to the extreme of saying that heredity is everything, that a genius will always become a genius in spite of the lack of educational advantages, — in short, that he will find his own means of education. Others have gone so far as to deny that heredity has anything to do with a man's ability; they claim that it is all in his education, including under education all the influences which have been at work since his birth in developing his mind or shaping his character. The truth, as in most such cases, seems to be somewhere between these extremes. There is no doubt whatever that men of average natural ability may be greatly improved by education and training, nor is there any reasonable doubt that some are capable of being trained much more highly than others because of a difference in natural ability.

-

If we consider certain special fields of study, for example, music or mathematics, few will doubt that there are differences in natural talent for these studies. Any normal person can acquire some skill in either of these fields, but there are some who are so deficient in natural talent for one or the other that no amount of training would ever enable them to become highly proficient. There is a strong probability that the same may be said of any special kind of ability or skill which might be named; but in our complex civilization so many kinds of ability and skill are required that almost anyone can find some field of work in which he may excel, though there may be no good market for the kind of work in which he excels, or there may be so many others possessing the same kind of ability as to overstock the market. In either case the individual, however skillful or capable in that special field, may find it hard to make a living.

Whatever may be said regarding the relative importance of the natural ability of the people and their training, it is absolutely certain that it is more important for the present generation to give attention to the problem of its own training than to the problem of its own heredity. The latter cannot

now be changed, and there is no use worrying about it. The only thing to do is to make the most of its inheritance and see that it gets the best possible training. But when we look to the future, there is much to be said in favor of giving attention to the question of the heredity of future generations. If the most capable men and women of this and succeeding generations marry and have larger families than the less capable, and if the least capable, the feeble-minded, and the defective are prevented from reproducing their kind, we may expect a gradual improvement, generation after generation, in the native and inherited quality of the stock. If, on the other hand, many of the most capable do not marry at all, and if the others marry late and have small families, whereas the less capable have larger families, while the feeble-minded and defective multiply most rapidly of all, we must expect a gradual deterioration in the stock, generation after generation.

The age of marriage. Aside from the difference in the size of families, the mere difference in the age of marriage will make a great difference in the rate of increase of different classes. Let us suppose, for example, that there are two groups of people, which we will call groups A and B, containing a thousand persons each, each group having different habits with respect to the age of marriage. In group A marriages take place so early, on the average, that there is an average of twenty-five years between generations. That is, the average parent is just twenty five years older than the average child, enough children being born before the parents are twenty-five to balance those who are born afterward. In group B, on the other hand, marriages take place so late that there is an average of thirty-three and a third years between generations. Let us assume, further, that the number of children brought to maturity in the average family is the same in the two groups, and that this average number is four; that is, in both groups the average married couple brings four children to maturity and marries them off. The total number in each

group, therefore, doubles in each generation. But group A will double four times in a hundred years, whereas group B will double only three times. Under these circumstances group A will have increased from one thousand to sixteen thousand at the end of a hundred years, whereas group B will have increased to only eight thousand. If, in addition to this, group B should have fewer children on the average, so that they doubled only once in two generations, the contrast is still greater. In this case they would number only three thousand at the end of a hundred years. If, through so many failing to marry at all, and the rest having so few children, they should not increase at all from generation to generation, the two groups, at the end of the century, would bear the ratio of 16 to 1. Now it is rather obvious, is it not, that it makes a great deal of difference whether group A represents the more capable men and women in our nation, and group B the less capable, or vice versa.

CHAPTER X

THE DIVISION OF LABOR

As suggested in Chapter VIII, labor, land, and capital are the elements out of which national prosperity is built. Of these by far the most important is labor, since we include under that term both mental and physical exertion. It was also stated that the efficiency of labor depends upon two factors: the natural ability of the people and their training. But there are many things involved in training which are not taught in schools or learned in shops or business houses. The general attitude of mind of the whole people, their outlook on life, their personal habits, their systems of morals, and even their religion, all have their share in the efficiency of the people. The efficiency of labor depends also, to a large degree, upon its organization and the opportunity for specialization.

Adam Smith begins his great "Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" with a discussion of the division of labor. Other writers, both ancient and modern, had commented on the great fact of interdependence of individuals in society, but no one had gone into such detail or shown so clearly just why a minute division of labor was so advantageous. His statement of the case has scarcely been improved upon up to the present day, though many of his illustrations are out of date.

Meaning of the division of labor. By a division of labor he means, first, a system under which no one produces everything he needs, but each one confines himself to the production of that one thing or those few things for the production of which he is best fitted, exchanging his surplus product for the surplus products of others who are specializing on other things; second,

the process of dividing up the work involved in the making of a given article (each man performing a single part) and then assembling all the parts, producing a complete whole. He mentions the nail makers of his day as illustrations of the first form. A common blacksmith having many other kinds of work to do could never become very skillful at nail making, but one who did nothing else except to make nails became very skillful and could make in the course of a day several times as many as a common blacksmith. He mentions boys under twenty, who had never learned any other trade, who could make, each of them, upwards of two thousand three hundred nails in a day, whereas a common smith, even though he were accustomed to making nails occasionally, could seldom make over eight hundred or a thousand in a day. The second form of the division of labor was found in his day in the making of pins. The work of making a pin was divided into eighteen different operations, each operation being performed by a different workman. Of course, neither nails nor pins are made nowadays as they were in his day; but the division of labor has been carried even farther. They are turned out by automatic machines, but the machines are made by one set of men, and the metal is mined, smelted, and prepared by different groups; all are performing parts of the work of making nails or pins, as the case may bẹ. Thousands of other illustrations lie all about us if we choose to look for them.

Advantages. Adam Smith names three distinct advantages which result from the division of labor :

First, the improvement in the dexterity of the workman necessarily increases the quality of the work he can perform; and the division of labor, by reducing every man's business to some one simple operation, and by making this operation the sole employment of his life, necessarily increases very much the dexterity of the workman.... Secondly, the advantage which is gained by saving the time commonly lost in passing from one sort of work to another, is much greater than we should at first view be apt to imagine it. It is impossible to pass very quickly from one kind of work to