I find that the ablest and most experienced workers have generally the most confidence as to what may be done even n ith the apparently lazy， shiftless or vicious by bringing fresh suggestions， encouragements and opportunities to bear upon them. And it is only a small portion of the poor that are even apparently lazy， shiftless or vicious； the majority comparing not unfavorably with the well-to-do classes in these respects.
Leaving aside general conditions which may depress whole nations or races， the main cause of poverty in a prosperous country like the United States is without doubt some sort of maladjustment between the individual， or the family or neighborhood group， and the wider com-(294)-munity， by reason of which potential capacity does not yield its proper fruit in efficiency and comfort. This is evidently the case， for example， with the sort of poverty most familiar in our American cities；that due to the bans planting of vast numbers of Europeans to a society， not too good for them as we carelessly assume， but out of connection with their habits and traditions. The Italians， Slavs and Russian Jews who just now throng our cities are by no means deficient， on the whole， either in intelligence， industry or thrift； and those who know them best find them prolific in some qualities， such as artistic sensibility of various kinds， in which America is otherwise rather deficient. But the process of adaptation to our industrial conditions is trying and leaves many in poverty and demoralization.
Among the native population also， poverty and the moral degradation which is often found with it is due largely， perhaps chiefly， to various kinds of maladjustment between the working classes and the industrial system梩o loss of employment from periodical depressions or from the introduction of new methods， to the lack of provision for industrial education， to the perils attending migration from country to city， and so on.
What shall we say of the doctrine very widely， though perhaps not very clearly， held that the poor are the " unfit" in course of elimination， and are suffering the painful but necessary consequences of an inferiority that society must get rid of at any cost ？ A notion of this kind may be discovered in the minds of many men of fair intelligence， and is due to remote， obscure and for the most part (295) mistaken impressions of the teaching of Malthus and Darwin.
The unfit， in the sense of Darwin and of biology in general， are those whose hereditary type is so unsuited to the conditions of life that it tends to die out， or at least suffer relative diminution in numbers， under the action of these conditions梐s white families tend to die out in the tropics. In other words， they have an inferiority due to heredity， and this inferiority is of such a character that they do not leave as many children to continue their race as do those of a superior or fitter type.
It is very questionable whether any great part of the poor answer the description in either of these respects. As to the first， it is the prevailing opinion with those most familiar with the matter that their inferiority， except possibly where a distinct race is in question， as with the Negroes， is due chiefly to deficient nurture， training and opportunity， and not to heredity. This view is supported by the fact that under the conditions which a country of opportunity， like the United States， affords， great masses of people rise from poverty to comfort， and many of them to opulence， showing that the stock was as capable as any. Something of this sort has taken place with German and Irish immigrants， and is likely to take place with Jews， Slavs and Italians.
As to elimination， it is well known that only poverty of the most extreme and destructive kinds avails to restrict propagation， and that the moderately poor have a higher rate of increase than the educated and well-to-do classes.
It is， in fact， far more the latter that are the "unfit" in a biological sense than the former.
(296)
The truth is that poverty is unfitness， but in a social and not a biological sense. That is to say， it means that] feeding， housing， family life， education and opportunity！ are below the standards that the social type calls for， and that their existence endangers the latter in a manner analogous to that in which the presence of inferior cattle in a herd endangers the biological type. They threaten， and to a greater or less degree actually bring about， a general degradation of the community， through ignorance， inefficiency， disease， vice， bad government， class hatred (or， still worse， class servility and arrogance) and so on.
But since the unfitness is social rather than biological， the method of elimination must also be social， namely， the reform of housing and neighborhood conditions， improvement of the schools， public teaching of trades， abolition of child-labor and the humanizing of industry.