INVENTION AND PRODUCTION 253 



spirit of a people, which does not develop their latent energy, or 

 which wastes their energy in a kind of effort which does not sup- 

 port life or support it abundantly, will fail because it will cause 

 the failure of the people who are handicapped by it. But the 

 religion which stimulates to high endeavor and develops the 

 latent energy of its people, and directs that energy wisely and 

 productively, will succeed because the people who are fortunate 

 enough to possess it will succeed and hold dominion over the 

 world." ! 



The third general division of Professor Carver's social philos- 

 ophy is passive social adaptation which includes moral develop- 

 ment and education. As already indicated the welfare of the 

 sovereign group is the summum bonum and the standard for 

 judging all other good. In this discussion we are reminded of 

 both Nietzsche and Spencer. He differs from the former in sub- 

 stituting the concept of the super-group for that of the super-man 

 thus making large place for sympathy, sociability, co-operation 

 and religion, negatived by Nietzsche. He differs from Spencer 

 chiefly in the following points: 



1. Adaptation rather than increasing complexity is considered 

 the test of progress with no expectation of attaining a state of 

 perfect equilibrium. 



2. Spencer's negative regulative theory of government is 

 replaced by a strong doctrine of social control. 



3. The well-being of the group is placed above that of the 

 individuals that compose it. Spencer held this position for the 

 group when endangered by another group but thought this 

 menace would decrease continually under industrialism. Pro- 

 fessor Carver sees no possibility of removing the causes of inter- 

 group conflict because of the working of the Malthusian law of 

 population and the law of diminishing returns. 2 



With Professor Carver, then, that is good which tends to 

 strengthen the group in competition with other groups. That is 

 evil which tends to weaken the group. As his social theory is a 



1 The Religion Worth Having, pp. 22, 23. 



2 In this he agrees with Van Dyke Robinson. See Selections, p. 133. Cf. 

 Essays in Social Justice, chs. I and II. 



