EUGENICS AND EUTHENICS 498 
on the other hand, is likewise inadequate unless accompanied by 
constant improvement in the surroundings; and its advocates must 
demand euthenics as an accompaniment of selection, in order that the 
opportunity for getting a fair selection may be as free as possible. If 
the euthenist likewise takes pains not to ignore the existence of the 
racial factor, then the two schools are standing on the same ground, 
and it is merely a matter of taste or opportunity, whether one empha- 
sizes one side or the other. Each of the two factions, sometimes 
thought to be opposing, will be seen to be getting the same end result, 
namely, human progress. 
Not only are the two schools working for the same end, but each 
must depend in still another way upon the other, in order to make 
headway. The eugenist cannot see his measures put into effect except 
through changes in law and custom—i.e., euthenic changes. He must 
and does appeal to euthenics to secure action. The social reformer, on 
the other hand, cannot see any improvements made in civilization 
except through the discoveries and inventions of some citizens who are 
inherently superior in ability. He in turn must depend on eugenics 
for every advance that is made. 
It may make the situation clearer to state it in the customary 
terms of biological philosophy. Selection does not necessarily result 
in progressive evolution. It merely brings about the adaptation of 
a species or a group to a given environment. The tapeworm is the 
stock example. In human evolution, the nature of this environment 
will determine whether adaptation to it means progress or retro- 
gression, whether it leaves a race happier and more productive, or the 
reverse. All racial progress, or eugenics, therefore, depends on the 
creation of a good environment, and the fitting of the race to that 
environment. Every improvement in the environment should bring 
about a corresponding biological adaptation. The two factors in 
evolution must go side by side, if the race is to progress in what the 
human mind considers the direction of advancement. In this sense, 
euthenics and eugenics bear the same relation to human progress as 
a man’s two legs do to his locomotion. 
Social workers in purely euthenic fields have frequently failed to 
remember this progress of adaptation, in their efforts to change the 
environment. Eugenists, in centering their attention on adaptation, 
have sometimes paid too little attention to the kind of environment to 
which the race was being adapted. The present book holds that the 
