Essays On Education And Kindred Subjects (Fiscle Part- 11), Herbert Spencer [historical books to read .txt] 📗

_À Priori_ Reasons For Trusting The   Appetites Of

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 53

Opinion. 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)