194 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



greater consequence in a high civilization than in a low ; is, in- 

 deed, or ought to be, considered one of the principal signs of the 

 existence of the former. While it was essential in even the low- 

 set form of social organization, it was for a long period of less 

 apparent importance. The earlier struggles for existence were 

 chiefly intertribal or international, and in these the qualities em- 

 phasized by Prof. Huxley as necessary for success were undoubt- 

 edly predominant. While the struggle still goes on in this form, 

 it no longer occupies the time and attention of mankind to the 

 same extent as formerly. Among civilized societies at least the 

 struggle for existence has also taken on another form, and the 

 conditions of success have greatly changed. Industrial competi- 

 tion has taken the place of war, and notwithstanding that the 

 theories and the methods of international conflict are still some- 

 what potent in this field, they are so mostly because our ethical, 

 and, for that matter, even our intellectual, training has not gone 

 far enough. It can not be denied that the reign of industrialism, 

 or at least the absence of war, has softened the manners if it has 

 not changed the character of men. Prof. Huxley himself bears 

 witness to this, for he says, "The cosmic nature born with us 

 and, to a large extent, necessary for our maintenance, is the out- 

 come of millions of years of severe training, and it would be folly 

 to imagine that a few centuries will suffice to subdue its master- 

 fulness to purely ethical ends" [p. 190]. 



It can, however, be shown, I think, that those societies will be- 

 come the victors in the struggle for industrial supremacy, who 

 are mentally and morally the most highly developed, or, in other 

 words, socially the fittest. In an article on Ethics and Econom- 

 ics, published in The Popular Science Monthly for October, 1888, 

 I have discussed this proposition at some length, but the follow- 

 ing quotation will, I think, answer my present purpose : 



" For the purpose in hand, we desire to call attention to the 

 necessity of basing our political economy on moral rather than 

 on selfish instincts. Powerful though the latter be, they are 

 more or less anti-social in their nature, and therefore would not 

 of themselves favor economic growth. That depends for its de- 

 velopment on social growth, and it is only when the selfish in- 

 stincts are held in due check and subordination to the higher im- 

 pulses that the latter is possible. Strength, keenness, and shrewd- 

 ness are important factors in determining the survival of the 

 individual, and, in so far as they do this, they favor also the sur- 

 vival of the race. But of more importance still are those traits 

 which, by enabling men to live together in peace, render possible 

 the organization of labor in such manner as to secure the great- 

 est economic return. In a word, our political economy, which has 

 been unmoral, must be made moral, if it is to be the science 



