have　originated；　in　consequence　of　the　law　of　heredity　and　fitness；
  in　the　course　of　an　interminably　long　timeis　no　solution　at　all；
  but　merely　a　re…statement　of　the　problem　in　a　new　form。
  According　to　Moses'　solution　of　the　question　（in　the　dispute　with
  whom　the　entire　significance　of　this　theory　lies）；　it　appears　that
  the　diversity　of　the　species　of　living　creatures　proceeded　according
  to　the　will　of　God；　and　according　to　His　almighty　power；　but
  according　to　the　theory　of　evolution；　it　appears　that　the　difference
  between　living　creatures　arose　by　chance；　and　on　account　of　varying
  conditions　of　heredity　and　surroundings；　through　an　endless　period
  of　time。　　The　theory　of　evolution；　to　speak　in　simple　language；
  merely　asserts；　that　by　chance；　in　an　incalculably　long　period　of
  time；　out　of　any　thing　you　like；　any　thing　else　that　you　like　may
  develop。
  This　is　no　answer　to　the　problem。　　And　the　same　problem　is
  differently　expressed：　　instead　of　will；　chance　is　offered；　and　the
  co…efficient　of　the　eternal　is　transposed　from　the　power　to　the
  time。　　But　this　fresh　assertion　strengthened　Comte's　assertion。
  And；　moreover；　according　to　the　ingenuous　confession　of　the　founder
  of　Darwin's　theory　himself；　his　idea　was　aroused　in　him　by　the　law
  of　Malthus；　and　he　therefore　propounded　the　theory　of　the　struggle
  of　living　creatures　and　people　for　existence；　as　the　fundamental　law
  of　every　living　thing。　　And　lo！　only　this　was　needed　by　the　throng
  of　idle　people　for　their　justification。
  Two　insecure　theories；　incapable　of　sustaining　themselves　on　their
  feet；　upheld　each　other；　and　acquired　the　semblance　of　stability。
  Both　theories　bore　with　them　that　idea　which　is　precious　to　the
  crowd；　that　in　the　existent　evil　of　human　societies；　men　are　not　to
  blame；　and　that　the　existing　order　of　things　is　that　which　should
  prevail；　and　the　new　theory　was　adopted　by　the　throng　with　entire
  faith　and　unheard…of　enthusiasm。　　And　behold；　on　the　strength　of
  these　two　arbitrary　and　erroneous　hypotheses；　accepted　as　dogmas　of
  belief；　the　new　scientific　doctrine　was　ratified。
  Spencer；　for　example；　in　one　of　his　first　works；　expresses　this
  doctrine　thus：…
  〃Societies　and　organisms；〃　he　says；　〃are　alike　in　the　following
  points：…
  〃1。　　In　that；　beginning　as　tiny　aggregates；　they　imperceptibly　grow
  in　mass；　so　that　some　of　them　attain　to　the　size　of　ten　thousand
  times　their　original　bulk。
  〃2。　　In　that　while　they　were；　in　the　beginning；　of　such　simple
  structure；　that　they　can　be　regarded　as　destitute　of　all　structure；
  they　acquire　during　the　period　of　their　growth　a　constantly
  increasing　complication　of　structure。
  〃3。　　In　that　although　in　their　early；　undeveloped　period；　there
  exists　between　them　hardly　any　interdependence　of　parts；　their　parts
  gradually　acquire　an　interdependence；　which　eventually　becomes　so
  strong；　that　the　life　and　activity　of　each　part　becomes　possible
  only　on　condition　of　the　life　and　activity　of　the　remaining　parts。
  〃4。　　In　that　life　and　the　development　of　society　are　independent；
  and　more　protracted　than　the　life　and　development　of　any　one　of　the
  units　constituting　it；　which　are　born；　grow；　act；　reproduce
  themselves；　and　die　separately；　while　the　political　body　formed　from
  them；　continues　to　live　generation　after　generation；　developing　in
  mass　in　perfection　and　functional　activity。〃
  The　points　of　difference　between　organisms　and　society　go　farther；
  and　it　is　proved　that　these　differences　are　merely　apparent；　but
  that　organisms　and　societies　are　absolutely　similar。
  For　the　uninitiated　man　the　question　immediately　presents　itself：
  〃What　are　you　talking　about？　　Why　is　mankind　an　organism；　or　similar
  to　an　organism？〃
  You　say　that　societies　resemble　organisms　in　these　four　features；
  but　it　is　nothing　of　the　sort。　　You　only　take　a　few　features　of　the
  organism；　and　beneath　them　you　range　human　communities。　　You　bring
  forward　four　features　of　resemblance；　then　you　take　four　features　of
  dissimilarity；　which　are；　however；　only　apparent　（according　to　you）；
  and　you　thence　conclude　that　human　societies　can　be　regarded　as
  organisms。　　But　surely；　this　is　an　empty　game　of　dialectics；　and
  nothing　more。　　On　the　same　foundation；　under　the　features　of　an
  organism；　you　may　range　whatever　you　please。　　I　will　take　the　fist
  thing　that　comes　into　my　head。　　Let　us　suppose　it　to　be　a　forest；
  the　manner　in　which　it　sows　itself　in　the　plain；　and　spreads　abroad。
  1。　Beginning　with　a　small　aggregate；　it　increases　imperceptibly　in
  mass；　and　so　forth。　　Exactly　the　same　thing　takes　place　in　the
  fields；　when　they　gradually　seed　themselves　down；　and　bring　forth　a
  forest。　　2。　In　the　beginning　the　structure　is　simple：　　afterwards　it
  increases　in　complication；　and　so　forth。　　Exactly　the　same　thing
  happens　with　the　forest；in　the　first　place；　there　were　only　bitch…
  trees；　then　came　brush…wood　and　hazel…bushes；　at　first　all　grow
  erect；　then　they　interlace　their　branches。　　3。　The　interdependence
  of　the　parts　is　so　augmented；　that　the　life　of　each　part　depends　on
  the　life　and　activity　of　the　remaining　parts。　　It　is　precisely　so
  with　the　forest；the　hazel…bush　warms　the　tree…boles　（cut　it　down；
  and　the　other　trees　will　freeze）；　the　hazel…bush　protects　from　the
  wind；　the　seed…bearing　trees　carry　on　reproduction；　the　tall　and
  leafy　trees　afford　shade；　and　the　life　of　one　tree　depends　on　the
  life　of　another。　　4。　The　separate　parts　may　die；　but　the　whole
  lives。　　Exactly　the　case　with　the　forest。　　The　forest　does　not　mourn
  one　tree。
  Having　proved　that；　in　accordance　with　this　theory；　you　may　regard
  the　forest　as　an　organism；　you　fancy　that　you　have　proved　to　the
  disciples　of　the　organic　doctrine　the　error　of　their　definition。
  Nothing　of　the　sort。　　The　definition　which　they　give　to　the　organism
  is　so　inaccurate　and　so　elastic　that　under　this　definition　they　may
  include　what　they　will。　　〃Yes；〃　they　say；　〃and　the　forest　may　also
  be　regarded　as　an　organism。　　The　forest　is　mutual　re…action　of
  individuals；　which　do　not　annihilate　each　other；an　aggregate；　its
  parts　may　also　enter　into　a　more　intimate　union；　as　the　hive　of　bees
  constitutes　itself　an　organism。〃　　Then　you　will　say；　〃If　that　is　so；
  then　the　birds　and　the　insects　and　the　grass　of　this　forest；　which
  re…act　upon　each　other；　and　do　not　destroy　each　other；　may　also　be
  regarded　as　one　organism；　in　company　with　the　trees。〃　　And　to　this
  also　they　will　agree。　　Every　collection　of　living　individuals；　which
  re…act　upon　each　other；　and　do　not　destroy　each　other；　may　be
  regarded　as　organisms；　according　to　their　theory。　　You　may　affirm　a
  connection　and　interaction　between　whatever　you　choose；　and；
  according　to　evolution；　you　may　affirm；　that；　out　of　whatever　you
  please；　any　other　thing　that　you　please　may　proceed；　in　a　very　long
  period　of　time。
  And　the　most　remarkable　thing　of　all　is；　that　this　same　identical
  positive　science　recognizes　the　scientific　method　as　the　sign　of
  true　knowledge；　and　has　itself　defined　what　it　designates　as　the
  scientific　method。
  By　the　scientific　method　it　means　common…sense。
  And　common…sense　convicts　it　at　every　step。　　As　soon　as　the　Popes
  felt　that　nothing　holy　remained　in　them；　they　called　themselves　most
  holy。
  As　soon　as　science　felt　that　no　common…sense　was　left　in　her　she
  called　herself　sensible；　that　is　to　say；　scientific　science。
  CHAPTER　III。
  Division　of　labor　is　the　law　of　all　existing　things；　and；　therefore；
  it　should　be　present　in　human　societies。　　It　is　very　possible　that
  this　is　so；　but　still　the　question　remains；　Of　what　nature　is　that
  division　of　labor　which　I　behold　in　my　human　society？　is　it　that
  division　of　labor　which　should　exist？　　And　if　people　regard　a
  certain　division　of　labor　as　unreasonable　and　unjust；　then　no
  science　whatever　can　convince　men　that　that　should　exist　which　they
  regard　as　unreasonable　and　unjust。
  Division　of　labor　is　the　condition　of　existence　of　organisms；　and　of
  human　societies；　but　what；　in　these　human　societies；　is　to　be
  regarded　as　an　organic　division　of　labor？　　And；　to　whatever　extent
  science　may　have　investigated　the　division　of　labor　in　the　cells　of
  worms；　all　these　observations　do　not　compel　a　man　to　acknowledge
  that　division　of　labor　to　be　correct　which　his　own　sense　and
  conscience　do　not　recognize　as　correct。　　No　matter　how　convincing
  may　be　the　proofs　of　the　division　of　labor　of　the　cells　in　the
  organisms　studied；　man；　if　he　has　not　parted　with　his　judgment；　will
  say；　nevertheless；　that　a　man　should　not　weave　calico　all　his　life；
  and　that　this　is　not　division　of　labor；　but　persecution　of　the
  people。　　Spencer　and　others　say　that　there　is　a　whole　community　of
  weavers；　and　that　the　profession　of　weaving　is　an　organic　division
  of　labor。　　There　are　weavers；　so；　of　course；　there　is　such　a
  division　of　labor。　　It　would　be　well　enough　to　speak　thus　if　the
  colony　of　weavers　had　arisen　by　the　free　will　of　its　member's；　but
  we　know　that　it　is　not　thus　formed　of　their　initiative；　but　that　we
  make　it。　　Hence　it　is　necessary　to　find　out　whether　we　have　made
  these　weavers　in　accordance　with　an　organic　law；　or　with　some　other。
  Men　live。　　They　support　themselves　by　agriculture；　as　is　natural　to
  all　men。　　One　man　ha