Be Called Dilute Food, Or A More Moderate
Quantity Of Concentrated Food? The Nutriment Obtainable From A Given
Weight Of Meat Is Obtainable Only From A Larger Weight Of Bread, Or From
A Still Larger Weight Of Potatoes, And So On. To Fulfil The Requirement,
The Quantity Must Be Increased As The Nutritiveness Is Diminished.
Shall, We, Then, Respond To The Extra Wants Of The Growing Child By
Giving An Adequate Quantity Of Food As Good As That Of Adults? Or,
Regardless Of The Fact That Its Stomach Has To Dispose Of A Relatively
Larger Quantity Even Of This Good Food, Shall We Further Tax It By
Giving An Inferior Food In Still Greater Quantity?
The Answer Is Tolerably Obvious. The More The Labour Of Digestion Is
Economised, The More Energy Is Left For The Purposes Of Growth And
Action. The Functions Of The Stomach And Intestines Cannot Be Performed
Without A Large Supply Of Blood And Nervous Power; And In The
Comparative Lassitude That Follows A Hearty Meal, Every Adult Has Proof
That This Supply Of Blood And Nervous Power Is At The Expense Of The
System At Large. If The Requisite Nutriment Is Obtained From A Great
Quantity Of Innutritious Food, More Work Is Entailed On The Viscera Than
When It Is Obtained From A Moderate Quantity Of Nutritious Food. This
Extra Work Is So Much Loss--A Loss Which In Children Shows Itself Either
In Diminished Energy, Or In Smaller Growth, Or In Both. The Inference
Is, Then, That They Should Have A Diet Which Combines, As Much As
Possible, Nutritiveness And Digestibility.
It Is Doubtless True That Boys And Girls May Be Reared Upon An
Exclusively, Or Almost Exclusively, Vegetable Diet. Among The Upper
Classes Are To Be Found Children To Whom Comparatively Little Meat Is
Given; And Who, Nevertheless, Grow And Appear In Good Health. Animal
Food Is Scarcely Tasted By The Offspring Of Labouring People; And Yet
They Reach A Healthy Maturity. But These Seemingly Adverse Facts Have By
No Means The Weight Commonly Supposed. In The First Place, It Does Not
Follow That Those Who In Early Years Flourish On Bread And Potatoes,
Will Eventually Reach A Fine Development; And A Comparison Between The
Agricultural Labourers And The Gentry, In England, Or Between The Middle
And Lower Classes In France Is By No Means In Favour Of Vegetable
Feeders. In The Second Place, The Question Is Not Simply A Question Of
_Bulk_, But Also A Question Of _Quality_. A Soft, Flabby Flesh Makes As
Good A Show As A Firm One; But Though To The Careless Eye, A Child Of
Full, Flaccid Tissue May Appear The Equal Of One Whose Fibres Are Well
Toned, A Trial Of Strength Will Prove The Difference. Obesity In Adults
Is Often A Sign Of Feebleness. Men Lose Weight In Training. Hence The
Appearance Of These Low-Fed Children Is Far From Conclusive. In The
Third Place, Besides _Size_, We Have To Consider _Energy_. Between
Children Of The Meat-Eating Classes And Those Of The
Bread-And-Potato-Eating Classes, There Is A Marked Contrast In This
Respect. Both In Mental And Physical Vivacity The Peasant-Boy Is Greatly
Inferior To The Son Of A Gentleman.
If We Compare Different Kinds Of Animals, Or Different Races Of Men, Or
The Same Animals Or Men When Differently Fed, We Find Still More
Distinct Proof That _The Degree Of Energy Essentially Depends On The
Nutritiveness Of The Food_.
In A Cow, Subsisting On So Innutritive A Food As Grass, We See That The
Immense Quantity Required Necessitates An Enormous Digestive System;
That The Limbs, Small In Comparison With The Body, Are Burdened By Its
Weight; That In Carrying About This Heavy Body And Digesting This
Excessive Quantity Of Food, Much Force Is Expended; And That, Having But
Little Remaining, The Creature Is Sluggish. Compare With The Cow A
Part 1 Chapter 4 (Physical Education)
Comments (0)