That there are strains of biological unfitness among the poor梙ereditary idiocy， or nervous instability tending toward vice and crime， for example梚s not to be denied， and certainly these should be eliminated， but poverty， far from effecting elimination， is perhaps their main cause. This will， no doubt， be duly considered by students of the new science of eugenics， for which those of us who approach social problems from another point of view may yet have the highest regard and expectation. Only a shallow sort of mind will suppose there is any necessary conflict between biological and psychological sociology.
As to the question， who is to blame for poverty， let us remember that the whole question of praise or blame is one of point of view and expediency.
Blame the poor if it (297) will do them any good， and sometimes， perhaps， it will， but not so often probably as the well-to-do are apt to imagine. It used to be thought that people must always be held responsible for their condition， and that the main if not the only source of improvement was to prod their sense of this responsibility； but more thoughtful observation shows that it is not always a good thing to urge the will. "Worry，" says an experienced worker， [1] "is one of the direct and all-pervading causes of economic dependence，" and he asserts that "Take no thought for the morrow" is often the most practical advice. Many indications， among them the spread of "mind-cure"doctrines and practices， point to a widely felt need to escape from the waste and unrest of an over-stimulated sense of responsibility.
The main blame for poverty must rest upon the prosperous， because they have， on the whole， far more power in the premises. However， poverty being due chiefly to conditions of which society is only just beginning to become conscious， we may say that in the past nobody has been to blame. It is an unintended result of the economic struggle， and is "done with the elbows rather than the fists." But consciousness is arising， and with it comes responsibility. We are becoming aware of what makes poverty and how it can in great part be done away with， and if accomplishment does not keep pace with knowledge we shall be to blame indeed.
All parts of society being interdependent， the evils of (298) poverty are not confined to one class， but spread through out the whole； and the influence of a low standard of living is felt in the corruption of politics， the prevalence of vice and the inefficiency of labor. The cause of the poor is therefore the cause of all， and from this point of view those of them who in spite of weakness， discouragement and neglect keep up the fight for a decent life and shun dependence and degradation， should be regarded as heroic defenders of the general welfare， deserving praise as much as the soldier at the front. If we do not so regard them， it is because of our lack of intelligence and social consciousness.
In a truly organic society the struggles and suffering of a poor class would arouse the same affectionate and helping solicitude as is felt when one member of a family falls ill. In contrast to this， the indifference or somewhat contemptuous pity usually felt toward poverty indicates a low state of community sentiment， a deficient we-feeling. Respect and appreciation would seem to be due to those who sustain the struggle successfully， and sympathetic help to those who are broken down by it. Especially brutal， stupid and inexpedient梬hen we think of it？is the old way of lumping the poor with the degenerate as "the lower class，" and either leaving them to bear their discredited existence as best they may， or dealing out to them a contemptuous and unbrotherly alms. The confusion with the degraded of those who are keeping up the social standard in the face of exceptional difficulties is as mean and deadly a wrong as could well be.
In so far as there is an effective， self-conscious Christian (299) spirit in the world， thought， feeling and effort must concentrate wherever there is injustice or avoidable suffering. That this takes place so slowly and imperfectly in the matter of poverty is largely owing to a lack of clear perception of wllat ougbt to be done. I suppose there is no doubt that if mere gifts could wipe out poverty it would be wiped out at once. But people are now， for the most part， just sufficiently informed to see the futility of ordinary alms， without being instructed in the possibilities of rational philanthropy. Rational philanthropy is coming， however， along with an excellent literature and a body of expert persons who unite humane enthusiasm with a scientific spirit. [2]
The fundamental remedy for poverty is， of course， rational organization having for its aim the control of those conditions， near and remote， which lead people into it and prevent their getting out. The most radical measures are those which are educational and protective in a very broad and searching sense of the words梩he humanization of the primary school system， industrial education， facilities for play， physical training and healthy amusement， good housing， the restriction by law of child labor and of all vicious and unwholesome conditions， and， finally， the biological precaution of stopping the propagation of really degenerate types of men.
Endnotes An editorial writer in Charities and the Commons， presumably Professor Devine， the author of Principles of Relief， and other works on rational charity. "Our children's children may learn with amazement how we thought it a natural social phenomenon that men should die in their prime， leaving wives and children in terror of want， that accidents should make an army of maimed dependents； that there should not be enough houses for workers； and that epidemics should sweep away multitudes as autumn frost sweeps away summer insects " Simon N. Patten， The New Basis of Civilization， 197