of the lowest class could be accomplished have already been explained in a previous chapter, and they need not be reviewed here. The point may be emphasized, however, that in the United States the restriction of immigration is a particularly important preliminary measure for improving the standards of unskilled labor; and, were effective restrictions enforced, our educational agencies are practically sufficient even now to bring about the desired improvement in standards.

Stimulating the Birth Rate of Superiors. Although it is unreasonable to hope that the portion of the population above the average will multiply at the highest rate, it is well within the range of possibility that they should increase their present rate of multiplication. Any falling off in the birth rate of the lowest class might advantageously be made up by an increased birth rate among the superior classes. The problem of the upper classes, however, is one even more difficult and delicate than that of the lower classes. Again the solution must be sought along the lines of the social forces at work, for only through indirect measures will there be any hope of success. The genetic forces involved are such as to necessitate for purposes of analysis a division of the upper class into two groups: those who have wealth according to upper-class standards, and those who have not. The best birth statistics available indicate that the former division has an even lower rate of increase than the latter, but most of the classifications are not detailed enough to make this point certain. According to March's figures for France, salaried employees had a lower birth rate than members of the leisure class. However this may be, the birth rate in both classes is low and the causes are not entirely identical.

The reason for the low birth rate among the wealthy is not primarily economic. They do not fear loss of position and they have ample means of providing for children. They are influenced rather by personal and social considerations. A craving for pleasure and personal comfort, pride in personal appearance, and the claims of exacting social obligations, all enter in vary. ing degrees into the desire for restriction of family cares and responsibilities. But, above all these personal considerations, is the pressure of a class sentiment which is opposed to large families, which looks askance at the appearance of numerous children. Large families savor too much of the slums. Family pride is usually strong enough to make desirable a few children, or at least a son; but to be prolific is to be gross.

Conditions in this class may best be met by the creation of a different sentiment. Ordinarily any attempt to direct social forces by exhortation is futile, because the ideals to be altered are not the ultimate causes of action, but are themselves the products of more fundamental forces; and these latter forces require rearrangement before any permanent reform can take place. A wind blowing on the surface of the water causes ripples, but it does not alter the course of the stream. But in this particular case the sentiment does not appear to be the outgrowth of very fundamental forces, and therefore some success might be anticipated in an attempt to counteract one set of opinions by another set. But alteration of class sentiment is always a delicate task. No crude appeal, especially from outside the group, would be effective. The revision of the sentiment must be based on the recognized superiority of the class and its consequent superior obligations. The ideal of social service and philanthropy has become almost a fad, and people of wealth should be made to realize that there is no kind of social service equal to that of contributing to the next generation children of superior quality and training; and that they, with their ample provision for the present, should devote themselves to the welfare of the future. However, new ideals by themselves might prove insufficient for reform, for after all mere sentiment against large families is not the only force to be overcome in the wealthy class. Desire for freedom, self-indulgence, and many other conditions are involved; and it is impossible to estimate the strength of their hold. Indeed the sentiment against large families accords with these other desires, or possibly grows out of them, and therefore it is questionable whether a sense of social obligation can be aroused sufficient to combat such a combination. Still, some way must be found to make impressive the necessity as well as the desirability of increasing the birth rate of superiors.

The intelligent classes in moderate circumstances restrict the

birth rate for reasons largely economic, although closely connected with these, and hardly distinguishable from them, is the modern desire for greater individual freedom. Intelligent women of today are not opposed to children, but they are opposed to becoming household drudges. Inasmuch as they can employ little service, a large family adds heavily to their burdens. Furthermore they have high standards and ambitions for their children which cannot be realized unless family numbers are limited. It is this desire for individual freedom and development, combined with limited resources for attaining them, which chiefly determines the marriage and birth rate of this class of superiors.

These causes are easily enough comprehended but not so easily altered. The standards of this class are on the whole desirable and their ideals creditable; and therefore the problem should be solved, if possible, without interference with these standards. Any useful and effective change must come through an amelioration of economic conditions. Higher average incomes for this class can be obtained only through slow improvements in standards of efficiency, and these can be expected eventually with the growth of more efficient and available educational opportunities. More immediate economic amelioration might come from improved methods of domestic economy and more rational modes of living. The intellectual classes who are in moderate circumstances should be the natural social leaders in promoting rational habits of living. Only within the last generation has much interest been taken in improving methods of domestic economy. Hitherto conditions of labor have been such that the upper classes could rely upon a plentiful supply of servants, and under these circumstances there was little incentive to improve methods. Progress in domestic economy follows much the same laws as those that govern national economy. As long as labor is plentiful and cheap, production is carried on by the direct application of human energy. When labor becomes scarce and expensive, improvements in methods are instituted and machinery is installed. So it is in domestic economy. When servants are no longer plentiful, improved methods and labor-saving appliances will be found. A detailed

discussion of possible methods of improvement would be out of place here; but it may be said that the line of improvement will not be unlike that which has taken place in industry. Progress in knowledge of foods and nutrition will probably make the preparation and serving of food less burdensome. Household inventions and improvements in methods will multiply rapidly and they will be preëminently labor- and time-saving devices. And finally coöperation and division of labor, so indispensable to industry, may find some application to household work. It may be remarked in passing that higher aesthetic standards are in no way inconsistent with simpler and more economical modes of life, as a comparison of the household arrangements of the present generation with those of the preceding will easily demonstrate.

If household cares can be materially lightened and cheapened it is a safe prediction that larger families will appear in the intellectual classes. The care of children would be preferred to the care of the house. It is where the latter is burdensome and unavoidable that the former is sacrificed. This does not mean that household drudgery is the new factor which has entered, in the present generation, to decrease the size of families. The new physical factor is the scarcity of servants to share household duties. But there is present in the situation also a new psychic factor, the desire for individual freedom. In proposing a remedy I have not attacked the new factors, as is usually done when new conditions bring mal-adjustment, because in this case they do not represent degeneration but progress. Individual freedom is a desirable ideal, within limits, and it has come to stay. Scarcity of servants represents a well-earned improvement in labor conditions. Under these circumstances rational reform will work in the direction of bringing related conditions into a new social adjustment. The present low birth rate among the intelligent classes is probably a temporary adjustment which can be modified by new conditions. The new factors affecting the birth rate appeared suddenly, and limitation in size of families seemed to be the only immediate and consistent method of adaptation. But it is a means that would soon prove detrimental to the race, whereas readjustment through improved domestic economy would be a gain in itself and would also probably prove to be of real assistance in restoring the racial balance.

In considering methods of relief for the intellectual classes emphasis has been laid on domestic economy; but any methods of simplifying the care of children and lightening its burden would conduce to the same ends. For the woman who toils outside the home, the problem of the child is simplified by assistance from visiting nurses and day nurseries where children may be left for a nominal sum while the mother is at work. The establishment of similar institutions for women who are not employed, but who can afford little service, would be even more of an eugenic measure. It would enable mothers to obtain rest and recreation without the expense of a permanent servant and without intrusting children to unskilled hands. The occasional relief that such institutions could give would make the care of children much less arduous.

Other measures have been proposed to stimulate the birth rate of superiors and a few of them would doubtless be of some eugenic value. The danger in most of the general relief measures, such as rewards for large families, is that they will only stimulate further the birth rate of inferiors and will have no direct effect upon the superiors. It has been suggested that tax systems should discriminate to a greater extent in favor of those who have children, throwing the heavier burden on those who have few or no children. Inasmuch as the poor are already exempt from direct taxation, it is thought that such a system would act as a stimulus to the more rapid multiplication of superiors. The principle itself is already recognized in both inheritance and income taxes; but the differential could be increased advantageously for the state, provided it would have the desired effect. An appreciable relief in the burden of taxation would no doubt at least permit children in families of moderate income to receive better care; but it is very doubtful if this force would be strong enough to affect the birth rate itself. However it might be made one of several factors which together would be effective in stimulating population.

The proposition that men who enter the professions should